Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:11 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:19 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
I was jumping up and down when I first heard/read them, and every time some tw@t in a tin box puts my life in danger. However, when the system doesn't enforce their own rules, what can we do? Get our knickers in a twist and die of a coronary?

More people are cycling once a week in the UK than before, but still bike shops struggle, and car drivers kill with impunity

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10113094.Wimborne_cyclist_killed_in_Southampton_crash/
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:22 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Posts: 2186
Location: Shrewsbury
B77 wrote:
Robbied196 wrote:
An interesting letter Mr. Pratt, but I wouldn't want him round for Christmas :roll:


So much for goodwill to all men at this time of year then, real spirit of christmas stuff there. :lol:


:lol: You ave him then :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:31 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:08 am
Posts: 847
Location: French Alps/Annecy
Robbied196 wrote:
B77 wrote:
Robbied196 wrote:
An interesting letter Mr. Pratt, but I wouldn't want him round for Christmas :roll:


So much for goodwill to all men at this time of year then, real spirit of christmas stuff there. :lol:


:lol: You ave him then :lol:


:lol: :lol:




No chance




.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:43 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Posts: 2186
Location: Shrewsbury
B77 wrote:
:lol: :lol:




No chance



Salvation Army soup kitchen for him then :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:31 pm 
King of the DuckBoard
King of the DuckBoard

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:30 pm
Posts: 21466
Quote:
minority who fail to apply certain rules, such as red lights.

I'd say most do. Certainly in London & South East.



''Pyro Tim wrote:

I agree our system is f**ked up, but it's not the only one. The car is king for some reason''

The car is king. Far better than to cycle. The day my lotto numbers come up i'll be off to buy a collection of fast cars. Then i will like many on here drive to meets and cycle. Rather than pissing about on trains.
China showed which is best. When poor they had to cycle now they have more cars than the West.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:55 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
Robbied196 wrote:
I don't see his point about being failed by the British Judicial System.


Perhaps you should read it again ;)

Robbied196 wrote:
Road safety is the responsibility of each and every road user. All road use has an element of risk, generally more so for pedestrians and cyclists, but also for motorcyclists, car and lorry drivers.


Of course. But given the huge disparity in the potential consequences for pedestrians and cyclists compared to car and lorry drivers, the latter ought to bear the greater responsibility. It's pretty hard for a cyclist to seriously injure a motorist. When drivers cause serious injuries or deaths and suffer essentially no consequences for themselves, the message is that you don't need to take any responsibility at all. So people don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:56 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:08 pm
Posts: 2186
Location: Shrewsbury
MikeD wrote:
Robbied196 wrote:
I don't see his point about being failed by the British Judicial System.


Perhaps you should read it again ;)

Robbied196 wrote:
Road safety is the responsibility of each and every road user. All road use has an element of risk, generally more so for pedestrians and cyclists, but also for motorcyclists, car and lorry drivers.


Of course. But given the huge disparity in the potential consequences for pedestrians and cyclists compared to car and lorry drivers, the latter ought to bear the greater responsibility. It's pretty hard for a cyclist to seriously injure a motorist. When drivers cause serious injuries or deaths and suffer essentially no consequences for themselves, the message is that you don't need to take any responsibility at all. So people don't.


:) I read his following letter as well http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=593

The simple fact is that no matter how many laws or rules you choose to introduce and enforce you will always have a percentage of idiots on the road. I agree an idiot in a car is far more dangerous than an idiot on a bike but as long as they use the same space, there will be accidents.

I'm a car driver, motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian. By choice, I won't use my motorbike on motorways or duel carriageways, I've had way to many idiots drift out in front of me. We've had motorcycle safety campaigns for decades, the statistics stay broadly the same.

By bike I avoid all busy roads even if it means a detour. Even doing that doesn't mean you can't meet Mr or Mrs Stupid, but it reduces the risk. Reducing the risk is personal choice, with ever increasing volumes of traffic, to expect Judicial System to reduce the risk is somewhat naive.

Lock up motorists for dangerous driving, but it will still happen again tomorrow. More legislation is the cart before the horse, because there will always be an element flouting the law. No law will protect a cyclist riding through London at night surrounded by tin cans trying to get home. You look at the statistics and you decide if you're prepared to take that risk. Its down to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:08 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:12 am
Posts: 680
Location: Anglesey
tintin40 wrote:
The car is king. Far better than to cycle. The day my lotto numbers come up i'll be off to buy a collection of fast cars. Then i will like many on here drive to meets and cycle. Rather than pissing about on trains.


As would I, and possibly many others here. But we'd be driving those fast cars with care and responsibility, and wouldn't expect complete immunity from wounding or killing other road users, which is the whole point being made here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:35 am 
Two Fat Ladies

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 88
Location: West Mids
I choose to cycle to work whenever possible, when it's not (when the roads are too icy) I get public transport. We now only have 1 car because of a lifestyle choice. I ride becasue it's faster, I get fitter, and feel much better for it during the day/week. The road system did not originate for motorists, and it is a shared space for all occupents, and therefore we all have a collective duty to look after each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:14 pm 
Dirt Disciple

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:42 am
Posts: 12
Hello. Author here :)

Robbied196 wrote:
Far better to accept personal responsibility and be aware of our own and others safety than to expect to be protected by the Judicial System.


I fully agree. Cyclists should be responsible and competent and law-abiding road users.

I am a great believer in the idea that you make your own luck, and that it's possible to anticipate a lot of dangerous events before they become incidents.

But not all.

Mary Bowers was in a legitimate part of the road, fully visible to the driver behind, waiting at the lights, and the vehicle drove straight over her from behind because the driver didn't look and wasn't giving his attention to the road.

Elizabeth Brown was killed because she was hit from behind by a driver who was tailgating another vehicle. Even his defence lawyers said she was blameless.

Tim Sanders was killed by a motorist who hit him from behind whilst on the phone.

There are many, many cases like this. In all of these cases, the victim was doing nothing wrong and was entirely law-abiding and responsible. (Indeed, if Mary Bowers had jumped the red light she would have avoided the incident.)

In the first case, a small fine was given. In the second, the driver was acquitted. In the third, no charge was even made, despite the driver fleeing the scene and - as far as I can ascertain - the witness doing nothing to help.

There are two arguments to be made.

One is that the law does not recognise the massive difference in kinetic energy and corresponding potential danger between a bicycle and a car or other, larger motorised vehicle. I can understand why you might be comfortable, if you focus on equality of legislation rather than equality of protection. I disagree, but there are valid points on either side and both positions are tenable.

But the second is that where a vulnerable user does absolutely nothing wrong and is injured or killed by someone driving into them, the law fails them. To a sickening degree. I think that to argue that this is acceptable is not a tenable position.

Personally, I am broadly comfortable with risks that occur in front of me. I consider myself a responsible and diligent (and experienced) road user.

But some dangers, notably those that approach at speed from behind, are entirely outside my control. My - and your - only protections are the good intentions and aptitude and alertness of the driver behind. And my problem is that the law falls way short of reinforcing that fact in the minds of less vulnerable road users.

That is the issue that I would like addressed.

A couple of analagous questions for you: If someone wanders through a city late at night and is mugged or stabbed, do we just say they knew the risks and do nothing more? If a woman goes out for a drink in the evening, meets a man and is raped, do we just say they knew the risks and do nothing more?

So if a cyclist rides along a road and is mown down from behind by a car, so we just say they knew the risks and do nothing more?

I hope we can at least agree on the answers to those questions.

And I'm sorted for Christmas, but thanks ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Heritage, mattbrown, MCsanandreas, Paul R, technodup, tiboltrider and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group