SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.

[dawesome]

sandman,would you like to read the thread? Everything you've just claimed has already been posted.

 

[sandman]

The opposite problem is when you try and distinguish "Cyclists" from "People on bikes"

One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!

Do we need training courses - perhaps we do but that is another argument.

What we do need to do though is to get away from the simplistic "sticking plasters" that are the usual answers to road safety when involving cyclist safety..

Cyclists being cut up and SMIDSY - wear HiViz and ignore the root cause of the problem
Cyclist suffering injuries - wear a helmet and ignore the root cause of the problem.
Cyclist being killed by HGVs - put the responsibility on cyclists and again ignore the root cause of the problem

Dismiss it as "motorist bashing" if you like, but sooner or later it comes down to the fact that as road users we all have to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. ..... and in this case driving an unroadworthy and faulty vehicle is unequivocally a contributory factor.

That's good post and I agree with what you say, and if this was the OP then this thread would have turned out different. But unfortunately it was started by someone who could not take on board any other persons POV which is quite sad.

 

[sandman]

sandman,would you like to read the thread? Everything you've just claimed has already been posted.

Right, which is being contradicted by yourself by saying that the driver could not see down the n/s.

This is incorrect, only one of the mirrors were missing not both. If you want to make a post based on established facts and not opinion then at least get it right.

 

[Recycler]

I don't think we need to win over anyone, nor do I really care for any stereotypical view of cyclists such lycra louts, riding without lights etc. Because for every one of these cyclists there are ten car drivers that will routinely break the law in some way. This view will always exist no matter what imo.

clip clip clip

With this mindset cycling will never advance, people will ride a bike without the skills needed and will only further the them and us attitude.

I agree with all of that except the first sentence!
It really does seem to me that, in trying to be more understanding of drivers, we stand more chance of getting them to understand our problems.

As simple case. If we adopt primary position many drivers think that we are unecessarily and selfishly blocking the road. If we can get them to understand what is happening then they (or some at least!) are more likely to be patient rather than going into "you pay no road tax" mode.

Another thought. If drivers were routinely given a "thank you" acknowledgement when they are considerate to us then that will probably be better than if they simply get a two fingure gesture when they are not considerate..............but perhaps I live in an ideal world.

But you are certainly right that drivers also routinely break the law!

 

[dawesome]

Right, which is being contradicted by yourself by saying that the driver could not see down the n/s.

This is incorrect, only one of the mirrors were missing not both. If you want to make a post based on established facts and not opinion then at least get it right.

You got a source for that?

 

[dawesome]

The driver of a lorry involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist has become the second in months to escape prosecution.
Prosecutors dropped the case against Simon Weatherley after accepting he could not have seen cyclist Daniel Cox because of a “blind spot” in his view from the driver’s cab.
The same defence was used when charges were not pursued against Olympics delivery driver Gurpreet Shergill, who drove the HGV that killed cyclist Svitlana Tereschenko at Bow roundabout last November.
Mr Weatherley, 52, of Bromley, had a charge of causing death by dangerous driving dropped days before he was due to stand trial at Snaresbrook crown court in March.
Mr Cox, 28, a Goldsmiths graduate, died in the Royal London Hospital in February last year after colliding with the HGV at lights at Dalston Junction. His inquest will be held at Poplar coroner’s court on Monday. He is thought to have cycled along the inside of the HGV as it waited at traffic lights at the junction of Dalston Lane and Kingsland Road.
It is believed that the lorry — which had a mirror missing — had been indicating right until Mr Weatherley realised right turns were not allowed and decided to turn left. No witnesses were able to verify his claim that he indicated left.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...-in-months-to-escape-prosecution-7831128.html

 

[Recycler]

The opposite problem is when you try and distinguish "Cyclists" from "People on bikes"

One of the main problems is that all too many of these people are on bikes for financial or other reasons, and are simply rideing with the same lack of skill, courtesy and knowledge that they have got away with when driving their car!

Do we need training courses - perhaps we do but that is another argument.

What we do need to do though is to get away from the simplistic "sticking plasters" that are the usual answers to road safety when involving cyclist safety..

Cyclists being cut up and SMIDSY - wear HiViz and ignore the root cause of the problem
Cyclist suffering injuries - wear a helmet and ignore the root cause of the problem.
Cyclist being killed by HGVs - put the responsibility on cyclists and again ignore the root cause of the problem

Dismiss it as "motorist bashing" if you like, but sooner or later it comes down to the fact that as road users we all have to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. ..... and in this case driving an unroadworthy and faulty vehicle is unequivocally a contributory factor.

I agree with much of that (though you know that, for different reasons, I have a different take on Hi Viz!).

We certainly need to see an improvement in how drivers interact with cyclists, but I'm not sure that separating riders into "cyclists" and "people on bikes" will get us very far. I imagine that most drivers simply see one bike as much the same as another.

 

[Recycler]

You are so right, smiling indulgently the way you would at a naughty puppy is going to cure all that so much more effectively.

I hadn't thought of it in quite that way but you could be right. It's putting it into practice that is difficult.
I must practice my indulgent smile a bit more!

 

[ufkacbln]

There is a difference between a "Cyclist" who is aware of their surroundings, and who rides defensively using primary and secondary position, and the "Person on a bike" who would shoot down th inside lane in their car, so does the same thing on a bike.

Which again proves why "sticking plasters" such as HiViz and Helmets are an issue....

The evidence is overwhelming in that training is as efficient as any of these "remedies"

The bonus is that it also addresses more than one issue so is in fact more effective than either of the "plasters" in isolation.

Helmets don't increase visibility, HiViz doesn't reduce head injury - training has been shown to do both.

 

[ufkacbln]

There is a difference between a "Cyclist" who is aware of their surroundings, and who rides defensively using primary and secondary position, and the "Person on a bike" who would shoot down th inside lane in their car, so does the same thing on a bike.

Which again proves why "sticking plasters" such as HiViz and Helmets are an issue....

The evidence is overwhelming in that training is as efficient as any of these "remedies"

The bonus is that it also addresses more than one issue so is in fact more effective than either of the "plasters" in isolation.

Helmets don't increase visibility, HiViz doesn't reduce head injury - training has been shown to do both.

... and then we have the added bonus of reducing the other incidents due to poor road positioning, poor maintenance and all the other factors.

 

[Recycler]

There is a difference between a "Cyclist" who is aware of their surroundings, and who rides defensively using primary and secondary position, and the "Person on a bike" who would shoot down th inside lane in their car, so does the same thing on a bike.

Which again proves why "sticking plasters" such as HiViz and Helmets are an issue....

The evidence is overwhelming in that training is as efficient as any of these "remedies"

The bonus is that it also addresses more than one issue so is in fact more effective than either of the "plasters" in isolation.

Helmets don't increase visibility, HiViz doesn't reduce head injury - training has been shown to do both.

... and then we have the added bonus of reducing the other incidents due to poor road positioning, poor maintenance and all the other factors.

I don't know what the evidence is that you are talking about, but we've had this discussion already and there is little point in going through it all over again. It's the world beyond this forum that needs to change, not your or my view.

 

[ufkacbln]

The evidence is that trained cyclists have less accidents. ... and that has not been discussed here before.

If you can show me the thread where we have discusses the comparison between the overall reduction in accidents between trained and untrained cyclists compared with a single intervention, then I would be very interested to read it.

RoSPA reports that in Worcester children in the control group were three to four times more likely to suffer an accident than those who had undergone training. Similar results have been shown by independent research in Oxford.

The evidence is unequivocal that more experienced cyclists and those who are trained have less accidents than those who are inexperienced or untrained.

Of course if it is uncomfortable to recognise the benefits and importance of training, or how it contibutes massively to overall safety improvements and the decrease in accidents.....then by all means refuse to discuss the contribution.

However the importance of training should not be summarily dismissed, as it is the real key to improving the safety and behaviour of road users as a whole and improve the road user's experience.

 

[Recycler]

I've seen no evidence which shows that training is generally more effective than Hi Viz or Helmets but I'm sure you'll come up with something. I suspect that, in reality, most training programs would recomend the use of helmets and Hi Viz.
AFAIK all three have a part to play in improving safety. RoSPA certainly recomends all three.

 

[Scoosh]

Many of the posts in this thread have been removed, as they were either 'Irrelevant to OP' or 'Abusive', often closely linked.

Enough is enough.

This thread has run its course and is now being locked.