Reply With QuoteYeh whats your problem with that?Originally Posted by Captain Morgan
- - - Updated - - -
Yeh whats your problem with that?
Can’t be bothered to read but can be to comment...
HiViz and red lights and all that...
Yeh whats your problem with that?
- - - Updated - - -
Yeh whats your problem with that?
sorry FFF - all the data, as provided above and linked to, proves otherwise, you're just choosing to ignore it..
My 30 years of anecdotal experience tells me that the biggest bellends on our road are Range Rover drivers with an inability to read.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you’re a pedestrian with their 4 year old who’s just been clipped by a cyclist running a red light then all the stats and studies mean sweet fa.
I don’t need stats I can use my eyes. Put 100 cyclists in front of me and 100 cars and I would bet my arse the cyclist would create more issue via dangerous practises than the drivers.
Well normally you seem reasonable and open to debate but in this case not so much.
So I think bry nylons post covers it well.
Perhaps but the figures tell us that the cars would kill and maim more that the cyclists...
Well considereing the % of problems in your opinion are caused by RR owners, and the number of RR owners is small then the issue using your own words can’t be that bad can it?
Make your mind up
👍 I guess we all have subjects that push our buttons, this happens to be mine.
‘Biggest’ does not mean ‘only’.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you’re a pedestrian with their 4 year old who’s just been clipped by a motorist running a red light then all the stats and studies mean sweet fa but do you feel better because it was an entitled motorist who pays tax?
If you’re a cyclist with their 8 year old who’s just been clipped by a motorist performing a dangerous pass then all the stats and studies mean sweet fa but do you feel any different to the pedestrian in your original post?
Last edited by Captain Morgan; 4th November 2018 at 12:11. Reason: With
Not seeing because they're not looking, distracted by mobile phones, satnavs, ipad-like displays etc.
Being complacent & not paying attention & reading the road ahead because they feel safe in their crumple zone protected/airbag equipped/collapsible steering column fitted vehicles & are in a rush to save 10 seconds on their journey times.
They have a hatred of cyclists, probably born out of frustration at being sat in endless queues of traffic which is of their own making because there's too many vehicles on the roads. The cyclist sailing past gives them an outlet for their frustration & plenty of them are not averse to using their vehicles as an offensive weapon.
I'd suggest you do read post 398 in it's entirety because, to me, it's the slam dunk post in this thread.
So it’s ok for you to identify the biggest issues on the road in your opinion but as soon as people indicate theirs it’s wrong?
Why can’t a couple of the cyclists on here accept a few basic facts.... I am a cyclist and I accept them.
1. Of course if a car and a cyclist have a collision it is almost a certainty that the cyclist will come off worse. A good reason for cyclists to take even more care.
2. Not all collisions between cyclists and cars are the Cars fault.
3. A good number of both sides display bad behaviors none of which are acceptable.
4. Cyclists can help themselves be a little more safe with some small adjustments that cost little or nothing in time, money or effort. Even if taking more care only improves those stats by 1% isn’t that a price worth paying ?
There is almost a Trumponian desire by a couple of posters to ignore the above and blame he motorist for every transgression... using stats that just state the obvious... cyclists are more vulnerable, when they get hit it hurts (or worse).
That does not mean that car drivers are never to blame, but it equally does not mean that cyclists are he saints that a few on here seem to portray them as.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have read it now (398)and it’s only a slam dunk if you agree with it.
Last edited by Franky Four Fingers; 4th November 2018 at 12:22.
I don’t think any of the pro cyclist posters have denied your points above have they?
We have examples of motorists complaining about cyclists speed both slow and fast, lack of visibility then complain when they ride prime to increase visibility and reduce dangerous passes. Examples of hi vis and still having smidsy accidents.
The overriding feeling I get from this thread is a sense of entitlement from motorists who are often quick to blame these crazed cyclist for all the incidents and injuries and in a way they are right if we didn’t cycle we wouldn’t be there to become targets but that in no way detracts from the duty of care ALL road users have.
As a cyclist yourself you will be painfully aware of the lack of protection you have and how that focuses your awareness when cycling do you not.
I'd suggest you do read post 398 in it's entirety because, to me, it's the slam dunk post in this thread.
Post #2 was a slam dunk for me.
Last edited by Franky Four Fingers; 4th November 2018 at 15:22.
You have to be a special kind of moron to group a whole transport segment as inherently bad but people posting in this thread seem to manage it.
The same kind of people who can’t make the cognitive leap to imagine what it would be like if their own wife, child, brother, sister or lover should perish due to the actions of somebody paying no attention to other road users or the law.
There’s loads of people out there who struggle with this concept, I see them on the roads every day.
I’m definitely done with this thread now, I’m not naive enough to think that it’s going to change people’s mindset, I’ll leave that to the policy makers and the progressive chief of police’s in counties like Surrey.
My last point is that since I last mentioned it another dozen or so people have lost their lives due to the actions of motorists, I hope that wasn’t somebody you knew.
I’ve never seen a car run the lights outside my school...I see a dozen examples of cyclists doing it every single week. So to me the stats and studies are meaningless. I’m not talking hypotheticals here I’m talking from personal experience. In hypothetical scenarios I wouldn’t take my 8 year old on the road where they share space with cars, vans and trucks and all the associated dangers and pollution, especially when there are some great trails to be ridden.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but it seems to me that because you have seen some cyclists riding like knobs (and you seem to praise or put a lot of store in post#2), you have no sympathy for riders who have been killed on the roads despite doing nothing wrong? I have linked to cases on this thread where cyclists have been killed but have done nothing wrong whatsoever.. In a lot of these cases the offending drivers receive pitiful sentences.. I guess you and 'Man of Kent' think that's fair?
I see plenty of motorist's driving like 'james hunts' yet I don't tar all of them with the same brush despite them being responsible for (approx),400 pedestrian deaths a year..
Sorry I’m a bit confused are you saying you still go to school or you work at a school?
How long have you spent observing the lights?
Are you also saying that as you’ve never seen a car run a red light outside your school that it never happens?
Also is it possible that children might also be clipped at other traffic lights and crossings whiles travelling to or from school or possible another destination?
How many of these light running cyclists you have seen have been involved in a collision with a 4 year old?
And you didn’t answer my original question if the mithical 4 year old was clipped by a car would you feel better than it being a cyclist?
I feel quite saddened that you think children at 8 years old shouldn’t cycle to school and I assume by extension not outside there house and should cycle off road only.
Im not sure why you keep talking in hypotheticals. I’m discussing my actual experiences everyday. I’m not sure why you have so many questions?! I and my 4 year old have been clipped by a cyclist running through a red light, this isn’t a mythical 4 year old...it’s my 4 year old!
Obviously I wouldn’t feel better being clipped by a car but as I have been clipped by a bike and had several close shaves while crossing on the green man I feel I can comment on that. I never said car drivers were better or worse only shared my personal experience.
And yes, my kids won’t be riding on any roads in London...it’s not safe to do so. They will ride off road and in parks.
Firstly I’m glad that both your child and yourself are okay after being clipped by a cyclist, I’m sure that it was a troubling experience.
When I was younger I was hit by a bus as a pedestrian crossing the road and by a car, luckily no real damage occurred but it taught me a valuable lesson about keeping a lookout for dangerous situations.
I asked the questions as your risk assessment of crossing the road outside of school with a child seemed significantly at odds to accepted risk levels and was trying to understand why. Given your last post I can see a drive for the bias shown so perhaps best to park it.
I’m glad when I was growing up in London I had the opportunity to cycle freely from a young age, it’s sad that it seems to be becoming a thing of the past. Still we used to have red bus rovers too.
Dont know quite how you come to that conclusion but hey.
However as been stated so many times before- pound for pound, given your obvious lack of protection I have seen far more instances of cyclist being total Bell ends than I have pound for pound of motorists.
Theres millions of cars on the road, stands to reason I'm gong to see a few idiots. Every time I go out and see a cyclist I generally see something which I wouldn't deem as safe or thinking about their wellbeing.
As I said before - stick 100 cyclists in front of me on a road and 100 cars and I know who will create the most problems.
it comes to something when my mate who is a seasoned cyclist doing several thousand miles a year says that in general he hates cyclists when he's a motorist.
Agree 100%, I just say it as I see it and agree cyclist are a non law abiding bunch of self righteous numpties. They may not statistically show up in convictions as without number plates they don’t get convicted, but in terms of my experience while driving, riding a bike and walking I sadly see the most outrageously Reckless behaviour by cyclists. Blatant red light jumping, riding the wrong way up one way streets, riding on footpaths/pedestrianised High Streets/shopping malls. Dangerous manoeuvring, failing to stop or give way at assigned signage/road markings; I could go on. I cycle and cycle responsibly; sadly the greater percentage have less regard for the Highway Code or respect for others, it’s a wonder they can cycle at all with such a big chip on their shoulder.
I see, so we're all a bunch of self righteous numpties...apart from you, because you cycle responsibly? What nonsense.
The majority in my experience are numpties and also have massive chips on their shoulders, so your point is...?
You said "cyclist(s) are a non law abiding bunch of self righteous numpties." Then don't seem to include yourself in that sweeping generalisation.
Did you not read my post? I said I do obey the law.
Many other cyclists do also, but still in my observation from 26 years road experience and 44 years life experience, many more do not. This is my view point, some share it, some don’t. Some are blinkered as they have a bias.
You can think whatever you think and be pedantic over finite details, I can express my views. I agree with many on here. I am a driver and a cyclist, I’m not a saint but I try to be law abiding. I do not disregard the law and have scant regard for my personal safety or the safety of others like a huge proportion of cyclists do. I’m not attacking you suggesting it’s all cyclists, I’m a cyclist; many are responsible, but anyone thinking they are all saintly and an exemplar of decent behaviour is seriously misguided.
This thread is now well past the OP’s original message but the views both for and against are valid, they are people’s life experiences, observations and opinions. Your view is yours, mine is mine, we both have a point, I’m generalising, you are focussing down on minor points. You keep your view and I’ll keep mine.
Last edited by yumma; 4th November 2018 at 20:51.
Oh dear, sounds like you're very stressed. Maybe you should go out on the bike & generate some endorphins?
Not really.
Keep your view, this is a friendly forum where we can all express views. This forum post is divisive and confrontational. I still uphold my opinions based on my experiences in life. This thread has run its course and is terminally dull as there will never be a reconciliation between the two factions of society.
I presume you are a hardcore cyclist so be safe and look after yourself out there.
Last edited by yumma; 4th November 2018 at 21:21.
The OP knew what he was doing when he named it what he did. Stop killing cyclist is biased, divisive and by no means paints the bigger picture.
Thank you, & I do. Please don't take offence & it does seem to be a divisive subject.
Yes I'm a hardcore cyclist for the last 28 years. In that time I've ridden over 200,000 miles fighting for my life against drivers often intent on killing me through negligent driving or sometimes deliberately. I ride with what I can only describe as a RADAR going on in my brain, with heightened senses which is actually quite exhilirating, looking out for hazards & second guessing motorists' actions. Expecting the unexpected. Giving things a wide berth. Assuming nobody's seen me. Not putting my life in somebody else's hands. Riding defensively &, if necessary, holding traffic up until I decide it's safe for them to pass. Both for my benefit & their's. In my experience the vast majority of cyclists cycle responsibly. Maybe that's because I'm a club-based cyclist & they all do just that. If cyclists jump red lights, it's a minority. It's not something I see. However I tend not to ride in towns & cities. I've been on the scene of three cycling deaths, all caused by drivers hitting them from the rear. Also one car driver who I administered CPR to at the scene. That incident was his fault. Also a motorcyclist who rode into the back of a slow moving farm vehicle on a DC. I see the floral tributes every night on my way home from work. I'm also a motorist so can see it from both points of view. But, as I 've said before, whoever's at fault, it's usually the cyclist that ends up dead.
Drive & ride safe!
Last edited by trident-7; 4th November 2018 at 21:42.
That is the name of the cyclist advocate group ; http://stopkillingcyclists.org/
the bigger picture is that the justice system fails cyclists and pedestrians; http://www.roadpeace.org/2018/02/22/...ails-cyclists/
That was also the findings of a cross party report from MP's that was based on Police accident/collision reports, that I linked to earlier. In the overwhelming majority of cases they found it was the motorists fault.
you and others keep on about cyclists poor behaviour - but what have you got to say about the ones that were doing nothing wrong and get ploughed into from behind ? and then their relatives see derisory sentencing which is no deterrent..
With the current world population (as of today) estimated at 7.66 billion, perhaps cyclists are now Darwin's means of slowing that growth!
How does this differ from families who see their loved ones raped/ sexually assaulted/ killed and the attacker walks free or gets a ridiculous sentence?
The whole justice system is rogered as far as sentencing goes....what's your point?
So we shouldn’t try and change things?
Let’s recall how many cyclists are killed by motorists vs how many motorists and pedestrians are killed by cyclists...
Do you think this was a fair sentence ?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8447411.html
And how many cyclists put themselves in that position?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Please tell me what specifically the cyclist in the video I have posted did wrong and we can have a conversation
Ive been a strong advocate for years to get elderly pensioners off the road. My wife witnessed an horrific accident years ago where a mother and daughter were catapulted many feet in to the air at a crossing that was red. The woman in question almost lost a leg and the girl was bruised and concussed.
The driver in question held up is hands and his licence. He wasn't prosecuted,
Why is this any different just because they were on a bike?
Why was this different?
Are the cyclist waiting at a red light?
Does the driver take any evasive action?
As for holding up his hands do you mean the incident involving your wife witnessed or the chap in the video I posted?
I can’t comment on why this is different to the incident you wife viewed, can you link to a report of it to give us more information?
If you do I can give more of a substantive reply, but without I think that a motorist who’s sent pedestrians catapulted into the air at a red light and has had no more than a revocation of their licence is a poor decision. Based on the information you have given.
How did you feel when you watched the video?
Do you feel that a 18 month ban was fair, did you notice that this drive pleaded not guilty?
Last edited by Captain Morgan; 4th November 2018 at 23:52. Reason: Crap ipad
You're complaining that an elderly gent ran cyclists off the road and asked was his lack of sentence justified?
Accidents are caused everyday by all age groups involving all types of other road users with equally lenient sentencing. My question to you is why should the fact they're on bikes make any difference..... or do you simply believe that cyclist deserve the greatest protection and subsequently when they are involved in an accident should automatically command a greater sentencing?
The elderly gentleman involved in the accident my wife witnessed wasn't prosecuted and voluntarily handed over his licence as he simply didn't see them at the crossing in the sun.
Equally as lenient and not a pushbike in sight.
So you believe that lenient sentences are the right and proper thing to do?
I don’t believe that anyone wants special sentencing for cyclists, we are simply pointing out that the trend is cyclists cause the least number of accidents compared to motorists and yet when a motorist causes death of life changing injuries to a cyclist they suffer not much more than a slap on the wrist.
There was a time when
“No Dogs
No Irish
No Blacks”
Was displayed in the windows of hotels, guest houses and B&B’s in the UK but we have moved beyond this. If you really feel that there is no bias in sentencing when cyclist are involved good for you.
I’ll note that you didn’t respond to the question of how you felt when watching the video, perhaps you missed the question.
Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You... or F you, you F’ing Cyclist?
They have much the same impact.
Where did I say that lenient sentencing was the right thing to do?
To answer your question which I seemingly missed- again you add emphasis on the fact it's a cyclist involved in the video. How do I feel? Are you expecting me to say that because it's a cyclist then I have little or no emotion? My feeling watching it is no more or less than any other accident involving any other road user. Just because it's a cyclist I'm not jumping up and down. I've given you an example of where a 'slap on the wrist'was handed out to an elderly gentleman which involved him mowing down a mother and a daughter. The question is why is this any different? (my question you didn't respond to- perhaps you missed it) Why are you not calling for all forms of lenient sentencing......sorry don't hear you. Again perhaps you feel that because they're cyclist they deserve a greater slap on the wrist?
I have been trying to point out that both cyclists & pedestrians are being failed by the justice system so that would also cover the elderly driver causing the dreadful injuries that your wife witnessed..
I actually agree with your wider point about the whole justice system being not fit for purpose - but because I'm a cyclist (and driver plus full m/c licence holder), I'm focusing on cycling injuries and deaths. I was on the receiving end of a serious collision back in April, I was 100% in the right/ had 'right of way' etc yet the driver got off scot free because the Police were so p*ss poor.
That is why it has a particular relevance to me and I'm not mentioning rapes, assaults, knife crime etc etc..
Not that it makes any difference but do you happen to have any stats which show which age group of people are killing and injurying the majority of cyclist and pedestrians?
Its seems that they've chiselled the stats down to time, time of year, age groups, sex, cause, but don't mention who's doing it......do you have any links?
iI have looked but can't see anything.
You didn't, your brought up the issue of lenient sentencing as a wider concept, not I, I was simply trying to ascertain if you brought it up in a "is what it is" situation or some other.
I do accept that I could have worded my question better.
To be fair that still doesn't sound like an emotional response, it sounds more evaluative and analytical to me, perhaps it didn't elicit one?
If it didn't thats fine like intelligence, and physical ability we are all on different scales.
Calling your 3rd hand anecdote an example is a little thin. There is zero detail to it other than the woman and child were tossed in the air and the woman almost lost a leg and the man he gave up his licence.
No information on speed, conditions, attempt to avoid, pedestrian involvement, you know all the details you can get from an documented example such as the one I've put forward.
That said and for the avoidance of doubt on the surface I feel for both victims and the driver. I wonder if its left them with life changing conditions physical, mental or emotional of if they have managed to move through it.
I think the best answer to this is #410
As you brought up general lenient sentencing in the first instance, perhaps you'd like to share what you are doing to call for it to be addressed, I might learn a new trick or two and be able to help.
Could show where I have asked for incidents involving motorists and cyclists to be sentenced more harshly than those between motorists and pedestrians or cyclists and pedestrians?
I don't believe I have, I believe I have indicated that its not a level playing field and that sentencing can often be less harsh in cycle related incidents.
I'm sure you'll disregard this but again this view is backed by evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...vers-face-jail
Does it seem unfair to you that I seek parity in convictions rates and sentencing for motoring incidents involving cyclists?
At 81 the driver should never be allowed on the road ever again, or maybe only as a cyclist.
The issue of lenient sentence has always been there after all that's the reason for this thread. I merely added to that with examples of virtually every scenario in the justice system where lenient sentence also exist.....cyclist injury with pi** poor sentencing is not uncommon if you take the justice system as a whole.You didn't, your brought up the issue of lenient sentencing as a wider concept, not I, I was simply trying to ascertain if you brought it up in a "is what it is" situation or some other.
I do accept that I could have worded my question better.
To be fair that still doesn't sound like an emotional response, it sounds more evaluative and analytical to me, perhaps it didn't elicit one?
If it didn't thats fine like intelligence, and physical ability we are all on different scales.
Calling your 3rd hand anecdote an example is a little thin. There is zero detail to it other than the woman and child were tossed in the air and the woman almost lost a leg and the man he gave up his licence.
No information on speed, conditions, attempt to avoid, pedestrian involvement, you know all the details you can get from an documented example such as the one I've put forward.
That said and for the avoidance of doubt on the surface I feel for both victims and the driver. I wonder if its left them with life changing conditions physical, mental or emotional of if they have managed to move through it.
I think the best answer to this is #410
As you brought up general lenient sentencing in the first instance, perhaps you'd like to share what you are doing to call for it to be addressed, I might learn a new trick or two and be able to help.
Could show where I have asked for incidents involving motorists and cyclists to be sentenced more harshly than those between motorists and pedestrians or cyclists and pedestrians?
I don't believe I have, I believe I have indicated that its not a level playing field and that sentencing can often be less harsh in cycle related incidents.
I'm sure you'll disregard this but again this view is backed by evidence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...vers-face-jail
Does it seem unfair to you that I seek parity in convictions rates and sentencing for motoring incidents involving cyclists?
I don't really know how to answer your main question to me.....I really don't know what I'm supposed to say or what you're trying to make me say. What I will do is indulge you with an answer that I think you're after. Yes I think the accident involving the cyclist is terrible, clearly I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
HOWEVER, I'm not more or less emotionally attached about the outcome based purely on the fact it's a cyclist involved......clearly you seem to think that because it's a cyclist the outcome should have been different.
My 3rd hand anecdote so you put it was an example of lenient sentencing for which I was not involved with but my wife was. The simple fact remains that an elderly gentleman ran over a mother and her daughter at a set of traffic lights. He was 80 plus- he didn't see that the lights had changed to red or that 2 people were crossing. He ploughed in to them causing the mother to be thrown many feet in the air which caused life changing injuries, luckily the little girl was slightly behind her mother and did not take the full brunt of the impact and was thrown sideways. He wasn't prosecuted however he handed his licence over
There is no reason for you to need to know anymore info. It's an example of an accident where a motorist caused life changing injuries yet basically got away Scott free.
By asking for parity you surely need to ask the same parity for all other lenient sentencing where accidents involving motorists and other road users are concerned.....surely you understand this simple point?
The fact that you ask for this to me shows that you feel that cyclist involved accidents command a greater and more severe sentencing.
I will remind you that this thread was called " stop killing cyclist" when in essence it actually should have been called "stop killing cyclist and pedestrians" if it had it would have elicited less a response from me and would have piqued my interest a lot less.
Posting Permissions
