Dangerous Drivers

[binary_star]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which basically translates to "I've made up my

> mind, if you are in a car you are dangerous.

> Cyclists are vulnerable, so I'm with them, even

> the ones who do act like @#$%&".

No. I'm saying IF we are going to target a particular road user, let's target the most dangerous. I'm not saying I want to target motorists, I'm questioning why people are targeting cyclists.

[LadyDeliah]

Thanks Otta, one can but try. I'm not really the type to just roll over and accept something that is wrong as being 'how it is'.

[Otta]

PS. IF a motorist has decided to teach a cyclist a lesson, and bump him / her (for example) then I fully agree that that person deserves a very severe punishment. On that you will get no argument from me.

However, if CCTV Shows a cyclist zooming out of a side turning at full speed (for example) then I want them punished too.

And just to add, I'm not a motorist, and I used to cycle a lot. When I did cycle, I realised that cars and buses would hurt if I hit them, so I was very careful. I see lots of cyclists who seem to throw caution to the wind, and just go full pelt, believing that if they get hit, it's everyone else's fault but their's because they are vulnerable.

[LadyDeliah]

Not seen any of those on here Otta and the stats seem to show that only a fraction of cyclists injuries are the fault of the cyclist. So I think although this is an issue, I don't think it the most important one.

[LadyDeliah]

Plus cyclists behaving like that are likely to be self-limiting. Having ones bones broken because you are acting like an arsehole is generally a behaviour altering experience.

[*Bob*]

I can't imagine anyone contributing to this thread qualifying as being 'the most dangerous' and therefore in need of targeting.. whoever all this is meant for, they're not reading.

Just off on a slight tangent RE vulnerability.. isn't this part of the appeal of being on two wheels? It's one of the reasons I've always had motorbikes. Buzz-factor.

[binary_star]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't imagine anyone contributing to this thread

> qualifying as being 'the most dangerous'

Me neither. But a few are still targeting the most vulnerable.

[TillieTrotter]

And just a trivial point but maybe not. I don't think many people report to the authorities when a twit on a bike nearly knocks your shopping out of your hands whilst crossing a pedestrian crossing or doing other equally ignorant things. So the stats don't really add up here.

[binary_star]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And just a trivial point but maybe not. I don't

> think many people report to the authorities when a

> twit on a bike nearly knocks your shopping out of

> your hands whilst crossing a pedestrian crossing

> or doing other equally ignorant things. So the

> stats don't really add up here.

I don't report every twit in a car that nearly knocks me off either. If it's not a RTA there's not anything to report.

[numbers]

ah well I think horse riders are the most vulnerable road users not cyclists.

if you're such an arsehole on the road that having your bones broken is the only thing that will alter your behaviour...well you really shouldn't be on the road!

its an inevitable shame but this thread, at its best, is just preaching to the converted.

signed Them.

signed Us.

[TillieTrotter]

Maybe you should do so BS, isn't that what driving without due care and attention is for? I'd certainly report a twit in a car if he'd nearly mown me down on a crossing. I'd get his number plate and expect a bobby to have a word, not something you can do with a cyclist.

[TillieTrotter]

Just to clarify. Although I'm a motorist and never a cyclist (I'd be too nervous cycling in London) I'm not on either side but just want to point out that it's easier to report a motor twat than a cycling twat so stats are pretty useless in this instance.

[ianr]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This guy got community service for his second conviction of causing a cyclist's death by dangerous driving:

> http://road.cc/content/news/83478-ctc-and-families-cyclists-killed-same-driver-25-years-apart-call-appeal-against

Accoring to that article:

The conviction was for causing death by careless driving. He was also banned from driving for five years.

The 1986 conviction was for causing death by reckless driving.

The Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guideline "Causing Death By Driving" is here: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf [PDF, 360 kB]

[binary_star]

numbers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ah well I think horse riders are the most

> vulnerable road users not cyclists.

>

It doesn't really matter what you 'think'. The Highway Code classes horse rides, cyclists and motorcyclist ALL as vulnerable road users for very good reason. That's the problem with opinions, beliefs as prejudices. They're not objective.

[numbers]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> numbers Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ah well I think horse riders are the most

> > vulnerable road users not cyclists.

> >

>

> It doesn't really matter what you 'think'. The

> Highway Code classes horse rides, cyclists and

> motorcyclist ALL as vulnerable road users for very

> good reason. That's the problem with opinions,

> beliefs as prejudices. They're not objective.

And who do you think writes the Highway Code (& brings about legislation) if it doesn't matter what I 'think'. Faceless bureaucrats who must be obeyed with no connect to the rest of the population.

Illustrating LadyD's point perfectly, which is you'll never change the status quo with that sort of dismissive attitude.

[LadyDeliah]

numbers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> its an inevitable shame but this thread, at its

> best, is just preaching to the converted.

Maybe, maybe not. I would be surprised that after viewing this thread and/or the links, no EDFrs had learned something or modified their views even slightly. I know I have.

[El Pibe]

It's funny, every time this debate comes up, I start from a point of protecting the vulnerable from most to least ie starting at pedestrian, through cyclist, motorcylist, up the ranks from car to van etc.

And then I finish reading the thread with almost no sympathy for cyclists whatsoever.

Congrats lads, another fine thread.

But yeah, hyperbole apart this thread could be summed up as

'rational folk agree 'don't be a cunt''

[LadyDeliah]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe you should do so BS, isn't that what driving

> without due care and attention is for? I'd

> certainly report a twit in a car if he'd nearly

> mown me down on a crossing. I'd get his number

> plate and expect a bobby to have a word, not

> something you can do with a cyclist.

Just got my Helmet Cam.

I look forward to presenting evidence of offending and dangerous motorists to the police for them to be prosecuted. This is one way we can try to alter the behaviour of those who put lives at risk on the roads. In combination with pushing for a review of planning and engineering decisions plus a re-think on the rules of the road.

See Otta, I have some avenues to attempt to change things and I believe there has been a change in thinking about motorised vehicles over the past decade which is filtering through to planners etc.

[numbers]

You make a good point Lady D, you really do and I hope that you're right.

Trouble is, not that it matters what I think of course, people tend to be put off viewing links from those who display such obvious bias & hostility from the outset. I know I haven't bothered reading them and if anything, some of the comments on this thread alienate cyclists further. More's the pity.

[numbers]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

This is one way we can try to

> alter the behaviour of those who put lives at risk

> on the roads. In combination with pushing for a

> review of planning and engineering decisions plus

> a re-think on the rules of the road.

>

> See Otta, I have some avenues to attempt to change

> things and I believe there has been a change in

> thinking about motorised vehicles over the past

> decade which is filtering through to planners etc.

brilliant, now YOU have a way of getting people on your side, I wish you good luck with pushing for a review of planning. Don't forget that electric cars are becoming cheaper too & battery technology & range are being improved all the time - our roads may look quite different in major cities sooner than we think :))

[LondonMix]

Am I the only person that hopes they make electric cars noiser as a safety measure. I am a morning runner and with all the cars parked on the road, I have to use both visual and audio cues a lot to navigate crossings. Electic cars can feel like they are coming out of nowhere around a blind curb. Nothing to do with the drivers but the lack of sound as a cue throws me.

[LadyDeliah]

I think there are a growing number of people who want to reclaim some of our public space from motorised vehicles, so I am optimistic for the future.

A side point I'd like to make for people who want to see cyclist numbers reduced, is that if a large amount of people who currently cycle switched to driving instead, the congestion would be horrendous and your journey times would be increased massively. So a by-product of more people cycling is actually a decrease in journey time for motorists.

[binary_star]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe you should do so BS, isn't that what driving

> without due care and attention is for? I'd

> certainly report a twit in a car if he'd nearly

> mown me down on a crossing. I'd get his number

> plate and expect a bobby to have a word, not

> something you can do with a cyclist.

It's why I bought a helmet cam actually but it takes a lot of time and effort. Far less than ranting on your local forum anyway...

[binary_star]

numbers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And who do you think writes the Highway Code

Dept for Transport and the Driving Standards Agency??

"The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders."

From: Road users requiring extra care (204 to 225)

https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/overview-204

[Otta]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's funny, every time this debate comes up, I

> start from a point of protecting the vulnerable

> from most to least ie starting at pedestrian,

> through cyclist, motorcylist, up the ranks from

> car to van etc.

>

> And then I finish reading the thread with almost

> no sympathy for cyclists whatsoever.

>

> Congrats lads, another fine thread.

>

> But yeah, hyperbole apart this thread could be

> summed up as

>

> 'rational folk agree 'don't be a @#$%&''

What he said.

Every single word of it!