Cyclist vs Landrover

[onewheeldave 22]

Take the soapbox elsewhere your records is stuck.

 

No. I'll say what I want. For those not wanting to listen, the appropriate action would be to not read my posts. Other than that, you're stuck with it.

 

This is about correcting a system which is causing unnecessary deaths and suffering, yet because it's 'the way things are' many are blind to the facts.

 

Another neurotypical trait I'm now very ware of since being diagnosed as aspergic- they have an almost hawk-like ability to spot potential flaws in proposed solutions, whilst remaining utterly blind to the vast number of existing problems in the existing systems that they're used to.

 

Our road/motor vehicle system is riddled with gross flaws and is the cause of much death, even just directly (cyclists/pedestrians killed). When the effect on national health is figured in, the cull is appalling.

 

So, I will continue to speak of it. Until it goes away.

[Obelix 11]

 

This is about correcting a system which is causing unnecessary deaths and suffering, .

 

Simple answer to that is don't run a red light and don't cycle on an unsafe machine.

 

It doesnt demand anything more complicated than that... I'm sorry you cannot see past your blinkers to that.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 11:01 ----------

 

So, I will continue to speak of it. Until it goes away.

 

And while you bleat on with the needle stuck proposing expensive "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist, you wont get any further and people will ignore you. Your choice.

[RootsBooster 24]

Don't be down about it Obelix- was clearly the cyclists fault.

 

Sadly, it often happens the other way round, and, despite it being the fault of the driver not looking, in those cases it's generally-

 

Car scratched, cyclist maimed/killed

 

That's the fundamental inequality of our current road system

 

So to equalise it, would you have bikes made bigger/heavier/harder or cars made out of cardboard?

(false dichotomy, I know)

[mattleonard 10]

A cyclist dressed in black, no lights, in the dark? On the road? Really?

 

I've seen this on a number of occasions. So I find it quite credible.

[onewheeldave 22]

So to equalise it, would you have bikes made bigger/heavier/harder or cars made out of cardboard?

(false dichotomy, I know)

 

Well, you've asked so

 

1. wouldn't alter bikes- they're now evolved to be the perfect form of short-medium distance transport. They're not flimsy in the slightest- (as long as they've not being crashed into by 2 tonnes of motorised metal driven by a blind obese ape), they're exactly the right compromise of sturdiness and lightness.

 

2. alter the road system- start to move cars out of residential areas so they do what they're suited for- long distance travel on big roads. On small roads in residential areas, give priority to bikes (obviously, this is a long term goal)

 

3. Any time a car kills/maims a cyclist, a full on investigation to establish the facts. If driver not to blame, he/she walks away scot free. If they're found to be at fault, a prison term and lifetime ban from driving.

 

4. any driver filmed using a mobile(illegally, while driving)- long ban from driving. Repeat offence- lifetime ban

 

5. Just as with the VERY successful approach to smoking, a ban on advertising of motor vehicles, combined with heavy promotion of cycling from primary schools upwards, with the facts about cars negative effects on public health a big part of it.

 

6. financial incentives for anyone choosing to cycle to work.

 

That's off the top of my end- I think you can see the general direction?

Edited January 5, 2015 by onewheeldave

[Cyclone 10]

Wow I see this tread has gone down the usual path, tit for tatting.

 

Now we are saying that everyone who doesn't cycle is obese...

 

WE aren't saying that. Only one person said that.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 13:20 ----------

 

If I run into a bicycle I dont think I'll damage it much.

 

If I run into a car I don't think I'll damage it much.

 

If either of them run into me I'll be severly injured or killed.

 

Yet I don't bleat on about the "fundamental inequality of our current road system". Take the soapbox elsewhere your records is stuck.

 

In most places you're likely to go you have a dedicated section for you. Cyclists don't always get that, and when they do it's often badly designed or dangerous in other ways.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 13:21 ----------

 

So to equalise it, would you have bikes made bigger/heavier/harder or cars made out of cardboard?

(false dichotomy, I know)

 

Bigger, heavier or harder bikes would do nothing to protect cyclists.

[convert 10]

Well, you've asked so

 

1. wouldn't alter bikes- they're now evolved to be the perfect form of short-medium distance transport. They're not flimsy in the slightest- (as long as they've not being crashed into by 2 tonnes of motorised metal driven by a blind obese ape), they're exactly the right compromise of sturdiness and lightness.

 

2. alter the road system- start to move cars out of residential areas so they do what they're suited for- long distance travel on big roads. On small roads in residential areas, give priority to bikes (obviously, this is a long term goal)

 

3. Any time a car kills/maims a cyclist, a full on investigation to establish the facts. If driver not to blame, he/she walks away scot free. If they're found to be at fault, a prison term and lifetime ban from driving.

 

4. any driver filmed using a mobile(illegally, while driving)- long ban from driving. Repeat offence- lifetime ban

 

5. Just as with the VERY successful approach to smoking, a ban on advertising of motor vehicles, combined with heavy promotion of cycling from primary schools upwards, with the facts about cars negative effects on public health a big part of it.

 

6. financial incentives for anyone choosing to cycle to work.

 

That's off the top of my end- I think you can see the general direction?

 

How about

 

7. any cyclist filmed running a red light - long ban from cycling. Repeat offence - lifetime ban ?

[Obelix 11]

 

In most places you're likely to go you have a dedicated section for you.

 

Er no - Apart from a motorway there are no dedicated roads for combustion vehicles. I have to share them all with horses, pedestrians, agricultural tractors, red deer, badgers, next doors cats, the occassional steam roller from the enthusiast at the end of the lane and a fairly large number of cyclists.

[mattleonard 10]

Might be worth checking that, if you are interested in being visible.

 

 

 

I was proposing the bike lights idea for those who were concerned about their trailer not being that visible from the side.

 

Putting flashing bike lights on it would actually completely solve that issue, and, being simple, would constitute a simple solution.

 

Your 'people not running red lights...', in contrast, relies on large numbers of other human beings suddenly changing their behaviour. History shows that this just doesn't happen.

 

And, the lack of a proposed causal connection between 1. the decision made by the trailer owner to tackle the issue, and, 2. the minds of all those other human beings involved, in your 'solution' is a huge problem.

 

That problem could only be addressed by some form of communication e.g. a mass media information broadcast, which, would also be weak as a solution, due to the inevitable less than 100% uptake, and, even if it looked feasible, would certainly not be 'simple'.

 

So, for those reasons, I'm actually going to quibble strongly with your statement and say that the simple solution is to put some pound shop lights down the side (as opposed to trying to make people stop running reds).

 

Given that you keep telling us that your condition gives you enhanced logical powers, your post is a complete load of nonsense. According to you, the OP adding illegal lights to his trailer would "completely solve the problem", yet the cyclist riding sensibly and legally fails to be effective because it doesn't involve a mass marketing campaign which successfully convinces every person who currently uses a bike in a foolish manner to change their ways.

 

What about all the other reasonable trailer owners who haven't followed your suggestion and lit up their trailers according to your specifications? Because it sounds from your refutal of others' advice that cyclists don't behave in an dangerous antisocial manner as if only a blanket solution that stops all future occurrences of collisions between cyclists and trailers is one that should be considered. Why is your solution so wonderful when all you've done is (failed to) convince one trailer owner and not the nation(/world)wide trailer owning population.

 

What if the OP does go and spend money on more lights to make his clearly visible trailer more clearly visible - and the cyclist still doesn't see him, or chooses to behave recklessly regardless? Should the trailer owner then cover the trailer in lava lamps and fairy lights? It really seems to me as if someone should come up with some kind of definition of what is a reasonable level of lighting that a driver should have on their trailer, and then maybe codify it into law. Oh hang on, they have.

 

A much better approach would be for the cyclist to make sure that their bike is well lit, and for them to not run red lights. That would be one small but significant step towards the roads being safer.

 

Another step would be for others to not peddle twaddle about running red lights being safer.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 13:43 ----------

 

6. financial incentives for anyone choosing to cycle to work.

 

These are already in place, on top of the obvious intrinsic ones.

Edited January 5, 2015 by mattleonard

[Obelix 11]

How about

 

7. any cyclist filmed running a red light - long ban from cycling. Repeat offence - lifetime ban ?

 

Oh come on, everyone knows all cyclists are perfect and can choose which red lights to run safely. I mean that was demonstrated when one chose to run a red light and went safely under my trailer and folded up his Meriva until it was about the same size as a Brompton....

[denlin 12]

You're right, cyclists should sort out their failings.

 

Fortunately, the consequences of a cyclists failings tend to not be that serious for anyone else- in contrast, the failings of our road policies and failings of irresponsible drivers, are, frequently, fatal for cyclists.

 

But the usual reason for accidents involving cycles is cyclists running red lights. why is that the fault of the road policies or irresponsible drivers? For your information the rules of the road should apply to EVERYBODY and that includes cyclists. I wish I had a pound for every cyclist I have seen at the Ecclesfield wood bottom nipping round the inside of a red traffic light because they don't see why they should have to wait for green. Also when I used to cycle and it's not that long ago we didn't have CYCLE lanes everywhere including places where pedestrians have less rights on the footpaths than cyclists. I cite the area outside Morrisons at Ecclesfield as an example

[ubermaus 10]

Ubermaus- I'd suggest putting your hands up to making a statement that could be interpreted as absolute, point out that what you meant was that many more car drivers, proportionally, are overweight/obese whereas very few cyclists are.

 

Then remind everyone that it's a scientifically established fact, backed up by many, many studies, that cycling is very effective at preventing obesity (and thus, all the chronic diseases associated with it i.e. heart disease, diabetes etc, that are epidemic in our car obsessed culture).

 

There, you said it.

I was interpreting your post in context.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 14:17 ----------

 

In that case you appear to struggle to express what you mean in the written form.

You made an absolute statement, and now you say you didn't... But it's still there;

 

 

 

What do you really mean, if not what you wrote here?

 

There you go again. Stirring up trouble. It wasnt an absolute statement. Like several of my posts youve cut a quote down to suit own needs.