I've lost track of which point was original. The instant point you appeared to be making was that some people hold HGV drivers to a higher standard than cyclists. On the basis that HGVs are a truckload more dangerous than people riding bicycles, I see nothing wrong with that "double standard" and number myself among them. In the same way I hold cyclists to a higher standard than pedestrians - and chainsaw jugglers to a higher standard than jugglers of feather dusters
SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.
- Thread starter dawesome
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
In fairness, I suspect that these things are debated more hotly in "Commuting" because commuters are riding in rush hour and will experience the problems a lot more.
There are also many commuting Londoners hereabouts and traffic volumes in the capital are horrendous. I'm not sure that I would fancy it.
That's my theory anyhow.
London is one of the safest places to ride a bike in, providing you do so in a safe and responsible manner.
This type of argument rages on and has been around the houses for donkey's years now. And it goes on and on because cyclists fail to acknowledge other road users and the dynamics of the vehicles that they are driving.
This does not sound like "failing to acknowledge" the dynamics of other road users. This sounds more like root cause analysis
LOL, ''blind spots'' quoted by Spinners backed with evidence from Twitter and a journo - do me a favour!
1883012 said:
Don't get abusive cus, remember this whole OP was started by said article(s).
It's ironic that Recycler has suggested that 'we' wait for the official inquest but he's the 'villian' here, best not to listen to him.
I find it a miracle that you can second guess what the driver done as well (bold). If that was the case then he would have been taken to court and tried.
But you and ye old CC commuting folk know better then the CPS.
What a bunch of ****ng rooks!! LOL
1883052 said:
Don't change what you was saying after the fact.
And yes I do expect thanks and praise. If people were to listen to me and ride in a fashion in which I ride then there would be zero deaths involving HGV's. I employ the advice giving out by Recycler and company earlier in the thread and I'm still here.
1883063 said:
Really?? For staying behind large vehicles at red lights and not going up in the inside?
Or maybe waiting in primary at the lights and when I hear a large vehicle I look behind me and establish eye contact with the driver?
I'm an arse for doing that am I?!
For the third time it's time to use ''Ye old CC commuting folk.''
The CPS dithered over any prosecution, first it was Dangerous Driving, then back to Unsafe vehicle, then back to dangerous driving again,then all charges dropped:
http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-study/daniel-cox-killed-collision-lorry-2211
We know the driver took a vehicle on the road that had missing mirrors. We know the driver was indicating right then turned left. We don't know that Daniel filtered on the inside. We do know the driver of the faulty vehicle hit and killed Daniel.
What's the point of having the driving test include proper signalling if drivers can ignore it on the roads and escape penalty? The driver through his own fault set off with no ability of seeing what was on his near side, with fatal consequences.
http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-study/daniel-cox-killed-collision-lorry-2211
We know the driver took a vehicle on the road that had missing mirrors. We know the driver was indicating right then turned left. We don't know that Daniel filtered on the inside. We do know the driver of the faulty vehicle hit and killed Daniel.
What's the point of having the driving test include proper signalling if drivers can ignore it on the roads and escape penalty? The driver through his own fault set off with no ability of seeing what was on his near side, with fatal consequences.
The City Of London is the most dangerous place in the UK to cycle in.
Use the statistics published by the Department for Transport showing the number of casualties per mile travelled - see this table. It says that there were 10,211 cyclist casualties per billion miles travelled in London, compared to 5,638 in England as a whole. So on this measure cycling in London does seem to be about twice as dangerous as in most other regions.
I'm afraid that's rather naive. A driver can collide with and kill a cyclist from behind in broad daylight and the CPS do nothing:
http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/373
Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist.
A mixture of strawman, hear say and cherry picking.
Wowsers.
With respect to London cycling, I said in a safe and responsible manner, your stats on London is has no point.
Not quite sure where you are going with the Reading incident. In fact you reinforce my point that you seem to know more then the CPS.
As for the RTC? Remind me how understanding dynamics of road vehicles has anything to do with who is responsible when a RTC occurs?
Wowsers.
With respect to London cycling, I said in a safe and responsible manner, your stats on London is has no point.
Not quite sure where you are going with the Reading incident. In fact you reinforce my point that you seem to know more then the CPS.
As for the RTC? Remind me how understanding dynamics of road vehicles has anything to do with who is responsible when a RTC occurs?
Has you taken into account the effect of motorways, trunk roads and other roads where cyclists are either banned or rarely found.
If not, then that may be skewing the stats, as London is a heavily built up area with few cyclist-free roads, a lot more in the way of junctions where collisions are more likely, and slower journey times so that a vehicle traveling a given distance in London will take longer to reach its destination on average than in other regions.
Try comparing London to other similarly built up areas, and see what statistics you get out then. I think you'll find that when you normalize for the effects of urbanization London is one of the safer places to cycle.
Recycler
Well-Known Member
If this were a court of law and you were a barrister then I would have to say that I do disagree with PK99.
But it is not a court of law and I rather suspect that PK99 was deliberately making it appear to be a black and white issue to make his point....of course I would not want to put words in his mouth, and I am sure that he can speak for himself.
The reality is that these things are not black and white and frequently culpability lies, to some extent, with both parties. In the case of the OP we simply do not know the facts and are not able to apportion blame....not that it is up to us. That is what the courts and the police need to do.
My honest answer to your question therefore has to be "yes" and "no"!
- Status
