van v. cyclist: driver sacked

[organic]

TS - some all too familiar and typical stories there. It really is shocking how badly cyclists are treated when they are hit and not at fault.

Are you ranting? Aye, maybe a little bit - but I think anyone who's been on the roads on a bike for a reasonable amount of time will completely understand where you're coming from and sympathise.

I've been left-hooked, broadsided, squeezed (try having one bar-end against a parked car and the other bar end, wrist and elbow against an overtaking car - I'm still amazed I stayed upright and didn't go under the idiot's wheels) and came within about half an inch of a rear-ender from a 40mph car (but I've told you about that one already).

Thankfully I've yet to be thrown from my bike by anything other than my own mistakes when on an off-road trail... but I have absolutely no doubt that my time will come and when it does I expect the same standard of help and enforcement from our wonderful police force and justice system.

(Not a dig at coppers specifically, but at the apathy with which the force views incidents with cyclists when there's no video evidence - which is usually the case.)

[Madasafish]

As a pedestrian I have nearly been run down by cyclists , motor bikes - and cars (once on a zebra crossing when the driver swerved over to the opposite side of the road to pass me).

But motor cyclists are worst... and they happily commit suicide on the roads near us - Cat'n Fiddle and Leek to Buxton roads.

When I am running I take great care to wear visible clothing and wtach for escape routes for myself.. having once jumped onto a wall to avoid a pack of cyclists careering down a hill.

Motor cyclists are worst: after them cyclists are angleic.

[bobleponge]

My beliefs, TS, are that there are bad motorists and bad cyclists. And there are good motorists and good cyclists.
You're quite right, that wont change.

[coreopsis]

I'll agree with Bob-there are bad examples in every group.
TS,I can understand your point and your frustration,cyclist doesn't have much chance with the car and is vulnerable but:
As Piskie wrote about 2 cyclists at the front,looking back, smiling(nice)and not letting her pass...
"You just have to wait for opportunity to pass"
I don't wish any of you to "wait for opportunity to pass" if you have emergency dental appointment(loads of pain and discomfort).Not to mention more serious circumstances.
Just let them pass.
I don't hate cyclists,pedestrians or the other motorists but all of them do stupid things sometimes.
I'm not against the cyclist but I think it should be OBLIGATORY for all bikes to be equipped with lights and good for the cyclist to wear something either bright or reflective.

[organic]

Bob - yes some lights have cameras on... but the majority do not and it is not even slightly unusual to see cars still going through late on amber or early on red. Even cameras don't stop it entirely.

I see far more cars pushing it on amber and sneaking through early on red than I see cyclists doing likewise. No account made for population sizes.

I've always known bad drivers do stupid things like running reds, but in the 19 days since I started cycling again I have been absolutely staggered at the frequency with which it happens.

I've seen and heard cars actually change down a gear and floor it to get through lights just as they turn red.

I'm not going to argue that cyclists don't run reds - clearly some (a minority) do but to claim that car drivers running reds is so rare is quite simply not true.

I live in Manchester. Built up? About as much so as it's possible to get without covering the whole place in tower blocks.

[organic]

I think it should be OBLIGATORY for all bikes to be equipped with lights

It is.

and good for the cyclist to wear something either bright or reflective.

It's not and should remain so for a whole host of reasons... one being that wearing safety gear tends to lead to drivers passing closer (the theory being that you look like you know what you're doing so need less room) on average and that means a higher chance of collision.

Then there's the simple fact that in areas with sensible laws surrounding bikes (particularly places like Amsterdam) and pedestrians - most people don't wear high vis, helmets, trouser clips or any other bike related nonsense - they wear normal clothes and do normal things - and are on some of the safest roads for cycling in the world.

Cyclists don't need bright clothes to be safe... drivers need to drive with a level of responsibility befitting the machine they control... just like I do when I drive (and I do so on a very regular basis).



EDIT:
Forgot to include the link - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle635439.ece
It focussed mainly upon helmets but did consider other factors (like a woman's wig for example) and is backed up by scores of annecdotal tales of people fitting a child seat to their bike and riding with a doll in it to get more room still from cars.

[Caro]

There's one bridge over the Clyde into Glasgow city centre where the council's plans for the cyclists route never fails to astound me.

The road in question is a major arterial route into the city for rush hour traffic. There are 5 lanes on the one-way bridge. The two left lanes must turn left at the end of the bridge, the right-most lane must turn right, the other two must go straight on. So, two lanes go straight down the next street (let's call it Oswald St). Shortly after the junction, a third lane appears on Oswald St and becomes the right-most street. A 100 yards on, motorists can turn right down a side street from both the new rightmost lane and what is now the middle lane.

If anyone has been bothered to get this far and managed to follow any of this, my disbelief is that back on the bridge at the traffic lights, the cyclists have one of those "congregate in front of the cars" boxes - in front of the traffic in the right-most of the two straight on lanes. Which means when you cross the junction onto Oswald St, the cyclists are positioned on the outside lane. Then when the third lane emerges, they are now cycling toward the right edge of a lane from which cars can legally turn right. Surely it's dangerous for the bikes (and unnecessarily positions them in front of cars holding people up).

I can't believe I've written all this twaddle, nor that anyone will bother to read it! But in case anyone does, can you explain the rationale behind this? I must stop one of the cyclists one day and see whether he hates the way the council have set this up.

And really, should cyclists have boxes at lights which puts them right in front of the cars anyway? I'm not being an anti-cyclist fascist, I just don't understand the logic of putting slow bikes in front of fast cars.

Off to have a lie down with a cold compress ...

[piskieinboots]

Motor cyclists are worst: after them cyclists are angleic.

erm - not all of us!!

Again, as with TS and her obvious dislike of car drivers, please lets not be assuming that ALL of 'us' are bad

I have ridden a motorbike and driven a car for 35 years (!!) without ever hitting* anyone, either on bike or on foot or walking on their hands!

*I am now massively touching wood

[Two_Sheds]

the apathy with which the force views incidents with cyclists when there's no video evidence - which is usually the case.)

and even when there is video evidence: YouTube - Not one jot...

or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsGpl...eature=related

or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCT-v...eature=related

[HeyWayne]

At least car drivers pay for the roads.

*runs, cycles, drives away - whichever's fastest in the current traffic conditions.

[organic]

Caro - on the routes I use, more often than not the cycle lanes and the junctions themselves would be laughable if they didn't make things so dangerous. I detest most of the cycle facilities around here.

Can you tell me exactly which bridge you mean? If it's a recent enough picture I'll look at it on Google Earth and give you my take on it.

Why the advanced stop boxes?
They serve a few purposes actually - and all of them worthwhile.

1> It helps cyclists avoid the dreaded "left hook". By positioning them ahead of the waiting cars they are visible to the drivers and being ahead there's a lower chance that the drivers will be tempted to accelerate quickly to overtake and then turn left in front of (or all to often, over) the cyclist.

2> When the cyclist wishes to turn right on a busy road, the advanced stop line can give them a safe way to get to the other side of the lane/road/carriageway without having to pick their moment and go for it.
(And for turning right the same thing is true as with turning left - but this time the "right hook")

3> It gives cyclists a chance to get those first couple of wobbly pedal strokes out of the way before they need to avoid (said tongue in cheek) the blind maniac nutjobs in cars who are trying to kill them.

Advanced stop lines are a wonderful thing... when cars aren't stopped in them.

I know it can seem a bit off to put a slow vehicle in front, but in reality it makes the road far safer for all that way.

[HeyWayne]

Cyclists, motorists, pedestrians.

We're all people.

[organic]

Oh wow - Wayne - I can't tell, was that tongue in cheek or not???

Serious answer regardless...
...ALL taxpayers pay for the roads.

Road tax was abolished around the time of Winston Churchill.

Nobody pays road tax.

It is vehicle excise duty and it is a tax not on road use, but on vehicle use.

VED brings in something like (top of the head) £5 billion a year.

The highways agency (looks after motorways and, I think, some A roads) costs £6 billion a year.

The entirity of the cost of roads actually comes out of general taxation but even if we pretend VED is actaully a "road tax" it doesn't even cover the cost of the motorways, let alone the roads.


Here's a fun little bit to round it off though...

Cyclists have a RIGHT to be on the road. Motor vehicle drivers need a LICENCE before they are permitted to join them.

[Alison]

I have a basket, panniers, cycle clips, lycra and a commode/helmet, so ner

Sometimes I wear a skirt and ride my granny bike, but if I'm riding a distance I wear the lycra and the padded shorts and ride my touring bike (most ppl think it's a racer, it's not).

I have aquired 3 bikes over the years, my old hack bike which is a much changed mountain bike which I usually ride with at least cycling shorts on as am fed up with getting other clothes caught in the chain. A foldup which is dead handy to get to the station or places with no fixed bike sheds and my beloved sit up and beg basketed bike which I can ride in totally normal clothes and used last week to get to a local meeting in a smart work shirt and proper girly shoes. I'm lucky to have the options but it does show that people don't fit into boxes.

I'm not against the cyclist but I think it should be OBLIGATORY for all bikes to be equipped with lights and good for the cyclist to wear something either bright or reflective.

It is

Erm, no it's not here, if you're going to go on the road then you legally have to have reflectors but lights are strictly optional. I don't have them on in summer much as my commute to work is in proper daylight and I'm fed up with having to take them on and off to stop them getting nicked. However I'd never ride in poor light without them and light myself up like a Christmas tree when necessary and wouldn't rely on the rubbish standard type ones that would be supplied on the bike at source.

[Two_Sheds]

should cyclists have boxes at lights which puts them right in front of the cars anyway?

It's to give them a slight head-start on the cars, but mostly to make them visible to car drivers.

You tend not to be seen if you are to the left of the car, where the driver isn't looking (he's looking straight ahead, at the lights).

If a cyclist is to turn right, they need to be in the right-turn lane. If that puts them on the 'wrong' side of the lane, that's how it is. They take up the same amount of room, whether they are on the left of your car or on the right of your car. You still have to give them room and consideration.