Curious coroner's remarks.

[glenn forger]

I think the critical issue would be less the relative top speeds of the respective vehicles and more the potential for harm.

 

[Steve Malkin]

Yes and no. Look at it from the point of view of someone crossing the road.

Rather ask yourself the question whether it would be more reckless for a car or a bicycle to be travelling at 25 mph under those circumstances.

Imagine if this incident had involved a tipper truck ploughing down a cyclist in similar circumstances. There would have been uproar on here and I don't think anybody would have been an apologist for the truck driver because he was 'only' doing 25mph and 'not breaking any laws'

It's not about what's 'legal', it's about what's sensible and showing consideration to other people on the roads. As cyclists we have to show consideration to others if we are to expect it in return.

 

[glenn forger]

Imagine if this incident had involved a tipper truck ploughing down a cyclist in similar circumstances. There would have been uproar on here

Once again, no there wouldn't. If a driver under the speed limit hit an unlit cyclist on a narrow road then it would be tragic but I certainly wouldn't attach blame to the driver.

 

[Steve Malkin]

Once again, no there wouldn't. If a driver under the speed limit hit an unlit cyclist on a narrow road then it would be tragic but I certainly wouldn't attach blame to the driver.

Really? - is the legal speed limit the only limiting factor in your opinion?
I think there are lots of circumstances (such as when travelling downhill on a badly lit wet road in poor visibility) when travelling at anywhere near the legal limit is totally irresponsible.

 

[glenn forger]

Really? - is the legal speed limit the only limiting factor in your opinion?

No. Lighting is. It's there, in my post.

 

[fossyant]

It's a where there is a blame, there is a claim issue.

25mph isnt too fast on a bike on a road, we don't know the circumstances.

I'm currently being sued by another cyclist - I was knocked off my bike in September by an unidentified car, but during the process, I was passing another cyclist, I went flying, but my bike took him down. Roll on 5 months and a solicitors letter arrives on my doorstep from the cyclist sueing me. It says I rode into the back of him at excess speed etc etc. That's not the case and I have GPS logging that says I was riding much faster a few minutes before, then slowed for some time with traffic and following the other rider - talking 23mph and down to 18-20

The whole thing is a mess, and I have BC Insurance that protects me (fortunately). The worse thing is I work with the guy's wife (like sit next to her). I can't ask how her husband is as it might affect the case. Motor Insurers wont accept my claim as the exact car can't be identified - police reports, but no CCTV. MIB is a waste of time - it won't protect you in a hit and run.

I'll add I had slowed to wait for a space to pass, I was riding outside the cycle lane (he was in it) and I waited a fair distance before tried to pass. He didn't look behind, I had. I was the only person to stay on scene and phone an ambulance despite my broke bones, the driver left, no-one stopped at all.

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 3681138, member: 9609"]Think that table was devised in the 1960s - modern brakes and tyres have much improved - seriously any modern car can stop within its own length from 30. I would even suspect modern HGVs with cold brakes could match that table.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. According to my calculations, a car in perfect conditions will stop from 30 in 8.5 metres (26 ft). Unless you have a very long car, this seems rather unlikely. (In the wet, this distance will be double.)

 

[Wobblers]

Is that really true?
Maybe I'm just a crap cyclist, but I'm pretty sure I could stop a lot faster in my car if I was travelling down a soaking wet hill at 25mph than I could on my bike.
4 big tyres and 4 big hydraulic disks backed up by ABS makes stomping on the pedal in the car a stress free affair, but if I hauled on the bicycle brakes in those circumstances i'd probably end up sliding down the hill on my arse.

Very true: a car can easily outbrake a bicycle simply because you'll go over the handlebars first. But this isn't really the issue, is it? Is "25 mph" really excessive? Given the choice of being struck by a car or a cyclist going at that speed, well, I'll choose the cyclist every time - because the cyclist has much less than of one twentieth of the kinetic energy, so the consequences will be far less severe.

And given the behaviour of motorists on my residential street, I'm prepared to bet that most cars would have been - and still do - travel rather faster than 25 mph. Who brings the most danger?

(This is not to excuse the cyclist - he's a twat. While the coroner is right to condemn him, why is society so reluctant to condemn motorists who do the same thing?)

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I think the critical issue would be less the relative top speeds of the respective vehicles and more the potential for harm.

In this instance the bikes potential for harm has been terribly demonstrated though.

 

[glenn forger]

You're quite right, and that's my fault for not saying "operator".

 

[benb]

ok, braking in a car at relatively low speed for that type of vehicle as opposed to braking on a bike at relatively high speed for it, and the number & size of the contact patches/chances of losing grip of the respective tyres, particularly on a wet road allied to those respective speeds per vehicle....

Are you seriously suggesting a bicycle travelling at 25MPH is more dangerous than a motor vehicle at the same speed?

Have you heard of this thing called physics? It's quite interesting.

 

[Steve Malkin]

Are you seriously suggesting a bicycle travelling at 25MPH is more dangerous than a motor vehicle at the same speed?

Have you heard of this thing called physics? It's quite interesting.

The way I read it, he was suggesting that a car doing 25 mph was far more likely to be able to stop before ever hitting the pedestrian than a bike doing the same speed, so in that sense then yes it would be less dangerous.

As to which is more dangerous if it does actually hit you, then I don't think kinetic energy is the only factor to consider. Bicycles have lots of pointy sharp bits to impale you with in comparison to the average jelly mould car these days with their smooth rubber bumpers and gently sloping bonnets. Personally I wouldn't like to be hit by either one at 20 mph!

 

[benb]

Personally I wouldn't like to be hit by either one at 20 mph!

Nor would I, but if I had to choose, I'd go for the 100kg one over the 1500kg one any day.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Are you seriously suggesting a bicycle travelling at 25MPH is more dangerous than a motor vehicle at the same speed?

Have you heard of this thing called physics? It's quite interesting.

Not at all, simply trying to keep in perspective that a bike at that speed can and in this instance has, caused a significant injury to another person who has shortly after lost their life. It is also a reiteration of a point further up thread that the likely outcome of anchoring on hard in a car and on a bike at that speed are different.

 

[benb]

Not at all, simply trying to keep in perspective that a bike at that speed can and in this instance has, caused a significant injury to another person who has shortly after lost their life. It is also a reiteration of a point further up thread that the likely outcome of anchoring on hard in a car and on a bike at that speed are different.

OK, apologies for misunderstanding you.