Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:52 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm 
Classified Mod / Lincs, East and South Yorks AEC
Classified Mod / Lincs, East and South Yorks AEC
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:45 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: East Yorkshire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo ... e-24467387


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:11 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:29 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: London
I don't see this as a good thing. I don't even know where to start!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:21 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 can see good and bad in it. Nothing will replace good driving practise. No vehicle should have a 'blind spot' with the tech available so cheaply nowadays.

If it saves lives it has to be worth a try though, I quite like the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:51 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:29 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: London
I agree on the blind spots, and this video demonstrates the issue quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8

But what happens when a cyclist gets squashed because they don't have a proximity device that costs £10? Why shouldn't pedestrians have one?

What happens when a cyclist gets squashed when they do have the device? Is the driver more culpable?

Driving while wearing a life jacket would save lives, it doesn't mean it's worth a try.

It just strikes me as another scheme to sell product that can't be refused because nobody has the balls to say no and suffer the consequences of being portrayed as the person who said no to potentially life-saving idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:10 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.
Kestonian wrote:
Driving while wearing a life jacket would save lives, it doesn't mean it's worth a try.


I wear a life saver when I am kayaking. Being an excellent swimmer is no use when you are unconscious.

I am sure this system would save more injuries and lives than wearing a life jacket would in those circumstances. £5 seems small beer to try it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:11 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23176
Location: Retrobike HQ
Kestonian wrote:
But what happens when a cyclist gets squashed because they don't have a proximity device that costs £10? Why shouldn't pedestrians have one?


^ this. It's pushing responsibility onto the cyclist and will surely make the driver more complacent....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:01 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
John wrote:
Kestonian wrote:
But what happens when a cyclist gets squashed because they don't have a proximity device that costs £10? Why shouldn't pedestrians have one?


^ this. It's pushing responsibility onto the cyclist and will surely make the driver more complacent....


Here's a tester, though - were you a daily commuting cyclist where this is available, would you splurge £10 (or £5 if you were a student) on one?

I get the argument you make / agree with, and I also see some of that - and dislike the notion that you have to put your hand in your pocket to be deemed as having done due dilligence so that drivers of vehicles may not squish you.

All the same, though, if I was commuting by bike, daily, in the area where these were live? I think I'd get one. Not to fit in, not because I necessarily agree with the concept, not because I don't want to be seen or inferred as avoiding safety - I think I'd get one purely out of self-interest. That idea that some relatively inexpensive dongle, may just be the one thing that's the difference between injury and a near miss.

After all, isn't some of that the argument predicated on cyclists on the road wearing helmets? That which can see some angling for contributory negligence in the event that a cyclist is injured in a road traffic accident (and yes, I'm gonna use the 'A' word, because I don't buy this revisionist nonsense about outlawing the term in favour of "collision") whilst not wearing a helmet.

I'm not suggesting for a second that others should buy one, or advocacy of them - I'm just wondering where the line would be between intellectual disagreement with the concept, and anything overriding from self-interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:03 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23176
Location: Retrobike HQ
I'm generally pragmatic Neil, I'd also buy one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:22 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:29 pm
Posts: 2378
Location: London
Would I get one? Now there's a question.

I'm going to go with no. I'm no expert on the local bus services, but let's say there are 40 bus routes in York and this runs on 2 of them. For the probability of being involved in a potential collision where this system would help, the £10 (or let's face it, £5 and nipping into the SU Shop in a hoodie) would likely be better off on red (or black) at the local casino.

BUT, would someone buy one for me? Probably my mother. That's what's driving this - sales of product, not safety, most likely pushed by a lobby group with a vested interest in the product vendor.

Interesting point on the contributory negligence and I fully agree. In this instance, surely the inverse is true: if I had bought a dongle but got squished by a bus that didn't have the detector, is the operator more responsible?

I should add I have more or less given up commuting by bike in London because the fear of the consequences of the uncontrollable overcame the pleasure of getting to work by bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:42 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 all for trials of anything to make things safer. The downside I see is indeed based on drivers possibly coming to rely on devices of this type.

Really when we are talking about 'blind areas' on vehicles, they should be covered by cameras. If I can set up my remote webcam with motion detect for a few quid why are systems not already mandatory on large vehicles that alert drivers to any object entering their blind spots?

Certainly agree the onus should not be on cyclists to go out and buy such a device. £5 is not much it is true, but even now that could be three pints in the union bar..

If they genuinely enhance safety, make them free.


Last edited by highlandsflyer on Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Harryburgundy 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