cyclist deaths & the law

custardy

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

So there were no witnesses to your collision and no impact marks on you or your bike?

there were no witnesses as it was 0330
there were plenty of marks . given i went airborne around 25mph.
no paint transfer though

Skinto_7

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.

What a stupid post.

The original poster suggested some formal cycling training can only be a good thing, and you say NO.

Please enlighten us to why this would not be a good thing?

As for when did a cyclist last kill a driver by running into them, again another stupid point, obviously a bike isnt going to kill anyone in a car if they run into them, however cyclist/driver stupidity cannot be measured by the level of injury caused, a dangerous action is a dangerous action whether injury is caused or not.

Regarding your paragraph:

gkerr4 wrote: »

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..

Most drivers would agree further driver education would be a good thing, and i also think most would agree they have a duty of care to anyone they encounter on a road whether they think they should be there or not.

Idiophreak

Hmm, just my 2c...

I was very confident on a bike as a kid, did 50 mile rides every Sunday, rode to school and back, to town to see friends and 13 miles each way to my gf's place.

I completely quit cycling when I went off to uni (and learnt to drive).

Got a mountain bike a couple of years ago, having seen more stuff driving on the roads, I decided that being well away from traffic was for the best. Used it a bit, then stopped for a while...

2 weeks ago I got my first road bike, so I can start training for a triathlon. My early impressions of cycling on the road:

1) For the most part, car drivers are actually a lot safer and more tolerant around cyclists than I thought they'd be. Most leave plenty of room, pass at an appropriate speed and generally respect you.

2) But there are some that drive like idiots. I've only been out 5 or six times so far, but I've already had:
* one woman pull out right in front of me as I was travelling down hill at 30mph.
* three people overtake, slam on brakes and turn left.
* one bus overtake, slam on brakes, indicate right and (amazingly) flash other traffic out, before realising it couldn't make the turn and austin-powers-ing it in the middle of the road.
* two people pass with oncoming traffic, coming within a couple of inches of me
* one person blur past me at 90+ mph.
* one woman honk her horn because I was riding in the right hand lane...How else she expected me to get to the right hand filter lane is a mystery to me.
* one police car deciding that whilst overtaking me was a good moment to put the siren on...scared the bejesus out of me!

These are probably the most dangerous things I've seen, but there are plenty more instances of people being plain inconsiderate...Like when I'm coasting up to the back of traffic and people decide to overtake me and slam on the brakes....Would they overtake another car that was coasting up to the back of traffic? So why do it to a cyclist?

It's clear to me that the people who do this stuff just have no experience of what it's like to be a cyclist. They don't realise how fast you're capable of travelling, nor how effective your brakes are (or are not, more to the point). They don't realise how unpleasant it is to have someone squeeze past you. They've no experience of the effort it takes to regain your speed once you've had to brake. And they don't consider what would happen if the cyclist hit a pot hole and fell in front of them at any point.

I really feel the only way of fixing this going forward is to make cycling proficiency tests a pre-requisite of a driving test, or having those that are unable to cycle do an extended test or training course focussing on cycle safety. You don't need to cycle to stand on the side of the road and have a car come past you 2 feet away at 60mph and see how pleasant it is.

I also support, wholeheartedly, the idea of retraining or retesting drivers as frequently as possible. I'd happily pay £30 and spend an hour every couple of years to drive on safer roads! Of course, you'll just have a massive increase in illegal drivers on the road then...

Finally, I just can't understand why the two drivers in the OPs links got off. Both of them were examples of risk-taking behaviour, which I think most motorists are guilty of at one time or another. The first was driving too close, the second driving too fast into the sun. I honestly believe that any driver doing these things weighs up the risk...they think "it will probably be OK to keep driving into the sun...there probably isn't a cyclist there"...and they probably get away with it 99% of the time. But the 1% of the time they actually hit and kill someone, they should man up and admit that they were taking a risk that cost a life - and they should pay for that mistake.

antrobus

custardy wrote: »

yup and it begs the question why.
The way the trial/evidence was handled or as simple as a common view of it being the cyclists fault...

I don't believe it's really a question of people assuming that it's the 'cyclists fault', but that it's rather a case of 'there but for the grace of God, go I'. From what I understand, juries are notoriously reluctant to convict drivers where the prosecution can't show any obvious wrongdoing - (if you see what I mean) - because they all sit there thinking it could have been me driving that car.

antrobus

Idiophreak wrote: »

....

Finally, I just can't understand why the two drivers in the OPs links got off. Both of them were examples of risk-taking behaviour, which I think most motorists are guilty of at one time or another. ....

As I was saying, there but for the grace of God....

Idiophreak

antrobus wrote: »

As I was saying, there but for the grace of God....

Well, quite...but this shouldn't really factor. The law's quite black and white...something doesn't become less dangerous or careless just because everybody else does it too...

antrobus

Idiophreak wrote: »

Well, quite...but this shouldn't really factor. The law's quite black and white...something doesn't become less dangerous or careless just because everybody else does it too...

The law might appear to be black and white, but it's applied by human beings.

Mechan135

I think driver top up training is a great idea. I am both a driver and avid cyclist and have had some squeaky bum moments on both sides of the wind shield.

I think a lot of it comes down to road awareness and I am not sure how you are meant to teach people to be more aware when they drive every single day?

NBLondon

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.

Just because a cyclist would probably come off worse in a collision does not mean they couldn't have caused it. Nor that they couldn't cause car A to take avoiding action and hit and injure someone else. zagfles described upthread a cyclist heading across a junction through a red light. I see this almost daily - one morning, I saw 3 in a row do it.

Every time a stupid cyclist takes a risk like this and ignores the law it makes good drivers assume stupidity and allow for it but makes bad drivers annoyed.

Every time a "holier than thou" cyclist tries to claim they are justified in breaking the law because there are stupid, careless and dangerous drivers around - it weakens the position for cyclists as a whole.

Idiophreak

NBLondon wrote: »

Every time a "holier than thou" cyclist tries to claim they are justified in breaking the law because there are stupid, careless and dangerous drivers around - it weakens the position for cyclists as a whole.

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.