London cyclists dropping like flies

[securespark]

Contrary to.your beleif, drivers don't have a right of way to run over more vulnerable road users, they can only turn into the junction if safe to do so, i.e. Clear.
Otherwise they must wait on the road.

Drivers don't have a right to do lots of things, but they still do them.

Cyclists have to be pro-active in protecting themselves. They shouldn't have to watch out for what everybody else is doing, but when they don't that's when accidents can happen.

Talking of drivers don't have a right....

I was at this junction only this morning.



I was crossing the road on the left, walking towards the camera car. I had pressed the button and had waited for the green man before crossing.

But, had I not had my wits about me, I would have quite literally been squashed by a dhead in a purple Rover turning left off the A6 (you know, where it says no left turn and has a green straight ahead only arrow), despite the cacophony of horns from drivers behind warning him he shouldn't.

That's a perfect example. A driver who had no right to perform a manoeuvre, let alone look and check for other road users as he does so. He is by no means unusual.

That is why vulnerable road users who value their lives take extra precautions when using the road.

 

[jockscott]

Aaron, I now see what you mean. But, the cycle path has taken up half of what used to be a pavement. So what that you have to stop there and exercise extreme caution? Are you so impatient, you can't be ar**d to look behind you? Get run over at such a junction, then you only have yourself to blame. (or would you rather a car tuning left, has to jam his brakes on and risk being rear ended by the car behind him)?

Whole point being, cars,lorries, buses etc, don't really mix well with cyclists (specially cyclists who ignore traffic laws). I'd like to see the causes of every cyclist killed/injured in RTA's include the "who was found to be at fault" results. I think you'll find a majority of fault lies with cyclists, not vehicle drivers.
What's really needed is compulsory training for cyclists, combined with compulsory insurance too. The costs for this should be borne wholly by the cyclists too, not shared between them and motorists.

 

[sooey]

Ban the feckers, it's for their own good.

 

[AronSearle]

So what that you have to stop there and exercise extreme caution? Are you so impatient, you can't be ar**d to look behind you?

Silly fool.

You have to look for traffic in front of (that may be turning), behind you, assuming anyone indicates, and stop as you still can't see traffic coming out of the junction, and in some stretches of the road named, there are drivways/junctions every 50 meters.

So you either ride stupidly through junctions, or stop so often you may as well be walking, and as I mentioned, the dutch found these type of junctions increased accidents by 25%, which is why they changed their junction designs.

I think you'll find a majority of fault lies with cyclists, not vehicle drivers.

I too can make up stuff and present it as facts, but I don't.

What's really needed is compulsory training for cyclists

Because of course, when they go through red lights, it's because they don't know what they are

combined with compulsory insurance too.

HALT CRIMINAL, WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS

Seriously, you think insurance is going to make someone more afraid of getting into an accident, than having their innards become outards and their bones turned to splinters?

 

[jockscott]

combined with compulsory insurance too.

HALT CRIMINAL, WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS

Seriously, you think insurance is going to make someone more afraid of getting into an accident, than having their innards become outards and their bones turned to splinters?

The rider pictured surely has parents who can pay for the insurance? Parents who certainly don't want her innards turning outwards either, so they'd make damn sure she had training before allowing her on the roads.

Just how much do you think cyclists would have to pay in insurance premiums per year anyway ? (go on ,, have a wild guess)

 

[sooey]

Car insurance is based more on the potential cost of accidents that could happen than it is on the value of the car.
So cyclists should pay the same as everyone else seeing as they're just as capable of causing a very expensive accident.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

This is quite possibly the most rediculously circular argument on the internet.

If it is, that'd be a spectacular achievement.

 

[JBR]

What's really needed is compulsory training for cyclists, combined with compulsory insurance too. The costs for this should be borne wholly by the cyclists too, not shared between them and motorists.

I completely agree.

I'd like to think that, now so many cyclists are committing suicide, the government will do exactly that.

Obviously, cyclists won't listen to sensible suggestions so the only option is to compel them to grow up and behave.

 

[AronSearle]

So basically, the anti cyclists here, can only throw around insults, repeat the same arguments, without being able to refute counter arguments (except to just keep repeating themselves), then tell others to grow up.

My irony meter exploded.

So cyclists should pay the same as everyone else seeing as they're just as capable of causing a very expensive accident.

Titz.

Should they require insurance, after all, they can cause very expensive accidents?

 

[Ricardus]

So cyclists should pay the same as everyone else seeing as they're just as capable of causing a very expensive accident.

Titz.

Should they require insurance, after all, they can cause very expensive accidents?

If another motorist collides with my car and it's their fault, then they have insurance to cover the cost of repairs to my vehicle.
If a cyclist hits my car and it's their fault, how do I get them to pay the cost of repairs, short of private prosecution, small claims court, or beating them with a stick until they hand over their wallet?

 

[AronSearle]

So cyclists should pay the same as everyone else seeing as they're just as capable of causing a very expensive accident.

Titz.

Should they require insurance, after all, they can cause very expensive accidents?

If another motorist collides with my car and it's their fault, then they have insurance to cover the cost of repairs to my vehicle.
If a cyclist hits my car and it's their fault, how do I get them to pay the cost of repairs, short of private prosecution, small claims court, or beating them with a stick until they hand over their wallet?

Interesting question, it has of course nothing to do with any of the points people make when being "anti cyclist", it won't make them cycle faster, use or not use lanes, or cause any more or less accidents (or stop them wearing lycra).

It's the same problem as with uninsured drivers, or drivers that hit people and drive off, or pedestrains that cause accidents, or builders that leave obsticles in the road.

Cept of course the likelyhood of a cyclist damaging your car is significantly lower.

It's also the same problem for the cyclist, car hits you, but they take YOU to court, well tough, you don't have insurance so you have to pay legal fee's, you likely "lose" even if you win.

And if an uninsured driver hit's a cyclist, same, your screwed.

But as a practicle question, do you want to essentially illegalize cycling for under 16s (parents can't insure child cyclers, the legal framework doesnt allow for it, and under 16s can't enter into contracts)

Really?

Just how much do you think cyclists would have to pay in insurance premiums per year anyway ? (go on ,, have a wild guess)

A guess?

Hard to say, there is no legal requirement for it, so costs are low (though most schemes don't pay out the first £500, which in most cases is all the damage you will do).

Once it becomes legal, it would likely end up like the car insurance market, high costs, high profits.

They would likely insist on licensing (providing insurance for unliscenced people)?

So a guess would be initially several hundred pounds including licensing, and maybe a hundred or two after that?

Enough to seriously dent the pockets of those on minimun wage just trying to get to work (but screw them right?).

And forget having a bike as a kid.

Nice little dysitopian world you have envisioned there!

 

[Ricardus]

Cept of course the likelyhood of a cyclist damaging your car is significantly lower.

Not having read the entirity of this thread I wonder if you have ever used or even owned either a cycle or a car...
The end of a set of handlebars, brake levers or pedals can key a car quite nicely. And having 10st of cyclist hitting your car at 10mph or more will leave a nice dent - many years ago, when cars were built of thicker metal that didnt deform under a light breeze, I was delivering papers one morning when a fellow paperboy from another shop was too busy looking at page 3 and not the road and ploughed his mountain bike into the back of a parked car. The brake levers left a nice pair of dents in the boot but the crowning glory when the to bathtub sized dent he left in the roof when he supermanned over the handlebars and landed on the roof.

Enough to seriously dent the pockets of those on minimun wage just trying to get to work (but screw them right?).

Occasionally I catch one of those traffic police shows that repeat endlessly on TV and that sort of excuse gets trotted out by people with no car insurance, MOT or a badly maintained vehicle. Never seems to work with our police for some reason.

And forget having a bike as a kid.
Nice little dysitopian world you have envisioned there!

 

[Ricardus]

But as a practicle question, do you want to essentially illegalize cycling for under 16s (parents can't insure child cyclers, the legal framework doesnt allow for it, and under 16s can't enter into contracts

As far as I know, the law is (or was) that cycles with wheels under 20" (ie BMXs or many of the folding commuter bikes) were allowed to use the pavement, and bigger wheeled bikes were not. So a solution would be that anyone in this scenario who couldn't / didn't want to get insurance can use a small bike and ride on the pavement.
Anyone using a full size bike would have to pony up for a minimum of 3rd party insurance.
The insurance companies themselves could then take the chore of deciding if the cyclist needed such things as lights, reflectors, hi-vis clothing, an ounce of common sense or a basic cycling proficiency course before they would insure you.
Uninsured cyclists would be subject to the same as uninsured motorists. On the spot fine followed by seizure of cycle until insurance is obtained.

 

[Ricardus]

PS and personally I'd like top make it law that any cyclist using the roads had to wear hi-vis to give motorists and indeed unwary pedestrians a fighting chance of seeing them.

 

[jockscott]

Ricardus, your wasting your breath there mate. There's no way Aaron is going to back down. He thinks we're all anti cyclists. (I used to cycle ten miles to work and back some years ago, in all sorts of weather) I'm not anti cyclist at all, I was merely pointing out the faults of some cyclists. The ones who do cycle through red traffic lights. The ones who undertake vehicles with left turn signals on. The ones who overtake vehicles turning right.
Then Aaron responds saying it's fine, and there's nothing wrong with cycling through a red fookin traffic light. Little realising traffic lights are there for traffic management, to reduce the danger of accidents at junctions. He seems to think traffic lights are there just to hold traffic up and cyclists should ignore them at all times. I do hope he cycles through one , one day/night, and the last thing he sees (before waking up in hospital) when he looks right, is the radiator of some juggernaut, about two feet away, travelling at 25 mph. That would be poetic justice.