Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

custardy

nellytheelephant wrote: »

It's relevant because you said 'and yet I can list many occasions where i could have been killed by a car/lorry/van driver on the road
does that make it alright because some cyclists have poor road sense?'

I was answering 'does that make it alright because some cyclists have poor road sense?'.

No one said the video would suddenly be photoshopped. I said that if they endanger themselves, well it's their own stupid fault if they get hurt.

well as primarily a car driver. didnt anyone ever teach you to be aware of other road users and pedestrians?
sometimes you have to make allowances and prepare for others failings
just today i had to take avoiding action of a Ka driver who thought she was driving an invincible car requiring the space of 2 HGVs
however i wont be posting that all KA drivers now deserve all they get.
which is the norm in car v bike threads.
anyone who thinks its easy is welcome to clock up some miles in Edinburgh on a bike
see how it goes

gregg1

libertysurf wrote: »

Brilliant! It is so different in Austria, France, Italy where cyclists are accepted. UK drivers seem to curse as soon as they see a cyclist IN THEIR WAY.

We aren't, we are just using the road. Most of us have paid road tax on our cars and when we cycle we save the road use so car users, be grateful - I can but wish

Maybe - but you dont have any form of registration plates which identify you on your bikes. And therein lies the problem. Cyclists know they can get away with breaking the law and cycling dangerously because, unlike car drivers, they cannot be identified !!!

sirmarcus

It is really frightening watching some of the cyclists on our roads.....they have no road sense and sometimes are taking reckless actions.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow any cyclist on the road until they had passed their cycling proficiency test (or whatever it is called now). Like all (apart from horse riders, etc.) other road users, I would also like to see cyclists having a proficiency license, cycle road accident insurance and police putting points on their licenses if they break the law. Trouble is that it is currently impossible to implement or govern without making drastic and expensive changes, which the govt can't afford.

Anyway I had my say.

Azari

gregg1 wrote: »

Maybe - but you dont have any form of registration plates which identify you on your bikes. And therein lies the problem. Cyclists know they can get away with breaking the law and cycling dangerously because, unlike car drivers, they cannot be identified !!!

How is that relevant to the subject of this thread?

Like a lot of posters you seem to think that because some members of group A are not perfect there is something wrong with group A getting some help protecting themselves against some members of group B.

Which is blatantly nonsensical.

Tinks74

I can't watch the OP's link whilst in the office, but I did see the item on BBC breakfast this morning.

I ride a motorcycle and I was taught to do lifesavers - turning of the head to check the way is clear before changing direction, check for hazards when passing parked cars etc.

One thing that struck me about the article was that we were told the cameras were helmet mounted. When I watched the footage on the news this morning there appeare to be very little movement of the head from a forward position. Particularly the one where the white lorry pulled out across the roundabout/junction in front of the cyclist, there appeared to be no movement of the head to the left on the approach to the junction, even allowing for the fact the camera may have been mounted on the 'blind side of the helmet' I would have expected a greater turn of the head.
If the rider had done more than what could only have been a sideways glance at the junction from which the lorry came he may have had a greater appreciation of the speed with which it was obvioulsy travelling and realised that it was not stopping at the junction.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not defending the driver of the lorry, neither am I saying I drive like a saint. I imagine all drivers have had a moment of "oohh that was close!!!" at some point in their driving career.

Neither am I saying observation precludes the possibility of an accident, a virtually identical situation as I mentioned above resulted in me and my bike making contact with the road rather than disappear under the wheels of a lorry (a lesson learned).

But being "In the right" while sitting in hospital waiting for your body to heal or having your car in the garage for repairs isn't really a winning position.

What we need is for all road users to be more tolerant of others.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Azari wrote: »

How is that relevant to the subject of this thread?

Like a lot of posters you seem to think that because some members of group A are not perfect there is something wrong with group A getting some help protecting themselves against some members of group B.

Which is blatantly nonsensical.

What is wrong with people also highlighting the ruthlessnees of some cyclists towards other road users and pedestrians?

Or are comparisons not allowed because you say so?

Azari

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

What is wrong with people also highlighting the ruthlessnees of some cyclists towards other road users and pedestrians?

Only that it's completely irrelevant to the thread.

It sounds as if the people doing so are just impotently throwing a little tantrum because they don't like the news pointed to by the OP.

Or are comparisons not allowed because you say so?

It's not for me to say what's allowed and what isn't.

I merely pointed out it was irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

Rather like someone stating that more help was to be provided for rape victims and a bunch of people shouting: "What about Lorena Bobbit?"

sirmarcus

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

What is wrong with people also highlighting the ruthlessnees of some cyclists towards other road users and pedestrians?

Or are comparisons not allowed because you say so?

Totally agree !!

I have had personnel experience of the above; although I must admit both instances were many years ago.

I took my family to watch a film in the evening. Driving home afterwards in the dark, approached a mini roudabout, saw a cyclist (with no cycle lamps) at the roudabout, my right of way, so drove slowly across roundabout, cyclist hit me on the side of car. I rushed out to check he was okay. He was dazed and speech slurred. Could smell alcohol on his breath. Asked him if he wanted am ambulance and requested his name/address. Both requests were refused. Asked him again if he needed ambulance and for his name/address. He again refused. I then drove home and, on the way, I reported the incident at my local police station. I didn't sleep well that night. Please note that I didn't have a mobile phone cos in those days they weren't a normal item for people to possess as they are nowadays. If I had one, I would have phoned the police immediately.

The 2nd example occurred during a Xmas party with 10 work colleagues. 9 of us decided to share taxis to get home. We were amazed when the other individual advised that he was going to cycle home. He couldn't even walk straight let alone cycle ! We debated it with him for several minutes but he insisted that he was going to cycle back by himself. I still don't know how he managed it and didn't have an accident. !

George_Michael

The law's quite clear, all motor vehicles pay a tax. Some are exempt from that law

So all motor vehicles pay a tax, except some are exempt!!!

Either all vehicles pay a tax, or not all vehicles pay a tax.
You can't say they all pay, except some don't.

custardy

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

What is wrong with people also highlighting the ruthlessnees of some cyclists towards other road users and pedestrians?

Or are comparisons not allowed because you say so?

its being highlighted as some rational that it absolves all drivers of any duty of care or simple manners around cyclists.
thats why