I nearly ran over two cyclists today, and they'd have deserved it if it had happened....

[ufkacbln]

Op chillax.

Having advised chillaxing to the OP, I was irated last night when I saw a cyclist with their front light on flashing which is one of my hates. The thing was that the cyclist wasn't getting closer to me as quickly as it should have been. Then I realised why. A chav on a BSO who was dressed in black head to toe had placed his white flashing front light rear wards ie on the seat pin facing back!!!! No front light. What a numptee which I told him as I passed by. He then turned off abruptly into the chav Arbury estate.

I have done that deliberately!

Some little runt had tried to nick my back light off the rack, and merely managed to break it.

So took the backup flashing LED off the front and placed it on the back.

Got me home safely with lights front and back...far safer than riding with no rear light

 

[Banjo]

The thread title is poo.

The prats on bikes may be stupid but the "deserved" it bit in the title suggests that death is an appropriate punishment for acts of stupidity?

I

 

[Boris Bajic]

None of this would have happened in my day.

 

[Arjimlad]

There appears to be a certain inner-city preponderance of mainly youths with trousers round their knees ambling along in baseball caps on BSO mountain bikes who

• ride on the wrong side of the road often in the face of cyclists and cars
• ignore red lights
• don't bovver with getting lights
• ride on the pavements at a whim
• are cycling because they can't afford to buy or don't know how to steal a blinged-up lowered dark windowed pimp-mobile
• generally annoy everyone else

But I'm not sure that they "give cyclists a bad name" because they're just chavs on bikes.

I wouldn't have all that much sympathy if they were hit by a normal careful driver but I don't think serious injury is merited for such shortcomings !

 

[Dave 123]

Some people are getting upset by the choice of the word "deserved"....... I understand BOTH points of view.
Not many people deserve to die, I think we all agree. But as a cyclist and motorist I go about the centre of Cambridge morning, noon and night and see cycling standards and bike set ups that make me think "If you did come to grief, you only have yourself to blame" Put that way, nobody deserves anything.

 

[Dan B]

I wouldn't have all that much sympathy if they were hit by a normal careful driver

Is that a "normally careful" driver - as in, one who exhibits approximately average carefulness, or a "normal and careful" driver - as in, one who is both normal and careful? I'm only asking to keep the thread going, mind. I agree with you that they don't give cyclists in general a bad name, that's like claiming that Vauxhall Nova users give drivers a bad name

 

[Cubist]

Legally speaking, there is no "wrong" side of the road, for any road user. Otherwise, overtaking, driving along narrow roads, crossing junctions or roads, etc. would be illegal.
In the OP's example, the legal onus would be on the motorist to anticipate possible obstructions on the blind side of the humpback bridge, not on road users on the blind side of such a bridge to get out of the way.

I'd agree up to a point, but Sec 36 RTA puts a driver firmly on the left hand side of the carriageway in a double white line system.

We both appear to agree on the second paragraph.

 

[snailracer]

I'd agree up to a point, but Sec 36 RTA puts a driver firmly on the left hand side of the carriageway in a double white line system.

We both appear to agree on the second paragraph.

Nice try, but I still think I'm right:

Highway Code Rule 129:
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"

 

[Cubist]

Nice try, but I still think I'm right:

Highway Code Rule 129:
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"

I wasn't arguing with you.

 

[DRHysted]

Nice try, but I still think I'm right:

Highway Code Rule 129:
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"

This means they can't straddle or cross it to overtake me, as I'm normally above 10mph.
Something to look forward to

 

[DRHysted]

How would they be expected to accurately assess your speed?

I don't know, but it's in the highway code.

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't know, but it's in the highway code.

How would they be expected to accurately assess your speed?

Any driver that cannot assess the speed of a cyclist and react appropriately is a hazard!

It is only a matter of time before they kill or injure someone at a junction

 

[Cyclist33]

Nice try, but I still think I'm right:

Highway Code Rule 129:
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"

doesnt include "to pass a pedestrian" though.

but anyway, in the motorcycle accident as described it isnt stated whether the road markings fitted into this category or not, nor whether said accident was centred around a humpback bridge. as i see it there were three parties, the driver, the biker and the pedestrians, and not enough circumstances were further set out by the poster to pass right judgment.

stu

 

[snailracer]

doesnt include "to pass a pedestrian" though.

but anyway, in the motorcycle accident as described it isnt stated whether the road markings fitted into this category or not, nor whether said accident was centred around a humpback bridge. as i see it there were three parties, the driver, the biker and the pedestrians, and not enough circumstances were further set out by the poster to pass right judgment.

stu

Well my post was in response to a separate point about solid double-white lines, not the OP.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You don't assess another vehicle's speed in terms of numbers though.

what about the ones written on the cars speedometer?