Arjimlad
Tights of Cydonia
- Location
- South Glos
I'd like to tweet that comment, says it all ,really..Being"tailgated" is a bad enough experience in a car, but when on a bike it makes you think "my life is in this idiots hands"!
Cleared of killing a cyclist
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
That is a chilling story there Crankman.
The reason being that i don't want any one who god forbid, knocks me off my bike to say in court "he was hard to see, so that's why i ran into him"! Don't give the swines an excuse i say!! However as we've read, the poor woman in Sunderland was lit up like a Christmas tree but her safety concious attitude failed to save her from white van man. It seems that even when highly visible some idiots are oblivious of our presence on the road, or are aware but don't give a toss about our right to cycle and more importantly our right to return home safely!
I couldn't begin to imagine how her loved ones must feel about her death, and to be honest, if it was my relative i'd be thinking that justice definately had not been done and i'd be looking at alternative measures to see that it was!
Yup RIP Mark Robinson. I have ridden the road where his life was smudged out, but not since I gave up. Awful awful for his family. I believe the Robinson family are suing Rice for millions as his son was in the prime of life with a young family to support, good job and devoted to cycling when this moron ran him down. It goes for all the other cyclists who have had their lives smudged out by motons - Edi Cairns Nottinghill London, Major Evans A1 Bedfordshire, Dr Colin Hawkes NSPCC Chief - Islington, Catriona Patel - Oval station (yes that one), Graham Thwaites in St Paul's Cray to name but a few. Approx 110-130 cyclists lose their lives on UK roads each year and many more, hundreds are seriously injured and the numbers are increasing. The roads are just not safe. How much longer does the carnage and slaughter have to continue before something is done?
Strangely, this is just what an RAC guy said in court when he re-counted seeing me knocked down by a moton on a roundabout on the outskirts of Huntingdon may moons ago.
Black is the new hi-viz. All that yellow hi viz stuff gives drivers something to aim at, marks you out as a target. I stopped wearing it after being knocked down for the second time. It's not very stylish either.
CopperCyclist
Veteran
FTFY.
(And for once, doesn't mean I didn't agree with the original. Just think its a much wider issue!)
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
You are probably right, but as a cyclist one is viewed as lower than a rat in many drivers eyes. You are public enemy number one. There is so much aggression toward cyclists on the roads afaik other groups of victims just don't experience this. I am not saying you are wrong, but you only have to listen to prats like James Martin, slob Rayner, Nick Knowles, to$$pot Matthew Parris and on occasion Clarkson to see what is going on. The UK is not a nice place to cycle. It may change when Wiggins wins the TdF and Team GB cyclists bring home a huge haul of medals, but don't bank on it. Drivers are given far too much benefit of the doubt and leeway so they are not prosecuted or walk away from killing people. Shocking.
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
I do believe that many cyclist deaths/injuries are NOT accidents, and as you say high viz gives them something to aim for, but i do think that the majority of decent motorists are more likely to appreciate a cyclist letting themselves be seen, therefore making them less likely to be involved in an accident with one. I do some night time cycling and i've always felt that motorists are more courteous when the see a reflective jersey/jacket and good lights as opposed to being confronted by a two wheeled dark object.
On a lighter note, high viz is very popular in this years TdF,with quite a good few high viz bikes(front forks)helmets, jerseys and team cars.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I do believe that many cyclist deaths/injuries are NOT accidents, and as you say high viz gives them something to aim for, but i do think that the majority of decent motorists are more likely to appreciate a cyclist letting themselves be seen, therefore making them less likely to be involved in an accident with one. I do some night time cycling and i've always felt that motorists are more courteous when the see a reflective jersey/jacket and good lights as opposed to being confronted by a two wheeled dark object.
On a lighter note, high viz is very popular in this years TdF,with quite a good few high viz bikes(front forks)helmets, jerseys and team cars.
I mean no offence, but I get the impression from the above that if you think many cyclist deaths and injuries are not accidents then they are the result of deliberate intent to cause harm by another road user. Am I reading your post correctly?
How many is 'many'?
I've been cycling for over forty years and driving for over thirty. Much of that was in London and a good bit of it in parts of the world considered hostile at the time. I was a motorcycle courier for a good while, and if there's any ill will floating around, couriers do tend to attract it.
All my children now cycle. I accept that there are dangers to be faced when cycling on the public highway, but I have never seen a road user deliberately try to use his or her vehicle to cause harm or injury to another.
One reads the odd article about a complete nutter who rams a cyclist, but I wouldn't use the word 'many' to describe the number of such incidents.
Similarly, one reads of the occasional shooting during a bank raid, but I wouldn't say that 'many people who enter banks are armed robbers intent on theft'.
I agree with you about other road users showing more courtesy to cyclists who've made sure they can be seen, but I find the implied assertion that many injuries and fatalities are non-accidental does not tally with my own several decades of experience.
Commenting on your TdF observation, you are quite right. There's one chap on a yellow cycle, wearing a yellow hat and a yellow jumper. It is not the right colour for him, but he seems happy.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
These are the bankers. Best way to rob a bank is to work in one.
Accy cyclist
Legendary Member
- Location
- The hills of Accrington
Many, but not meaning the majority i meant. I think that many "accidents" are avoidable if the offending motorists would show more consideration to cyclists, therefore the collisions aren't accidents, they're incidents that the motorists have caused!
If a motorist for example doesn't look beyond that parked car he/she is overtaking thinking "oh well, if something's coming the other way they've got brakes, or an airbag if the worse comes to the worse",then they hit a cyclist observing the Highway Code, then their lack of consideration and observation has caused an avoidable incident, not a "no one was at fault accident". I'm not saying that all go out their way to hit the cyclist on purpose, but their disregard for more vunerable road users cannot be classed as accidental, more avoidable, therefore they've hit that cyclist because of their disregard for the cyclists life!
I'm not anti car by the way, i drive 150 miles a week and i see many cyclists who i'd like to pull over and tell them that they give decent cyclists a bad name. Yet apart from the few idiots who've literally come at me going down the wrong way of a one way street, or pulled out in front of me in the dark, without lights or reflectors, i've never(touch wood)been close to making contact with a cyclist. The fact that i'm a keen cyclist myself and have the upmost empathy with our plight will make me less likely to hit a cyclist granted, but if motorists looked way ahead on the road, and not just at what's directly in front of them then they'd be less likely to hit a cyclist also.
Boris Bajic
Guest
A very reasonable response. I deleted much of it from this post simply because it is there for all to see and I don't want to fill the whole Internet.
You and I appear to disagree on the semantics of the meaning of the word 'accident', but that is not a big deal.
Certainly, the past few times I've been bowled off my bicycle, there was fault with one party or the other. All were accidents, but all would have been avoidable had the driver or I (or both of us) been paying a little more attention.
I'd thought you were suggesting some sort of malign intent on the part of many motorists who cause collisions with cyclists. That was what got my interest.
As you weren't, I think we're about a squillimetre away from having very similar views.
I think the word "accident" can in some circumstances be problematic, as some people will say "oh, it was just an accident", the implication being that it was unavoidable.
But clearly, there are many things that are accidents, in that the outcome was unintended and possibly unforeseen, that are still someone's fault, and someone's responsibility.
Using a rather less serious example, the tennis player at Wimbledon who kicked the sign and injured the line judge. It was an accident, in that his intention was not to injure the line judge, but it was entirely his fault, as he should have easily foreseen that kicking the sign might have had that outcome.
Having said all that, if the seriousness of incidents are being trivialised and downplayed on the basis that they are "only" accidents, then I think there's a problem.
But clearly, there are many things that are accidents, in that the outcome was unintended and possibly unforeseen, that are still someone's fault, and someone's responsibility.
Using a rather less serious example, the tennis player at Wimbledon who kicked the sign and injured the line judge. It was an accident, in that his intention was not to injure the line judge, but it was entirely his fault, as he should have easily foreseen that kicking the sign might have had that outcome.
Having said all that, if the seriousness of incidents are being trivialised and downplayed on the basis that they are "only" accidents, then I think there's a problem.
Boris Bajic
Guest
In your final paragraph above, the word implying the trivialisation of a serious incident is 'only'. The word 'accident' is fine. It trivialises nothing.
"In 1977 two passenger aircraft collided over Tenerife. It was an accident. More than 500 people were killed."
The above trivialises nothing. The word 'only' inserted in the second sentence might have a trivialising effect.
Yes, but I do think that there is a mentality with some drivers that the horrific death toll on our roads is largely unavoidable, because they are accidents. We, as a society, accept this as a price worth paying for use of motor vehicles.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I cannot disagree with this.
As a man with three cycling children and an occasionally cycling wife, I have to admit that I too have in mind a figure one might classify as 'acceptable losses'.
I do not mean by this that I write off the death of a road user as inevitable. I mean rather that while fewer than 150 cyclists are killed annually in London, I will still ride there. Above that figure I might ride, but would probably suggest my childen take the tube.
Similarly, if the figure in my county rose to over 50, I might think again. It stands at fewer than 10 KSI per annum at present. I do not presume to trivialise any of those deaths or injuries, but it is a figure which does not put me off cycling. In a sense, i see it as a figure which does not present a strong enough case against motor vehicles to encourage me to change my habits or require anyone else to change theirs.
We need to ask why cycling in Denmark is TEN TIMES safer than cycling in the UK.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I'm no mathematician but I'll have a go at this one: The likelihood is that in Denmark acyclist is ten times less likely to get themselves killed or injured than they are in the UK. This should produce the statistic whose origin arouses your curiosity.
Am I right? If so, is there a prize?
