Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Huge missed avoidance of
Huge missed avoidance of obstruction:
Cables should be laid flat and never be extended from an upper storey to a vehicle,
nor should they be hung from any street furniture including lamp columns or trees.It’s like they never heard of telegraph poles nor the regulations on overhead power cables..
The product blurb states:
The product blurb states:
Suitable for pedestrian areas, not vehicular traffic.So wheelchairs and bicycles are disregarded!
So 100 years of Big
So 100 years of Big Automotive and Big Oil marketing propaganda have made road death acceptable and expected so there’s no political ambition to change it. #VisionZeroNowhere bigger than USA, and nothing more important than protecting Democracy for another 250 years from the wannabe Dictator
Dementia Dozy Don who believes he’s above the law.#45 belongs in Fulton County Jail where he will be accountable for his actions and not above the law.
Logical, but unfortunately
Logical, but unfortunately insight and competence have never been required in jury selection.Peers only means members of the human race, in a blind justice way…
I suppose that the legal profession would say that its their job to make the key facts of a case understandable to everyone.
So maybe it’s more important for the defence lawyers to be cyclists or at least to get expert witnesses to ensure the facts are correctly represented.
“3 deaths are attributed to
“3 deaths are attributed to cyclist”The government stats do not attribute responsibility, because that requires investigation, rather provide which modes of transport are involved. Investigation is optional depending upon the circumstances.
So 3 pedestrian deaths involved a bicycle does not literally mean that the cyclist was responsible.
Obviously when CPS brings a manslaughter case it does mean that an investigation provided compelling evidence likely to secure a conviction.
A bicycle not fitted with the legally required brakes being compelling evidence..
No, that’s very doubtful
No, that’s very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.I don’t doubt what you say
I don’t doubt what you say about your local group however hard core roadies still need to uphold the British Cycling guidance and best practices because we all share the same public highways.
I’ve heard some banter but that’s all and it did no harm.
Pushing other riders isn’t acceptable in any road. KOM, PB or whatever…I’ve noticed that clubs ride
I’ve noticed that clubs ride and communicate in a way that is not obvious to the general public so open to some misunderstanding.
It’s quite usual here to read about the ignorance of road users including cyclists on The Highway Code and the behaviour of cycle clubs is less commonly understood than HWC.On joining a club most new riders will be briefed about the expectations and etiquette of the club.
Obviously the general public and non-member cyclists are not.I recall being told that the etiquette was based on British Cycling guidance and long experience of club members.
I definitely have seen social media feedback that demonstrated significant ignorance and single mode assumptions.
An obvious example being the doubling up of riders in a group. No they’re not pretending to be in La Tour. Yes they are trying to reduce the overtake in half.
I’m making a general point not about the specific ride mentioned.
grumpyoldcyclist wrote:
They may be limited to 50 or 60 mph, but they don’t observe it and speed cameras haven’t been told about the different limits.
Bring back traffic police Richi
It’s negligent enforcement that speed camera systems don’t use ANPRS and DVLA lookup to determine the allowed speed of each vehicle. This is all within government control.HoldingOn wrote:
There was even a driver of a very distinctive car, that I reported for a close pass and the police took action (probably an educational course, but I don’t know for sure), who subsequently passed me a couple of months later and actually waited for a gap and moved completely to the other side of the road to overtake.
Real world evidence of changing behaviour!
?HoldingOn wrote:
There was even a driver of a very distinctive car, that I reported for a close pass and the police took action (probably an educational course, but I don’t know for sure), who subsequently passed me a couple of months later and actually waited for a gap and moved completely to the other side of the road to overtake.
Real world evidence of changing behaviour!
?HoldingOn wrote:
There was even a driver of a very distinctive car, that I reported for a close pass and the police took action (probably an educational course, but I don’t know for sure), who subsequently passed me a couple of months later and actually waited for a gap and moved completely to the other side of the road to overtake.
Real world evidence of changing behaviour!
?hawkinspeter wrote:
The majority of drivers do want to be safe and considerate, but too many of them don’t realise the problems with not leaving enough space around vulnerable traffic.
The IAM research shows that the more modes of transport have been operated the better the understanding and safer the behaviour.The improved standard mirror fitment to HGV being a good example to remove blind spots so enable safer operation.
“If you can’t see my mirrors I can’t see you ” not being a big enough clue for some people!
NOtotheEU wrote:
Factual headline and no mention of lights, hi-viz or helmets. Give that journalist a promotion.
Use of the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines should be mandatory in law, regulated by the Department of Culture Media and Sports.
Please write to your MP on that asking them to support any bills that may provide this. Clearly the IPSO code of practice is useless and doesn’t stop anti cycling hate speech in the mainstream media.duncanap wrote:
I spoke to a friend of a friend who is a Swiss lawyer, and it seems that as well as the GDPR considerations, Swiss law goes a lot further to protect peoples expectation of privacy. The last time the courts considered use of dashcams – which I guess is effectively the same, they made the following points, sorry the web page is in German:
Like UK there is some unrealistic expectation from the CH legal profession:
“A deputy sheriff mentality is to be avoided. In particular, private dashcams should not be used to systematically monitor other road users. It is up to the police to ensure safety on the road.”The UK experience is that ‘the police to ensure safety on the road’ is the exception not the norm.
I will be sure to check the reality with my Swiss colleagues though cycle infra is normal in Zurich thus reducing road danger.
So close passing is not possible on segregated cycle paths, this the assumption in point 1.
According to the guidance: “If dashcam recordings are to be used as evidence in an incident, the law enforcement agency involved must decide whether the incident is sufficiently serious to outweigh the interference with the personal rights of the people filmed. If this is not the case, the recordings may not be admitted as evidence.”Is being scared for your life sufficiently serious to outweigh the interference with the personal rights of the people filmed?
#OpClosePass
#VisionZero
