van v. cyclist: driver sacked

[di]

I rode Andi's bike home from the lottie a couple of times last year...on the pavement(I promise ever so faithfully though that I was very slow and ever so careful of any pedestrians)

Organic,bad drivers and bad cyclists BOTH cause a danger on the road!If a bad cyclist swerves in front of me then I'm going to panic and swerve to miss them...possibly ignoring any other dangers around
Years ago I knew of a lady(very careful driver)who knocked off and killed outright a young lad that pulled in front of her on his bike.Yep,physically he obviously came away from the accident a lot worse than she...from what I can remember the car suffered minimal damage.The fact that she would never be able to bring herself to drive again,cost of repairs was irrelevant.A year down the line she still couldn't face work so didn't really need to drive again anyway.I imagine that nearly thirty years on she still has flashbacks of that day.....so,yep I guess you're right.Physically car drivers are far less vulnerable than cyclists....mentally however!!!

I reitterate.I have absolutely no problems with cyclists.I wish I could bring myself to start again but see far too much fear.The kiddies however both have bikes(which they ride on the pavement).
My problem is with ANY road user that puts others lives in danger.

[Patchninja]

No helmets = no big deal. At worst they only endanger themselves - but it's highly debatable what use a foam hat would be in a crash anyway. They simply aren't designed to deal with the kind of impacts and forces present in a crash with a car. But that's an entirely different debate.



Also on the bright clothes point - Amsterdam, Copenhagen and so on - some of the best cities in the world for bikes and for road safety and almost no bright clothes (unless their normal clothes happen to be bright) and I can't see anything wrong with that. You only really need them when car drivers aren't paying attention anyway.

About helmets, Perhaps not, but it might prevent brain damage done by your head crashing onto the kerb!

About clothes - Utter claptrap, Organics. Cyclists are vulnerable and should do everything they can to help themselves stay safe. Drivers do not WANT to run down a rider. Have a little common sense before you type.In Holland, cyclists are treated as priorities. Cars are, in many places there, obliged to have their headlights on so that cyclists can see them better. It's not the same culture at all.

[Two_Sheds]

I have lost count of the number of times I've ...seen cyclists sail through red ... irrate cyclist, who believes they own the road.

I was walking my bike (yes, walking it) across a zebra crossing y'day, and while I was half-way across a big blue van drove straight over it in front of me, looked right at me, didn't even slow down.

Even though I was walking my bike, I bet he was thinking "bloody cyclists think they own the road"

When I got to town to use the pelican crossings, 2 cars went through on red. Not amber: red. Nobody bats an eyelid.

Now if cyclists were required, ... registration number, ...they would be force to comply with the highway laws.

Motorists have a reg. number: it doesn't force them to comply with the law. A few get done for speeding, but most transgressions they get away with

i think the reason they are nice to horse rider/drivers ...is that i always smile, and say thank you

So do I. It's really not that often that a motorist actually will give way to me though

Big bunches of cyclists taking up most of the road DO cause hold-ups on the back roads round here, and they should have the courtesy to pull over and let cars past. They rarely do though.

Sarz, you should email the cycling club and tell them your concerns. You'll find the club if you Google.

as horses were the original traffic on the road, ... maybe there is a respect and nostalgia thing going on as well?

Er, I think you'll find that cyclists were on the road before cars, so that blows your theory

I'm a waver-paster. When the conditions allow I'll actually pull over to the gutter to allow cars past

So do I. The only place that I get a couple of cars queuing behind me is on the housing estates, where the roads are so choked with double-parked cars that it's single file all the way. If I sense somebody tailgating me, I'll slow at an appropriate spot and wave them on.
I can honestly say I have only ever been thanked ONCE. Nobody will raise a hand or flash their lights to me (and I usually catch them up at the next junction anyway).

the ones who speed up are ussually clad in lycra, and with head sets on, on a mission, and are not nice gardeners! ... i think they are in a different catergory of cyclist than just the ordinary going from point "a" to point "b" sort of cyclist.

See, you've just shown your intolerance for a group of people (training cyclists). It's probably the next Chris Hoy that you're slagging off: why do we love charity bike-riders and Olympic medallists, but we hate the ordinary Joe on a bike? And is your journey more important than the cyclists journey? If we could take all cyclists off the road and put them on cycle lanes, how much extra would you be willing to pay in tax to pay for the cycle lanes?

And finally, when you're out on your bike and people drive courteously, how often do cyclists notice that?

Of course I notice it., it just doesn't happen very often. Or are you suggesting that I should thank every driver who drives correctly and doesn't injure me?
If a driver does slow down to let me through, or does wait instead of passing too close, I always thank them with a raised hand or a nod.

VED rakes in about 5 billion a year. The highways agency alone costs more than that.

So the tax-paying cyclist is actually subsidising the motorist

UK government statistics show 2 of 3 cyclist accidents are caused by a driver and most of the remaining 1 of 3 accidents involved young cyclists.

All of my accidents have been driver at fault (see above somewhere). None of those drivers were even cautioned by the police for careless driving. It seems a legitimate defence in this country to say "sorry officer, I just didn't see them". However, if you bump another vehicle, an insurance company will cough up for the driver at fault.

Even if most cycle crashes are driver at fault, the general driving public will still find a reason to say "cyclists shouldn't be on the roads because (choose your pet reason here: no MoT, no helmet, I don't like lycra...)

I used to ride a bike everywhere ...I got hit by a car in tesco car park once, stupid woman didnt look ... I have been cut up (by cars, not literally!) spat at (seems quite common) shouted at and had car doors opened on me.

that sounds like a normal week's cycling, yep.

The roads are pretty bad everywhere just now, but 'us' drivers still have to use them!

How would you feel if a ped walked along the cycle path if there were holes in the pavement?

She meant dangerous roads, not bad roads? Or bad driving instead of bad roads.
Peds do walk on the cycle lanes, even when there is a footpath right alongside. It was one of my original complaints on this thread.

bad drivers and bad cyclists BOTH cause a danger on the road!

but in a collision, the cyclist comes off worst.
I feel I need to reiterate:
16,000 cyclists killed or injured by motorists a year
1 person killed by a cyclist every year (injuries caused by cyclists I can't find figures for: I guess if they are unreported there aren't that many of those either. As I said before, if a cyclist hits a ped, the cyclist nearly always comes off worse)

However, it is very rare indeed for the motorist to be punished in any way, either by the police or by being sued (I've only sued the one driver who hit me last year, the others I've let go with a "so sorry").

I truly wish that every driver who is in a collision where a person gets injured, should have to resit their test.

[lindyloo]

paulw: i dont think i have superior knowledge! but this is a good platform to make differing viewpoints known and understood.

am i right that the person who posted about the journey home from cirencester saw the cyclists on the motorway?? surely it is illegal to bike down a motorway, or have i read it wrong

and finally, i think something was said about statistics and slow modes of transport. whatever they are, i am sure they are a tiny amount, in comparrison to the statistics of accidents involving fast moving vehichles!

[Patchninja]

There are such things as accidents

[Two_Sheds]

Sorry for the long post there, I should have broken it up a bit.

[HeyWayne]

As I said before, if a cyclist hits a ped, the cyclist comes off worse

There's a little five year old boy who would disagree; The Grimsby Telegraph is asking is it safe to cycle on our roads as Humberside Police launches a clampdown on riding in pedestrianised areas.

[HeyWayne]

Sorry for the long post there, I should have broken it up a bit.

You clearly needed to get that off your chest.

[Jeanied]

Sorry for the long post there, I should have broken it up a bit.

I was just lost in admiration of your mastery of the Multiquote, TS!

[Two_Sheds]

There's a little five year old boy who would disagree

"David Cox, 29, of Cromwell Road, Grimsby, was found guilty of cycling (on the pavement) without consideration, and of assaulting the five-year old."

And quite rightly he was found guilty.
I imagine that if I'd have a 5 year old riding with me in any of my accidents, the drivers would have been prosecuted for driving without consideration, or careless driving.

[Bigmallly]

[FONT="Arial"]

Peds do walk on the cycle lanes, even when there is a footpath right alongside. It was one of my original complaints on this thread]

I walk in cycle lanes & on the road in icy conditions, its the safest place to be even with all of the traffic, untill they start gritting the pavements again but that's another topic..........

I truly wish that every driver who is in a collision where a person gets injured, should have to resit their test.[/CENTER]

A brilliant idea..........

[lindyloo]

paulw: i do not have superior knowledge, and we all learn new things every day. i am simply stating things that a non horsey person might not know or understand.

i like these sort of threads because people can see other peoples viewpoints, and we can all learn something. i am not argueing with anyone, and havent noticed any heated comments from any other posters either- maybe some emotion, but whats wrong with that?

did i read correctly, the post which tells of the journey home from cirencester? there were 3 cyclists on the motorway? i thought that was illegal?

and in regard to the statistics on slow moving vehichles, whatever they are, they can be nowhere near the amount in ratio of specific areas of road users, as those accidents involving vehichles driving at 30-60 speeds, or those who exceed those limits.

taxes on cycles? well, it will probably happen, as they are planning on taxing horses, they are talking of taxing dogs; perhaps they will tax old ladies shopping trolleys, and pushchairs, especially the big ones- both annoying (why not poultry, cats and small pets too- they might as well squeeze every last penny out of us!)

[SarzWix]

These statistics are all well and good, but where's the figure for the amount of cyclists who AREN'T killed or injured? And where's the statistic for the amount of PEDESTRIANS killed or injured by cars? And where's the statistic for the number of CAR and MOTORCYCLE accidents where someone is killed or injured?

Statistics all have to be relevant to something else don't they? Otherwise you can just pick out the shocking numbers like that.

That's what I meant by 'How many cyclists notice courteous driving'? I didn't mean that you should thank everyone who drives past you in the right way, I meant that when you're ranting about the one who didn't, you should remember the 20 or however many others that went you past without causing a problem, and therefore have it in proportion.

[lindyloo]

two sheds- nope, i knew bikes were on the roads before cars- i know my history! but horses were on the roads before bikes were invented, and helped with the hauling of materials for the building of the roads, so i used them as the example. but we should all respect other road users.
(maybe that driver you encountered on the crossing was thinking "phew- that was close; i (driver) should pay more attention"!)

SarzWiz- definately agree with your last post!

[di]

Of those 16,000 killed or injured are we to assume that they were ALL due to wreckless driving and none due to dangerous cycling?
I totally agree with you TS that some drivers do need to be more considerate and that those caught driving in a way that would endanger anybody should be convicted,but likewise with cyclists.
As I said in my previous post,if a cyclist were to pull out in front of me with no warning,my immediate reaction is going to be to swerve to miss them,even if that means colliding with an oncoming vehicle.
Also,although a motorist is going to come away from a collision with a cyclist physically unscathed the mental trauma is going to be with them forever.
In my mind there are both dangerous drivers and dangerous cyclists...both can cause accidents and both should be prosecuted.