The CTC (the organisation that campaigns for cyclists) campaigned in the 30s against the law requiring cyclists to use lights at night, arguing it would encourage drivers to go faster as it was the motorists’ responsibility to drive safely in the prevailing conditions. This sentiment no longer applies obviously and it is not acceptable for cyclists to not take responsibility for their own safety in any respect.
A curious article here:- ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/a … ugust-1934 in which, in response to 1,324 cyclists losing their lives in 1933 (following the abandonment of the 20MPH national speed limit, apparently + there were more of 'em), they also campaigned for a 30MPH limit in built-up areas, driving tests and regulation of commercial vehicle driving hours!
If you make yourself as conspicuous as possible then at least there is less excuse for not seeing you.
boredwivdrivin:
BTW . i wont be offended if one of you
ACTUALLY tells me how many of those dead cyclists were killed at night ■■
knock my merino socks off !!
A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
The findings appear to contradict a spate of recent reports speculating that risky behaviour by riders, such as listening to music players while cycling, could be behind a near 20% rise in cyclist deaths and serious injuries in the second quarter of this year.
The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.
roaduser66:
A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered
So what are you saying? It’s acceptable because it only contributes to 2% of deaths? By that reckoning it’s acceptable to check Facebook on a tablet while driving since that’s a tiny proportion of the cause of road deaths.
I’m trying to fin out where you lie on all this because as of yesterday I’m thinking you nothing more than a troll. I had you down as at least high iq but your constant dodging of a direct question
Makes me think you actually work for the government
LIBERTY_GUY:
What can you say? People do stupid things on the road all the time and yes that includes a few truck and bus drivers too.
However there is a world of difference between an error of timing judgement at roundabouts and junctions etc, a missed observation in dense traffic, confusion at an unfamiliar traffic setup etc… in contrast to riding (or indeed driving) like a complete moron, with no regards to either one’s own safety, or the safety of others.
Whilst it is true that trucks have lights, they only shine forwards and do not cover the vast areas of darkness alongside the trucks. Anything approaching from the sides during darkness, that deliberately chooses not to have lights themselves, whether that be a cyclist or a car, are the ones that are choosing to put themselves purposefully at risk and all the ‘finger prodding’ in the world, isn’t going to remove that danger.
I am sure there are cyclists reading this that have never driven a truck, or even a car and all I would say to them is buy some bloody lights, wear something light during the darker mornings and evenings and minimise the risks to yourselves. Cutting costs by not buying a few poxy batteries, is truly no good when you end up spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair. Ride safe, be seen and go home in one piece…
in an ideal world you are sensible and correct .
in the real world there is the speed contradiction whereby in places traffic is travelling fast cycles are relatively slow …
and where traffic is going slow cycles are going relatively fast .
i think this is a reason for the frustrated driver and the scared cyclist and can only be addressed by better segregation .
boredwivdrivin:
BTW . i wont be offended if one of you
ACTUALLY tells me how many of those dead cyclists were killed at night ■■
knock my merino socks off !!
According to RoSPA, about twenty percent.
Here’s my question for you. Take the cyclist in the video on the other thread, the one where he tries to squeeze between the bus and car. Hypothetically, if he had died as a result of that accident, what would be the benefit of refering that case to the CPS? What justice would need to be served? What criminal action, other than by the cyclist, has occurred?
Yes, cyclists need protecting, but sometimes from themselves.
THANK YOU !!
as a guestimate perhaps half of those killed at night had inadequate lighting ■■?
so 10% of deaths MAY be attributed to lighting , roughly .
so all the bums above attributing cycling deaths to “lighting” are proven WRONG .
in the case you mention ( altho ive not seen it as only some videos are playing on my new laptop)
if there is no case to answer , the CPS will rightly throw it out .
my contention is simply the police cant be trusted to make these decisions as their track record is so woeful
raymundo:
I thought murder had to be premeditated or with malice aforethought ? accidentally having some daft ■■■ off his bike cos the arse is riding without lights or doing a stupid move should hardly be construed as that
we dont know if its murder or not if the case doesnt get its day in court . i remind you that halfish of fatalities NO charges are brought .
but , of course i was using the term “murder” as a turn of phrase tho as manslaughter doesnt have the same ring to it
Bluey Circles:
In the case you highlight I would imagine the CPS would conclude in under 30 seconds that 100% of the blame lies with the cyclist, it is a pretty easy one. So why should the police pass their findings to the CPS for consideration; I think it is reasonable to note that the police are not remotely interested in policing the roads, I also suspect the many police officers, just like most people are car obsessed and as such probably dislike cyclists as they are incapable of travelling at the posted speed limit and slow them down, I therefore believe in cases where a motor vehicle has been in collision with a bike that the CPS need to check the police are doing their job properly.
Bluey Circles:
In the case you highlight I would imagine the CPS would conclude in under 30 seconds that 100% of the blame lies with the cyclist, it is a pretty easy one. So why should the police pass their findings to the CPS for consideration; I think it is reasonable to note that the police are not remotely interested in policing the roads, I also suspect the many police officers, just like most people are car obsessed and as such probably dislike cyclists as they are incapable of travelling at the posted speed limit and slow them down, I therefore believe in cases where a motor vehicle has been in collision with a bike that the CPS need to check the police are doing their job properly.
i think you are right .
the police are not remotely interested with road laws (a few speed cameras to catch idiots seems to be their only input these days)
Concerned with the close passes we receive as cyclists (the close pass is the most complained about aspect of cycling) I wrote to my MSP and the police, I was assured we are well protected with that highway code rule 163. So I done a FOI to police scotland asking how many drivers have been convicted of breaking this law in the previous 12 months … the answer; they have no record of anyone ever been charged.
But you have to understand its like south america/africa in here ! …
'If that ‘boy’ wasnt living , i wouldnt have shot him ’ .
Or church …
‘If she wasnt wearing such a pretty dress , i wouldnt have fiddled with her’
Welcome to the old ‘blame the victims’ game .
What a couple of stupid analogies.
You are saying drivers see a cyclist and then DELIBERATLY drive over them and kill them, blaming the cyclist simply for being there.
You are saying drivers see a cyclist doing something like riding without lights, and then DELIBERATLY drive over and kill them, blaming the cyclist because " he was being provocative and asking for it "
I think I’ve read all you posts and up to now and have tried to resist the temptation to agree with others who have called you a troll who should not be take seriously.
I am sorry to say this post of yours appears to confirm they were right.
Regards John.
old 67:
What a couple of stupid analogies.
You are saying drivers see a cyclist and then DELIBERATLY drive over them and kill them, blaming the cyclist simply for being there.
nope im not saying that .
im saying that the trolls/arses on HERE blame the victims !!
anything cycle related and immediately its the cyclists fault for jumping reds , inadequate lights and the odd moron on youtube who are to blame .
despite the fact that on the whole bad driving kills , bad cycling irritates .
But you have to understand its like south america/africa in here ! …
'If that ‘boy’ wasnt living , i wouldnt have shot him ’ .
Or church …
‘If she wasnt wearing such a pretty dress , i wouldnt have fiddled with her’
Welcome to the old ‘blame the victims’ game .
What a couple of stupid analogies.
You are saying drivers see a cyclist and then DELIBERATLY drive over them and kill them, blaming the cyclist simply for being there.
You are saying drivers see a cyclist doing something like riding without lights, and then DELIBERATLY drive over and kill them, blaming the cyclist because " he was being provocative and asking for it "
I think I’ve read all you posts and up to now and have tried to resist the temptation to agree with others who have called you a troll who should not be take seriously.
I am sorry to say this post of yours appears to confirm they were right.
Regards John.
No, I don’t think he meant they do it deliberately, but after the accident where the cyclist is dead or seriously injured they will use any amount of bizarre excuses, she wasn’t wearing a helmet, he wasn’t wearing hi-ziv, they’re always jumping red lights, they wear lycra, they don’t pay road tax. some don’t have lights; the list of irrelevant excuse is breathtaking.
old 67:
What a couple of stupid analogies.
You are saying drivers see a cyclist and then DELIBERATLY drive over them and kill them, blaming the cyclist simply for being there.
nope im not saying that .
im saying that the trolls/arses on HERE blame the victims !!
anything cycle related and immediately its the cyclists fault for jumping reds , inadequate lights and the odd moron on youtube who are to blame .
despite the fact that on the whole bad driving kills , bad cycling irritates .
i hope that clears it up for the hard of thinking
Ah I see. They were your dramatic analogies, but you only used them to illustrate what you believe to be the opinions of some posters on here.
Thank you for clearing it up, at least for this " hard of thinking " poster.
Regards. John.
im saying that the trolls/arses on HERE blame the victims !!
anything cycle related and immediately its the cyclists fault for jumping reds , inadequate lights and the odd moron on youtube who are to blame .
despite the fact that on the whole bad driving kills , bad cycling irritates .
i hope that clears it up for the hard of thinking
Finished?
Good
So, what gives you the right to lecture and insult everyone when you claim to regularly hold onto the back of lorries while cycling down dual carriageways? If you do that then you obviously have no regard for the law or safety so I fail to see how you can be so forceful in dictating to everyone else.
Really? In almost 50% of cases “failing to look” is attributed to blame on the part of the cyclist. Id call that risky. 50% is hardly “rarely” is it
I think they mean ‘failed to look properly’ on the part of drivers not cyclists.Which obviously translates as cyclist undertakes left turning truck that means it’s the driver’s fault for ‘not looking properly’.While it’s obvious that the agenda is a softening up process leading to the eventual introduction of the presumption of guilt being on the driver because of cyclist vulnerability not the rules of the road.On that note it’s no surprise that the establishment wants to put the biased case in favour of the cycling lobby just like all of the other ‘issues’ related to government policy.
