Look out for the cyclist

[LadyDeliah]

What if drivers took responsibility for their actions for once?

[davidk]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> Entirely plausible, thing is they're the ones

> causing all the anger and resentment and making

> some drivers behave more aggressively and other's

> more carelessly, whilst yet others are now

> ignoring zebra crossings and the like completely.

>

> If so, their safety is at the cost of injuries and

> lives of others.

Wow - That's an awesome comment, such efficient use of weapons grade bullshit. So, if I'm killed tomorrow by an agressive motorist it will be because cyclists made him drive that way?

[El Pibe]

Maybe, maybe not.

Not everyone is killed by an aggressive/careless driver, but there are more aggressive/careless drivers out there, some of them will be so as a result of cyclists.

there was a great post on it at the beeb a while back by a psychologsist from Sheffield University.

Cyclists offend the moral order

"Now cyclists reading this might think ?but the rules aren?t made for us ? we?re more vulnerable, discriminated against, we shouldn?t have to follow the rules.? Perhaps true, but irrelevant when other road-users see you breaking rules they have to keep."

Just because you find a truth offensive doesn't make it less true. Negating the rules that are there for everyone cause a downward spiral whether you like it or not. They make society worse.

Those rules are there to promote order across the board, if a section of society decides they don't apply to them then that order suffers entropy which means more chaos as a result.

So yes, anyone who disobeys the laws of the highway contributes to the fall out.

[davidk]

The rules on the highway are designed to restrict the movement of heavy and dangerous vehicles, not cyclists. It is often far safer for everyone for a cyclist to carefully proceed on a red rather than wait for the inevitable race off the green. Especially on left turns.

The idea that red light jumping by cycling can be blamed for agressive driving is abhorrent. Victim blaming in the extreme. Bear in mind, there is no evidence that in any of the deaths that have happened in the last two weeks (the reason these issues are being discussed here now) the cyclist was doing anything wrong.

[El Pibe]

"The idea that red light jumping by cycling can be blamed for agressive driving is abhorrent"

I've no idea why, seems blindingly obvious.

"The rules on the highway are designed to restrict the movement of heavy and dangerous vehicles, not cyclists."

And there we have the classic quibble, they're not meant for me so I won't obey, and then you find abhorrence when not everyone agrees with you.

My dad thought that satrean rationalism meant that sex outside of marriage was prefectly acceptable as long as love wan't involved, then was staggered when my mum had enough of his philandering and divorced him.

20 years later he's still bemused by her behaviour because he's right.

People's ability to justify their own behaviour with indignation never ceases to amaze me.

[davidk]

No, I obey the traffic lights and the rules. But I recognise the absurdity that the authorities in this country won't make perfectly sensible exceptions for cyclits.

You are simply resorting to victim blaming and it's disgusting.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> What if drivers took responsibility for their

> actions for once?

What if cyclists did? They seem to want no rules applied to them. I note davidk's comment, "The rules on the highway are designed to restrict the movement of heavy and dangerous vehicles, not cyclists." Although this seems to be the attitude of may cyclists, it is patently wrong. The highway code specifically points out it applies to ALL users of the road.

[El Pibe]

I'm not victim blaming, quite the opposite.

The theory put forward was that it was the mavericks who are surviving, so in fact I was blaming the mavericks, not the victims, who by implication are obeying the rules of the road.

I hold cycling mavericks and drivers who drive selfishly, aggressively and dangerously with equal contempt, though from a legal standpoint, punishment should certainly be worse for those in cars as they're the ones who'll end up killing people.

[davidk]

Loz Wrote:

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

> LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What if drivers took responsibility for their

> > actions for once?

>

> They seem to want no rules

> applied to them.

Know all the cyclists do you?

You have selectively quoted me there. I also said that I follow all the rules but would like DfT and TFL to allow exceptions for cyclists. For example on left turns at red lights and on one way streets.

[Loz]

davidk Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > LadyDeliah Wrote:

> >

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

> > > What if drivers took responsibility for their actions for once?

> >

> > They seem to want no rules applied to them.

>

> Know all the cyclists do you?

I notice that you didn't jump in and ask LD if she knew all drivers...

> You have selectively quoted me there. I also said that I follow all the rules but would like DfT and

> TFL to allow exceptions for cyclists. For example on left turns at red lights and on one way

> streets.

I quoted you and noted how many cyclists have a real tendency to believe those words. Fair use, I think.

Then get the rules changed, but cyclists claiming the are disobeying rules 'because it's safer' are being disingenuous.

[taper]

It is certainly safer sometimes to bend the rules of the road. At certain junctions, I always where I can pre-empt lights going green and roll forward so I am ahead of traffic and more visble. Technically what I am doing is wrong. But it puts no-one in danger. Sometimes too I will head onto the pavement to escape potentially dangerous situations, but only where there is no threat (including of alarm) to pedestrians.

[El Pibe]

In truth taper i was just pursuing a philosophical point.

Though blatantly ignoring red lights and zebra crosses does make me see red (baddam-tish) there are of course in reality pragmatic strategies for self preservation that bend rules.

Pre-empting seems entirely sensible to me.

Again with the pavements/danger thing, god knows I've actually had to take a step back when waiting to cross a road thanks to bus mirrors actually overhanging the pavement, so I can see why you'd get the hell out of the way of danger.

Some bus drivers are lunatics and are a peril to all other road users!!

[edcam]

All valid points there from El Pibe.

[davidk]

Loz Wrote:

cyclists claiming

> the are disobeying rules 'because it's safer' are

> being disingenuous.

Perhaps, but a great number of them are just being honest.

[matryx]

Loz Wrote:

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

> What if cyclists did? They seem to want no rules applied to them. I note davidk's comment,

> "The rules on the highway are designed to restrict the movement of heavy and dangerous vehicles,

> not cyclists." Although this seems to be the attitude of may cyclists, it is patently wrong. The

> highway code specifically points out it applies to ALL users of the road.

Felt I should point out that some aspects do only apply to motor vehicles and not cyclists. It's not all the same for everyone.

As a good example, Rule 124 of the highway code (pertaining to speed limits) does not apply to cyclists.

The rule itself references a table, with no information for cyclists but information for several motor vehicle types, and the rule references "Law RTRA sects 81, 86, 89 & sch 6" which is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81, 86, 89 & schedule 6. In fact, these sections all fall within Part VI of the act, which is entirely about speed limits.

Section 81 is quite explicit that "It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour" (my emphasis).

Further reading reveals that throughout this act, the speed limits discussed apply to motor vehicles and their drivers, not to cyclists. Note, for example section 89: "A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence."

Now, I am by no means advocating cycling at excessive speeds, or ignoring speed limits set for other road users (disparities in travel speeds are a large cause of accidents) - and anyone doing so could find themselves at risk of breaking other laws related to riding dangerously or carelessly depending on the situation, but I see people saying this sort of thing all the time and in reality there are several laws for the road which do not apply to cyclists or apply in different ways.

[Loz]

Granted that certain parts of the Code only apply to certain modes of transport, but the Code itself is for everyone.

Genuine question: do speed limits not apply to cyclists? Or are you saying they'd never possibly get up to that speed?

[matryx]

Legally they do not apply to cyclists.

There may be bye-laws for a local area which do limit the speed of cyclists, but this section of the act genuinely does not apply to cyclists.

[malumbu]

Much better discussion on a plea to cyclists thread. Some good debate here but loads of reactionary nonsense from both sides.

Most drivers are good

Most cyclists are good

As cyclists we need to make sure we aren't caught out by the bad drivers

Vice versa for drivers.

The common enemy is of course the pedestrian walking out in front of us. That was a facetious comment. Go to the other thread, read, absorb, and only comment if you have something useful to add.

As the block in Lordship Lane carpets said about me, "that's told you".

[LadyDeliah]

Driver kills a cyclist on a clear straight road in broad daylight, but because she's a Christian gets 12 months suspended and is back behind the wheel in a year:

http://m.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-news/woman-receives-suspended-prison-sentence-after-death-crash-in-bury-st-edmunds-1-5798923

[mynamehere]

http://www.london24.com/news/protest_group_stop_killing_cyclists_turn_tables_on_tfl_with_provocative_poster_campaign_1_3193260

Stop Killing Cyclists

and thinking there's some excuse

[peristalsis]

LadyDeliah Wrote Today, 01:33PM:

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

> Driver kills a cyclist on a clear straight road in

> broad daylight, but because she's a Christian gets

> 12 months suspended and is back behind the wheel

> in a year:

>

> http://m.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/local/latest-news/woman-receives-suspended-prison-sentence-after-death-crash-in-bury-st-edmunds-1-5798923

Noted.

[LadyDeliah]

mynamehere Wrote:

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

> http://www.london24.com/news/protest_group_stop_ki

> lling_cyclists_turn_tables_on_tfl_with_provocative

> _poster_campaign_1_3193260

>

> Stop Killing Cyclists

>

> and thinking there's some excuse

Really good article and the posters are spot on.

[Otta]

Very sad story LadyD, bit out of interest what punishment for do you think the woman should have veen the given?

It was a shitty needless accident that was her fault, but woukd locking her up fir years really nake any bloody difference?

[LadyDeliah]

What punishment would you want her to have if the cyclist she killed was your wife?

I doubt you'd ever want her behind the wheel of a car again. If someone kills a cyclist in these circumstances they should never be allowed to be in control of lethal machinery again.

[davidk]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> What punishment would you want her to have if the

> cyclist she killed was your wife?

>

> I doubt you'd ever want her behind the wheel of a

> car again. If someone kills a cyclist in these

> circumstances they should never be allowed to be

> in control of lethal machinery again.

Exactly. She has proven herself to be lethally incompetent in charge of a motor vehicle. She should never be allowed to be in charge of one again.