Look out for the cyclist

[LadyDeliah]

Even the courts recognise the destructive disparity between motor vehicles and others:

"So, for example, in Toropdar v D a motorist who was driving negligently fast (although under the speed limit) collided with and injured a ten-year-old boy who ran into the road from between parked cars. Giving judgment, Clarke J said that a car is ?in one sense a lethal weapon? so that ?the standard of care required of a driver to prevent harm is likely to be greater than that of a pedestrian?, and held that the motorist was two-thirds liable for the boy?s injuries. (Toropdar v D [2009] EWHC 2997, ?42)"

"Hale LJ in Eagle v Chambers explained:

A car can do so much more damage to a person than a person can usually do to a car. [?] The potential ?destructive disparity? between the parties can readily be taken into account as an aspect of blameworthiness (Eagle v Chambers, above, ?15)

In other words, when determining the relative blameworthiness (for the purposes of contributory negligence) of a motorist and a person whom the motorist has injured, the courts are prepared to take into account the fact that the motorist was driving a potentially dangerous weapon ? so any fault on the motorist?s part is more blameworthy because it poses a greater risk to others."

There are other examples but I'm even boring myself now!

[Otta]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Says it all really.

>

>

> =youtu.be

I do love that clip, and the show it's taken from. I've posted it a couple of times in the past, but some of the hardcore cyclists couldn't even see the funny ironic side of that.

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I do love that clip, and the show it's taken from. I've posted it a couple of times in the past, but

> some of the hardcore cyclists couldn't even see the funny ironic side of that.

Is it from Monkey Dust? I loved that programme; it was so darkly brilliant and funny. But I don't remember ever seeing that one.

[LadyDeliah]

Otta Wrote:

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

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Says it all really.

> >

> >

>

>

> > =youtu.be

>

>

> I do love that clip, and the show it's taken from.

> I've posted it a couple of times in the past, but

> some of the hardcore cyclists couldn't even see

> the funny ironic side of that.

Sorry, I must be a hardcore cyclist then. Cartoon negative stereotypes are not funny just because they are cartoons.

[Loz]

> Sorry, I must be a hardcore cyclist then.

I though that was a given? :)

[Otta]

Haha.

And yeah I think it was monkey dust.

[LadyDeliah]

I'd have a better arse if I was a hardcore cyclist, Loz. Mine is less than perky, evidence of my medium core cyclist status.

And yeh the cartoon was a bit funny in it's characterisation of certain cyclists but promoting factually incorrect anti-bike myths like 'road tax' paying for roads turned me off pretty much straight away.

[Otta]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

Cartoon

> negative stereotypes are not funny just because

> they are cartoons.

Interesting you using the word stereotypes. Stereotypes exist because there are enough people in any given group that act a certain way that stereotypes are born.

At the end of the day LD, for every stupid careless dangerous driver out there, there is a stupid careless dangerous cyclist. All you do with the militant bollocks is make normal sensible people turn against your cause because you iver egg the pudding.

So tired of the victim mentality I keep seeing in here from SOME cyclists.

No one is getting in their car and thinking "right, 10 points for a cyclist, lets go and take some down".

[Otta]

But take your point about myths like road tax. But it's from a comedy cartoon.

[LadyDeliah]

Not really Otta. Stereotypes can come about from prejudice and mis-information, such as cyclists don't pay for roads.

[LadyDeliah]

Getting dizzy from cross-posting!

The point about no-one getting their car with a view to running down cyclists is irrelevant. Motorists owe a duty of care to other road users and are obliged to take extra care around vulnerable roads users such as cyclists.

If someone is unable or unwilling to meet the level of care required, they should not be on the road.

[LadyNorwood]

Ditto cyclists....

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Getting dizzy from cross-posting!

>

> The point about no-one getting their car with a

> view to running down cyclists is irrelevant.

> Motorists owe a duty of care to other road users

> and are obliged to take extra care around

> vulnerable roads users such as cyclists.

>

> If someone is unable or unwilling to meet the

> level of care required, they should not be on the

> road.

[LadyDeliah]

Why do so many drivers want to kill me? Death threats. Near-misses. A run-in with Clarkson. Radio 2 host and (very scared) cyclist JEREMY VINE on the terrors he faces on the road:

Interesting piece in the Daily Fail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538377/Why-drivers-want-kill-Death-threats-Near-misses-A-run-Clarkson-Radio-2-host-scared-cyclist-JEREMY-VINE-terrors-faces-road.html

The comments underneath are predictable!

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Why do so many drivers want to kill me?

They read the EDF?? :))

[Otta]

Haha.

Sorry LD.

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, for what Otta?

[Alan Medic]

Whoever it is that rides that contraption where the seat is almost at ground level, you need to make yourself more visible. Dark clothing in a dark street made you impossible to see last night until the last second. Very foolish of you.

[the-e-dealer]

What really scares me is the two kids in a cardboard box at the front of the bike- oft seen in upland road. poor Kids!

[davidk]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Whoever it is that rides that contraption where

> the seat is almost at ground level, you need to

> make yourself more visible. Dark clothing in a

> dark street made you impossible to see last night

> until the last second. Very foolish of you.

There is a lady on my street who regularly rides a recumbent. I'm confused why you couldn't see it. Did it not have any lights?

[Alan Medic]

It had a dim light which was barely noticeable. I down know how much lower to the ground it was than a normal bike but it was ineffective.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I saw a cyclist the other night who had an additional rear light on his neck/shoulder. Pretty damn effective - much easier to spot. Well done that man.

[davidk]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> It had a dim light which was barely noticeable. I

> down know how much lower to the ground it was than

> a normal bike but it was ineffective.

Fair enough. Most recumbents have the light mounting on the headrest which is about the same height as a light on the seatpost of an upright bike. So, I think the issue was more the rubbish lights than the type of bike. Which is pretty bloody dumb really. Wear whatever you want, but don't cheap out on the lights people.

[Applespider]

Can I recommend the Fibre Flare as a great light to be seen by. It comes in various lengths but it's basically a long flexible tube that lights up in virtually all directions. You can clip it to your bike or to yourself - I have one clipped on to my rear jacket pocket (that admittedly looks a little like a tail) and a micro one attached to my helmet. They come in different colours - white, red, blue, green etc - and their battery life is great too (about 3 months if you use it for an hour a day on flash). I've been chased down a few times and asked what light it was.

[Townleygreen]

I've heard that Fibre Flare eats up the batteries - is that your experience, Applesider??

[katanita]

I've been given three sets of spoke lights like these http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nite-Ize-Spokelit-Bike-Light/dp/B001SN8IUM/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0. Haven't used them yet. Can't decide if they are a) really uncool (especially the one that changes colour) or b) a pain to keep taking on and off to avoid them getting nicked or c) good for extra visability and will make me look awesome like I'm in Tron. Any thoughts?