Live blog: Jeremy Vine criticised for claiming taxi driver was at fault in near miss with cyclist; Westminster attacker who drove at cyclists guilty of attempted murder; Lachlan Morton's GBDuro film + more

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

Or to put it another way;

Rules of this site:

1. The cyclist is always right

2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

freespirit1 wrote:

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

 

Or to put it another way;

Rules of this site:

1. The cyclist is always right

2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

or to put it another way 5 people died on the UK roads today as the result of collisions involving motor vehicles, 5 people will die tomorrow, and every day for the rest of this year and the next, and the one after that...but yeah cyclists grrr!!!

what people are commenting on is the down right hypocrisy where if a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist without looking, its the cyclists fault if they hit that pedestrian,but if a cyclist rides out in front of a motor vehicle in almost the same setup...its still the cyclists fault for simply being in the way.

many of us do not feel this is equitable, therefore the "rules" people are adopting are simply reflecting how officialdom treats cyclists as follows

1 cyclist is always wrong

2 refer to rule 1.

freespirit1 wrote:

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

 

Or to put it another way;

Rules of this site:

1. The cyclist is always right

2. When the cyclist is wrong refer to rule 1

I'm tired of this pathetic passive-aggressive way of trolling without actually attempting to construct a meaningful argument.  It's a hallmark of conservative-minded people across a lot of different topics.  Contribute something useful or don't bother.

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

no, you haven't got it right, you clearly haven't the capacity to grasp what's going on have you, exactly like freespirit!

We are making the point that there is an inequity in the law as it is applied to various road users.

Motorists basically get carte blanche to do what they like and blame absolved at virtually every avenue, then pedestrians next and finally people on bikes who have to take the brunt of responsibility for not just not getting killed.hurt but also have to do the same when it's a supposed more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian (except we know that peds do more harm than people on bikes on our streets!)

When the cyclist came onto the road this is no different to the lady who died when Alliston was convicted of her death, if the motorist had time to sound his horn then he would have been found guilty of the cyclists death if that had been the outcome. The pedeestrian in the Alliston case was not found to be at fault, the pedestrian the other week was only found to be 50% to blame despite the blind ignorance/walking into the path of the cyclist who again braked and diverted away but the opedestrian collided with him. All we want is equity in the application of the rules/law as it is for other road users. 

People like you simply aren't capable of understanding the basic concept of equity and the similarities between cases where people on bikes are having the law and standard of behaviour to be held to being applied differently, even when compared to a road user that we know maim and kill by the tens of thosusand every year!

jog on sonny!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

When the cyclist came onto the road this is no different to the lady who died when Alliston was convicted of her death, if the motorist had time to sound his horn then he would have been found guilty of the cyclists death if that had been the outcome.

Exactly!

IIRC the fact that Alliston was able to sound his horn and shout out was used against him when he was on trial for hitting a woman who'd walked out in front of him, and whom he'd tried to avoid.

So, it should be that if the taxi had time to sound his horn, and didn't make any attempt to otherwise avoid hitting the cyclist, then the full force of the Law should have come crashing down on the taxi driver if he'd hit her.

Except we know that it wouldn't have...

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

Let's say it was cyclist approaching the crossing on the road, do they still have to stop for the cyclist who couldn't be bothered to look or take any care?

I've  had a few close calls with some morons cycling through red or straight off the pavement - they couldn't give a shit about other cyclists, but apparently I should be arguing for equity or something.

John Smith wrote:

So let me get this right, in the mind of a number of people here:

pedestrian steps in front of cyclist = cyclist in the right

cyclist rides in front of car = cyclist in the right

 

And people wonder why there is a very that cyclists will never admit other cyclists could be in the wrong...

Perhaps you may also want to go and check google for the definition of the word "Sarcasm" because you clearly do not grasp the concept which is being employed by some commentators in this thread regarding Jeremy Vine.

Specifically sarcasm being used to highlight the disparity in the way the law is applied to to cyclists in comparison to other road users in many circumstances. 

For example Charlie Alliston was jailed for killing a pedestrian whilst cycling a fixie with no rear brakes, yet 18 year old Max Coopey kills 2 pedestrians whilst driving his parents Audi A5 whilst over the legal limits for Cannabis and also had Codeine in his system was recorded as a "road traffic collision" despite the 18 year old driver stating that "you don't slow down for the possibility of someone being on the other side of a blind corner" and “Any drug combination can affect your ability to drive safely, but I wasn’t, in my opinion, under the influence of cannabis.”

The reason he was driving his parents car was because his car was off the road due to a prior accident.

Yes very different circumstances but both resulted in deaths of pedestrians yet the cyclist was jailed and the car driver never even received a driving ban for killing 2 pedestrians.

craigstitt]<p>[quote=John Smith wrote:

The reason he was driving his parents car was because his car was off the road due to a prior accident.

Yes very different circumstances but both resulted in deaths of pedestrians yet the cyclist was jailed and the car driver never even received a driving ban for killing 2 pedestrians.

And further to that case, had the parents informed their insurance company of his recent accident before his drive, if not he was possibly driving without valid insurance.

CyclingInGawler wrote:

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

As I said, I don't think there's much of a case against the driver in this one, and would save the outrage for all the cases where it's the driver who is going aginst the red, but I do wonder how what you say relates to the Aliston case.  (Or, as mentioned already, the Brushett case)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

CyclingInGawler wrote:

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

 

As I said, I don't think there's much of a case against the driver in this one, and would save the outrage for all the cases where it's the driver who is going aginst the red, but I do wonder how what you say relates to the Aliston case.  (Or, as mentioned already, the Brushett case)

From what I’ve read about both the Aliston and Brushett cases I tend to think they’ve been harshly treated, particularly in Aliston’s case who, as has been said by many before, would probably not have been in the same legal position if he’d been driving and not cycling. But because I don’t agree with the outcomes of those cases I don’t feel that they absolve the cyclist here from behaving in a manner similar to the pedestrians in the cases you mention. 

CyclingInGawler wrote:

I’m afraid anyone who doesn’t think the cyclist was at fault has completely lost touch with the notion of personal responsibility. Yes we all make mistakes, and yes we all owe a duty of care to one another, but if you chose to cross the road against a red light, without stopping and without looking you really are placing an awful lot of trust in, and reliance on, every other road user to compensate for your own stupidity. Try that in South Australia and you’re not going to last very long.

I was under the impression that if you even ride a bike AT ALL in South Australia you're not going to last very long...  

EK Spinner wrote:

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Actually, just because it's your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free.
And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

Sriracha wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Actually, just because it's your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free.
And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

This is getting into the realms of it being all well and good being right when you're dead. How close would the driver have to have been to the crossing for it to be a bad idea for the cyclist to just fly across? Because I'd say she was pretty close to that line.

vonhelmet wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

Had there been a collision there I can't see that the taxi driver would have been charged with anything never mind have to argue their case, on the basis of that video then I would agree with that decision.

Actually, just because it's your right of way and the other person is the wrong side of the highway code, that still does not give permission to run the offending party down. You still have to do your best to preserve life and limb. Had the taxi driver ploughed on regardless, asserting right of way instead of trying to avoid a collision, I doubt they would have got off free. And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

This is getting into the realms of it being all well and good being right when you're dead. How close would the driver have to have been to the crossing for it to be a bad idea for the cyclist to just fly across? Because I'd say she was pretty close to that line.

This is basic hazard perception, you as the driver present a hazard to the vulnerable road user, this we know as fact. It is not as the driving test makes out hazards that are presented to you as the driver for the most part. In this situation the greater responsibility should be with the operator of the machine that does kill and maim tens of thousands every year, that it doesn't and isn't pressed by gov and police is at the root as to why those numbers are that high.

In this case you assess that the person crossing may well likely not stop (judging their speed and distance to crossing as you might when a motor comes from your left), you can make this assessment well in advance of the crossing. You sound your horn in advance and slow at the same time, let the vulnerable road user cross, this completely removes the hazard you present to them 100%, you cede your priority, this should be basic driving 101.

in these circumstances it is the ONLY option to guarantee no conflict, it's not dangerous for you either on cycle or in a motor to do this in traffic IF you are bothering to be doing your hazard perception/reading the road around you all the time as you should.

This should be the norm not the exception, particularly in a civilised society, we would be massively better as a society if this were the case.

Sriracha wrote:

. . . And indeed, you often see drivers pushing things quite close just to prove their point. For example, I see drivers of powerful cars accelerate harshly on a roundabout to catch out other cars entering which have not anticipated their aggression.

In fact I would replace “often” with “pretty much universally” at every roundabout I’ve ever been to.  And whilst I don’t think that really applies here, since the cyclist could have done with looking, the practice of accelerating aggressively to prove a point is appallingly widespread.