Discussion in 'Advocacy and Cycling Safety' started by Joffey, 14 Feb 2018.
Replace the black with reflective paint/covering.
i remember this incident from Oct 2016 , http://news.radiojackie.com/2016/10/st-margarets-woman-dies-after-taking.html?m=1
A bad end , Wife , Mother , Daughter ,
Personally I never use phone while riding , if it rings , I ignore till later or stop if I'm waiting on a call ,
I do not think the two go together , but that's just me
So many people have a woeful lack of self control when it comes to mobile phones. Weak willed and puny.
Hi Viz (see BS EN 1150 and BS EN 471 for example) is fluorescent and reflective.
Note "after". I think I read in one report it was long enough after that taking a selfie was probably irrelevant. The killer problem was the unseen pothole and it's unlikely that she was taking another selfie.
Yeah, it's just you. I've seen enough people riding along talking not to think it's a problem at typical pootling speeds... futzing with the screen for long like the one in the OP is pretty daft, though!
Still, he mainly hurt himself, so it's his call, isn't it?
Not even the veneer of sympathy from anyone...
He did it to himself. Sympathy quotient = zero.
After catching up with but not having the energy to overtake a cyclist one dark night in Cologne, I followed her for a bit and realised that as well as holding a steady line in the middle of the path, she was smoking and speaking on her 'phone. I was quite impressed.
As I remember it at the time her demise was attributed to her use of her mobile ,
I'd say there are plenty like me ,
If some cyclists seem to think riding and talking into a mobile ,no matter how many do it doesn't make it ok ,
no wonder other road users get annoyed with the double standards that some cyclists appear to accept as being the norm as how to behave and breaking road laws whilst riding ,
his call may have well ended up badly for some other person , fortunately it didn't,
Yes, lots of news outlets jerked their knees but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence for it.
There is no law against using a mobile while cycling because it's not dangerous. https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/not-dangerous/
Accepting double standards? Damn straight! My 100kg doesn't carry the same danger as a ton plus of motor vehicle. Double standards are normal on the roads. We don't require people walking to stop at red lights, nor should we.
He may have committed some real crimes. I don't remember. It's been a day or so since I watched it.
The evidence to support it was in the photo that was published from that incident
Mobile camera , used at night , flash impairs vision , moment later rider down , doesn't take a lot of working out
If using mobiles whilst cycling isn't gangrenous , how come matey knocked his teeth out ?
The photos in that link are from one of the most cycling friendly communities in the world , the author states that in his footnote ,
Maybe it is less dangerous , but doubt you can rule danger out,
To a pedestrian your 100 kg can be fatal , there are instances of pedestrians being killed and badly injured by cyclists , in fact on another current thread on the forum ,re danger whilst riding ,some cyclists are well mentioned for being culprits of causing problems ,
No you wouldn't expect pedestrians to stop at red lights ,
But once they begin to cross roads , then yes you would expect them to observe the accepted norm and signals ,
I must agree with Ozboz. While its many times less likely to kill you than a car, its still not good to have my 118kg flying into you. It is something I strive to avoid when cycling, which is why I don't use my phone, shave or do my make up when riding.
Not "moment later". Also, remember that that death was turned into yet another helmet campaign, not an anti-phone one.
Matey took his eyes off the road for too long. Matey could have been drinking and become obsessed with his navel and it would have had the same outcome.
It takes a pretty freak combination of circumstances for a cyclist to be fatal. Sure, there are a few instances, but far more people are injured on stairs, for example, so are you calling stairs dangerous? I wouldn't: they fall below the level of danger to be regarded as especially risky = they are not dangerous. That's not the same as "you can rule danger out" or saying they're completely risk-free, but they are still not dangerous either.
Yeah, I've seen that other thread, but it's not Fred dawdling while on a phone call as much as Chris wannabe-Froome assuming everyone's going to behave like they do, pretend they're in a peloton and going too damn quick?
Edit: oh and who started off the bike-bashing on that other thread? Someone called @ozboz...
I wouldn't and anyone who expects people walking on the carriageway to keep left, obey signals/signs and so on as if they were a motor vehicle is too stupid for words. The norms for motorists don't apply and this is good sense - not double standards.
So long as you can continue using yours, whilst on the move, because you happen to be on a bicycle, you will never be distracted. You'll also maintain full control whilst using the handset. Not likely to hit something that could bring you to a sudden stop, causing others to have to avoid you.
Word it any way you like, it remains double standards. Sounds a lot like the excuse used by car drivers. "It'll never happen to me, I'm better than the last one it happened to".
There was one comment I saw from her husband about wearing helmet , there was mention and evidence alcohol and use of mobile , and moments
But matey was using his mobile ,
And that's why he smacked into a gate , dangerous
The thread is about people using mobiles whilst cycling , not about people using stairs , freak circumstances or not , it happens , some cyclists hit pedestrians , a cyclist focused on their phone has a greater chance of having a collision , dangerous
The other thread does not make example of any particular rider ,
My contribution to that thread does not mention bikes or riders just cycling conditions ? So what are you on about ?
It doesn't matter where walkers are , the only signals on dual carriageways are for at junctions or crossings ,,so of walkers come to a junction or crossing they would not cross junction of crossing unless safe to do so ,
Otherwise they put themselves at great risk as dual carriage ways usually offer higher speed
Separate names with a comma.