cyclist deaths & the law

Strider590

Tilt wrote: »

Kids where I live are always playing 'Russian Roulette' by riding 3 or 4 abreast... at night... along a frequently used narrow road... without so much as a milk bottle top for a reflector between them. My house over looks a traffic island as well where they sometimes cycle round the wrong way... I see it all the time. I suppose it will be the motorist fault if they get knocked off and injured.

Kids do lots of stupid things..... But because they're on bikes, that automatically makes all cyclists the same?

Tilt

Strider590 wrote: »

Kids do lots of stupid things..... But because they're on bikes, that automatically makes all cyclists the same?

Did I say that?

Idiophreak

mikey72 wrote: »

Prime example of what? I won't be looking for you. I'll just drive off when I get a green light. If you're in the way, there's a fair chance I'll just run over you. But if you see me, you'll get out of my way then, so fair enough. Don't give me any credit for trying to avoid you though.

Prime example of not crediting people with common sense, or wanting to think the worst of people, in order to inflate your own self-esteem.

So you're saying you don't look where you're going when you move off from traffic lights? I don't really understand what you're saying. If you're saying that, as I've gone through the red light, you may run me over...do try and read what I've written a little more. If you move off as I'm going through the red light, you will crash, first, into a big queue of cars, all of whom are turning across the front of your car between you and I.

Of course, in the real world, you'd actually sit and wait for those people to go across, as your light remains on red. You'd then wait, by the way, for everyone coming from your left to go through, and any people from the right. Finally, you get your chance to "not see me" and run me over. Of course, in the 3 minutes it takes that sequence to play through, I'll be best part of a mile up the road. But, whatever, why let facts get in the way of deranged internet ranting.

janninew

Idiophreak wrote: »

Where's anybody advocating breaking the law, here?

Personally, I've made a couple of "adjustments" to the way I ride, in light of my recent experiences.

I go through red lights, if there's no good reason to stop...I'm sorry, a red light isn't, in itself, a good reason...for example, there are two junctions by my home where the sequencing should allow for a filter light on the left hand lane, as traffic from the left turns across traffic from the right (which is on a red light). So I can set off safe in the knowledge that nothing will be coming and get out of the way of cars sat queuing in that lane.

I cycle further into the road than is suggested. Particularly when approaching stopped traffic (for the reason above) and on narrow roads with oncoming traffic.

I'd suggest, however, that both of these are just instances of me cycling in the safest way possible, which is perfectly within the spirit of the laws involved.

Is it not the law though to stop at red lights when you are a road user? A car driver could say what's the point in stopping at a red light if they are using the roads in the early hours and they can see no other cars about. I use to work night shifts and would always stop at red lights even though I could see quite clearly that there wasn't another soul in sight! Following your own rules on the road is slightly worrying, are you a car driver, do you have your own set of rules when in your vehicle as well?

Tilt

^^ Just what I was thinking ^^ I wonder if he bothers with having lights on his bike as well...

Johnmcl7

Idiophreak wrote: »

Hmm, well that rather depends who the collision's between, doesn't it? I understand pedestrians quite often come off worse in collisions with bikes...

Hence why I said 'normally' and not 'every time'

You asked what was wrong and I answered without an unnecessarily long post with numerous insults, it's a shame you couldn't do the same in return. I'm not bothering replying to the rest of your post as that gives it more credit than it's worth, the law does not agree with your view so you are in the wrong whether you believe it or not. If you believe you are correct then you can start campaigning for traffic lights to be abolished.

John

FOX_HOUND

Last year in Wales deaths of adult male cyclists rose 85% according to the western mail.

Being a keen cyclist myself I find its car drivers impatience that is the main problem. One example a roundabout where I live with multiple exits. I'm going straight on. Cars regularly come up from behind and go left by cutting in front of me because they won't wait a few extra seconds. Only yesterday I almost got sandwiched between parked cars and a vehicle turning right. I do keep left but in that circumstance probably should stay further out into the middle at that particular junction.

You really have to have a sixth sense of what drivers are going to do to survive unscathed.

Dave_C_2

As is usual on internet forums discussing cyclist and motorists, this has quickly devolved into an "us and them" situation and it's rather sickening. As a driver and a cyclist I can see both sides. I have been there on the "all cyclists are scum" side until a year or so ago when I took up cycling again after a few decades break.

To all non-cycling motorists who have a downer on cycling I can honestly say that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about - until you have actually been riding a bike in traffic.

To the militant cyclists, the reverse is also true. !!!!!! it's the law of the land! Red light jumping and pavement cycling does our image no good at all.

We are talking road safety here, lives depend on us all making the right choices.

Dave

Johnmcl7

NBLondon wrote: »

I find it disappointing that what was a very good point in the initial post viz. those who cause death by careless or dangerous driving may be getting off too lightly - has been partly derailed by the usual "some cyclists are idiots"/"more drivers are idiots" debate.

That's a fair point, I guess the difficulty in this case is that we're only seeing a portion of the facts and not everything that was involved with the court case. It makes me wonder would the cases be different if the cyclists were wearing cameras? I can't work what happened in the first case, it says the cyclist was visible but another vehicle had got in the way, was the cyclist hit from the back or the front?

John

mikey72

Idiophreak wrote: »

Prime example of not crediting people with common sense, or wanting to think the worst of people, in order to inflate your own self-esteem.

So you're saying you don't look where you're going when you move off from traffic lights? I don't really understand what you're saying. If you're saying that, as I've gone through the red light, you may run me over...do try and read what I've written a little more. If you move off as I'm going through the red light, you will crash, first, into a big queue of cars, all of whom are turning across the front of your car between you and I.

Of course, in the real world, you'd actually sit and wait for those people to go across, as your light remains on red. You'd then wait, by the way, for everyone coming from your left to go through, and any people from the right. Finally, you get your chance to "not see me" and run me over. Of course, in the 3 minutes it takes that sequence to play through, I'll be best part of a mile up the road. But, whatever, why let facts get in the way of deranged internet ranting.

You're making no sense. You carry on going through red. I'll carry on driving off on green. If we meet, I'm the one in the car.