Increased police presence.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
But presumably there is a point where it is not safe?
The kids int his appear strapped in and both wearing helmets. Looks a little hairy but once passed that I am sure it is fine.
There must be setups which are not safe though. I once saw a trailer behind a bike and the kid (arund 7yo) was stood up on it. If the mum had braked, he would have gone flying.
 

Frood42

I know where my towel is
 

Frood42

I know where my towel is
Reason being its not totally dark when i ride, after 7.30am morning commute and just after 3pm evening commute. Lights are on the bike if needed. As i dont ride in the dark. I am in the main home by 4-30pm and the last 3miles is on a cycle path nowhere near any roads or cars

Ah
I have one of these hump back bag covers, for the reflectives and the waterproofing, it's so very trendy and cool :thumbsup: :laugh:

hump.jpg

.
 

jowwy

Can't spell, Can't Punctuate....Sue Me
Ah
I have one of these hump back bag covers, for the reflectives and the waterproofing, it's so very trendy and cool :thumbsup: :laugh:

View attachment 33092
.
Would look a bit silly without a backpack to cover though, prefer a rack or better still take clothes into work by car on monday -ride tues, wed, thursday, take car friday and take work clothes home for washing and refreshing and then repeat as necessary. My commute is a 30mile round trip 1200ft climbing on way home. Not doing that 5days a week.
 

snailracer

Über Member
Care to produce any evidence of that having actually happened (and not being lost on appeal)?

There's lots of talk about 'contributory negligence' and helmets - but little evidence in England and Wales of it being an issue in reality.
Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP?
 

Spinney

Bimbleur extraordinaire
Location
Back up north
[QUOTE 2787821, member: 30090"]I had an interesting conversation with a bus driver last week....I think it personifies some driver attitudes

Was at a red light in primary, bus stopped behind me, lights go green I pull away and the bus overtakes me onto the approach of a pinchpoint, I can see it happening so move to my left and the arse end of the bus ends up being about 2 foot from my handlebars. The driver then pulls into the bus station for a rest (he was not picking up any passengers!!?? so why the rush) Conversation although not word for word goes something like this:-

Me: Can you please give me room on the appraoch to a pinchpoit please,
Him: I gave you room
Me: You did to start off with but you had to pull in early because of the traffic island and the arse end of the bus came a little bit too close to my bike.
Him: Yeah I saw you in my mirror and I take responsiblitly for you
Me: Really, you take responsiblity for me when I'm riding a bike and you're driving a vehicle with a kerb weight of 12t
Him: I'm a qualified driver
Me: And if you'd done that on your test you'd failed.
Him: Where is your high vis, helmet and lights.
Me: I don't have to wear a helmet, I don't need lights because it is daylight and what this has got to do with you overtaking me I'm not quite sure.
Him: Same as before
Me: Whatever, this has nothing to do with your overtake, watch it next time and like I say if you'd have done that on your test you would have failed.

Me thinks the law lecteuring cyclists on wearing hi vis and helmets is doing us f*** all good in the immediate and long term.[/quote]

You should send that to the depot manager/transport manager.

One email may not make a difference, but many of them might.
 

snailracer

Über Member
I would have said Smith v Finch [2009] was more relevant but the comments of Martin Porter QC on the case should be noted.

It should also be noted that in Reynolds v Strut & Parker LLP, Reynolds was claiming that his employers should have made him wear a helmet and they were counterclaiming his contributory negligence in not doing so.

This is an unlikely situation to occur on the road.
Nonetheless, the argument that not wearing a helmet = contributory negligence won in court and there was no appeal to "correct" it.
Martin Porter QC might well rage about it, but he doesn't influence the interpretation of the law, whereas the judge's rulings in this case do.
I would also say that, if the circumstances of the case were so unusual that it is irrelevant to anything that could likely happen "on the road", then Porter would not have felt the need to write such a lengthy criticism.
 
OP
OP
Davidsw8

Davidsw8

Senior Member
Location
London
Cycling home tonight, going to turn left into a side road that a police van is waiting to turn left out of. Another cyclist comes in the opposite direction to take a right in front of the police down where I'm going: earphones in, dark clothes, no hi-viz, one really shoddy light on the front, no light on the back and no helmet (sorry if the helmet bit offends anyone, just setting the scene).

I'm hearing about all these cyclists getting stopped for no helmet, no hi-viz, earphones and as we've got a prime candidate for practically everything here, you might assume that the police would have flashed their lights or stopped him, or something, any little thing...

Nah!
 
Top Bottom