- Feedback
- View
Drivers are cocooned in 2 tonnes of safety cage, cyclists are not.
Lets ban cycling under 'health and safety' instead.
Lets ban cycling under 'health and safety' instead.
highlandsflyer":216mdhrh said: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.
The History Man":2sp2usts said:Is this another of your jokes?
Neil":2679zu21 said:highlandsflyer":2679zu21 said: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.
There's a significant imbalance in terms of general opinion of cyclists on the road. Your counter is that education is the way - I don't believe the people with entrenched views are viable subjects of such education.
If this happens, would I be completely comfortable with it? No. When I first heard about it I hated the notion. But I honestly don't believe anything else is going to get through to people so secure in their metal box, that cyclists aren't just like other vehicles that can be treated with contempt, but are living, breathing, bags of fluid, muscle and bone, that are very much more vulnerable to the whims of their ignorant attitudes, posturing, and "care" whilst driving.
As to the suggestion I might fall victim to a fraudulent claim - well there's always that - but then I do tend to try and put myself in a cyclists shoes when driving in their vicinity - and perhaps it will mean many more drivers will go with dashboard cameras, in much the same way many cyclists do.
What I don't think is the answer, is segregation, more white lines - it's never going to be sufficiently ubiquitous, and in the meantime, engenders the problematic attitudes in drivers. Nor do I think that they're a willing and impressionable audience for "education".
Much as I'm not fully comfortable with the notion, I'm balancing lives and injury with a default position or assumption of liability / negligence. Perhaps a blunt tool - but maybe would redress the balance somewhat.
highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said:Neil":1k7w7cvp said:highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said: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.
There's a significant imbalance in terms of general opinion of cyclists on the road. Your counter is that education is the way - I don't believe the people with entrenched views are viable subjects of such education.
If this happens, would I be completely comfortable with it? No. When I first heard about it I hated the notion. But I honestly don't believe anything else is going to get through to people so secure in their metal box, that cyclists aren't just like other vehicles that can be treated with contempt, but are living, breathing, bags of fluid, muscle and bone, that are very much more vulnerable to the whims of their ignorant attitudes, posturing, and "care" whilst driving.
As to the suggestion I might fall victim to a fraudulent claim - well there's always that - but then I do tend to try and put myself in a cyclists shoes when driving in their vicinity - and perhaps it will mean many more drivers will go with dashboard cameras, in much the same way many cyclists do.
What I don't think is the answer, is segregation, more white lines - it's never going to be sufficiently ubiquitous, and in the meantime, engenders the problematic attitudes in drivers. Nor do I think that they're a willing and impressionable audience for "education".
Much as I'm not fully comfortable with the notion, I'm balancing lives and injury with a default position or assumption of liability / negligence. Perhaps a blunt tool - but maybe would redress the balance somewhat.
I don't think people with entrenched views are going to take a blind bit of notice to the possibility of being presumed at fault if they hit a cyclist.
highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said:Too late for the cyclist in many cases.
highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said:I don't have the answers, but I know this kind of pre judging legislation is more divisive than anything else.
highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said:What next, a similar law apportioning blame to lorry drivers for crashes involving cars, 4x4s for crashes involving cars, vans for crashes involving cars or 4x4s, six foot tall people for walking into five foot tall people on the pavement?
highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said:Do I keep away from the pub because, being over six feet, I attract the attention of the drunk hard midget who is out to make a point, lest I be blamed?
highlandsflyer":1k7w7cvp said:Where exactly does it end when you remove common sense and the right to the presumption of innocence?
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:I see absolutely no reason for moving away from considering matters on a case by case basis.
Speed cameras gather evidence. Everyone has the opportunity to dispute the evidence prior to conviction.
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:Who said I had given up on cycling?
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:Too late for the cyclist in many cases.
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:I merely pointed out that the type of drivers who don't give a toss about cyclists now will be the type who continue to drive the way they do regardless of any change in the laws.
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:Perhaps cycle awareness courses would have had an effect on such a driver, but a potential bypass of their right to be considered at equal fault won't make one iota of difference.
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:People with entrenched views do not do nuance. The only point where they would even take note of the change in law would be once they had hit a cyclist, and that would certainly be too late.
highlandsflyer":2bj8kkg9 said:Nor do I write off separation as an approach.
It may not be ideal where there are large numbers of junctions, but getting cyclists off fast flowing roads onto dedicated lanes would be a start.