BentMikey and a Subaru Driver

[Panter]

Just seen this video, nasty stuff

Well done for staying so calm BM, I must admit I would have lost it and administered a good hiding.

 

[f1_fan]

I did read that post - this was the reply to it. You say that a certain number of accidents are inevitable and should be accepted.

That is not OK - the post was to question whether you thought it was, which thus far (until the above) you haven't said.

OK I think we are getting bogged down in syntax more than anything here. I am not so much saying it is OK that there are accidents, just that given the fallibility of human beings it is inevitable that a certain number of accidents will happen while we allow people to drive around an increasingly congested road system in an array of vehicles ranging from bikes all the way to large trcuks.

Let me ask you a question now. Are you saying that you have never ever made a mistake on the road? If you answer no I suspect you aren't telling the truth. The problem comes when that mistake results in an accident and/or injury which on a bike is less likely than in a car of course, but nevertheless the principle is the same.

Of course we should strive to reduce accidents and of course we should attempt to bring to justice/re-educate etc. anyone causing an accident through negligence or worse, sheer stupidity, but the fact remains that there are always going to be a certain number of accidents as we will never be able to make every road user perfect (or every vehicle perfect as some accidents are caused by vehicle failure - relatively few thankfully). Human beings are not perfect and never will be.

In essence as a society we balance risk all the time. In this case we are balancing the risk of accidents against allowing people to freely move around by road. Speed limits, better road construction, signage, education etc.etc. are all there to fine tune and improve that risk, but short of banning motorised vehicles I cannot ever see a time when accidents won't happen.

So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above. If you really think accidents can be reduced to zero without the draconian measures of banning all motorised vehicles for instance then I applaud your optimism.

 

[BentMikey]

F1 and d'pov, why have you gone quiet on my comments/replies?

 

[f1_fan]

Commenting on the taxation issue bubbling along in this thread too I, even as a car driver, have no wish to see cyclists taxed for all the reasons mentioned here and probably in numerous other threads.

I do think that a registration plate of some sort would be a good idea though, but as we know our beloved government would simply see this as a way to get yet more money via back door taxation and would no doubt charge all cyclists for the privilege of registering their bikes at least twice as much as the real world cost so for that reason alone let's leave things as they are. I would rather bikes remain unregistered than see yet more money disappear into the treasury's piggy bank.

 

[f1_fan]

F1 and d'pov, why have you gone quiet on my comments/replies?

BM, sorry, but as I said I have been working and off again in a minute.

What post would you like a reply to?

 

[BentMikey]

One here:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=874979&postcount=228

..and another
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=875495&postcount=267

If it weren't for your oh so reasonable and decent debate, I'd almost be tempted to think you were ashamed of some of the posts over on the Subaru forum.

 

[Dan B]

So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above.

I would be interested, by the way, to know how many deaths are acceptable in your view. Are you happy with the current 3000/year?

But that's not really why I posted. What I would like to ask you is whether you recognise that there's a basic unfairness here: it's by and large the people with "the freedom to use the roads" by driving cars and other motor vehicles around them who are causing the accidents, but the victims of those accidents also include people who don't have that freedom or who choose not to exercise it. Pedestrians, for example. If the only victims of car accidents were car drivers ("you knew the risk and accepted it when you got in the car"), it's possible this might be a fairer swap.

 

[f1_fan]

One here:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=874979&postcount=228

..and another
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=875495&postcount=267

If it weren't for your oh so reasonable and decent debate, I'd almost be tempted to think you were ashamed of some of the posts over on the Subaru forum.

OK then here goes.

I rather like scoobys, and until this chap D4N, I've experienced excellent driving from them.

Funny you say that as I would disagree. There is a fair proportion of old Scoobs in the hands of complete dickheads from what I have seen. Sad as it tars the rest of us with the same brush in some people's eyes.

Badly lit recumbent? I think not, my lights are in the brightest 1 or 2% of cyclist lights you see on the roads.

Not my comment or opinion. I have no idea how well lit your bike is, but I suspect from your behaviour it is very well lit indeed.

100mph? That was when d4n overtook the witness, according to the witness, not when he drove past me.

Yes I understood that, sorry some of my fellow Scoob drivers seem unable to read what is written.

Sad for filming? If you say so. Does it matter to you unless you drive badly?

BM, OK apologies for the exact syntax I used on Scoobynet, but I will stand by my opinion here as I really think watching your You Tube videos that there is an element of antagonism on your part and a little bit of a 'looking for trouble' scenario about the way you go about things. I know your defence will be that the drivers in your videos were antagonistic in their behaviour in the first place not to mention in some cases dangerous, but two wrongs don't make a right.

There is a danger that as a fanatic of anything (in this case cycling) you can become overly blinkered and move away form a more impartial middle of the road (no pun intended) view on things that are obviously close to your heart. By virtue of the fact you feel it is perfectly nromal to video these events, remonstrate with the 'offenders', threaten them with the police/You Tube and then return home, download the video, edit it adding captions and post it up on You Tube I would say you are already there. Just saying it as I see it and you probably won't see it that way, but there are many people myself included who will.

Have you tried a different approach like just talking to the 'offfenders' and explaining what they did and asking them not to do it again. I can't help but feel that in some cases this would yield better results .... not including Dan the Dickhead in that group however.

Anyway we are never going to agree so let's not bat it back and forth, vive le difference I guess. Still think you are as mad as a march hare though, but despite all I have said I really do hope you don't come across a real 'nutter' who assaults you though my worry is that one day you will and no amount of moral high ground will help you then

I'm so with you there. I hate RLJing cyclists because it's antisocial, frightening for pedestrians, and just general bad behaviour. I'm happy for all red light jumpers to get ticketed. Cyclists are harder to catch, but then they also cause far less death and injury than do the heavyweights of the road.

You do realise an RAC study found that 48% of cyclists jump lights, 1 in 10 car drivers, and 1 in 5 bus drivers? If it weren't for the awkward facts that the car ahead stopping often prevents an RLJ, and there weren't number plates, then far more would do this.

I should point out I used to RLJ (on a bicycle, never my car) before I learnt the error of my ways. I'm far from perfect myself.

Well I am impressed you don't partake of this particular activity and I must admit to being surprised at how high the percentage of cyclists that do this actually is. I think what surprises me most is that you are so vulnerable on a bike that why would you take the chance. I remember from my cycling days that it seemed like the road based equivalent of Russian Roulette.

Anyway as to the fact that more car drivers would do it were it not for numberplates I agree and the corollary to that is that maybe less cyclists would do it if they had numberplates. Who knows?

 

[Crankarm]

Anyway as to the fact that more car drivers would do it were it not for numberplates I agree and the corollary to that is that maybe less cyclists would do it if they had numberplates. Who knows?

Since when did a number plate, genuine or false, ever stop a driver harassing, threatening or assaulting another road user - vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian?

Quite where on a bike a number plate of the size and style I think you are alluding would be attached I haven't the foggiest...... Just isn't practical or feasible.

 

[f1_fan]

I would be interested, by the way, to know how many deaths are acceptable in your view. Are you happy with the current 3000/year?

It's not a question of being happy and of course (as I have said several times already) I think we should always strive to reduce the numbers injured and killed on the roads, but it is this subtext buibbling along underneath here that we shouldn't tolerate even one injury or death per year as the ONLY way that is going to happen is to ban motor vehicles and of course being a self confessed petrolhead I don't want that.

But that's not really why I posted. What I would like to ask you is whether you recognise that there's a basic unfairness here: it's by and large the people with "the freedom to use the roads" by driving cars and other motor vehicles around them who are causing the accidents, but the victims of those accidents also include people who don't have that freedom or who choose not to exercise it. Pedestrians, for example. If the only victims of car accidents were car drivers ("you knew the risk and accepted it when you got in the car"), it's possible this might be a fairer swap.

It's not unfairness, it's physics.

A cyclist or pedestrian makes an error of judgement and as a result gets hit by a car then they are going to come off worse. A car driver makes an error of judgement and as a result hits a cyclist it is the cyclist that comes off worse. That is just the laws of physics and the same applies to big trucks and cars, but in reverse.

It's the fact you view it as unfairness that is the disturbing thing. Yes a car driver making a mistake is far more likley to cause an accident than a cyclist making a mistake and hence maybe unlike cyclists car drivers should have to take a driving test and hold a driving licence etc. because of the extra danger they pose.... oh hang on they do!!!

 

[PBancroft]

Let me ask you a question now. Are you saying that you have never ever made a mistake on the road? If you answer no I suspect you aren't telling the truth. The problem comes when that mistake results in an accident and/or injury which on a bike is less likely than in a car of course, but nevertheless the principle is the same.

...

So it's not so much a case of accepting it as being realistic in my view. Given what I have said above and given the fact that I do not want to lose the ability to drive my car to get from A to B I know there will be accidents as a trade off for the fact we all have the freedom to use the roads so to a certain extent yes I guess I accept it but with caveats as mentioned above. If you really think accidents can be reduced to zero without the draconian measures of banning all motorised vehicles for instance then I applaud your optimism.

Of course I have made mistakes. Luckily I have never hurt or killed anyone. Unfortunately people do, and they are allowed back behind the wheel of the vehicle again often without retraining, and often enough without punishment.

I've lost a very good friend on the road (through his own fault) and he could very easily have killed someone else too. His death was not inevitable, but the result of bad training and respect for the vehicle he was driving.

There are many others on the road just like him.

As Coruskate says - what level of deaths on the road is acceptable? My view is none. I think that can be done without removing all vehicles from the road, and I don't think it is reasonable to simply accept otherwise without really trying. We make gestures in that direction at the moment, but we don't actually try.

 

[blazed]

Is it true speed limits do not apply to recumbents/cyclists as BentMikey says?

 

[f1_fan]

Since when did a number plate, genuine or false, ever stop a driver harassing, threatening or assaulting another road user - vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian?

Plenty of times I would have thought as just because some still do doesn't mean others wouldn't if the traceability was lost. Not sure how you know that not to be the case, but I bow to your superior knowledge.

Quite where on a bike a number plate of the size and style I think you are alluding would be attached I haven't the foggiest...... Just isn't practical or feasible.

Agreed and I was just applying reverse psychology for the sake of the discussion. As I said a few posts back if the government ever did decide to license bicycles they would use it as another opportunity to stiff you all out of yet more money and for that reason alone I am against it

 

[f1_fan]

Of course I have made mistakes. Luckily I have never hurt or killed anyone. Unfortunately people do, and they are allowed back behind the wheel of the vehicle again often without retraining, and often enough without punishment.

Agree with you 100% on that.

I've lost a very good friend on the road (through his own fault) and he could very easily have killed someone else too. His death was not inevitable, but the result of bad training and respect for the vehicle he was driving.

There are many others on the road just like him.

As Coruskate says - what level of deaths on the road is acceptable? My view is none. I think that can be done without removing all vehicles from the road, and I don't think it is reasonable to simply accept otherwise without really trying. We make gestures in that direction at the moment, but we don't actually try.

Fair enough and that is where we differ as while even one is not acceptable I still feel it is inevitable, but I truly admire your optimism. Fair play to you.

Sorry to hear about your friend too, a loss of life is sad no matter whose fault it is.

I had better get back to work... sadly!

 

[Crankarm]

Yes a car driver making a mistake is far more likley to cause an accident than a cyclist making a mistake and hence maybe unlike cyclists car drivers should have to take a driving test and hold a driving licence etc. because of the extra danger they pose.... oh hang on they do!!!

And unsurprisingly many are still a danger.......

The law needs to change such that there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of any driver of a vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not driving or a passenger in another vehicle eg pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider.