BentMikey and a Subaru Driver

[threebikesmcginty]

Well he lives in Biggin Hill apparently, so I'm likely to see more of him. The next encounter might be interesting...

Gonna get tooled up?!

It's good to have BM back isn't it? - only he could keep a 30 odd page thread going in 'commuting'!!!

 

[paddy01]

They're not all equally bad but if people knew their licence would taken away for contravening the HC then almost everyone would drive very very carefully. Practically speaking though, this is impractical as standards are so low that most drivers break the code eveytime they drive a car. It would solve congestion though.

Or would the result simply be more unlicenced and therefore uninsured drivers on the roads....

 

[f1_fan]

They can be reduced by removing the numpties - the ones who are too stupid to realise that using a phone whilst driving isn't safe, that stopping at junctions is a good idea and that parking on pavements is unacceptable.

The answer is simple - people like our "DAN" need to be removed from th road - the simplest and most effective road safety measure we can apply.

Yes, but there will always be another numptie coming along to take his place and that is the inevitability of it all sadly.

 

[f1_fan]

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.

Are you serious? So you are saying that just becuase one of the people in a collision is in a motorised vehicle they should be presumed the guilty party until found innocent. That goes against the very cornerstone of our society quite aside from the fact that to any level headed person it is complete crap.

No wonder cyclists get tainted with a blinkered holier than thou tag when some of you actually think like this.

 

[f1_fan]

Yes, there's not a particularly good signal to noise ratio there, at least on the D4N topic.

I'm quite pleased how your reaction is much more toned down and reasonable now. That's also what a video camera does to most drivers on the road. It changes their behaviour significantly for the better. To be honest it changes my own too, I'm much less sweary and much calmer. Best of all, I've often found what I've done wrong in my own riding and how to play the odds and ride to a higher standard in future. One example is the recent Robinson's removals lorry clip. I really should have taken the whole lane there, though that was a particularly hard case given the trickle of earlier traffic, and the speed at which he approached me from behind.

You do realise I on occasion offer this sort of footage to production companies? At least one clip has made it onto Road Wars, so D4N might be more famous than he planned.

You want more numberplates, including on bikes for the consequences and improvement in road behaviour. The helmet video youtubed by so many people also equals consequences. Not really that different, are we.

My words may have toned down, but as I said I still question your methods just as much, but I think we can just agree to differ there now as I doubt either of will change our stance and that's OK.

As nice an idea as having all cycles registered like cars is I do agree that it is impractical, would discourgae people from cycling which is clearly not sensible (even to me as a nasty evil car driver ) and would just result in yet another way to tax people which our government manages perfectly well already so it's probably best left alone.

As I said for those rare occasions whan a cyclist does something really stupid and then rides off into the sunset it would help to trace them, but I guess those occasions are rare and hence once again we come down to balancing benefits vs costs and in this case I think it's not worth the costs.

 

[BentMikey]

I think he's talking about the civil liability issue as in the Netherlands. I couldn't be sure of the details, but it comes down to the eye of suspicion being cast towards the motor vehicle driver in any collision involving pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists.

Even an RAC study found that the driver was to blame in 4 out of 5 of the subset of collisions involving bicycles and motorvehicles, so perhaps that's not entirely unreasonable. The danger to others is brought by the heavier and faster vehicle after all.

 

[dellzeqq]

British Columbia had a law that not only made the driver responsible for the damage that he or she caused, but removed insurance cover for injuries to pedestrians. Living in Vancouver was civilised in the extreme. One walked across streets as and when, while drivers deferred. And, it must be said, with good grace.

As a general rule, if you are propelling a tonne or more of rusty metal around, you should take responsibility for the damage it causes. Nobody compels you to drive. If you don't want the responsibility, and can't ride a bike, take the bus.

 

[f1_fan]

I asked you what number you would find acceptable: I didn't say that the only correct answer is zero.

It's the fact you don't ... ;-)

It's clear that you recognise that the danger on the roads is overwhelmingly due to the operation of motor vehicles thereon. I can see three possible responses: one is to ban motor vehicles from roads, one is to ban everything else from the roads (after all, we don't let anyone walk around on the railways) and the third is to make car users a lot more careful than they presently are. All these have different tradeoffs (I would be as unhappy about option 1 as you would option 2) but the "shoot happens, live with it" position you seem to be resigned to is really not worthy of a civilised country.

As I said I cannot put a number on it, I just accept there will be some accidents as humans are involved. Zero is not achievable in my eyes unless we ban motorised vehicles from the road.

Yes I accept that most of the danger in terms of injury to pedestrians and cyclists comes from motorised vehicles, but as I said before it is not unfair, it is physics. It really is that simple. In an earlier replay I asked kaipaith whether he had never made a mistake and he said he had, but luckily he had never hurt or killed anyone. Interesting choice of words as luck would mean that purely by chance he hadn't hurt anyone the corollary of which is to say if he had it would have been unlucky.

Expand this to car drivers and why is it any different? People make mistakes every day and while I wholeheartedly support better training, education, punishment for negligence, stupidity etc. I cannot ever see zero accidents/deaths as a realistic target. S**t does happen every day in all walks of life and while we as a society are prepared to let people drive 1 tonne lumps of metal around sharing the roads with pedestrians, cyclists etc. I (happy about it or not) accept there will be some accidents. Maybe that makes me uncivilised, who knows?

 

[Tinuts]

A couple of interesting items:

Can't wait to see this:

http://directionsdrivertraining.co.uk/blog/general/bad-driving-report/

Also, http://betterdrivingplease.com/index.asp has closed. As I posted a number of my incidents on there it is gratifying to know that, apparently, something positive will come of it.

 

[f1_fan]

Well he lives in Biggin Hill apparently, so I'm likely to see more of him. The next encounter might be interesting...

BM, we may not see eye to eye on things, but please be careful, this guy is a complete idiot and next time may be even more extreme.

Did the police look at your video btw? If so what did they say?

 

[f1_fan]

I think he's talking about the civil liability issue as in the Netherlands. I couldn't be sure of the details, but it comes down to the eye of suspicion being cast towards the motor vehicle driver in any collision involving pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists.

Even an RAC study found that the driver was to blame in 4 out of 5 of the subset of collisions involving bicycles and motorvehicles, so perhaps that's not entirely unreasonable. The danger to others is brought by the heavier and faster vehicle after all.

But what about the 1 out of 5 where is wasn't the driver's fault?

I just think it sets a dangerous precedent.

Surely if a pedstrian steps out in front of a motor vehicle without looking it is hardly fair that the onus then falls on the driver to prove his innocence rather than the authorities to prove his guilt.

 

[BentMikey]

f1_fan, I've not referred or even thought of you as a "nasty evil car driver". I would imagine you're quite a good and careful driver, given that you're an enthusiast. Who knows though, there are likely to be both good and bad on any forum, just like I'm sure there are poor cyclists on here too.

 

[purplepolly]

Are you serious? So you are saying that just becuase one of the people in a collision is in a motorised vehicle they should be presumed the guilty party until found innocent. That goes against the very cornerstone of our society quite aside from the fact that to any level headed person it is complete crap.

Crankarm is referring to the legal situation in parts of Europe and it has been proposed occassionaly that the UK should be in-line with this (contentious) legislation.

Currently the situation is the oppoisite - the motorist has to be proved to be at fault and even with witnesses this isn't always possible. Innocent until proven guilty. Nothing wrong with that. Except that what it actually means is that if the motorist is "innocent" then the cyclist/pedestrian must be at fault and gets no compensation. Not exactly fair either.

 

[purplepolly]

Well, I got 7 minors on my driving test does that mean I should loose my licence 7 times?

No you'll be safe from my plans. I very much doubt you would have passed your test if you had contravened 7 "musts" (legal requirements) in the highway code. Minor faults are exactly that. In my case I overtook a road sweeper too slowly, that's not something that's legislated against.

 

[Tinuts]

I think it does no real good to pretend that all offences are equally bad. (If you genuinely believe all offences are really bad, I won't bother trying to argue with you, but please be aware that your opnion is not universally held)

Honestly, which is more dangerous: answering the phone while doing 50mph on a clear straight empty road, or tailgating in fog? Where would you rather devote enforcement effort? A sense of proportion hurts nobody

Using a mobile phone whilst driving has been shown to have the same effect on driving ability as alcoholic intoxication, a fact of which those drivers who persist in breaking the law in this way seem to be in constant denial. Of course, if one of those mobile-using-moron's family were to be mown down by a drink driver they'd quite likely want that driver's head on a plate now, wouldn't they?

Yes, a sense of proportion hurts nobody.