Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:08 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:11 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
But then most car drivers aren't enthusiasts either. A car is just a tool to them to which thy never give a second thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:19 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
which is the problem. A bloke on a bike is unlikely to hurt anyone but themselves. A car is a lethal weapon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:04 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
Ah, that's ok then. Because a car is a tonne plus of kinetic weapon cyclists can ride like utter tools (and the bulk of them do) with impunity because they aren't such a deadly risk to others.

Whoever causes a collision/incident/crash is at fault and potentially liable to legal action, either criminal or civil regardless of whether their vehicle has an engine or a roof . That's how it is now, and how it should be. Arguing that I should automatically be at fault because I'm in he car that day because I needed to ferry a weeks worth of uniform and kit to work is utterly preposterous. We're lawfully defined by our actions, not by which seat our arses just happen to be it at any one moment in time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:57 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
Chopper1192 wrote:
Ah, that's ok then. Because a car is a tonne plus of kinetic weapon cyclists can ride like utter tools (and the bulk of them do) with impunity because they aren't such a deadly risk to others.

Whoever causes a collision/incident/crash is at fault and potentially liable to legal action, either criminal or civil regardless of whether their vehicle has an engine or a roof . That's how it is now, and how it should be. Arguing that I should automatically be at fault because I'm in he car that day because I needed to ferry a weeks worth of uniform and kit to work is utterly preposterous. We're lawfully defined by our actions, not by which seat our arses just happen to be it at any one moment in time


The problem is, disparity in risk.

We can all sit there from various standpoints, and say - "them" you know "them"? Utter cnuts on the road.

I'd agree, that cyclists probably have proportionally as many idiots taking part as any other road user - that's not the point, it's the disparity in risk.

If a car driver and another car driver have a coming together, they can argue the toss about liability, but that won't really matter, what will matter, is the circumstances of the accident, and what the insurers view as being most cost-effective in terms of resolving the matter.

So a bit of metal gets bent back in to shape, or replaced, and some paint gets sprayed. Big deal.

The situation isn't the same with a cyclist on the road - the slightest fender bender in a car, that a driver may not worry about at all costs, could be the different between uninjured and serious injury / death for a cyclist.

At first, when I heard about the idea that cars are given the presumption of liability in a collision betwixt vehicle and cyclist, I thought it abhorrent. But then I considered what's a really good way of creating some incentive that should hopefully highlight the disparity in risk between a cyclist and somebody driving around in a metal box? Presumption of liability may be a blunt, somewhat offensive principle - but it might be the only way to redress the slide in care and consideration given to cyclists from vehicle drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:06 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16899
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Liked Cliff better......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:08 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
I am against any presumption of fault. Yet another move away from the right to be presumed innocent.

The way forward is better education and pro active policing, not giving irresponsible cyclists another reason to feel justified.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:47 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 606
Location: New Forest
I'm a few weeks into my new job posting and the associated commute by bicycle, of the 6 mile route only 3 miles are on roads (thank The Lord!) with the other 3 on segregated cycle paths. On the 3 miles of road I ride at a steady 15-20mph in the 'secondary' position at almost all times, always ensuring I am dressed and illuminated appropriately. Despite all of this it is almost a daily event where on the 3 mile stretch of road one driver or another either overtakes far too close and fast, tailgates me and offers verbal abuse for not moving into the gutter, or fails to give way and pulls out of junction in front of me. A couple of months ago I was generally of the opinion that the 'cyclecam' types on YouTube are often just looking for trouble and sometimes encourage it, and maybe this was largely a problem for cyclists that is isolated to city centres and busy conurbations, however the inattention, incompetence and downright illegal driving I now witness on a daily basis on my local roads has got me seriously concerned for my own safety. I intend to get myself a GoPro in a couple of weeks and put my commuting experiences online for all to see, if it just encourages one driver to give cyclists a bit more respect then I will be happy. In the larger scheme of things I don't have an answer though, drivers have maybe become too isolated, comfy, and protected from the outside world in their modern noise insulated and air conditioned vehicles that cyclists and any other 'slower' road user is now just a target to get in front of as quickly as possible without any awareness or concern for the safety of that vulnerable cyclist :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:53 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
highlandsflyer wrote:
I am against any presumption of fault. Yet another move away from the right to be presumed innocent.

The way forward is better education and pro active policing, not giving irresponsible cyclists another reason to feel justified.


I used to feel much the same.

Then I woke up, listened and read a lot of "normal" people and their views about bikes on the road, things like the validity of it, and took in the general attitude, plus the rampant ignorance by many towards cyclists - often most espoused by the "You don't pay car tax!" crowd.

So many show ignorance of cyclists having rights, cyclists being at risk, and have such a bombastic approach to cyclists. I remain unconvinced education is going to get through to them - they're not looking to broaden their mind, they're looking for something that bolsters their ignorance, preconceptions and bias.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:10 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Here's hoping you are not the unfortunate motorist who is framed as a criminal when there are no cameras or witnesses to help clarify what occurred.

That might really 'wake' you up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:10 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
Neil wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:
I am against any presumption of fault. Yet another move away from the right to be presumed innocent.

The way forward is better education and pro active policing, not giving irresponsible cyclists another reason to feel justified.


I used to feel much the same.

Then I woke up, listened and read a lot of "normal" people and their views about bikes on the road, things like the validity of it, and took in the general attitude, plus the rampant ignorance by many towards cyclists - often most espoused by the "You don't pay car tax!" crowd.

So many show ignorance of cyclists having rights, cyclists being at risk, and have such a bombastic approach to cyclists. I remain unconvinced education is going to get through to them - they're not looking to broaden their mind, they're looking for something that bolsters their ignorance, preconceptions and bias.


I absolutely agree. I couldn't put it as well, so thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adruzzz, FairfaxPat, Piperdave, turkeytickler and 24 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