CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 29 min ago

Re: Cyclist injured by steam roller

5 August 2014 - 1:53pm
Postboxer wrote:I agree with the edited heading, had a pedestrian collided with a stationary cycle and got injured and the heading in the paper was pedestrian injured by cyclist, there'd be a few complaints on here. I'll assume that it wasn't intentional and that the OP isn't a professional journalist with a few editors to check their posts before they get posted.

It is rather a unique vehicle to crash into and would be funny if they weren't so badly injured, as steamrollers are always cropping up in cartoons in comical situations.

There you are I've altered the heading. Happy now ???

Re: Dissertation Birmingham Commuters

5 August 2014 - 1:52pm
In Response to [XAP]Bob:

Yes, but some who has regularly commuted a route for a month, may feel less' experienced' than someone who has regularly commuted a route for 10 years. I just wanted to stress the inclusive nature of the work I am doing.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 1:39pm
It should be legal to ride your bike over the top of those taxis, need someone with the skill though, not safe to cross the solid white line into oncoming traffic, they'd soon stop parking there.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 1:38pm
I was about to chime in to tell the OP that someone has already beaten you to it, but then I realised that would be hopelessly off-topic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpmcd0SBIq0

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 1:20pm
thirdcrank wrote:I'm not defending drivers who can't understand traffic signs, especially when they adopt varying interpretations to suit their own needs, but they are a reality. Here's something I prepared earlier.
I actually don't think people see road signs. This I believe is particularly true if they're local to the roads.

My only regret is I didn't have a camera, it truly was comic genius and warrants a spot on Youtube. Had it been on the TV it would have been accused of stereotyping folk.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 1:09pm
I'm not defending drivers who can't understand traffic signs, especially when they adopt varying interpretations to suit their own needs, but they are a reality. Here's something I prepared earlier.

viewtopic.php?p=188088#p188088

Re: Cyclist injured by steam roller

5 August 2014 - 1:02pm
Seems it one of the UK National Elite Series races and therefore closed roads I'd assume. What plonker allows someone to park a steam engine on an elite cycle race track?

Re: Caught on camera

5 August 2014 - 1:02pm
An interesting report of a prosecution for failing to stop here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-br ... e-28658217

Re: Cyclist injured by steam roller

5 August 2014 - 12:53pm
I agree with the edited heading, had a pedestrian collided with a stationary cycle and got injured and the heading in the paper was pedestrian injured by cyclist, there'd be a few complaints on here. I'll assume that it wasn't intentional and that the OP isn't a professional journalist with a few editors to check their posts before they get posted.

It is rather a unique vehicle to crash into and would be funny if they weren't so badly injured, as steamrollers are always cropping up in cartoons in comical situations.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 12:32pm
AlaninWales wrote:Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).

AIUI it happened on Goods Way round the back of Kings Cross near the filling station. If she didn't have a view of the cyclist there when she started the turn she can't have been looking. Its a wide road with a slight curve and good sight lines. And despite some reports there isn't a steep hill there to come racing down. Its pretty flat thereabouts.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 12:31pm
One of the one-way streets in Bath's city centre was made two way for bikes early this year. The signing and markings were fairly subtle, which meant that anyone cycling contra-flow inevitably was held up by pedestrians crossing in front of them or drivers driving as if they didn't exist. The local cycling campaign group asked for the markings to be improved, which they were, and it is now very clear that cyclists can use it in both directions. Generally other road users behaviour has improved, but a few weeks ago I still had one car drive deliberately at me (it is a narrow road with parking on one side so little space to avoid oncoming cars), which I assume was the driver's way of saying that I shouldn't have been cycling in that direction. Or maybe he just didn't like me.

Re: Cyclist injured by (crashing into a )steam roller

5 August 2014 - 12:30pm
Feel sorry for him on one level but what sort of plonk could miss seeing a big steam roller like that?

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 12:26pm
Its surprising how many motorists impersonate a police officer by advising a cyclist where they should and shouldn’t ride a bike.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 12:14pm
When that happened to me, I politely asked “Are you my mother?”
When the answer was no, I said “Then f*** off then” and rode off.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 11:59am
661-Pete wrote: However U-turns are a rather grey area in motoring law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many years ago U-turns were illegal on all roads. This is not the case now, although they are still illegal where prohibited by a specific sign, or where there are double white lines. Certainly a lot of cases where I've witnessed U-turns (and they can be most disconcerting to the cyclist!) are where the driver is simply too lazy to make it as far as the next roundabout, where they can reverse their direction of travel quite legally and safely. Most irksome driving behaviour, I'd call it...
First I've heard of it ever having been illegal. If you think about it, a three point turn is permitted and deemed important enough to be a required part of driver training. So how could a U-turn (which manages the same manoeuver in a single turn) have been illegal? How could anybody legally turn round where there was no side road, roundabout or turning circle? You could reverse into a driveway or farm entrance but that itself would be a trespass and therefore unlawful.

I have no problem with u-turns or 3-point turns as long as they are done with care. I probably do them on my bike much more frequently than in the car.

Re: Ten Miles a Day

5 August 2014 - 11:57am
Damn and bollox.
I have just been informed of a change in workplace which will reduce my commute distance.
26 miles down to 18.
I will have to ride some ‘evening extenders’.

Re: Wrong way up a one way street.

5 August 2014 - 11:56am
kwackers wrote: ... I'd like to think they were embarrassed when they spotted the repeater 'cyclist contraflow' signs further up the road but somehow I doubt they see road signs at all. ...

The so-called "flying motor cycle" (no motor vehicles sign) is often cited as a widely misunderstood traffic sign whenever there's some sort of quiz. Ime, it's routinely ignored by drivers, but often pointed to as indicating a prohibition which includes cycling. I suspect that the cycle contraflow sign is even less widely understood. Having lost all my stuff about this when my last computer packed up, I'm not going to look it up again. IIRC it's a blue rectangular sign with a white arrow or arrows (depending on number of lanes) pointing up, and a cycle logo with an arrow pointing down.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 11:41am
AlaninWales wrote:Does it say whether the cyclist was in view when she started the U-turn?
If so, then (probably) the driver's fault.
If not, then (probably) the cyclist's fault (not being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear is somewhat careless).
Without the full details it is not possible to who was to blame; presumably that's why there will be some investigation...
You have a point there. However U-turns are a rather grey area in motoring law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many years ago U-turns were illegal on all roads. This is not the case now, although they are still illegal where prohibited by a specific sign, or where there are double white lines. Certainly a lot of cases where I've witnessed U-turns (and they can be most disconcerting to the cyclist!) are where the driver is simply too lazy to make it as far as the next roundabout, where they can reverse their direction of travel quite legally and safely. Most irksome driving behaviour, I'd call it...

Myself, if I want to do a 180° turn when driving, I prefer to find a quiet side road or driveway on the left which I can reverse into. With due care, naturally.

Re: Biased?

5 August 2014 - 10:11am
There's no mention of an investigation into any offence being committed by the cyclist. The police investigation is to ascertain whether her driving was illegal, not to apportion blame.

Re: Any success reporting a near miss to the Police?

5 August 2014 - 10:05am
TonyR

I find your experience interesting and to some extent reassuring. When the early discussions took place about reducing police attendance at traffic accidents AKA advising more people who ring to report accidents that they need only exchange details, experienced traffic police queried what would happen in cases where false details were given. It's worth mentioning that in the days when the police did attend and investigate more accidents, anybody who initially decided only to exchange details but then found they had been stiffed was likely to get little sympathy if they later reported the accident to try to get the other party's details. Assurances were made that people who exchanged details would not be let down in these circumstances. The subsequent developments are all after my time, but I remember, perhaps a decade ago, when police forces' websites carried details of which collisions would be attended, some at least included an assurance along those lines.

After a crash, especially where there's no injury, IME a lot of people just want to reinstate their car at no cost to their no claims bonus. Prosecution is not on their agenda and is even less desirable to them when the possibility of being called to give evidence emerges. Injury accidents - and that's most crashes between a motor vehicle and a cyclist - are a different matter, or they should be. Unfortunately, under the guise of concentrating on serious crashes, there seems to have been a substantial loss of official interest in "minor injury" accidents. It's been suggested that the evidence for this includes a lot of hospital-visit injuries to vulnerable road users not appearing in the police stats. It's my impression and nothing more that KSI - killed or seriously injured is often interpreted as "any possibility of their being a Coroner's inquest." My wife was recently watching an episode of a telly documentary called Traffic Cops or something similar. (It features our local police force and our neighbours' twin sons have "starred" in it.) One bit that I caught included the scene of a bad smash. The police at the scene received info from the paramedics that the casualty was failing and an officer explained the effect of an inquest.

The point I'm trying to make is that this apparent downgrading of injury collisions is detrimental to the interests of vulnerable road users.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions