BentMikey and a Subaru Driver

[Bollo]

Finally I will tell you the one and only thing that irks me slightly about this whole video camera thing. As we have seen Mikey is quite happy to film the licence plates of the vehicles he sees commiting an 'offence' and he can of course then pass them on to the police and they can be used to ID the 'offender'. Pity then that if I did choose (and don't worry as I really could not ever be that bothered to do it - life is just too short) to video cyclists running red lights and the likes (and yes SOME do - I know you probably can't believe it ) I have no way to ID them. I wonder if there is some reverse psychology working there?

Do a search on this forum and read the debate. One of the great things about cycling is its diversity, and that means diversity of opinion as well. You'll find as many here that get p1ssed off with RLJers as anywhere else.

But unfortunately, the RLJ argument doesn't compare like with like. We're all so used to the idea of cars that we forget that they're several tonnes of industrial equipment. Using a motor vehicle is a unique responsibility because most of us will not be in charge of anything so potentially damaging at any other time in our lives. But because motor vehicles are so common, we take them for granted and dismiss the risks to ourselves and others.

Whatever idiot is riding a bike, and howevermuch the press highlight RLJers and 'lycra louts', a cyclist is physically incapable of causing the same damage as a driver.

 

[thomas]

Whatever idiot is riding a bike, and howevermuch the press highlight RLJers and 'lycra louts', a cyclist is physically incapable of causing the same damage as a driver.

Cyclists can and have killed people though, so we should ride with that in mind.

 

[Bollo]

The trouble is that like it or not there is an element of 'this will happen' given the roads today. As my post a few pages back described I gave up cycling when I was knocked off my bike in Manchester in 1990 as I just decided that on 2 wheels you are too vulnerable. Not saying you or anyone else should have to do that, but for me that was the only logical decision. Please note the 'for me' in that statement before I get flamed!!!

OK. First of all, statistically cycling is safer in terms of longevity than not cycling. Its a question of killing yourself slowly through a sedentary lifestyle rather than accept the smaller risk that you'll auger in like I did, only worse. And my quality of life will be better. And women indecently younger than me will want to touch my thighs "to see how they feel" (this actually happened!!!!)

The "state of the roads" is not a natural phenomenon. All those cars have people in them, and most of those people are sentient and capable of choice. People's attitudes and prejudices can change, but its a long hard process. And you'll have picked up by now that there's plenty of argument about how to do this last bit.

I'll admit that getting on the bike after the crash was tough, but I don't ever regret doing it.

I'm going to be unusually positive for once in my life. F1 - if you're in a city, borrow a bike, find a returner's cycling group and give it a go. If you don't get anything out of it, then nothing lost and you'll get at least some insight into cycling today. You might just enjoy it. Despite all the gobbing-off on this forum, most of us enjoy our cycling nearly all the time.

 

[f1_fan]

Whatever idiot is riding a bike, and howevermuch the press highlight RLJers and 'lycra louts', a cyclist is physically incapable of causing the same damage as a driver.

Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law?

As I said a few posts back I believe all road users should be treated with equal respect and the extension of that is they should all abide by the law equally. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Bollo]

Cyclists can and have killed people though, so we should ride with that in mind.

Yep, and I've no sympathy with tw@ts who ride with no consideration for others. But motorists have the potential to cause havoc with very little risk to themselves. Hence the unique responsibility.

 

[f1_fan]

At times the Police in London have coppers on push bikes near RLJing hot spots and they stop people and give them a £30 fine or something.

Even if cyclists were licenced it wouldn't stop red light jumping....just like cars with number plates doesn't stop bad driving.

As for identifying them, if you had a camera you could record the model of their bike and what they look like. A numberplate doesn't mean you know who was driving, but a picture of what they look like behind the wheel would...so just go video the cyclists.

Nah, sorry you are clutching at straws there. A registration plate is a far easier way to identify a vehicle and subsequently the driver than noting down the make of a bike and how a rider looks etc. and you know it.

I know it wouldn't stop red light jumping or any other bad behaviour to any great degree, but it might just help in those extreme cases when a cyclist does something really bad (and yes it can and does happen) just the same way it does when a nutter behind the wheel of car does something really stupid... which leads us nicely back to Dan in his Subaru.

Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...

 

[thomas]

Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law?

Can anyone confirm this with some proof for me, but I think it was mentioned on here at the time of that pavement cyclist who got 7 months for killing the pedestrian...basically, 7 months for the cyclist was longer than any car driver got when driving up onto the pavement and killing a pedestrian.

Yep, and I've no sympathy with tw@ts who ride with no consideration for others. But motorists have the potential to cause havoc with very little risk to themselves. Hence the unique responsibility.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just bringing it up as a point .

 

[f1_fan]

That's the thing - I don't like it, and I don't think anyone should. Why should it be acceptable that anyone, through no fault of their own, is hurt on the roads and the person who causes the accident walks away without a caution.

And there's no real difference between Bollo's example, and any other accident where someone is killed or hurt on the road by someone else's mistake. Thousands of people are killed and injured every year, and its not just cyclists. There is a culture of acceptance which you have demonstrated that a certain amount of death is to be expected.

It shouldn't be.

Human beings are fallible, accidents will always happen and while we allow people to drive round in 1 tonne lumps of metal it is inevitable people will get injured and killed. Sorry, but that is a fact. So the only way we are going to get to the utopia you seem to want is to ban cars.... which I suspect half of you on here have as your main agenda anyway

 

[PBancroft]

Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...

...or without BM's video.

 

[magnatom]

Actually I feel no need to explain it but because you asked I will. Comparing cycling to Gay rights, making statements like 'we've already won', makes it sound like a war of suppresion: I repeat, that's embarrassing. I want exactly the same things but I can't think of it in those terms. You already know, that I'm ambivalent about the use of cameras, I feel their use comes at a cost.

Now in any raising of awareness of a lack of equality, there will always be those who need to lead at the front, appear to have a greater zeal, I think that's necessary and am prepared to tolerate and defend their actions, though I sometimes find them uncomfortable.

Ultimately we all want the same thing and often that's all we have in common, our idealogy may well differ.

I think comparing it to the Gay Rights movement is a little off the mark, however, I understand the sentiment. Perhaps a better comparison is with joggers and runners. A while back someone posted an article discussing the issues about those who chose to to go out running back in the 60's (can anyone find the link?). Runners were seen as nutters, a fringe element...why would anyone want to go out running!

Fast forward to today and runners/joggers are an accepted part of the urban landscape. On a drive into the city centre I would be amazed if I didn't see a large number of joggers. The article sited a ground swell of runners/joggers in the late 70's early 80's when it became almost 'trendy' to run. That sudden increase in numbers led to acceptance. It isn't trendy now, just an accepted part of daily life.

Cycling 'according to the article', is currently experiencing the same 'ground swell' of participants. Some might even say that it is becoming trendy! I know myself that the numbers of cyclists in Glasgow has shot up over the last 4 years. When I started I was lucky to see any other cyclists, now I see dozens most days.

I think there is a battle, but not a battle between cyclists and anyone else... the battle is for aceptance and to win that we need numbers.

IMO.

 

[f1_fan]

Can anyone confirm this with some proof for me, but I think it was mentioned on here at the time of that pavement cyclist who got 7 months for killing the pedestrian...basically, 7 months for the cyclist was longer than any car driver got when driving up onto the pavement and killing a pedestrian.

It was a question - I am asking if your statement about cyclists being able to do less damage means you think they should be given more leeway to break the law?

 

[Bollo]

Ah so because cyclists can cause less damage they should be given more leeway to break the law?

As I said a few posts back I believe all road users should be treated with equal respect and the extension of that is they should all abide by the law equally. It really is as simple as that.

But you've just said that "this will happen". So you're implying that a certain number of injuries and deaths on the road are acceptable. Most of those injuries and deaths will be caused by a motorist acting incorrectly, and often breaking the law. Can't have it both ways.

I didn't say that they should be given more leeway to break the law - I said that motorists have a unique responsibility of care because the consequences of their action are potentially more serious.

 

[PBancroft]

Human beings are fallible, accidents will always happen and while we allow people to drive round in 1 tonne lumps of metal it is inevitable people will get injured and killed. Sorry, but that is a fact. So the only way we are going to get to the utopia you seem to want is to ban cars.... which I suspect half of you on here have as your main agenda anyway

Considering I drive for my job, that would be counter productive. What I don't like is the acceptance of the idea that it is OK for people to make these mistakes and walk away without punishment. The victim often doesn't get the chance to do that.

What I would like is for when people are killed or injured, appropriate measures are taken to prevent it happening again in future. So people who drive dangerously are not immediately allowed back in their cars without a caution, for example. And people are aware that behaving without respect on the road has consequences. Note I am referring to ALL road users here.

Why is that not an acceptable or desirable goal?

 

[f1_fan]

Can anyone confirm this with some proof for me, but I think it was mentioned on here at the time of that pavement cyclist who got 7 months for killing the pedestrian...basically, 7 months for the cyclist was longer than any car driver got when driving up onto the pavement and killing a pedestrian.

A 2 second Google finds a car driver jailed for 20 months for mounting the pavement and killing a pedestrian so save the persecution complex for another day OK?

 

[thomas]

Nah, sorry you are clutching at straws there. A registration plate is a far easier way to identify a vehicle and subsequently the driver than noting down the make of a bike and how a rider looks etc. and you know it.

I know it wouldn't stop red light jumping or any other bad behaviour to any great degree, but it might just help in those extreme cases when a cyclist does something really bad (and yes it can and does happen) just the same way it does when a nutter behind the wheel of car does something really stupid... which leads us nicely back to Dan in his Subaru.

Wthout the plate the police have no chance of apprehending him...

I don't disagree with your argument in principle, but cyclists should never be licensed or be required to have registration plates. RLJing, pavement cycling, etc, would go down because less people would be cycling.

It pays to mention, that if something really bad does happen remembering a numberplate is not always the first thing people would do. Certainly when I nearly got squashed by a bus getting the number plate was not my first thought, and when I did realise the bus was a bit too far away and I could not read it, partly due to distance, partly cos the number plate had filth all over it.

If a cyclist does something really bad, I can't really think of much which probably doesn't result in the cyclist coming off and therefore probably injured too (eg, won't be able just to drive off to hide).

In theory a pedestrian can do a lot of damage, but we don't wear number plates when we walk around (very similar theory). For instance, I got assaulted (someone walked up to me, said I said something about his sister and then hit me). I couldn't really remember what he looked like, other than he was tanned and had bushy eyebrows. The Police managed to find him in a couple of days.

Along with that...watch this video. I can't believe how lucky I was, but the lorry didn't have a numberplate!