Cyclists still not getting the message

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

being on the road is always dangerous for cyclists
day light being no safer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-23973105

(a well known enthusiast cyclist)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tributes-flood-in-to-cyclist-killed-in-dulwich-on-day-mayor-announced-fines-for-hgvs-flouting-safety-measures-8801141.html

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/gillingham-cyclist-death-tributes-left-5557/

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/cyclist-killed-in-roslin-crash-is-named-1-3068961

You will notice this is just the last few days

Yes, cycling is dangerous, might be an idea for others to choose a safer mode of transport before something unfortunate happens to them.

prowla

Don't bikes have to have reflecters?
If so, they would show up with a car's headlights.

Tilt

prowla wrote: »

Don't bikes have to have reflecters?
If so, they would show up with a car's headlights.

Yes, legally they do.

But do you think just because "they would show up with a car's headlights", reflectors by themselves are adequate? What about a car pulling out onto an un-lit main road when a cyclist is riding towards it without lights? The car's headlights won't be pointing towards the cyclist will they?

Strider590

Tilt wrote: »

I agree that in today's traffic environment that cycling is not exactly the safest mode of transport and I note that the Gillingham incident, dosn't seem to be the lorry driver's fault.

How's that?

There have been no released information of the results of the investigation and witness statements are of no use if the witness wrongly thinks that (for example) filtering on a bike or motorbike is "illegal queue jumping".

There has to be an investigation because witness opinion can be clouded by lack of knowledge or misguided ideas of what the law actually is.

If you think it was his fault for not wearing a helmet, then i'm afraid that helmets are to protect cyclists from hitting the road at less than 15mph, they ain't there to stop a truck squashing them.
To make that point clearer..... If your travelling along a fast A road, you round a corner and have a head on with a driver that's overtaking another car, would the accident be your fault because you were not wearing a seatbelt?

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes, cycling is dangerous, might be an idea for others to choose a safer mode of transport before something unfortunate happens to them.

Is that the answer?
So keep building roads then?

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

I agree that in today's traffic environment that cycling is not exactly the safest mode of transport and I note that the Gillingham incident, dosn't seem to be the lorry driver's fault.

But surely some cyclists could do more to make them safer, like spending a few quid on a set of lights for example? Or in the case of kids, their parents could ensure that they don't venture out at night unless they have the right clothing on and lighting. Because yes, I reckon the majority of those without lights are in fact kids.

Then your thread title would be some parents dont get it?

Tilt

Strider590 wrote: »

How's that?

There have been no released information of the results of the investigation and witness statements are of no use if the witness wrongly thinks that (for example) filtering on a bike or motorbike is "illegal queue jumping".

There has to be an investigation because witness opinion can be clouded by lack of knowledge or misguided ideas of what the law actually is.

If you think it was his fault for not wearing a helmet, then i'm afraid that helmets are to protect cyclists from hitting the road at less than 15mph, they ain't there to stop a truck squashing them.
To make that point clearer..... If your travelling along a fast A road, you round a corner and have a head on with a driver that's overtaking another car, would the accident be your fault because you were not wearing a seatbelt?

Taken from the report, a person who witnessed it;

"Unfortunately me and my three-year-old were behind the cyclist at the time in our car and believe me there was nothing the lorry could do".

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

Then your thread title would be some parents dont get it?

Perhaps. But then I would of been accused of "tarring all parents with the same brush". :cool:

But as it happens, the culprit who prompted the thread was in fact an adult.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Taken from the report, a person who witnessed it;

"Unfortunately me and my three-year-old were behind the cyclist at the time in our car and believe me there was nothing the lorry could do".

Ah well Sherlock. That's it all sorted
End of investigation

Tilt wrote: »

Perhaps. But then I would of been accused of "tarring all parents with the same brush". :cool:

But as it happens, the culprit who prompted the thread was in fact an adult.

when the title says some?

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

Ah well Sherlock. That's it all sorted
End of investigation

Jesus! READ WHAT I PUT!

"I note that the Gillingham incident, dosn't seem to be the lorry driver's fault".