cyclist deaths & the law 30 June 2012 at 8:44PM edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Motoring 500 replies 25.1K views

Paradigm

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

No, I don't really think so - the problem with it would be it would likely need to be voluntary which clearly isn't going to be any use for those that can't be bothered in the first place. For anyone who wants to learn any rules of the road or profiency there are numerous resources already out there.

That and I don't think poor cycling is due to lack of knowledge and needing help, it's just cyclists being impatient and not paying attention. Many of the rules of the road for cyclists are not difficult, cycle on the left hand side of the road, stop at red traffic lights, show which way you're going etc. I don't think the cyclists I see breaking these rules don't know them, it's just they're ignoring them. I also think it's common sense that the better you can be seen, the less the chance you have of someone hitting you because they didn't see you - I can't believe it when I see people cycling at night in dark clothing, no lights and nothing reflective which makes them very hard to see.

Horrible to read the stories in the news articles particularly when they were well prepared, I always hope if I'm visible and careful I'll be ok but clearly that's not guaranteed. I generally stick to quieter roads and it's not that busy up here anyway, I dno't like the busy high speed roads at all.

John

Quite a refreshing post from, I assume, a cyclist.

The bit in bold is worrying. If what you say is correct then no amount of training (motorist or cyclist) is going to make a jot of difference.

arcon5

gkerr4 wrote: »

absolutely not. This is just blame shaming - "hmm, cyclist seem to be getting killed a lot - lets train them some more"

when was the last time a cyclist ran into a car and killed or injured the car driver...hmm practically never? even the cyclist / cyclist or cyclist / pedestrian interface is practically unheard of.

it's the other way around - driver education - that they don't own the road, that there are vulnerable road users out there for whom they have a duty of care and that they need to just share the damned road a bit better.

its in the drivers interest to do this also - as every cyclist on the road is probably one less car on the morning commute.

Are you saying that if a cyclist veers right without looking or indication and I hit him then it is my fault for not being educated as a driver on the basis i'm not injured but he is?

arcon5

I hate the "i've been driving/cycling/whatever for 20/30/however long lines".

A friend was run in to whilst near stationary by a driver not paying attention to slowing traffic, they both got out and the conversation was along the lines of

Victim:'please get your insurance details.'
Idiot driver: 'your not having my blooding insurance details. I've been driving for 30 years so don't imply this is my fault.'

After a few more minutes of ranting the friend called the police to attend.

Bennifred

Billy-no-Money wrote: »

One of my colleagues is a driver who routinely creeps up to 40mph in a 30 limit, and constantly has people 'pulling out in front of him' - in reality, he sees a situation developing and actually accelerates into it so he can blast his horn.

He's cycled to work with me a few times now, and it's terrifying. Leaving our site he just rides straight out into the road without looking. Hops onto the path round traffic lights and wonders why I don't follow. Turns without signalling or looking behind. But he always wears a helmet so that's OK.

This man is a rubbish driver and a rubbish cyclist.

Training will make no difference - he knows the rules, he just chooses to ignore them.

I really hope you put him right - he sounds like a total idiot! :mad:

custardy

Paradigm wrote: »

I've got 30 years driving experience & have yet to hit a cyclist, I'm prepared to go on a course. Why not you?


what is the course going to teach me? A driver refresher course is refreshing a set of skills. As a cyclist I have skills plus many other factors outwih that. weather,road conditions etc are a far greater issue on 2 wheels. then you have the issue of fitness levels & bike capabilities.
what is this training course going to cover?


There will always be driver error for as long as we're human! Cyclists are human too &, strangely enough, make errors.

The drivers in the links you posted were found not guilty &, as I wasn't at the scene at the time of the incidents, I can't begin to second guess the findings.

found not guilty.
the coach driver who admitted they were driving too fast for the conditions and how far they could see?
the driver who had a van "block his view" so he couldnt see a cyclist? Thats why you dop back and maintain a safe distance even if a vehicle cuts that distance.

Both cases show no legal blame. Yet both testomonies show neither was driving to an acceptable standard.
So we see the legal situation is unacceptable. kill two people with your coach and its all good, these things happen

Paradigm

custardy wrote: »

found not guilty.
the coach driver who admitted they were driving too fast for the conditions and how far they could see?
the driver who had a van "block his view" so he couldnt see a cyclist? Thats why you dop back and maintain a safe distance even if a vehicle cuts that distance.

Both cases show no legal blame. Yet both testomonies show neither was driving to an acceptable standard.
So we see the legal situation is unacceptable. kill two people with your coach and its all good, these things happen

Dunno what you want anyone to say, they were found not guilty. Right or wrong that's the end.

what is the course going to teach me? A driver refresher course is refreshing a set of skills. As a cyclist I have skills plus many other factors outwih that. weather,road conditions etc are a far greater issue on 2 wheels. then you have the issue of fitness levels & bike capabilities.
what is this training course going to cover?

So you know everything & can't be taught a thing but I can??

A certain amount of arrogance there if you don't mind me saying.

custardy

custardy wrote: »

have to agree. I've been driving for over 20 years now
plus I have the 'old' licence with the extra driving classifications by default.
probably every 10 years would be a practical soft introduction to retesting.

Paradigm wrote: »

Dunno what you want anyone to say, they were found not guilty. Right or wrong that's the end.



So you know everything & can't be taught a thing but I can??

A certain amount of arrogance there if you don't mind me saying.

yes as you can see. thats exactly what I said.........

Paradigm

custardy wrote: »

yes as you can see. thats exactly what I said.........

But as a cyclist you think not?

custardy

Paradigm wrote: »

But as a cyclist you think not?

well what are they going to refresh on this course?
what are they going to teach?
a basic proficiency 'test'?
Is that really a way to 'teach' people what to do in real life?

what would the course say to this 'infrastructure'?

LeeUK

custardy wrote: »

seen a couple recently

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2012/06/29/van-driver-cleared-of-causing-death-of-cyclist-elizabeth-brown-72703-31288958/

I'm on this road all the time and it is a bit dangerous at that slip road. Been lots of accidents around that area.