ferno Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Most motorists would not even bother to question a cyclist about compensation. Not plucking facts out of thin air, are you? Most people are aware household insurance carries a liability clause to cover any claims made against you. You didn't know this, and now you're claiming to speak for "most drivers"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You have a recorded example? Knock yourself out. Cyclists can ride drunk, don't need insurance and can even kill without prosecution. But lycra louts should not be above the law. As soon as I put my foot into the road, I was hit with amazing force by a bicycle which, I was later told, was travelling at between 20mph and 30mph. I fell to the ground, smashing my head on the tarmac. As I lay there, stunned, I heard a youthful voice say: ‘Are you OK?’ I just managed to reply, ‘I think so’ before the cyclist vanished at great speed. I vaguely remember seeing a helmet and he seemed to be listening to music on headphones. As it stands, cyclists seem to be able to get away with almost anything. Unlike car drivers, cyclists can ride while talking on their mobile phones, while over the drink-drive limit and ignore the speed limit. These laws apply only to the drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists can’t be charged with causing death by careless or dangerous driving. Nobody is calling for a punitive crackdown on cyclists. We want the roads not to be a battleground, but to be safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike. Surely the law should be equitable, whether the victim is a cyclist killed by a lorry or a pedestrian killed by a bike. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1377653/Cyclists-law.html#ixzz1ljW4nvw6 Until we have a level playing field and ALL people using the roads are judged equally, we will have resentment by those who feel the full force of the law while others can ignore it and are immune to the consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irenewilde Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Single file all the way. Why hold the traffic up for no good reason ? when I go on the push iron with the kids we stay in single file and it hurts us not. It's uncomfortable any way peddling along knowing that there is a line of traffic waiting behind you waiting to take a risk by swinging out into the middle of the road to get by you. Pull over people let them pass ! I wish you were up on Ringinglow Road/Sheephill Road/Long Line where there seems to be frequent cycling races/events where they feel obliged to ride not only two abreast but in several big clumps. Particularly tricky when they're going uphill and they're *really* slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Knock yourself out. Do you think drivers should be held liable if a pedestrian steps into the road without looking, like in your link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshuga Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Until we have a level playing field and ALL people using the roads are judged equally, we will have resentment by those who feel the full force of the law while others can ignore it and are immune to the consequence. I couldn't agree more "[in 2010] there were over 2,057 fatal crashes but only 504 prosecutions for causing death by careless, dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Only around a third of deaths which involved at least two vehicles or a pedestrian are dealt with by an appropriate charge. This means that around 1,000 drivers who were involved in the death of another road user were either not charged, or were only charged with a lesser offence." Source http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=0&ItemID=642&mid=13641 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 No they shouldn't. Stay in single file they should stay off the bloody road, absolute nuisance they are, dont give a toss about people in cars, you hit them they win the lottery, claim claim claim ,pay £140 road tax like my hubby has to then fine take your chances, dont pay road tax keep the hell off, as for highway code they havent a clue, thats why us drivers have a test, wheres theirs? May I politely suggest you spend a little time on educating yourself on how the road system in the UK is funded? Perhaps a little refresher on the highway code too? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotPhil Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 May I politely suggest you spend a little time on educating yourself on how the road system in the UK is funded? Perhaps a little refresher on the highway code too? Thank you. Indeed. And to help out a bit, no one has to pay "road tax" road tax, you can avoid it by not owning a taxable vehicle. Harri73 will also find that many cyclists in the city do pay their "road tax" - on the vehicle they've left at home because it's quicker, easier, cheaper and healthier to get into town on their bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Knock yourself out. Cyclists can ride drunk, don't need insurance and can even kill without prosecution. But lycra louts should not be above the law. As soon as I put my foot into the road, I was hit with amazing force by a bicycle which, I was later told, was travelling at between 20mph and 30mph. I fell to the ground, smashing my head on the tarmac. As I lay there, stunned, I heard a youthful voice say: ‘Are you OK?’ I just managed to reply, ‘I think so’ before the cyclist vanished at great speed. I vaguely remember seeing a helmet and he seemed to be listening to music on headphones. As it stands, cyclists seem to be able to get away with almost anything. Unlike car drivers, cyclists can ride while talking on their mobile phones, while over the drink-drive limit and ignore the speed limit. These laws apply only to the drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists can’t be charged with causing death by careless or dangerous driving. Nobody is calling for a punitive crackdown on cyclists. We want the roads not to be a battleground, but to be safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike. Surely the law should be equitable, whether the victim is a cyclist killed by a lorry or a pedestrian killed by a bike. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1377653/Cyclists-law.html#ixzz1ljW4nvw6 Until we have a level playing field and ALL people using the roads are judged equally, we will have resentment by those who feel the full force of the law while others can ignore it and are immune to the consequence. So you want pedestrians, horses and little kids on bikes to require MOTs, (free) tax discs and (nearly free) insurance. All to combat the menace of a handful of accidents a year. It's worth noting in your example that the pedestrian stepped into the road. And also worth wondering how this cyclists doing 20 mph didn't end up on the floor themselves! Nobody on a bike will willingly run into something, it's as likely to hurt the cyclist as the person run into. Cycling whilst drunk is an offence though, you're wrong about that as you are about so many things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Until we have a level playing field and ALL people using the roads are judged equally, we will have resentment by those who feel the full force of the law while others can ignore it and are immune to the consequence.We won't have a level playing field while we all have the right to use the highway, but need to prove competence (at some level) to use a motorised vehicle on said highways. I don't think you've thought through the consequences of a level playing field here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Knock yourself out. Cyclists can ride drunk, don't need insurance and can even kill without prosecution. But lycra louts should not be above the law. Indeed, but when at fault they are prosecuted. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/719063-cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law ... As it stands, cyclists seem to be able to get away with almost anything. Unlike car drivers, cyclists can ride while talking on their mobile phones, while over the drink-drive limit and ignore the speed limit. These laws apply only to the drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists can’t be charged with causing death by careless or dangerous driving. But they can be charged with the 19th Century offence of wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm. Given that on average only 3 people are killed per year by cyclists I don't see that there is any real need for new laws. Nobody is calling for a punitive crackdown on cyclists. We want the roads not to be a battleground, but to be safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike. Surely the law should be equitable, whether the victim is a cyclist killed by a lorry or a pedestrian killed by a bike. The law is equitable. Glad that's sorted. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts