Safe Speed Forums

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yes, and most people know that a lot of what she writes is correct.

The referenced Times campaign is, IMO, misguided as it frequently lists steps taken around the country to increase the safety of cycling while not seeing that almost none of these involves training cyclists themselves to be safer. Everyone else has to be responsible except cyclists themselves.

A typical example is campaigning for trucks to be fitted with special mirrors to see cyclists coming up on their nearside. It would be much better to scream at cyclists not to do this foolhardy manouevre.

Why do cyclists do this? Well, it's to get to the front of the queue ahead of the cars and trucks. We even provide advance stop lines to encourage this practice. Err... aren't motorists told not to aggressively try to "get to the front" and instead just wait in line as the "journey will not take any longer". Why doesn't this message apply?

I don't want cyclists to be killed and injured but taking responsibility for your own safety is the first and most essential step towards this end.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Classic trolling article in the "I'm not racist but..." vein.

Can anybody explain to me the logic and thinking behind this statement made in the comments:

"Cyclists should be compelled to have insurance like other road users."

Is it simply a statement written by somebody who has to pay insurance for their car who wants to see cyclists similarly treated? Do they understand how insurance works and what it's for?

How does having insurance make one a better cyclist?

"It was a clear June morning as she cycled along her usual route to work. A concrete mixer overtook her twice as she pedalled along London Wall. As she approached a road junction, the lorry turned left across her path and killed her in an instant."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 307660.ece

“Eilidh who was a strong and experienced cyclist had commuted the same 20-mile round trip for three years. The coroner concluded that Eilidh was probably in front of the lorry and that its front offside wheel clipped her rear bicycle wheel.

“Neither the police investigators nor the coroner considered it material to the collision that the collision report showed a 0.8 by 1.4-metre blind area to the front off-side of the lorry, an area in which a bicycle was effectively invisible to the driver, and an area that the new EU law on lorry mirrors was supposed to cover."

http://road.cc/content/news/47057-eilid ... y-fatality

Don't be lazily thinking now that every lorry on cyclist death is the result of the cyclist pulling up and sitting in a blind spot at a junction will you.

Not trolling. Just giving a different point of view to yours.


It doesn't. However it does give some hope of recompense to people who have been harmed by the actions of a cyclist. Your argument seems to be one that could be used to ditch motor insurance as it doesn't make drivers "better".


I don't know the details of this case but, from these statements, I can't understand what happened. If the "lorry turned left across her path" the lorry was in front of her. The other statement implies the reverse.

For the lorry to have "overtaken her twice" she must have passed it at least once. It would be quite normal for a cyclist to pass a vehicle in traffic up the inside and this may have been her mistake. She could have just waited behind it like all the other traffic. Perhaps she was in a hurry and needed to get to the front...


Don't be lazily thinking now that every lorry on cyclist death is the driver's fault.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Not sure I can be bothered to engage with a daily mail article

I don't. You however, appear to insist on stating that the obverse is the case.

City PR executive Catriona Patel was killed at traffic lights outside Oval Tube station as lorry driver Dennis Putz chatted on his mobile phone.

Putz, 51, who had "the most God-awful hangover" after having drunk at least seven pints of Guinness the night before, was yesterday jailed for seven years.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/family-o ... 38112.html

But particularly shocking in this case is that if the driver had not broken the law by fumbling around for papers in his cab instead of paying due care and attention to the road, Emma would certainly not have been killed.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/forum/d ... ear-ago/p1

Your understanding of what I posted is incorrect. Nowhere did I say that cyclists are always at fault just that drivers are not always "guilty".

Safety is everyone's responsibility.

(BTW, "obverse" means turned towards the observer. You probably mean "reverse".)

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

But nobody in any "pro-motoring" lobby would defend this for a second, whereas too many cycling advocates when confronted with the transgressions and foolhardiness of cyclists will all too readily reach for the tu quoque button and start excusing it by saying "but what motorists do is far worse".

It is high time that those who speak for cyclists began to honestly confront their own failings rather than always trying to blame someone else. If they did this they might get a bit more respect.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Well you have obviously not been looking very hard; several large vehicles these days have specific warnings mounted on their tailgate about cyclists passing them on the nearside.

But the cycle lobby would probably regard that as "insulting" or "victim-blaming" rather than sensible advice.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That's a supposition, not a fact.
Can you provide evidence of where they have said that warnings to cyclists mounted on lorries are insulting or victim-blaming. TfL (who are hardly anti-cyclist) certainly encourage cyclists to keep well behind lorries.

If the situation was reversed and the cyclist turned across the path of the lorry (and got killed) would you regard it as the fault of the lorry driver for not being able to stop in time?

I'd go further and make it compulsary to have some ID featrure on the cycle/rider . If they think they're untraceable ,then they act as if they're untouchable. But again , wasn't one of the selling points on PCSO's to tackle menace cyclists and free police up for other duties . Personally ,I'm now thinking of using a walking stick nowadays. Apart from the fact that my hip bothers me from time to time, I found with the motorised louits on open spaces that you get a bit more respect if you seem to have a deterrent . Dog walkers carrying a stick to throw for the dog got more clearance than those that didn't .

And it seems that other parts of the UK are getting a tad upset with this sort of behaviour ,so it can't just be disregarded as yet more Daily Mail wail
See this other post viewtopic.php?f=34&t=26290

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

This is the answer to the question posed in the thread title.

Perhaps it's not insurance that needs to compulsory but instead some ID to instill a sense of responsibility.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

That would soon get all the Guardianistas foaming at the mouth about civil liberties in a way they never have been about camera enforcement against motorists.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Was it you that regularly exceeds the speed limit and admits to using a mobile phone behind the wheel?

Tu quoque.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

More likely that he meant "opposite"

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Absolutely right, Peter.

I have no wish to criticise cyclists any more than i would other groups of road user, but given that they are so easily hurt in a collision, I do think they ought to take more care to avoid the reckless behaviour they too often display. Some of them seem to invite trouble, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mypFV_tQSrc

Best wishes all,
Dave.