Reply With QuoteOnly when dash cams are compulsory will people take responsibility for their driving habits.
It's not just cyclists that die on the roads though, motorists are a danger to themselves also.
Nicky Hayden ex world Moto GP champion hit by a car whilst out cycling in Italy.
How many more cyclists are going to get injured and killed before motorists realise the danger to us.
Last edited by Andrew S; 18th May 2017 at 11:30.
Only when dash cams are compulsory will people take responsibility for their driving habits.
It's not just cyclists that die on the roads though, motorists are a danger to themselves also.
Probably out riding 3 abreast with bitfield
mike
I don't cycle anymore. Too dangerous! I don't want to end up a video on here with everyone commenting "It was clearly the cyclist's fault for bouncing off that car's bonnet and smashing into the windscreen."Originally Posted by seadog1408
Probably out riding 3 abreast with bitfield
Three weeks in Italy two years ago and I spotted more cars curled arond trees, in a ditch etc than in one year in Holland. Tuscany is the worst: Cyclists' Paradise, but also home to motorists doing 50 in a 30 mph zone with their left arm dangling outside the opened window and with their cell phone locked between their right ear and shoulder...
M.
I'm quite lucky as most of the roads I ride on are quiet, but at least one motorist each day is far to close to me.
I've had a few verbal altercations with drivers over the years.
I've noticed that too when out cycling. You risk your neck for some idiotic drivers. A lot of younger drivers lack 'peripheral vision' which has been noticed by my mate, a driving instructor. This is caused by not letting kids play out (stuck on screens) and not being exposed to danger as much as kids from previous generations.
Same motorcyclist. I have lost count of the number of those in my circle who have died in road accident by motorists who “did not see“ them.
I do not ride the motorcycle anymore because of this.
The bicycle I do use but very cautiously. What makes me furious is that up till now the Spanish solution is to oblige cyclist to wear a crash helmet which is all but entirely useless when a car hits you.
Last week 6 cyclists mowed down by a drunk driver: 2 dead, 3 maimed for life with lost limbs, 1 escaped with “just“a trauma. All wore crash helmets...
As to the subject, it is tragic. Imagine the professional career of this ever so sympathetic man. Just raced in superbikes, out to train in his bicycle and...
Do we know it was the motorists' fault?
Just to add some balance to this I would like to add the following. As a motorcyclist, cyclist and driver I would like to regard myself as extremely considerate and as being acutely aware of fellow road users. I live just outside the city centre with some lovely country lanes and rural villages nearby.
Sometimes as a driver, the perception is that one cannot do right for doing wrong in the eyes of a cyclist. Recently; on two occasions I have held back for a considerable distance following groups of cyclists down the country lanes patiently waiting, then when safe to do so I have dropped down a gear or two and passed safely and properly, only to be met with a tirade of gesticulation from the cyclists I had patiently waited for a passed safely. Honestly some cyclists have such a chip on their should and ride so aggressively they seem to invite conflict. I would also add that whilst a great many road users are well below par in relation to the highway Code, it is almost always the cyclists who show little regard for red lights, signalling, giving way when alighting from cycle paths back onto the carriageway or at pedestrian crossings. Just the other day some twerp riding along a pedestrian footpath knocked over my friend, the cyclist just momentarily stopped to regain his balance and sped off again.
My sympathies go out to responsible cyclists caught up in non-fault accidents, but from the evidence I witness regularly it appears a great many cyclists are going out of their way to end up in conflict; either vehicular or a physical altercation.
This may upset a fair few but these are my feelings from years of first hand experience. I think it is time cyclists were registered and insured. Peoples attitudes across society are changing for the worse, but no-where is this demonstrated with such contempt as from the humble cyclist.
All we know is that he is seriously injured because of a accident with his bike and a car.
Being Dutch I have been brought up with a very specific outlook on this; that since the cyclist is ever so much more the vuilnerable party, the motorist is always at fault unless the cyclist is proven to have been braking the law and even then the insurance of the motorist should cover costs because the car is the cause of the vast bulk of the damage.
Nail, head.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
Wasn't there a recent proposal to make that an automatic assumption (as if it would save anybody ...).
The OP's comment regarding drivers isn't particularly helpful - we aren't out there trying to kill you !!
Cameras are the way forward - given we now have reversing cameras / side facing cameras (for exiting awkward junctions - it can be long be these are offered a factory fit (so we don't need the thing stuck on the windscreen).
We might then get some proper evidence as to who is to blame in these incidents, and then be able to come up with a solution.
I wouldn't point the finger at any Road user, they are all as bad as each other because whatever you ride/drive there are idiots everywhere. But what I will say is that duty of care is very different between modes of transport and from what I have seen is just not taken into account.
If you drive a large vehicle with poor visibility then your duty of care is higher than that of a pedestrian or cyclist yet I still see HGV drivers using mobile phones despite the consequences of their lack of attention being well known.
Put simply they kill people every year. Cyclists kill half a person a year. (Usually a chav riding on the pavement and I wouldn't call them a cyclist, same as I wouldn't call a joyrider a motorist)
More cameras the better, this along with the new close pass rules being rolled out by some police authorities will drop the punishment passes on cyclists/mopeds massively. 3 points and a fine is a great deterrent.
Back to the OP, Nicky Hayden is in an induced coma with serious pelvic, abdominal & head injuries. A man who works at 200mph+ a fraction away from crashing and he gets wiped out on a trundle with his mates.......
Insurance and bike registration, same obligations to respect the rules of the road (adapted if necessary) so that every road user can be held accountable for his actions. You can't fix stupid on either side but you can make sure stupid is dealt with appropriately.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I have third party insurance with British cycling, i would be happy for compulsory cyclist insurance as long as the 10% of motorists currently driving without insurance complied with the law too.
Not the first time, Bob Wollek was killed in a cycling accident in the run up to Daytona (or Sebring) one year.
Yumma makes a valid point, and I speak as someone who rides a bike, sometimes with my 4yo in a seat on the back.
Cameras work both ways, and in London you have the traffic cameras too. As for the London commuter cyclist, how many cars pass safely during the same time? The percentage is rather good, even if it makes riding highly dangerous. With heavy traffic the Dutch model is probably best, it could even push drivers to give up their cars for commuting but there needs to be a viable alternative in place. At the moment Southern amply demonstrated that public transport is not up to scratch. I was going to add 'yet' but didn't as it's getting worse, not better.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Bad idea. Cyclists are already obliged to follow the rules of the road.
Imposing cumbersome insurance and registration requirements on cyclists will only add to the number of people travelling in cars, which hog road space and are far more dangerous, and for no benefit. The ever-present threat of getting run over by multi-tonne motorised steel cages often operated by the oblivious and the obese is more than enough of an incentive to pay attention while on a bike.
They may be obliged to follow the rules but if they don't nobody forces them.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
That's not true; there are jurisdictions where cyclists are treated far more harshly than motorists when it comes to enforcement. (NYC and pretty much all of Australia, for example.)
Anyway, what's the benefit in pretending that the two modes of transportation are equivalent? The consequences of neglecting the rules are far greater in a car. The cyclist usually ends up hurting himself, while cars mow down others with great efficiency.
By making cycling difficult (e.g. helmet laws), car traffic increases, road safety goes down and public health declines. So what's the point, other than for resentful motorists to be vindictive?
9 cyclists killed in London.
36 Motorcyclist killed over the same period in London.
But not a mention from the Mayor.
£900 million pounds to be spent on cyclist safety and awareness over the next 10 years by TFL.
Not a single penny to be spent on motorcyclist safety/awareness.
If you can't identify the cyclist he gets away with it. There are virtually no traffic cops left and if they are in town in their car the cyclist outruns them. So no incentive to follow the rules. At all.
There is no pretending they are equivalent. But I don't see you advocating for HGV being treated differently from cars or from motorcycles.
I want to make sure that cyclists KNOW they are scrutinised. I don't care if they wear a helmet or not. But once we can identify them on a photo or a film and sanction illegal behaviour we can come down hard on the offending cars in a crash.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Again, by far the greater incentive to follow the rules on a bike is the risk of getting plowed over. The justification for motor-vehicle registration and insurance regulations is because of their orders-of-magnitude greater potential for causing harm to others.
In practice, discouraging cycling is a very regressive policy that just ends up putting more people into cars. You don't typically appear to support governmental regressiveness, so I'm genuinely surprised that you'd support such a counterproductive initiative.
I kicked the back wheel of a cyclist as he rode past me, passing through a red light through a pedestrian crossing. It bent his wheel and sent him flying. Will it teach him? Probably not, but when he gets squashed by a tipper truck they will blame the truck driver even if it was the idiot's fault. Cyclists should have insurance and registration plates, and I would vote for anyone who advocates this.
Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk
If you read previous posts here you will see that I support a Dutch type of policy in main commuting cities. I live in the countryside/small town and the danger I see almost always come from the cyclist. I suppose it changes your perspective.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Seems a wee bit disproportionate. Was he actually posing any risk to anyone while riding through, or were you simply committing an act of random violence?
There weren't any registration or insurance regulations for cyclists in the Netherlands last time I was there, and I seriously doubt they'd consider it. Although I agree that the attitude of the Dutch (and Danes, for that matter) to cycling is exemplary.
Last edited by Belligero; 18th May 2017 at 11:39.
The thing is, they are unaccountable for their actions until they end on the tarmac, by which time it's someone else's fault.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I always carry a small 'stinger' to stop 'em.
Things must be very different in France. In my observation, most police officers will go out of their way to exculpate the driver, and are very eager to assign blame to the cyclist.
In any case, dickhead drivers still exist despite all the regulations they're supposed to follow. Why would you expect cyclists to be any different? The pros just don't outweigh the cons here.
Getting those who are already inclined to disregard road rules off bikes and into cars doesn't seem very wise to me, either. :)
"I'd like to see guys like you doing time inside."
I would like to see those car/lorry drivers who kill cyclists do time inside, they just get a 6 month ban and a small fine.
If you want to kill somebody in this country use a car, just make sure the target is riding a bike.
I also have insurance with British Cycling and think this would be a good thing for cyclists to have. When cyclists are out with their local clubs they should be insured as well, as cycle clubs also have liability insurance.
I totally agree that there a some bad cyclists out there and with attitudes and it really annoys me when they go through red lights or break other road traffic legislation, as this gives other cyclists a bad name.
Not long back from cycle training in Mallorca and whilst out there 2 British cyclists were killed by being hit by cars. One of the drivers was found over the limit and on drugs.
I don't really have a solution for the way our roads are being used, by all road users.
I've been here 20 years, my references are local not French. I do not expect the number of dickheads to be different. I would expect them to be held into account the same way. This is not what is happening. So for me the current situation is not satisfactory. I am not sure my solution would improve anything and am quite ready to listen to others.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Compulsory insurance and registration doesn't seem to stop people driving like dicks, so why would it solve the problem of cyclists behaving like dicks?
It's easy to be a cyclist and blame car drivers, it's easy to be a car driver and blame a cyclist. Both sides can easily trot out stories when wrong doing was noticed.
Fault on both sides but i do believe car drivers would, in general, be better served if they had to try cycling / mopeds / motorbikes for a while and see how they feel. I'd suggest most cyclists / moped / motorbike users have a car license and have a view of both worlds. I feel much much safer on a motorbike crossing the city than i do on my bicycle for what it's worth.
I'm not sure vigilantes dishing out "punishment" to those not following the rules is a good thing.
It doesn't stop people but allows you to identify them
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Great we know who they are. We know who the dickhead drivers are. I drive 80 miles a day and i see lot of bad driving all with a registration number to allow me to identify them.
It doesn't seem to solve things.
We're veering dangerously towards bear pit territory here chaps.
Many motorist have very low skills levels and no incentive to improve. Will a political party ever make it a manifesto point to take a significant proportion of people's licences away unless they buck their ideas up? I would personally back regular retesting with the skill level going up for the retests (i.e. first test gets you on the road but you are expected to continue improving).
Perhaps the answer lies however far in the future it is that most vehicles will be automous and the only human driving is a leisure activity at which point driving can be regulated to a greater extent to get skills up.
Lorry drivers seem to have a "blind spot" get-out.
If they know they have one they should act accordingly, preferably eliminate it.
Head and chest trauma, not looking good. As to blame, I'll wait until the official RTC verdict is available
I agree, as can be seen day in day out if your a regular driver. However it takes less skill and no test at all to ride a bike on the public highway
As to the retesting, that's a stupid idea as tests never reflect real world driving and not necessary. With all the INGSOC TeleScreens everywhere, they could be put to better use, instead of just speeding fines they could be used to monitor and chastise bad driving too.
As my driving instructor hold me "Just because you have passed your test, it doesn't mean you know how to drive"
Last edited by nunya; 18th May 2017 at 12:10.
Yes they actually do have very big blind spot. Very simple to stay out of it too, if you can't see both lorry wing mirrors when driving behind, the lorry driver cannot see you.
How would you eliminate the blind spot? It's not like you could do the over shoulder check is it.
Cameras strategically placed instead of just the side mirrors (just answering the last paragraph)
The technology is there and is very affordable. Factory installed cost for manufacturers would be at the most £100... coupled with speed/distance detection that signals danger. Possibly as useful as the lane changing detection systems
Last edited by Saint-Just; 18th May 2017 at 12:19.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
^^^^^^
Good call, but playing devil's advocate here.
Why should they have to? It is not a legal requirement and the driver behind is responsible to be aware of traffic in front and drive accordingly.
Some of the safety feature available today are pretty amazing really, unfortunately it'll make the rubbish / lazy driver even more so as they would rely on them, rather than using them as an aide to better driving.
Last edited by nunya; 18th May 2017 at 12:21.
Agreed. But regardless of who's responsible, if a HGV is involved in an accident, even a minor one FOR HIM the damages on the other party are likely to be significant and as such he will be required to stay at the scene. Considering the time constraints they are under, a system that would potentially reduce the risk of traffic incidents and loss of productivity would be a valid UPS for the manufacturers
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Agreed.
Unfortunately until either there is a huge financial gain or it becomes law, no manufacturer is going to bother, as said simply because they don't have to. And that's that.
As car drivers we're expected to take heed of what is following before maneuvering. Lorries should do the same - and could be a child, not a cyclist they've missed.
As SJ said cameras would be a cheap solution.
Agreed, while we obviously don't want to see such incidents the standard of all road users in London, including cyclists is horrific, nobody seems to obey the laws of the road! Cyclists seem to routinely run red lights, mount the pavement to avoid traffic etc. All road users need to accept responsibility for their road use and be considerate to other be they motorbikes, cars, cyclists or pedestrians. The arrogance of the few cyclists I have encountered is staggering. Personally I would never cycle in London. I prefer off-road, plus men look stupid in Lycra!
Posting Permissions
