Cyclists going through red lights. Localised colour blindness?

[chakademus 10]

Really?

 

The average person walks around 3mph, same average person will run between 7-10mph (average lowers over increasing distance due to fatigue)

 

The average person does not have a tubular steel frame attached to them, the average cyclist does and travels on average around 20mph (so double the pedestrian) and can be travelling upto 30mph.

 

A cyclist hitting a pedestrian at the average speed of 20mph is going to do MORE damage than a pedestrian travelling even at average running speed.

 

Don't agree? Well let's run an experiment. I'll need your participation.

 

My testing method will be as follows:

 

You will stand in front of me and I will swing my bare fist at your right chest area.

 

We'll have the damage assessed by a medical professional

 

Then I will swing a steel pole at your left chest area and again have the damage assessed.

 

My expected conclusion, based on REALITY and PHYSICS will be that the steel pole will come out on top of the damage stakes.

 

You in?

 

Well said. Criminal laws cover willful damage to property anyway.

[Becky B 31]

Don't mean to be argumentative but did someone just say pedestrians should have insurance!!???

Surely cyclists who think road laws don't apply to them (running red lights etc) should have a form of insurance / tax. A competency test??

 

How would that help? Motorists who have insurance/tax and a competency test still think the laws don't apply to them and disregard them if the choose...

[spider1 11]

What by walking along a path or across a road. You do realize the primary motive of pedestrian is not to fling oneself into oncoming traffic?

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 12:04 ----------

 

 

Exactly. Zero responsibility. Gold star this man.

 

LOOK . Everybody knows cyclists should have insurance its common sense but its goverment policy to encourage them on the road so not going to happen end off

[chakademus 10]

How would that help? Motorists who have insurance/tax and a competency test still think the laws don't apply to them and disregard them if the choose...

 

Yeah & there's severe penalties.

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 12:22 ----------

 

LOOK . Everybody knows cyclists should have insurance its common sense but its goverment policy to encourage them on the road so not going to happen end off

 

It's dangerous on busy roads. The government is putting cyclists in danger.

[ads36 217]

You will stand in front of me and I will swing my bare fist at your right chest area.

 

too right, pedestrians should be fitted with number plates, so that they can be identified when they assault someone.

 

(if this is going to get silly, let's do it properly)

 

or,

 

we could look at places like London, The Netherlands, or Denmark, to see what happens when you give people safe cycle routes.

 

(no helmets, number plates, training or insurance required)

 

i can only assume that the anti-cycling lot just love sitting in traffic queues.

 

cycle routes are really cheap, small, and have massive transport capacity:

 

Crossraill has cost £15billion quid, and will be able to move something like 20,000 people per hour.

 

CS9 (a cycle route) will cost about £70million, and has the potential to (nearly) match the capacity of crossrail, with the added benefits of exercise, personal freedom for the young and old, and releasing money for the local economy.

Edited August 21, 2018 by ads36

[Bargepole23 337]

Well said. Criminal laws cover willful damage to property anyway.

 

A pedestrian steps off the pavement, without looking, into the path of cyclist. The cyclist is seriously injured and his or her bike is damaged.

 

That's quite a significant claim against the pedestrian. The pedestrian should be insured for such an event, no? How do we identify the pedestrian, they aren't wearing a licence plate?

 

Tell me how this is different to a cyclist running into a car.

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 12:54 ----------

 

If cyclists dont need insurance or road tax i cant any reason they cant go through lights at

red . What are they going to be done for jay walking

 

What does this even mean?

[chakademus 10]

A pedestrian steps off the pavement, without looking, into the path of cyclist. The cyclist is seriously injured and his or her bike is damaged.

 

That's quite a significant claim against the pedestrian. The pedestrian should be insured for such an event, no? How do we identify the pedestrian, they aren't wearing a licence plate?

 

Tell me how this is different to a cyclist running into a car.

 

The pedestrian isn't a road user in same way as a cyclist or motorist. To lump them all in same liability bracket is foolish. Unless we are saying pedestrians run down road in flow of traffic?

Edited August 21, 2018 by chakademus
Edit

[ads36 217]

Unless we are saying pedestrians run down road in flow of traffic?

 

yes, pedestrians are allowed to walk in the road.

 

(often there is no choice/pavement)

Edited August 21, 2018 by ads36

[chakademus 10]

pedestrians are allowed to use the road, correct.

 

(often there is no choice/pavement)

 

Not in same way as cyclists / motorists. Go observe a road & see.

[Cyclone 10]

Perhaps you've confused "allowed to" with "do".

 

I run on the road, up Stockarth Lane for example there is no pavement. I expect cars to avoid running me over whilst I do that and even to wait if they can't pass me safely whilst something comes the other way.

Speaking of which, another extremely dangerous overtake by a young woman in a small older car (IMO the most dangerous class of driver) today here;

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3955014,-1.4891919,3a,60y,249.52h,74.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5IBFVNctxwY_uNT30udcUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Overtook me with inches to spare about 2 feet into the section with a central reservation.

But of course it's the cyclists who are a danger, not the drivers flinging around 2 tons of metal without a care for anyone else.

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 16:55 ----------

 

LOOK . Everybody knows cyclists should have insurance its common sense but its goverment policy to encourage them on the road so not going to happen end off

 

LOOK, hardly anyone thinks that cyclists should have insurance. Only a few blowhard motorists who think they should own the road and are upset that they don't. It's definitely not going to happen though, you got that right.

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 16:56 ----------

 

 

It's dangerous on busy roads. The government is putting cyclists in danger.

 

Are you actually trying to claim that insurance would make cyclists safer?

[chakademus 10]

Are you actually trying to claim that insurance would make cyclists safer?

 

A mandatory test, tax & insurance & restriction on certain roads would make it safer for cyclists & other road users they are potentially endangering.

Why do you think it wouldn't?

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 17:03 ----------

 

Do you think car drivers are safer or less safe with measures in place?

[Cyclone 10]

Tax and insurance don't make anything safer for anyone, quite clearly they have no impact on safety.

What would make it safer for cyclists would be a crackdown on dangerous motorists.