A retired lawyer from Amsterdam has lost a court case in which he was seeking to compel the city’s mayor to take action against ‘dickhead’ cyclists who break the law.
Frank Bakker, who lives in the canal belt in the centre of the Dutch capital, brought the action after he received no reply to a letter he sent to acting mayor Jozias van Aartsen complaining about anti-social cyclists.
In his letter, he called on the mayor to order police to take action against riders who break the law, reports DutchNews.nl.
Judges told him that the action should have been directed against the city’s administration, rather than the mayor, but added that even had he done that he would have lost the case
Bakker claimed to have received in excess of 10,000 messages supporting his action.
He outlined some of his grievances against cyclists last month, telling DutchNews.nl: “If I, as a car driver, drive through a red light, then I have to pay a €280 fine.
“But the bicycle who is standing beside you cycles straight through. That just isn’t right.
“I cannot say why it is so bad now – it is the straw that broke the camel’s back,” he continued.
“It is not just about the number of people in the city but that they are not following the rules and I find that unfair.
“In recent years, it has really got a lot worse and there must be an end to it” he insisted.
In the build-up to the case, which has reportedly cost Bakker several thousand euro, the AD newspaper filmed him haranguing cyclists who ignored red traffic lights of rode on the pavement.
Footage showed him standing on a street corner ranting at riders, telling one: “Hey, you’re cycling on the pavement! Dickhead!”
Saskia Kluit, director of the Dutch Cyclists’ Union acknowledged that cyclists should comply with the rules of the road, but said police had higher priorities.
“It is a national sport to moan about the behaviour of cyclists, but this isn’t necessarily the cause of most accidents,” she explained.
“Traffic police also need to deal with speeding motorbikes, drink driving and joyriding, which could have a bigger impact.
“Everybody should stick to the rules, but the impact of a car is far greater than that of a bicycle.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
20 thoughts on “Amsterdam lawyer loses case in which he called for action against ‘dickhead’ cyclists”
Common sense prevails.
Common sense prevails.
Maybe Mr Bakker should move
Maybe Mr Bakker should move to Australia.
It’s so refreshing to hear a
It’s so refreshing to hear a sensible and reasonable repsonse to accusations about cyclists’ behaviour.
This line needs to be repeated again and again and again…
ROOTminus1 wrote:
Well I hope that there is supporting evidence for this, etc, etc…
don simon wrote:
There is. Plenty. Here is some.
“More than two thirds of all crashes between drivers and cyclists in Central London are the fault of the motorist, research indicates.
The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent of cases, no cause could be found or both parties were to blame.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involving-bikes-mostly-drivers-fault-9s2ssx06vn9
https://twitter.com/GlosRoadSafety/status/611167754612285442/photo/1
“A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in 60% to 75% of all cases and cyclists solely at fault 17% to 25% of the time.”
Reported in the Guardian Dec 15 2009.
I have more.
felixcat wrote:
Look, I’ll try and save you some time.
1. Your ecvidence isn’t good enough.
2. You evidence isn’t good enough.
3. I’ll misinterperet what you’ve said.
4. I refuse to accept your evidence.
5. I still don’t understand your point.
6. I think your evidence is too old.
100. I don’t recognise your evidence and I still don’t understand your point.
150. What was the question?
175. If I may put words into your mouth…
176. I think I’ll make an assumption on what you’ve said.
177. Could you please not make assumptions?
178. I’ll assume that your reply means something different.
179. Could you offer some supporting evidence, please?
200. Trust me on this, but I will have the last word.
201. If you prove me wrong, I will just disappear…
202. but I will have the last word though.
HTH.
felixcat wrote:
And that 68% is slanted in favour of motorists, you only need look at the fact hi-vis is brought in as a valid argument for partial blame or wholly to blame to see how bent/massaged the figures are. This is replicated in many instances, look at the ‘undertaking’ of large vehicles, the Road safety video brought out by government was a classic bit of victim blaming. Lane crossing/encroachment, ignoreed as being wholly to blame on motorist, even ridiculous ones like cyclist going too fasr ye the speed was well below the speed limit and no incident would occur if the driver actually looked and/or slowed down.
We know that the those who actually assess the incidents have an inbuilt bias as we experience it every single day, their motorist slant on things means they are not objective enough nor indeed are capable of understanding matters because they simply do not ride a bike nor uphold the law as it is written when cyclists are on the wrong end.
The responsibility is somehow shared yet as per the lady in NL, motorists cause the bigger harm so should have the bigger responsibility.
Personally I’d say it’s much closer to 85% sole fault of motorist with about 5% person on bike and 10% shared if I’m being being generous.
felixcat wrote:
I am surprised that this was allowed to stand unchallenged. How can something which is entirely lawful be the cause of accidents?
It’s like claiming that an accident was caused by the driver not driving a yellow car.
That this shit is spouted by corporate media shouldn’t really surprise anyone. That a government supposedly funded by everyone for everyone should come out with it, is worrying.
Anyone ready for the armed insurrection yet? No? OK, then.
.
.
Not sure how people use
Not sure how people use “dickhead” but his insult is acutally more feces-related. To be honest, cycling in Amsterdam is a bit of a jungle compared to the rest of the Netherlands, but drivers and cyclists generally adapt to each other.
Tourists on bikes on the other hand form quite the danger…
“It is a national sport to
“It is a national sport to moan about the behaviour of cyclists, but this isn’t necessarily the cause of most accidents,” she explained.
I didn’t realise we shared the same national sport with Holland.
burtthebike wrote:
I think in this country it’s more like a blood sport where cyclists are hunted down for the entertainment of a minority of angry drivers.
Flapdrol. Great word. We need
Flapdrol. Great word. We need it in English.
Is it illegal to cycle on the
Is it illegal to cycle on the pavement in Nederland? Because it isn’t illegal in the UK.
Leviathan wrote:
Yes, it definitely is
I can officially confirm that
I can officially confirm that many cyclists here in the Netherlands are in fact complete dickheads and totally ignorant of rules and regulations, car drivers, pedestrians and even other cyclists.
Similarly, most car drivers here in the Netherlands are equal dickheads and in some strange way it all seems to balance out.
What really screws up the order of things are the helmet wearing, lycra clad, decent bike riding, law abiding non Dutch citizens out for exercise rather than a commute.
Expatpat wrote:
Yep, that’s the natural global order.
Drivers kill mountains of people; cyclists don’t. Happy equilibrium.
Before the Netherlands v
Before the Netherlands v England international game tonight, they should precede it with a national ‘cycling moan off’, just to see who is the best at this national sport.
My money is on good old Blighty, especially if we play our best player, The Daily Mail comments section.
I love bikes with all my
I love bikes with all my heart and soul, having pretty much built my life around them, but after a long weekend in Amsterdam a while back, I was quite keen to throw most bikes and their riders into any available canal!
When crossing the bigger roads you had to watch first for bikes (going in whichever direction they fancied, followed by cars, then trams – now you’ve made it into the middle of the road – then more trams, more cars and finally bikes going whichever other way they fancied. Everytime I tried to cross a road, the mere act of turning round to check over by shoulder brought me face to face with a stoned loon on a bike (tourist of course).
It was kind of brilliant and kind of taxing all at the same time. I really love Amsterdam, it’s one of the best cities I have spent time in.
DaSy wrote:
I’d live there, if the missus agreed. But I’d spend all day pickled out of my brain and never get any work done.