Fazer Owners Club - Unofficial
General => General => Topic started by: celticdog on 12 December 2016, 04:58:20 pm
-
Hello peeps can anyone help with this scenario?
The green car is going straight across a main road. the cyclist(pedal powered) is on the wrong side of the road overtaking stopped traffic.
The blue car flashes the green car to come out.
Is the green car or the red cyclist at fault if a collision occurs where the red cross is?
-
Split responsibility typically, the degree of blame for each party depends on the exact circumstance.
Car should ensure that the road is clear before pulling out, but the cyclist (or motorcyclist) should be riding in a fashion that would give him the ability to stop in time of such an eventuality - particularly given that there is a side road there.
Would greatly depend as to the manner of accident - I am assuming in this case the car has pulled out and cyclist has gone into the side?
Case law in point Leeson v Bevis Transport (1972)Worsford v Howe (1980)
-
It highlights the problem of "flashing other road users" which we all do to indicate we are giving way, but I would have thought the onus is with the green car pulling out.The blue car could be considered irresponsible if they hadn't checked their mirror for overtaking 2 wheeled traffic before flashing,which isn't an authorised procedure.
-
I would have said it would be more the green cars fault than anything. Yes, the blue car flashed them out, but this means nothing as the onus is still on the green car to check its clear before actually going out. The red car is past the line on the wrong side, but is really just filtering and giving themselves a bit more room?
Worst case split fault between bike and car, but i personally see the green car is at fault. flashing people out is a problem in itself, but the highway code is pretty clear on what flashing lights means legally (although that is rarely what its used for).
-
100% the push bike but I feel law would have a different view.
The reason I say the bike is because when you are riding a bike in traffic like that you know that kind of thing happens all the time and you should be on the look out for it and expecting it, especially when you are doing a dangerous manover like filtering on the wrong side of the road - riding like that you are asking for trouble.
Thinking about it also 100% the green car as they should be expecting a kamakasi push bike.
Whether or not flashing was involved I dont think that comes in to it as it could just as easily been a wider gap in slow traffic in which the green can pulled out in too.
And does it matter if the green car was turning left right or going straight across. ?
-
I personally think it is the Green car at fault, the bike is already on the main/through road, the green car is pulling out of a side road right across the path of the bike.
The side road has a broken demarcation line telling the driver of the green car to slow down and only proceed when it is clear to do so, he proceeded when it wasn't clear, cut his balls off. :eek
If it was a motorcyclist filtering we would have no trouble deciding who was at fault.
-
Anyway I hate green cars
LOL :lol
Anyway Celtic wasn't that a coincidence all the cars on the main road are blue? what is the chance of that happening again? :'(
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
-
The cyclist should make themselves aware of side roads and possible exiting vehicles.
Vehicles exiting roads as pictured will always have blind spots and their vehicle will stick out before the driver has clear vision.
I blame the blue car for flashing the all clear without looking for danger first. A hand out the window could've alerted the cyclist then everyone would be happy.
Seriously though, the "biker" should've been more alert on approach to a side road. The position of the bike was totally legal, just rider not paying attention.
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
You forgot the superstars with their bonnets painted black......TW@'s
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
I now have this picture in my mind of a Green BMW with no indicators and a wanker behind the wheel :car Hang on that my Brother :lol
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
The Dukes Of Hazzard drove an orange car and they were 'Just two good ole boys' :guitar
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
The Dukes Of Hazzard drove an orange car and they were 'Just two good ole boys' :guitar
:lol
-
Cyclist always wins anyway but this case I would say it's the green cars fault for pulling out; the offside of the blue car has effectively become the give way line..
[/size]
wasnt there a similar post with a fazer in place of bike and addition of zigzags. sometime last year
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
In the early 80's I had an Opel Manta Berlinetta in metallic mid green.......really loved that car.
-
100% green car. Cyclist is perfectly legally overtaking stationary traffic, even if on the wrong side of the road (assuming nothing coming the other way). Green car should only pull out if it is safe to do so. Being flashed by another car means nothing. The green car needs to take account of the bike's stopping distance, not the other way round. Presumably the pushbike is not speeding !
-
100% green car. Cyclist is perfectly legally overtaking stationary traffic, even if on the wrong side of the road (assuming nothing coming the other way). Green car should only pull out if it is safe to do so. Being flashed by another car means nothing. The green car needs to take account of the bike's stopping distance, not the other way round. Presumably the pushbike is not speeding !
Cyclist should still be paying attention to side roads, and presume someone will pull out, as you should do on a motorbike.
If they don't pull out, that's a bonus.
-
Cyclist should still be paying attention to side roads, and presume someone will pull out, as you should do on a motorbike.If they don't pull out, that's a bonus.
True, but legally they are in the right and the car is at fault. If you are on a main road you have right of way over someone pulling out of a side road, whatever the circumstances.
Highway Code para 172 Road Traffic Act Regs 10(1), 16(1) & 25
http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---road-junctions-170-to-183.html
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
In the early 80's I had an Opel Manta Berlinetta in metallic mid green.......really loved that car.
You old hasbeen you :rollin
-
Highway Code Rule 172:The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/16/made) & 25
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/25/made)
* * * * *
The driver exiting the junction is 100% at fault. It doesn't matter that the other car has stopped or flashed its lights or waved him out etc, the car pulling out is obliged by the above laws to make sure it is clear to pull out befor manoeuvring and give way to all other traffic.
Yes, it would be good for the the cyclist to ride defensively and notice that a) there's a junction, b) that there's a gap forming and c) that another vehicle could be pulling out, but these only mitigate against someone else doing something stupid and possibly protect themselves from harm, none of them are obligatory.
-
Cyclist should still be paying attention to side roads, and presume someone will pull out, as you should do on a motorbike.If they don't pull out, that's a bonus.
True, but legally they are in the right and the car is at fault. If you are on a main road you have right of way over someone pulling out of a side road, whatever the circumstances.
Highway Code para 172 Road Traffic Act Regs 10(1), 16(1) & 25
[url]http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---road-junctions-170-to-183.html[/url] ([url]http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---road-junctions-170-to-183.html[/url])
Who gives a shit about "legally"?
Legally won't matter when you're under a cars wheels!
Attention to detail is the way forward!
-
"Legally" i have the right of way as a pedestrian as soon as i put my foot on a highway, above vehicles, i have "right of way".
But, common sense says "Don't walk out in front of that 30mph bus, it'll probably hurt.....a lot."
-
Most people driving green cars a tossers - same as orange and gold ones. If I see one I am always expecting something just like I do when I cross paths with an Audi or BMW
In the early 80's I had an Opel Manta Berlinetta in metallic mid green.......really loved that car.
I had a white Opal Kadet back in the 70's, loved that to, was so quick. think it was only a 1400
-
This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. :rolleyes
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?
-
The green car is at fault.
The cyclist should have been paying more attention though.
-
Reminds me of that joke where the green driver is going for his job interview, and the cyclist turns out to be the HR manager
-
I've never had a green car, but I did have an Austin Allegro in what was known as 'shit brown'.....
-
I've never had a green car, but I did have an Austin Allegro in what was known as 'shit brown'.....
All the blue car did was tell the green car "I am letting you out" he is not welling the green car its also safe to do so. Like when a car moves over for me on the Fazer on the brow of a hill with a cross roads at the top and solid white lines on a bend.
-
This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. :rolleyes
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?
Both were at fault.
Obviously the green car shouldn't have pulled out without making sure he wouldn't obstruct other road users... someone flashing their lights doesn't alter the fact that traffic on the main road has priority. Indeed, if the green car had been driven into by the car that flashed him it would have been the driver of the green car at fault.
However... the cyclist was overtaking at a road junction (contravening Highway Code Rule 167). Yes, we all do it, particularly in big cities where there's a road junction every few dozen metres, and the wording is "DO NOT" rather than "MUST NOT", but insurers will generally go 50:50 responsibility if there is a collision of this nature.
-
Apart from the extra road opposite the car, I have this same scenario every morning coming out of the road where I live.
There's a "KEEP CLEAR" box there, and traffic lights to my left, so if I have a lorry, van or bus to my right my view is generally obscured.
Only difference is that being a biker for so long I will try and look and listen for any bikes/cyclists approaching, but in fairness sometimes I just have to nudge out until I can see for myself. I would never just pull out and turn right though.
I wouldn't be surprised if the car driver was looking left at the time as well, thinking the right side was all good, the same as pedestrians do when they walk out into the road between vehicles. That's where my air horn comes into play. :evil
-
"Legally" i have the right of way as a pedestrian as soon as i put my foot on a highway, above vehicles, i have "right of way".
A common misunderstanding.
"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass across a piece of land", ie you don't have to ask permission.
The important word is "priority". You must give priority to a pedestrian who has taken possession (ie stepped foot on) a zebra crossing. You must give priority to vehicles from the right on a roundabout etc. But if you step out into traffic and are hit by a vehicle which didn't have time to see you or stop, it's definitely not 100% their fault.
-
This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. :rolleyes
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?
OO! OO! So you can find out if the cyclist was using 'flashing lights force field' it allows cyclust to ride how and where they like regardless of other road/footpath users
-
"Legally" i have the right of way as a pedestrian as soon as i put my foot on a highway, above vehicles, i have "right of way".
A common misunderstanding.
"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass across a piece of land", ie you don't have to ask permission.
The important word is "priority". You must give priority to a pedestrian who has taken possession (ie stepped foot on) a zebra crossing. You must give priority to vehicles from the right on a roundabout etc. But if you step out into traffic and are hit by a vehicle which didn't have time to see you or stop, it's definitely not 100% their fault.
But it does still really hurt a lot when you get run over, so you're better off either not really doing it at all, or paying more attention to what's going on around you. :lol
-
This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. :rolleyes
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?
OO! OO! So you can find out if the cyclist was using 'flashing lights force field' it allows cyclust to ride how and where they like regardless of other road/footpath users
To be honest, even a reflector is better than nothing at all, which i've seen a lot recently when walking down the road.
And the culprits who don't have anything visual, tend to wear dark clothes as well, so when it's raining and your visor is full of rain droplets lit up by car headlights you don't stand a chance of seeing them.
Same applies to pedestrians who decide it would be a great idea to run across the road in front of you in bad weather, why are they always in dark clothing?
-
"Right of way" simply means the right to "pass and re-pass across a piece of land", ie you don't have to ask permission.
The important word is "priority". You must give priority to a pedestrian who has taken possession (ie stepped foot on) a zebra crossing. You must give priority to vehicles from the right on a roundabout etc. But if you step out into traffic and are hit by a vehicle which didn't have time to see you or stop, it's definitely not 100% their fault.
Right of way and priority mean nothing furthermore I never trust a traffic light of any colour, or an indicator.
-
Well I think the cyclist 100% has priority, and the blame for an accident would be placed solely on the car.
although, if a cyclist values their life in the slightest would constantly be looking for these hazards and anticipate needing to stop.
-
I've never had a green car, but I did have an Austin Allegro in what was known as 'shit brown'.....
Yeah I remember the Austin All-aggro, they did them in that horrible mustard dog shit brown colour.
-
This actually almost happened yesterday morning. I work with both fellas, the green car driver and the cyclist. A bit of an atmosphere at work to say the least. :rolleyes
Imagine the drivers surprise when he nearly fubar'd a work colleague, he was none to happy, the cyclist was a bit sheepish so I guess he accepts that he wasn't totally in the right.
The drawing is the irate green car drivers handiwork- he does have a green car funnily enough, a mk3 1974 Cortina. buit he wasn't in that at the time. So the consensus is as far as the law goes the driver is at fault not the cyclist?
Both were at fault.
Obviously the green car shouldn't have pulled out without making sure he wouldn't obstruct other road users... someone flashing their lights doesn't alter the fact that traffic on the main road has priority. Indeed, if the green car had been driven into by the car that flashed him it would have been the driver of the green car at fault.
However... the cyclist was overtaking at a road junction (contravening Highway Code Rule 167). Yes, we all do it, particularly in big cities where there's a road junction every few dozen metres, and the wording is "DO NOT" rather than "MUST NOT", but insurers will generally go 50:50 responsibility if there is a collision of this nature.
Consider the chances of the bike rider having insurance! then that has F----d that idea up. I used red in the highlight of the quote to indicate the bike colour.
-
Right of way and priority mean nothing furthermore I never trust a traffic light of any colour, or an indicator.
Priority most certainly does mean something, but you should not rely on others understanding that meaning.
-
Was talking to a 72yr old fella last night, who's just had 4 stents put in his chest, and he was saying that he recently went abroad for 20 days and they charged him £320 insurance. He travels quite a bit by the way.
BUT, if anything happened to him associated with the stents, drinking, or smoking, etc, he's not covered at all, and if was to die abroad the cost of transporting him back here isn't covered either!
Insurance is nothing short of fraud.
He kept asking what he gets for his money and they couldn't really give him a decent answer! :rolleyes
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
Yes I do completely agree. However, you would run into the problem of the kiddies riding around on there bikes and they are not going to be able to pay for in-case-shit-happens :lol (insurance), but you could simplify it by making it to be if an adult cyclist does not have in-case-shit-happens then basically no matter what the accident or fault they have no chance at all to claim.
-
Right of way and priority mean nothing furthermore I never trust a traffic light of any colour, or an indicator.
Priority most certainly does mean something, but you should not rely on others understanding that meaning.
Yes I meant means nothing to me in that - as you say to not rely on others understanding that meaning.
No cycling needs to be kept free because next it will be pedestrians
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
I've said this for a long time. Not necessarily insurance but I think there should be a CBT style test that needs to be taken every few years if you want to ride on the road, especially in the city.
I'm a little undecided on taxing them but then if you think how much money gets put into making roads safer for cyclists then maybe they should contribute?
After all they spend millions on cycle lanes etc and get nothing back where as with our bikes/cars we pay an absolute fortune in taxes and levys then get nothing on return but pot hole riddled roads covered in speed cameras!!
-
I've said this for a long time. Not necessarily insurance but I think there should be a CBT style test that needs to be taken every few years if you want to ride on the road, especially in the city.
I'm a little undecided on taxing them but then if you think how much money gets put into making roads safer for cyclists then maybe they should contribute?
After all they spend millions on cycle lanes etc and get nothing back where as with our bikes/cars we pay an absolute fortune in taxes and levys then get nothing on return but pot hole riddled roads covered in speed cameras!!
I think that you may be right about the CBT aspect but it needs to cover things just like this post is all about, I think we all agree that the biker was guilty of at least not being experienced otherwise he would of seen the gap been left and the side road and would of been fully expecting a car to be appearing having been experienced he would of slowed down and be prepared to stop.
Yes perhaps in law none it it was his fault and why should the cyclist alter his riding, BUT if he values his life then that is exactly what he needs to do, and fair enough if he has not the experience (he has now ! ) to see the danger then there is a case for someone who has to teach him.
May be they have to pay a fee for this and part of which goes into a fund to pay out in cases instead of forcing them to have insurance.
-
Was talking to a 72yr old fella last night, who's just had 4 stents put in his chest, and he was saying that he recently went abroad for 20 days and they charged him £320 insurance. He travels quite a bit by the way.
BUT, if anything happened to him associated with the stents, drinking, or smoking, etc, he's not covered at all, and if was to die abroad the cost of transporting him back here isn't covered either!
Insurance is nothing short of fraud.
He kept asking what he gets for his money and they couldn't really give him a decent answer! :rolleyes
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
The answer to your question Darrsi is yes they should have insurance, but how you police that with children on bikes? I don't know.
A little story follows about a very very BIG man. this is related in some way to, and, about Travel insurance as mentioned above.
My best mate over many many years is Terry, AKA Wild Plum. I met Terry about 48 or 49 years ago we were both bikers and lived about 15 miles apart and met up in a dance one night (Sounds a bit gay but it's not) and we ended up having a fight, anyway when I came round he shook me by the hand and bought me a pint, well if someone is going to lay you out sparko what a lovely way for the night to end having a pint or two and making the best buddy someone could ever wish for.
Reading Darrsi post reminds me of Terry's plight.
Terry ended up going through the windscreen of a Corsair after hitting a skip lorry on winters evening about 32 years ago, he was taken to Guildford hospital where the gave him pain relief basically to ease his passing, they did nothing to him at that time because there was little to no chance he would even make it through the night.
The following morning he was still in the land of the living (Hope he doesn't mind me telling this his story) they had Terry in the operating theatre for many hours.
He had 170 odd stitches in the outside of his face and head, 60 odd stitches inside his mouth and gums, he had a broken wrist and elbow, both collar bones, one ankle a shin and numerous ribs, plus some internal organ damage that I don't understand nor can I elaborate on.
When the fire brigade got him out of the mangled mess of a car the ignition key (Column mounted ignition switch) head had gone up under his knee cap and had snapped off so one of the other jobs was to remove his knee cap and retrieve the key head.
What followed was months of rebuild surgery to his gums and teeth. Terry made a 100% recovery from that ordeal and continued to work as a brickie on site earning his living.
Terry is one of those guys that refuses to let anything get him down. When he finally was able to get about again he started working on getting his pilots licence, which he did and was teaching others to fly (It must of frightened the shit out of his students when they turned up and saw Terry with his really badly scarred beat up face).
On one such lesson flying out over the south coast in a two seater Terry's student had control of the plane (Duel control) flying at around a 1000 feet just below cloud base, the plane veered off course with a violent smash as an other plane came out of the clouds and took a part of his tail plane off, he grabbed control of the plane and flew it back to the departure airfield some 20 miles away, and landed it smashing the rolling stock and underside of the plane on impact.
The ground crew said he had done the impossible flying the plane with that amount of tail missing and landing it without loss of life. One must assume the other plane was hardly damaged at all because nothing was ever heard about it nor was it reported by anyone else.
The manoeuvre that the other plane was doing was called cloud bombing, fly really high above the clouds then go into a really steep dive and dive right through the cloud base and back out into sunlight.
Terry had said that he had done it before, and its great fun like a crescendo of bright light on emerging from the clouds at an incredibly fast rate. Strictly illegal.
Terry has a Gold medal at home that very very few people see that was warded to him for courage in the face of adversity, this was awarded by the flying club.
He did what was deemed as the impossible.
Terry has since had bladder cancer twice, had 5 heart attacks and 8 stents fitted as three of them have blocked and had to be replaced.
A more positive and full of life geezer you will never meet.
There are down sides though, he just sold his 900 T140 Triumph Thruxton and the prat has bought a Harley, hence proving that there was brain damage done all those years ago in that Corsair accident.
I was sat in Terry's kitchen drinking tea a couple of years ago now and he was recounting how lucky he had been through life (If that's good luck fuck having it bad) with all the things that had happened to him, illnesses and accidents and stuff like that. He said that through his car accident ordeal Jan (His wife) had stuck by him through all the months of recovery, after his flying accident Jan was there for him and when he came around after numerous heart and balder operations there she was, he looked at her and smiled :D and said hang about she a fucking Jonas, with that a bit of battenburg cake came flying across the kitchen and we both legged it.
That man is a LEGEND and I love him to bits, he is in almost every sense of the word My Brother. I think everyone should have a Terry in their life, it makes it so much more enjoyable.
-
Compulsory CBT style training, insurance, lights on bike and bike helmet. As for kids on bikes ,letting them on public roads with no training or safety gear should not allowed. Proper training at an early age will make them safer and more aware of hazards so that they will feel encouraged to carry on cycling as an adult.
Too many cyclists seem to have tunnel vision and think it is the responsibility of every other road user to look out for them in any situation .
I also think that it is about time that some kind of visible registration number should be on every bike , difficult to do and administer maybe but some clever sod should be able to come up with something .
I also saw an article in the news this week that a cycling lobby group is trying to have the highway code changed so that when a vehicle is turning left it must give way to any cyclist that is undertaking it, in other words allow the cyclist to put themselves in a very hazardous situation and hope the driver sees them, not a good idea.
This probably reads as if I am anti cyclist but I am not, up to 5 years ago I cycled regulary but knackered knees put an end to it and I always cycled like I ride motorbikes, make myself visible , ride defensively and remember that in the event of an accident, no matter who is at fault, that it will be me who will probably get hurt most.
-
Allow them the turn left at a red light so that they are out of danger and on the straight, obviously taking care with traffic coming from the right, when I used to ride a push bike 12 miles round trip to work there were junctions where it was safer to go through a red light rather than run the gauntlet with two rows of traffic trying race to the road narrowing point, so by the time they got there I was already past the pinch.
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.
I always found it stupid that a 16yr old moped rider needs insurance ,road tax ,a licence etc but is restricted to 30 mph and no acceleration and then gets overtaken by a 14yr old on a 21speed mountain bike with no training , no insurance, licence, road tax , imo its mental and the things you see cyclists do out on the road is suicidal i.e.wearing headphones trying to go Up the inside of an HGV that's indicating left.
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.
Walking, running, skipping........ :lol
-
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/570730/Transport-Secretary-Chris-Grayling-cyclist-hit-video-London-Westminster (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/570730/Transport-Secretary-Chris-Grayling-cyclist-hit-video-London-Westminster)
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.
Walking, running, skipping........ :lol
Don't get me started on pedestrians and joggers, and what is it with bloody unicycles? Seen a guy a few times on my way to work on one, riding along the pavement, makes " normal" cyclists look safe.
-
I think it's funny that people suggest that cyclists should take a CBT style test as if it would make them better riders? ...because that works for moped riders!!! :lol :lol :lol
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
Bearing in mind they continue to dangerously jump red lights, undertake lorries and buses, and generally throw caution to the wind on a daily basis!
There is a petition going around that calls for insurance and road tax for cyclists. I'm in two minds about it. Sure they are bloody annoying especially the ones with black bikes and clothing and no lights but on the other hand it would be a shame if the last free form of transport were to disappear.
Walking, running, skipping........ :lol
Don't get me started on pedestrians and joggers, and what is it with bloody unicycles? Seen a guy a few times on my way to work on one, riding along the pavement, makes " normal" cyclists look safe.
Or i keep seeing some nutter on one of those long push bikes that you lay back on, so trucks have a better chance of mangling him.
-
I've noticed that the latest fashion is riding cycles no handed with both hands stuffed in the coat pockets.
That's brave with all the pot-holes about :eek
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
An argument that comes up many a time. Usually from drivers who don't understand that there's a difference between 100kg of cyclist and rider and 1.5 tonnes or more of car (not forgetting that it's estimated that over a million drivers on the road are uninsured).
As two-wheel users ourselves, we should be *encouraging* others to also use two wheels, doing so reduces pollution, reduces congestion, reduces the amount of space given over to car parking, reduces time lost due to ill-health etc.
Oh, and cycles were on the roads *before* the "big boys" too...
Yes, cyclists should have lights, ride responsibly, not jump red lights etc etc, but the ones who do that sort of stuff are not going to bother with getting insurance anyway because they know that there's virtually damn all chance of them getting caught without it in the first place.
-
Talking about insurance, does anyone else think that if cyclists are gonna play with the big boys on the road, shouldn't they have insurance as well?
An argument that comes up many a time. Usually from drivers who don't understand that there's a difference between 100kg of cyclist and rider and 1.5 tonnes or more of car (not forgetting that it's estimated that over a million drivers on the road are uninsured).
As two-wheel users ourselves, we should be *encouraging* others to also use two wheels, doing so reduces pollution, reduces congestion, reduces the amount of space given over to car parking, reduces time lost due to ill-health etc.
Oh, and cycles were on the roads *before* the "big boys" too...
Yes, cyclists should have lights, ride responsibly, not jump red lights etc etc, but the ones who do that sort of stuff are not going to bother with getting insurance anyway because they know that there's virtually damn all chance of them getting caught without it in the first place.
Pedestrians were on the roads/tracks way before cars so that's really a moot point to be honest, times have changed!
-
I think cyclists should really have some sort of basic insurance requirement and I dont see what sort of bearing the combined weight of cyclist + bike have on the matter either? A "100Kg cyclist+ bike" still has the ability to cause a lot of damage, not only directly through them colliding with another vehicle, but also by their actions directly causing an accident invlving multiple vehicles and then the scope of the damage becomes more apparent.
VED is a no-go though I would have thought as its based on emissions now? unless its a brussel sprout fuelled post-christmas ride, the emissions ought to be fairly low :lol
Insirance for all road users if nothing else ought to make everyone who uses the roads a bit more accountable for their actions.
-
I think cyclists should really have some sort of basic insurance requirement and I dont see what sort of bearing the combined weight of cyclist + bike have on the matter either? A "100Kg cyclist+ bike" still has the ability to cause a lot of damage, not only directly through them colliding with another vehicle, but also by their actions directly causing an accident invlving multiple vehicles and then the scope of the damage becomes more apparent.
VED is a no-go though I would have thought as its based on emissions now? unless its a brussel sprout fuelled post-christmas ride, the emissions ought to be fairly low :lol
Insirance for all road users if nothing else ought to make everyone who uses the roads a bit more accountable for their actions.
Totally agree with that , I used to be a bus driver in London ( don't hate me I always let motorcycles out !!)
And the crap I saw cyclists do in a 3 hour period one morning I counted 75 cyclists running red lights but the best one was I was in a queue at a red light and parked in a bay just before the lights in Clapham was a brand new Range Rover vogue SE and this girl on a cycle tried to ride through a gap between a lorry and the Range Rover next to it and her metal pedals caught and scraped the side of the Range Rover , she stopped looked at the damage giggled then rode off , fuck knows how much the damage cost the owner but it must have been big , reg number and insurance will make them accountable for misdemeanours as are all of us road users
-
I think cyclists should really have some sort of basic insurance requirement and I dont see what sort of bearing the combined weight of cyclist + bike have on the matter either? A "100Kg cyclist+ bike" still has the ability to cause a lot of damage, not only directly through them colliding with another vehicle, but also by their actions directly causing an accident invlving multiple vehicles and then the scope of the damage becomes more apparent.
VED is a no-go though I would have thought as its based on emissions now? unless its a brussel sprout fuelled post-christmas ride, the emissions ought to be fairly low :lol
Insirance for all road users if nothing else ought to make everyone who uses the roads a bit more accountable for their actions.
Totally agree with that , I used to be a bus driver in London ( don't hate me I always let motorcycles out !!)
And the crap I saw cyclists do in a 3 hour period one morning I counted 75 cyclists running red lights but the best one was I was in a queue at a red light and parked in a bay just before the lights in Clapham was a brand new Range Rover vogue SE and this girl on a cycle tried to ride through a gap between a lorry and the Range Rover next to it and her metal pedals caught and scraped the side of the Range Rover , she stopped looked at the damage giggled then rode off , fuck knows how much the damage cost the owner but it must have been big , reg number and insurance will make them accountable for misdemeanours as are all of us road users
When i worked in Londons Oxford Street years ago i would be out getting lunch and see at least something happen every day with a cyclist.
I think as their adrenaline levels were up it made them more carefree and also angry and quick tempered.
Red lights simply did not exist to them, and one thing that was really noticeable was that black taxi drivers absolutely hated them and would row with them at the drop of a hat, or just block their path on purpose.
-
CBT for cyclists - Something like the Cycling proficiency thing we used to do at school???
Many schools still do this though my youngest blames his lack of road skills on the fact that his school switched from doing it with yr6 students to yr5 students when he went to yr6. Stupid school decided it was too disruptive and costly to double up that year and do the yr6 students that missed out as well.
When I was younger, all cyclists over the age of about 10 rode on the road. Now very few do and the ones that do, ignore all the traffic lights etc.
-
Completely agree that training ought to be compulsory for cyclists.
Another issue is cycle lane markings at some junctions that seems intended to put cyclists in harm's way. There are several places on my route to work in W12 where a turn-off to the left has a dedicated left-only lane for traffic, but the cycle lane continues to be marked as such right up to the stop line/ASL. You then have cyclists intending to go straight on, riding up the inside of traffic turning left.
-
Completely agree that training ought to be compulsory for cyclists.
Another issue is cycle lane markings at some junctions that seems intended to put cyclists in harm's way. There are several places on my route to work in W12 where a turn-off to the left has a dedicated left-only lane for traffic, but the cycle lane continues to be marked as such right up to the stop line/ASL. You then have cyclists intending to go straight on, riding up the inside of traffic turning left.
Round here we have a separate green section covering the whole width of the lane at the lights with cars having a separate stop line further back
-
Completely agree that training ought to be compulsory for cyclists.
Another issue is cycle lane markings at some junctions that seems intended to put cyclists in harm's way. There are several places on my route to work in W12 where a turn-off to the left has a dedicated left-only lane for traffic, but the cycle lane continues to be marked as such right up to the stop line/ASL. You then have cyclists intending to go straight on, riding up the inside of traffic turning left.
Round here we have a separate green section covering the whole width of the lane at the lights with cars having a separate stop line further back
Yes, the Advanced Stop Line.
Only about 1% of cyclists get themselves into the correct position on the road for going straight on whether or not they have to wait in the green zone because they're reluctant to leave the "safety" of the cycle lane.
A solution might be to end the cycle lane 25 metres before the ASL and paint "Get In Lane" just before that point.
-
all that road tax payers money spent on road markings,junctions, special lanes and solutions on a group that pays no road tax towards it ...... that makes financial sense
I think snipers positioned strategically around major cities are the answer ..... any cyclist ignoring a light :2guns
A quick action sedative dart in the arse , stop over the line too far :2guns in fact any cycling misdemeanour
They'll all be road rule abiding cyclists in no time :lol
-
The trouble is ........... to make anything (insurance, testing etc) about cycling 'compulsory' you'd have to register every bike and/or rider. That's not going to happen, is it because of the overhead? Can you imagine the police stopping every yoof on his MBX and asking to see his licence?
Cyclists are subject to the laws of the road as much as anybody else, and if they cause damage can be sued.
I was hit by a pheasant once. Typical, no licence, no insurance ......
-
I was hit by a pheasant once. Typical, no licence, no insurance ......
Happened to me once too. I had the last laugh though... I ate the bastard. :lol
-
Yes, the Advanced Stop Line.
Only about 1% of cyclists get themselves into the correct position on the road for going straight on whether or not they have to wait in the green zone because they're reluctant to leave the "safety" of the cycle lane.
And how about all those motorists who don't know (or don't give a foc) that that Advanced Stop Line is for *CYCLES* only? Theoretically, of course, they could be fined for stopping their car in one, but, as with the cyclists who jump red lights, they know that this is very unlikely ever to happen.
What we need is better training for *ALL* road users. Ironically, it's now the bikers who actually have to have the most training...