bradley wiggins/cycling

[malumbu]

According to the Daily Mail 30% of motorists are uninsured (OMG did I ever think I'd say according to the DM?). Clearly that is selective Bollocks. The real figure is well over a million but up to 10% apparently in London. Cars kill people. So why this nonsense about cyclists and insurance?

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Right I started this thread so I will finish it.

>

> Miles cycled in London = about 40,000

>

> Hit and run by a Merc and left for dead (Red Post Hill) = once

> Knocked off by a hired white van (Sydenham) = Once

> Near misses with a taxi = twice

> With a bus = three times (and once with ?500 compensation, and this without any impact so I ask

> my dear readers did Thames buses have anything to hide)

> Near misses with blue light vehicles - three

> Road rage (where people threatened to kill me after I had asked them politely to give me more

> space) = three times

> Witness to a crazy woman on the Brixton Road try to take out a cyclist = once

> At fault for near misses with vehicles - a couple of times, and profuse apologies

> Near misses with bike, mostly recently - three times

> Near misses with pedestrains on phone, i pod, texting, numerous times

> Times I have almost got hit by a bike twice, only

> once my fault and rather embarrasing

>

> So scientifically, vehicles most dangerous,

> followed by pedestrians, and a close thing between

> me and other cyclists.

Have you ever considered that the problem just might be you? Really, as a pedestrian (never mind a car driver) if I had this many issues over the years I'd be looking a bit closer to home for the solution.

[Voyageur]

Loz Wrote:

> Have you ever considered that the problem just

> might be you? Really, as a pedestrian (never mind

> a car driver) if I had this many issues over the

> years I'd be looking a bit closer to home for the

> solution.

Very good point.

[binary_star]

Voyageur Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

>

> > Have you ever considered that the problem just

> > might be you? Really, as a pedestrian (never

> mind

> > a car driver) if I had this many issues over

> the

> > years I'd be looking a bit closer to home for

> the

> > solution.

>

> Very good point.

Or... car drivers react differently to the presence of other cars than they do cyclists. As a pedestrian you're not going to be going very fast and like me have seemed to have experienced little/no issues over the year. As a cyclist however, I've had about as many near misses on my bike as malambu.

[LadyDeliah]

It's pretty standard for anyone who commutes on a bike. I'd say it is pretty low in fact. I cycle through New Cross and at least twice a week am nearly hit by a car/van/cab trying to rush through the traffic near New Cross Gate station. I cycle defensively, lit up like a Christmas tree, but that doesn't stop the angry, frustrated drivers risking my life by driving really close, at speed, only to be stopped 2 minutes later by the lights.

[malumbu]

I thought I'd done pretty well to be still in one piece.

And I've also happily admitted a few of the time (a monority) that I was at fault.

OK I admit that if I hadn't been cycling down Red Post Hill in 1998 I would not have been hit by the Merc that has hammered over from Herne Hill Road, and tried to overtake me when there was no space. Silly me. It reminds me of a friend that had a crash in Turkey once. The argument from the other side was that if she had not been visiting the accident would not have happened. The local police chief agreed. So yes, you are correct, if I had never been born none of the above would have happened.

Now back to my near misses with bikes. Once dodging traffic outside Syd Station. I swore back at the cyclist as he was hammering through stationary traffic with idiots like myself crossing the road.

The more interesting one was when a moutain bike clipped me near to St James Park, again when I was dodging the traffic. I apologised, and he said no worries mate. I am thinking why is he not threatening to beat me up like I would do in the same place.

Lastly I was cylcing on a quiet road parallel to Walworth road, and clocked a mother and her three kids. I got eye contact, as you do, but she then allowed the kids to run across me in a fan. I yanked the brakes on, went 90 degrees into that air as the front wheel locked, and then fell on one of the kids (who was uninjured I hasten to add). Whilst rather angry it must have looked rather comical.

[northlondoner]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a commuter cyclist in london, i can honestly

> say the most danger i've felt recently is from

> other cyclists. Drivers seem to have become a lot

> more aware over the last couple of years and seem

> to be driving accordingly. I think drivers are

> become more fearful (of injuring cyclists) and

> cyclists are becoming less fearful and careful; i

> put it down to safety in numbers.

>

> It's ridiculous to suggest that a cyclist cycling

> badly is only a danger to themselves- if a car has

> to swerve/brake hard to avoid a cyclist weaving in

> and out of traffic, then there's every chance

> they'll cause a bigger accident.

>

> And of course it's not all cyclists- ashamed to

> say it's almost always men. But reactions from

> other cyclists i speak to waiting at lights while

> others charge through is always one of

> frustration.

>

> As far as undertaking goes- it's perfectly legal

> and should be safe to do so given enough space.

Nailed it. The last time I cycled to work the biggest threat I faced was from over adrenalised pumped up Wiggins wannabees.

Dave R - yes wait in line like the rest of us rather than swerving into impossible spaces and then complaining about narrowly escaping being totalled. Wearing lycra doesn't make you special.

[Jeremy]

Motorists need to realise we should give cyclists *more* space than for cars, not less.

However, some cyclists just seem to be ultra defensive no matter what. This morning I was driving behind a cyclist... not enough room to pass safely, so I stayed behind him until it was safe to pass. At which point he deliberately slowed down to walking pace, and turned round and started shouting at me! So frustrating, because a lot of drivers would have tried to overtake.

[DaveR]

Edited because I really don't give a stuff

[northlondoner]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Edited because I really don't give a stuff

Shame really.

[DaveR]

Northlondoner, you carry on preferring anecdotes to data, and whingeing and moaning about cyclists who have the nerve to pass you. I just hope I'm not around when you're out on the road and the red mist descends.

[northlondoner]

Whoa steady ....that's cutting. I see I face an uphill struggle in getting you to grasp my argument that its not the overtaking that's the issue. It's the recklessness in doing so. But in any event,I can only quote the words of one wiser than I.

It's a response to a thread titled " what do you want " .

Oh yes, let me know how that data thing works out for you !

Annette Curtain Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A bike warden, with clout.

>

> You know those

> ride-along-dressed-in-black-with-no-lights-on type

> of cyclists. Yeah you do, ?500+ bike, all the

> garb, no lights.

>

> Well, this warden would leap out, ram a broomstick

> through their spokes, and then motorists would be

> given the chance to crumple the stupid bike under

> the wheels of their cars.

>

> The warden would then crack the offending cyclist

> in the nethers, with said stick.

>

> And pedesterians could mock them from the safety

> of the pavement.

>

> Oh and, I want a cannon on my car, for that idiot

> who breaks through the light, the rugger shorts

> guy, wearing long sock, no helmet and all sweaty.

> As his wazzocky face looks round, i'd like to fire

> a soggy loaf filled with English mustard right

> into it. Again, running his silly suspension

> mountain bike over, until it was flat.

>

> Any chances ?pp

[mynamehere]

I consider some of the postings against cyclists to be "hate" and crimes in spirit if not law

why this amazing hate of the strong (plated armour, fossil fuel driven) against an exposed human a bit of metal with wheels?

The law should be:

1. if a car touches a cyclist or a pedestrian it's the driver's fault

2. if a cyclist touches a pedestrian it's the cyclist's fault

and that is what the law is in some countries

40 seconds (or less) from point A to point B for a car driver obsessed with their rights and the need to go fast and a driver who drives with consideration at speed limit.

Internet Hate Crime: yes it only, correctly, deals with race and sex, the rest we're supposed to be able to do for ourselves in a free democracy

Offensive Material and the Law

The Internet has changed the way we communicate, it has many positive values but it has also allowed the hateful to spread offence to a broader audience, without editorial control and often behind a veil of anonymity.

While you may come across a lot of material on the internet that offends you, very little of it is actually illegal. UK laws are written to make sure that people can speak and write, even offensive material, without being prosecuted for their views. Parliament has tried to define laws in a way that balances our freedom of expression with the right to be free from hate crime.

Agencies like the police have duties to promote good relationships between different parts of our communities, but they do not have powers to control offensive thoughts or words unless they are shared illegally. We understand that hate material can damage community cohesion and create fear, so the police want to work alongside communities and the Internet industry to reduce the harm caused by hate on the Internet.

Inciting hatred

chat forums where people ask other people to commit hate crimes

[the-e-dealer]

Surely "Engine Size" in this case is the Size of the person Cycling 10 Stone - 12 Stone ?50 12-15 Stone ?75

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> silverfox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > It should be mandatory that cyclists are taxied

>

> Ermm, presumably you mean 'taxed'? And based on

> what? Current rules?

>

> "Car vehicle tax rates are based on either engine

> size or fuel type and CO2 emissions, depending on

> when the vehicle was registered"

> https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates

>

> That'll be ?0 then. And how much will that cost

> the 'tax' payer to administrate!? Well done SF,

> bravo!

[Jeremy]

mynamehere Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The law should be:

>

> 1. if a car touches a cyclist or a pedestrian it's

> the driver's fault

Fantastic idea! I could give up my job, and spend my time cycling into cars and then taking the drivers to court!

[the-e-dealer]

Shouldn't it be all male?

[DaveR]

It's funny, northondoner, that you quote a post that illustrates exactly what I mean i.e. the attitude of:

I don't like the way someone is cycling

therefore they 'deserve' to get hurt

if they do get hurt it won't be my fault, but theirs

the 'problem' of cyclists getting hurt is caused by cyclists

therefore drivers should not be expected to take particular care/have respect for cyclists, because it's not their problem

This is the attitude that kills people. Whether you are conscious of it or not, it is your attitude. You are contributing, in your own small way to the risk of people being killed. I don't think I can put it any clearer than that.

On the other hand, it would be nonsense to suggest that no cyclist is ever at fault, or ever puts anyone else at risk, or ever behaves like a complete idiot, and in fact may be crying out for a slap, and I have never suggested that. But it's a completely separate issue. As I said before, when you get in your car, only one thing matters - are you going to drive safely? If you hit a cyclist, only one of you is going to get hurt. What matters is not what he or she did, but what you did. If you did everything that could reasonably be expected of you to avoid it, your conscience is clear.

[titch juicy]

I intimated in an earlier post that it was mainly men that cycle selfishly and dangerously.

I was waiting at the Cycle lane traffic light at the top of Rye Lane last night for it to change when 6 people cycled through it red. All girls. Then i had to swerve out of the way of one of them as she was weaving all over the road (with buses passing, and children crossing) because she wasn't watching the road, rather she was texting someone.

I'm going to start being less British about this and start confronting other cyclists. It drives me mad.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree with every word of your post DaveR.

When I had driving lessons, something my instrustor drummed into me was, not only to give planty of room when overtaking a cyclist, but to also check my mirror after overtaking them to make sure I'd done so safely. It was great advice.

[Cyberia]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mynamehere Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The law should be:

> >

> > 1. if a car touches a cyclist or a pedestrian

> it's

> > the driver's fault

>

> Fantastic idea! I could give up my job, and spend

> my time cycling into cars and then taking the

> drivers to court!

Erm... cycling into cars is a cyclist touching a car and not the other way around. If you're proposing actually getting hit by cars deliberately you may find you give up more than just your job.

[Jeremy]

Thanks for that.

[Cyberia]

Anytime, J-dog. B)

[Loz]

Cyberia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > mynamehere Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The law should be:

> > >

> > > 1. if a car touches a cyclist or a pedestrian

> > it's

> > > the driver's fault

> >

> > Fantastic idea! I could give up my job, and

> spend

> > my time cycling into cars and then taking the

> > drivers to court!

>

> Erm... cycling into cars is a cyclist touching a

> car and not the other way around. If you're

> proposing actually getting hit by cars

> deliberately you may find you give up more than

> just your job.

OK, Jeremy and I will start veering wildly in front of cars on our bikes. Guaranteed payout. Or else leaping off the pavement in front of cyclists for less money, but less chance of serious injury.

Get those insurance documents together, cyclists.

[Loz]

mynamehere Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I consider some of the postings against cyclists

> to be "hate" and crimes in spirit if not law

I consider your post to be a hate crime against motorists. Lucky for you the law isn't that wide, isn't it?

[maxxi]

I commit quite a few crimes 'in spirit' but have served time for all of them in the same vein.

I have also, 'in spirit' enacted or caused to be enacted countless good and charitable measures. I have saved lives and ended world poverty. In spirit.