Accident outside Primark 28/03/15

[Saz S5 10]

yea hope he is ok

[chipspice 10]

Don't worry about Penistone 999. He is a cyclist hating idiot who drives to intentionally bother and pester cyclist.

He will lose his license sooner than a cyclist will ever need one.

 

i don't know why but i always picture him looking like Jeremy Clarkson

[JFKvsNixon 11]

i don't know why but i always picture him looking like Jeremy Clarkson

 

I think that you've just made penistone999's day!

[The Joker 10]

i don't know why but i always picture him looking like Jeremy Clarkson

 

The gleaming white teeth, or the sophisticated taste in clothing?

[Tommo68 10]

Some of them are un teachable, solid like a rock, that is the way they are and there is nothing that can be done about it no matter how hard you try.

 

You may well be right but with no requirement to pass a proficiency test before embarking on the public highway very few pedal cyclists undertake any professional training in the first place.

 

And with no need for insurance or indeed much need for accountablity with them being fairly anonymous, having no registration number, many feel they do not need to bother with instruction or training that could save both their lives and those of other people as it not compulsory.

.

.

.

[dutch 68]

I have always said that for a northern EU country UK development of cycling lanes and its comical cycling philosophy is rather like some Monty python way of getting it done.

Why not build proper cycling lanes separated from motorised lanes and even start using special cycle traffic lights to keep cyclist separated from dangerous motorised movements?

[Eater Sundae 12]

You may well be right but with no requirement to pass a proficiency test before embarking on the public highway very few pedal cyclists undertake any professional training in the first place.

 

And with no need for insurance or indeed much need for accountablity with them being fairly anonymous, having no registration number, many feel they do not need to bother with instruction or training that could save both their lives and those of other people as it not compulsory.

.

.

.

 

Which other people? How many are there?

[Cyclone 10]

You may well be right but with no requirement to pass a proficiency test before embarking on the public highway very few pedal cyclists undertake any professional training in the first place.

You have some proof of the numbers I assume?

 

And with no need for insurance or indeed much need for accountablity with them being fairly anonymous, having no registration number, many feel they do not need to bother with instruction or training that could save both their lives and those of other people as it not compulsory.

Again, you can prove what "many" cyclists feel can you? And of course you can also show that cyclists at fault incidents are a common cause of cyclist and others deaths?

 

Somehow I doubt that you have any evidence for either of these assertions.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2015 at 08:46 ----------

 

Pedestrians are not on the road like bikers are so dont be daft / they use the cause way. :hihi:

 

Except when there is no pavement, or when they cross the road.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2015 at 08:48 ----------

 

Originally Posted by Cyclone

 

You'd rather kill someone than pay for a little bit more training

 

If the activities indulged in by others require me in order to improve their safety by taking more, (in my view unnecessray) training the the very least they can do is pay for that training and compensate me well for my time.

 

If a bungee jumper, a hang glider or other extreme activities does get hurt do the rest of us lose any sleep over it? If they die we can empathise with the families of these people but do we really care about the person who died.. of course not. These are recognised dangerous activities that some people (arguably sometimes selfishly) indulge in. What is unfair is when their activities put other people at risk. The same can be said for riding a pedal cycle on the road.

 

There are in some cases for some dangerous activities legislation in place the purpose of which is primarily to protect the public and minimise costs to the state. The same should be true of pedal cycling.

.

.

 

If you run into a hang glider who unexpectedly swoops in front of you, then I don't think many people would blame you for it.

The fact is that most cyclists who are killed or injured are not in the wrong though and that's why you, and other motorists, need more training. You don't drive safely, you are dangerous around cyclists and YOU put them at risk, they don't put themselves at risk.

[Timeh 10]

If you run into a hang glider who unexpectedly swoops in front of you, then I don't think many people would blame you for it.

The fact is that most cyclists who are killed or injured are not in the wrong though and that's why you, and other motorists, need more training. You don't drive safely, you are dangerous around cyclists and YOU put them at risk, they don't put themselves at risk.

 

Can you link to this please?

[Cyclone 10]

Certainly;

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

 

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

 

The findings appear to contradict a spate of recent reports speculating that risky behaviour by riders, such as listening to music players while cycling, could be behind a near 20% rise in cyclist deaths and serious injuries in the second quarter of this year.

 

The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2015 at 09:20 ----------

 

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.

 

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

 

I think this supports the idea that drivers need more training, not cyclists. Who are of course acutely aware of their own vulnerability and unlikely (in the majority of cases) to put themselves into danger deliberately.

[dutch 68]

Someone told me about a cyclist killed by a drunk driver last year.

 

Do cyclists need a license or do we need to ban alcohol to solve that problem?

[Timeh 10]

Certainly;

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

 

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2015 at 09:20 ----------

 

 

I think this supports the idea that drivers need more training, not cyclists. Who are of course acutely aware of their own vulnerability and unlikely (in the majority of cases) to put themselves into danger deliberately.

No, you cheery picked that report and even in the link you provided it states its contradictory to other reports.