Safe Speed Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hby6ScPjEik

Whatever happened to "always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so"?

_________________
"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

Road user gets so distracted by being angry at a car pulling out on him that he fails to spot that an oncoming car is going make the car in front brake.

While the cyclist could have avoided this by braking earlier the car driver should not have pulled out in front of the cyclist in the first place.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I don't get this. You don't think people on bikes travel too close to the vehicle in front in the same way some people in cars do?

I think it's pretty obvious that some do!

Thank heavens we haven't yet got laws that automatically presume the motorist to be at fault! I think more cyclists should be encouraged to get headcams - there's one, at least, who is dangling from his own petard! I only hope the cyclist was insured or could afford to make good the damage he caused.

Although the car did pull out on the cyclist, it seems that the cyclist made no attempt to slow or keep his distance from the car, he appeared to want to tailgate the car or even overtake but failed to take into account that the car might need to stop...his own fault it seems to me.

And yes Weepy, even if he hadn't collided with the car he would have been travelling far too close.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

It's quite a common thing for people in general to do, I see it a lot. It's done to make a point (i.e. get very and aggressively close to the vehicle in front when there is a choice to stay back), to add effect some people blast their horn as well as drive or ride aggressively close to a vehicle (or person!) they think pulled out in front of them. Some pull out and overtake to make the point.

That some posters here can't see cyclists are people who can make silly decisions or behave stupidly just like car drivers is very telling!

Still, had the cyclist been in his car and acted like that things would've been much worse, the person in front would likely have been dealing with whiplash for weeks and months, and their car likely to have been shunted into the oncoming car.

I believe that the vast majority of contributors on here are quite aware of that.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

So why would the OP make such a post along with a sarcastic comment? Serious question.

Yeah, as a group, I've noticed most people on here are unwilling to accept that cyclists can ever make mistakes - it's one of our biggest failings... In fact, I'm sure I've even heard SOME suggest that cyclists shouldn't be required to carry at least third party insurance!

Mandating cyclists to carry third party insurance would require some form of registration system.

Not going to happen. Ever.

I'm insured three times on my cycle, public liability as part of my household insurance (which is pretty much universal), a specific third party insurance for cycling £35.00 a year, which shows the risk I present when I cycle to an insurer) and holiday insurance that covers cycling specifically.

I'd strongly recommend all cyclists to get specific cover for cycling just in case, membership of one of many cycling organisations often includes third party insurance.

However, it's never going to be mandatory, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Oh, you know... just "lest we forget" some of the inequalities that we motorists have to suffer...

Incidentally, I don't have a problem with insurance not costing them very much - that's only fair, as you say, because they have a lower damage-causing potential. I don't however, think they should get off scot-free though. That's simply unfair. I hope the chap in the video has the means to make good the damage he caused to that car!

No, he doesn't need the money to compensate for the damage. He just needs to give a false name and nobody can trace him from his registration number. Job done.

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

He's probably already been onto a claims solicitor, to claim for the scratches on his hands.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Ah, the "all cyclists are pennliess scofflaws" attitude is still rife I see.

Nice.

How do you know he wasn't insured/didn't pay for the damage he did to the car?

I think you've read rather more into that than was there (which says a fair bit about YOUR attitude, in fact)!

For clarity, you're pretty wide of the mark. The reason I wouldn't have said it in a car-to-car accident (or car-to-anything for that matter) is because cars need to be insured (and the vast majority are), so the question doesn't arise. I'd have asked the same question had it been a horse rider (and few people assume they're "penniless scofflaws").

I'll leave you to tend that chip on your shoulder there...