Taken out by another cyclist.

[theclaud]

Just wanting to really bang home the point. If I had been riding slower, and hadn't been in primary, then I'm 99% sure that one of those cars lined up behind my bike (as seen in the video immediately after the collision) would've hit the lad instead of me, as they'd have overtaken me. They would've been travelling 20% faster, and whereas I travelled only a metre or so before I came to a rather inelegant stop on the road, a car would've travelled.....23 metres (that's thinking and braking distance). Maybe the kid would've been flung over the bonnet, maybe he'd have been thrown to the side, maybe he'd have gone under the car, who knows. All I know is that it's lucky I didn't set off from work 30 seconds later.

Hindsight has been mentioned (or implied) dozens of times in this thread, but I think the majority of posters have been honest to admit that this would have been very difficult (but I'm not saying impossible) to avoid. Maybe, just maybe on a different day, I wouldn't have had a line of cars behind me to watch, or a side road coming up on the right (where cars regularly pull out in front of me) and maybe I would've pre-empted the lad swerving out into the road at the last second, but I doubt it. My human brain is designed primarily to keep it's host safe, and therefore focuses on the most imminent danger. Drivers brains are the same, and that's why they're more likely to pull out on a cyclist.....we're just not a threat!

I'm not saying that the way the brain works is ideal in this day and age, but it's difficult to override millions of years of evolution. Of course, now that I've had this new experience knocked (almost literally) into my human brain, next time maybe I'll be focused on the very slight possibility of a rider suddenly swerving across me without any indication.......I just hope that me being focused on that doesn't mean that I miss the car pulling out of the side road......it's all a balancing act.

You might be right about how it might have happened had you been riding more slowly... but then you might be wrong. It's butterfly-flapping-its-wings-in-South-America stuff. Stowie thinks a 20mph limit wouldn't have made a difference, but I disagree. Not because I imagine that you're obliged to abide by it, but because lower traffic speeds overall would change the entire character of the road, including the speed you feel pressured to maintain whilst keeping would-be overtakers at bay.

 

[stowie]

You might be right about how it might have happened had you been riding more slowly... but then you might be wrong. It's butterfly-flapping-its-wings-in-South-America stuff. Stowie thinks a 20mph limit wouldn't have made a difference, but I disagree. Not because I imagine that you're obliged to abide by it, but because lower traffic speeds overall would change the entire character of the road, including the speed you feel pressured to maintain whilst keeping would-be overtakers at bay.

I don't think 20mph would have made a difference in this instance because the cycle may have been travelling at less than 20mph and wouldn't need to obey the limit in any case. But don't get me wrong, I am very much for 20mph limits on pretty much all urban or suburban roads.

 

[theclaud]

I don't think 20mph would have made a difference in this instance because the cycle may have been travelling at less than 20mph and wouldn't need to obey the limit in any case. But don't get me wrong, I am very much for 20mph limits on pretty much all urban or suburban roads.

He was doing about 25, by his own reckoning- it certainly looks it in the video. If the max for cars were 20, a cyclist moving at 15-20 would be going fast enough to manage the following traffic without giving occasion for impatience- which was the idea, as BP has it, of approaching the pinch point at 25 in a 30 zone as in the video.

 

[Boris Bajic]

[QUOTE 1826942, member: 9609"]Sorry for going completely off topic, but did want to stick my oar in here - You probably are correct mothers do get more of the blame when things go wrong, but there is the added benefit for mothers that when families break up, fathers do not have a hope in hell, the law seems to back the woman 99.999%[/quote]

Way off topic, but that's the nature of the beast.

1. The Claud is right that some comments about the mother were unwarrantedly abusive. There was a teensy mysogynistic streak in one or two of them.

2. In cases of family break-up the courts are very often right to look to the mother for childcare and similar. I was raised by a (widowed) single father. He was heroic in his approach to the task, but massively ill-equipped for it. I had no idea what the added magic of a maternal presence was until I saw my wife with our children. I have to say I was a bit envious. Unless the mother is an axe-murderer, I would always be in favour of custody decisions favouring her. I dare say the figure of 99.999% is given inaccurately to make a point, but I'd be surprised if the true figure was lower than 90% - nor should it be.

Sorry, you can go back on-topic now that I've made a calm and non-contentious reply.

 

[Hip Priest]

2. In cases of family break-up the courts are very often right to look to the mother for childcare and similar. I was raised by a (widowed) single father. He was heroic in his approach to the task, but massively ill-equipped for it. I had no idea what the added magic of a maternal presence was until I saw my wife with our children. I have to say I was a bit envious. Unless the mother is an axe-murderer, I would always be in favour of custody decisions favouring her. I dare say the figure of 99.999% is given inaccurately to make a point, but I'd be surprised if the true figure was lower than 90% - nor should it be.

I agree. But it does feel a little unfair that a woman could tire of her husband and not only ditch him, but deprive him of the experience of living with his kids. But then who said life was fair?

 

[Maylian]

Excellent! Another social problem to lay at the door of mothers! Just what we need, instead of making streets safer for children. Has anyone yet suggested that the road might be better with a 20mph limit? Or have we all been too busy slagging Mum off? But not Dad, of course...

Maybe re read some posts....I clearly state in mine that it is the responsibility of both parents to educate the child. On my more aggressive side why do mothers get to use that as a defense for so many things they are not versed in? It is one of my pet hates that women think the line "as a mother" in anyway allows their opinion to be more valid unless of course someone asked on experiences of being a mother....

 

[gambatte]

There have been comments about helmets etc. But the amount of kids I see out on bikes without a single brake component actually present on the machine makes me wonder as to the thought some parents give to the safety of their kids.....

 

[Maylian]

[QUOTE 1827023, member: 9609"]Not such a thing on cycleChat, someone will have a problem with it

I would suggest the sky is blue, but no doubt there would be 50 replies telling me it wasn't[/quote]

I'm colour blind and resemble this remark

 

[gambatte]

[QUOTE 1827023, member: 9609"]Not such a thing on cycleChat, someone will have a problem with it

I would suggest the sky is blue, but no doubt there would be 50 replies telling me it wasn't[/quote]

Its black right now

 

[ultraviolet]

No, of course they aren't. However, they should be expected to take responsibility for the lads actions.

prosicely; like saying sorry on the childs behalf, who was clearly shaken by the events. thats all that was needed.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 1826942, member: 9609"]Sorry for going completely off topic, but did want to stick my oar in here - You probably are correct mothers do get more of the blame when things go wrong, but there is the added benefit for mothers that when families break up, fathers do not have a hope in hell, the law seems to back the woman 99.999%[/quote]

It is OT, and it's also untrue. Courts are not biased in favour of women- they are, very sensibly, inclined to find in favour of the de facto primary carer. That this is usually the mother is a reflection of broader inequalities in employment and the division of domestic labour. So it is unfair, but in exactly the opposite of the way you imagine. But hey, this thread can take it all: misogyny; victim-blaming; faux victim-blaming; helmets; and now Fathers for Justice. I'm currently cooking up an anecdote that involves immigration, hi-vis, rape and RLJ, just to make sure we don't miss anything.

 

[Crackle]

It is OT, and it's also untrue. Courts are not biased in favour of women- they are, very sensibly, inclined to find in favour of the de facto primary carer. That this is usually the mother is a reflection of broader inequalities in employment and the division of domestic labour. So it is unfair, but in exactly the opposite of the way you imagine. But hey, this thread can take it all: misogyny; victim-blaming; faux victim-blaming; helmets; and now Fathers for Justice. I'm currently cooking up an anecdote that involves immigration, hi-vis, rape and RLJ, just to make sure we don't miss anything.

Motorbikes, you should probably involve motorbikes as well.

Not too many facts though, facts are a bit inconvenient where prejudiced uninformed judgemental opinion is concerned.

 

[theclaud]

Motorbikes, you should probably involve motorbikes as well.

Not too many facts though, facts are a bit inconvenient where prejudiced uninformed judgemental opinion is concerned.

Motorbikes, of course! Silly of me to leave them out. And speed cameras.

 

[Alien8]

I'm colour blind and resemble this remark

I didn't realise I was colour blind until the doctor told me - it was a bit of a bolt out of the yellow...

 

[Mushroomgodmat]

I didn't realise I was colour blind until the doctor told me - it was a bit of a bolt out of the yellow...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...7pW4BA&usg=AFQjCNHLvR9R5VXx4oIGaa4CA8ePbG1y9w