Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You beat me to it.e-bikes, the biggest threat to road safety! Yeah, right.Meanwhile every year 1,800 people die and 180,000 more are injured on the UK’s roads. 99.7% of these are caused by people driving motorbikes, cars, vans and lorries.
The way cycle-related incidents are reported in the media suggests to me that there are influential people who feel threatened by the popularity of cycling and by e-bikes.
Meanwhile
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16837768.ben-moisey-jailed-after-lexden-road-police-chase/
Moisey, of Ilex Close, Colchester, admitted dangerous driving, criminal damage, driving while disqualified and two counts of assault.
He has 31 convictions for 84 previous offences and had already racked up nine driving bans and driven while disqualified twice before.
When he is released from jail Moisey will be banned from the roads for 47 months.
BUt obviously ebikes are a great danger.
Lezyne are handy and
Lezyne are handy and considerably cheaper than garmin
Hard to get a stealth 2
Hard to get a stealth 2 unless you buy second hand.
The like for like is the ghost X which is about £20 more but will take 128GB cards.
Was there a safety campaign
Was there a safety campaign after this one ?
I’ve put compulsory in quotes
I’ve put compulsory in quotes now.
I also thought about BBC bias.
Some of them can’t work out
Some of them can’t work out hazards or think beyond the end of a bonnet.
Had one last night who didn’t like me cycling next to the centre line. Well the road is narrow, there are parked cars both sides, sometimes 2 cars cannot pass. You cannot see far enough ahead to know that someone isn’t coming the other way and since it a busy road someone is nearly always coming the otherway.
I know, I’ll move over, you overtake, then find that you are now going for a headon, so just pull back in front of me and slam the brakes on and hope I don’t hit your precious motor.
Not the same injury, but I
Not the same injury, but I found gradually increasing things worked best. 1 mile, 1.25 miles, 1.5 miles rather than 1, 5 , 10 miles.
Plenty of ice and heat too !Firstly making yourself more visible isn’t common sense, it’s perceived wisdom, unfortunately this is totally incorrect as it has a cumulative negative effect on safety, this applies not just to the vulnerable but to everyone.That would just lead to pedestrians, cyclists, drivers not using lights and relying on moonlight to
see.
“perceived wisdom” – I’m not really sure what that is supposed to convey.
Isn’t there an argument that
Isn’t there an argument that pink is the best colour?
I’ve had someone say they couldn’t see me because of the lights of the cars coming the other way !
Various extensions can assist
Various extensions can assist with that sort of thing !Various extensions can assist
Various extensions can assist with adverts.I mentioned helmets because
I mentioned helmets because when I was there, where I went there were very few pavements, so if you come off unlike the mainland where you hit the pavement and get scrapes and shoulder or collarbone injury (a la Porte), there you will hit a wall. So there will be some side impact to your head.
I think in that scenario, it changes the risk/benefit calculation, so more consideration in that locale is required.
Jersey is very cycle friendly
Jersey is very cycle friendly, they have green lanes where you have priority over cars and cars are limited to 15mph (so pretty much car free as they will take a different route)and drivers even give way to you when they don’t need to.
You just have to be careful at junctions because there aren’t many pavements, so visibility in/at junctions is not what it is on the main land, as you lose that extra metre of viewing.
Probably a good idea to have a helmet, as there is more likelihood of impact with street furniture, walls and branches due to the road layouts (at least that’s how it felt to me).giff77 wrote:
You can’t conceive then of any circumstance where a pedestrian or cyclist could be a fault?Again, the van driver knocked the lad down. He was obviously driving in a manner that prevented him either avoiding or lessening the injuries caused.
Oh, gosh, perhaps I should have thought about a completely water tight scenario, whereby the kid cycles out of his front door, across 1m of pavement straight into the path of the van. Or like the little shit tonight who decided to cycle across the zebra crossing and then halfway across, decided to cycle straight at me on the wrong side of the road.
We have no idea what the circumstances are, so that’s just a meaningless statement. For all we know, the kid just cycled straight off the pavment without lookingThis young fella should NEVER have been knocked down.Ah so what you are saying is motorists have no responsibility for what’s around them and the safety of a child on a bike or indeed on foot is solely down to them?
Gotcha, typical motorcentric victim blaming/responsibility diverting bullshit, you sound like the police and a motorist, they always pull that crap out of their hats to divert the blame and indooctrinate the vulnerable to make them think it’s their fault for being killed/harmed!
Fact is the police contable making a statement (made out to be fact) doesn’t know the facts either, yet was convinced enough to form a statement based on no knowledge of helmets or the incident itself.
If you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I have criticised PC Stanton.
Since there are no details about the “incident”, coming out with ‘it’s the fault of X’ or ‘helmets save the day’ is pointless.
