Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.
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?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...