Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 13:44:24 GMT
peterboatI've never seen a normal bike going that fast on a flat road in an inner city area with pedestrians everywhere. It's about appropriate behaviour considering the conditions. The basic problem being exposed is that idiots are attracted to bicycles because it is an unregulated and efficient transport option. This will cause problems. There have also been quite a lot of nasty accidents in which cyclists themselves have been killed which is equally sad. High speed cycling in cities which are primarily modelled around motorised buses and cars is problematic by definition. Some work is being done about putting in dedicated cycle lanes but God help the pedestrian who wishes to cross these lanes as the cyclists, being unidentifiable, have no reason to stop at the lights even if they are red for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 13:47:49 GMT
Its more that as a biker you are exposed to mortal danger just about every time you go out which makes you more aware of whats around you. And its why I stopped riding in London; every trip seemed to involve two or three near-misses, no fun at all. But to suggest that the driver who goes through every green light without checking for kamikazes is at fault in the event of an accident is ludicrous. It might seem ludicrous but doing exactly this around 3 years ago more than likely saved my life. So to me, it's not ludicrous, not at all. My point is the person who didn't is not at fault. Dead, perhaps, but not at fault.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 4, 2020 14:42:50 GMT
Would be interested to know why he looks like a chav foxy, is the smoke hanging out his mouth, the hair? Just looks like a no-gooder all round. Pose, attitude, the way he's dressed. I believe in my Spider Sense even if you don't. Looks like a greasy second-hand car salesman.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 4, 2020 14:47:32 GMT
The problem with having a judge decide on such matters is that he or she has to decide, one way or the other. It seems that the bike user was going too fast, the victim didn't look properly. So, the blame should be shared. This is the problem with our highly regulated and blame based road system. In the vast majority of road accidents both parties contribute. For example: a car shoots a red light and hits another going through on green. 100% the fault of the light jumper? Almost certainly not. If the driver going through on green had looked out for cars going through on red he or she would likely have been able to avoid the accident. But he or she didn't, 'because she was in the right, she had priority' I speak as a motorcyclist who's still alive, but would almost certainly now be dead, had he spent his life slavishly following road regulations. It's about time other road users adopted a similar outlook, we'd all be much safer then. every trip seemed to involve two or three near-misses, no fun at all. And so you survived. And are now here on Thunderboat. And it's still no fun at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 14:57:20 GMT
Would be interested to know why he looks like a chav foxy, is the smoke hanging out his mouth, the hair? Just looks like a no-gooder all round. Pose, attitude, the way he's dressed. I believe in my Spider Sense even if you don't. Looks like a greasy second-hand car salesman. My first thought was pikey I have to admit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 15:07:24 GMT
I thought he looked quite hot! ... apart from the posey unlit cigarette he did look remorseful.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 4, 2020 15:50:09 GMT
It might seem ludicrous but doing exactly this around 3 years ago more than likely saved my life. So to me, it's not ludicrous, not at all. My point is the person who didn't is not at fault. Dead, perhaps, but not at fault. There's little comfort in not being at fault, if you're dead. Personally I think everyone should look out for each other, regardless of what the highway code says about priority. It should be taught in driving lessons, and tested before anyone is allowed to drive a vehicle. It's not like you're doing anything else when you're driving a vehicle, or at least you shouldn't be, and it doesn't cost anything.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 4, 2020 16:01:26 GMT
peterboat Some work is being done about putting in dedicated cycle lanes that they x03r9ukj ignore !!! On Beverley road going into hull one of the footpaths is a cycle lane ..... on Monday the drive into Hull was at about 15 mph due to two cyclists riding on the road, ignoring the cycle path ..... by the time we got to the roundabout on the main road there was about 20 vehicles stuck behind that pair of pillocks ...... how nobody didn't lose their rag and just blast past, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 4, 2020 16:19:49 GMT
peterboat Some work is being done about putting in dedicated cycle lanes that they x03r9ukj ignore !!! On Beverley road going into hull one of the footpaths is a cycle lane ..... on Monday the drive into Hull was at about 15 mph due to two cyclists riding on the road, ignoring the cycle path ..... by the time we got to the roundabout on the main road there was about 20 vehicles stuck behind that pair of pillocks ...... how nobody didn't lose their rag and just blast past, I don't know. In Finland there is often a compulsory sign for cyclists to use a cycle path. I'll see if I can find it... There ya go - signs 422 and 423 (also 424 & 425). You MUST cycle on these and not on the road at these marked areas. First time I noticed/realised this was years ago in Helsinki when the bus driver (I was a passenger in front seat) tooted continuously at a cyclist in front of him. At first I thought the bus driver was just being a twat, but then I realised it was the cyclist who should have been in the COMPULSORY cycle lane. Many cyclists in Helsinki are aggressive arseholes - usually men. A punch in the face is the only language they understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 16:35:52 GMT
My point is the person who didn't is not at fault. Dead, perhaps, but not at fault. There's little comfort in not being at fault, if you're dead. Personally I think everyone should look out for each other, regardless of what the highway code says about priority. It should be taught in driving lessons, and tested before anyone is allowed to drive a vehicle. It's not like you're doing anything else when you're driving a vehicle, or at least you shouldn't be, and it doesn't cost anything. Of course you are right. But the driving test is about testing if you know the highway code and are sufficiently in control of the vehicle to adhere to it - that's it. And if everyone stuck to what they were taught insurance would be a lot cheaper. There is an advanced driving test where defensive driving is a major factor. Also, everyone looking out for each other is a wonderful idea. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 4, 2020 16:54:33 GMT
My point is the person who didn't is not at fault. Dead, perhaps, but not at fault. There's little comfort in not being at fault, if you're dead. Personally I think everyone should look out for each other, regardless of what the highway code says about priority. It should be taught in driving lessons, and tested before anyone is allowed to drive a vehicle. It's not like you're doing anything else when you're driving a vehicle, or at least you shouldn't be, and it doesn't cost anything. I learnt to drive a car in 1973. I had already passed my bike test, which was a bit of a joke with chap standing on pavement as I sped by, popping a wheelie just round the corner out of his sight etc. As usual in those days, car driving mostly taught/supervised by parents. I had 1, maybe 2 lessons before test. During one of those lessons I (being of course 17 and god’s gift to driving) was surprised to receive a bit of a ticking off from instructor for just going through green light, without looking for possible cross traffic. But never forgot it. Green means go. No, actually green means go if it’s safe to do so. If you don’t look, how can you know it’s safe? But (back on topic) it is always the case that, if they time it well, a person CAN step out in front of you such that you can’t stop, unless you are doing 4mph with red flag man in front.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 4, 2020 16:58:42 GMT
I was also told that for my bus examination in St Albans in 1986 that when I approached a certain pedestrian crossing, even though there was no-one around, that I should take my foot off the accelerator a tad so the examiner could hear I did just that, to acknowledge I had spotted the crossing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:27:00 GMT
I know two junctions in south London, one in Peckham Rye and the other in Anerley, where if you don't immediately move there will be an accident. The contention is that if, while crossing a junction on a green light a vehicle passing a red light hits you, then the driver of that vehicle will be held entirely at fault. Describe in what circumstances how that might not be true. Never mind about anything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:48:29 GMT
I know two junctions in south London, one in Peckham Rye and the other in Anerley, where if you don't immediately move there will be an accident. The contention is that if, while crossing a junction on a green light a vehicle passing a red light hits you, then the driver of that vehicle will be held entirely at fault. Describe in what circumstances how that might not be true. Never mind about anything else. He's coming out of a box junction albeit late, you shouldnt enter into it till its clear? The onus is on you to make sure its clear? (I'm hazy on that!) and I now realise it was a rhetorical question...drat!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 4, 2020 17:50:08 GMT
I know two junctions in south London, one in Peckham Rye and the other in Anerley, where if you don't immediately move there will be an accident. The contention is that if, while crossing a junction on a green light a vehicle passing a red light hits you, then the driver of that vehicle will be held entirely at fault. Describe in what circumstances how that might not be true. Never mind about anything else. True but not much consolation if you are dead/ crushed leg (on a bike), your journey to somewhere important is terminated and /or you prize car is trashed. As my old dad used to say, “there is no point in being dead right”.
|
|