CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 55 min 11 sec ago

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

27 July 2014 - 5:16pm
reohn2 wrote:I think we're of the same outlook* so I'll let Shootist answer for himself.


*other than some people's POV which seem to think cyclists can't be wrong.I can't bring any to mind ATM but it does happen from time to time.
They can be wrong - although their "wrong" tends to be less damaging than that of a motorist, and similarly more damaging than that of a pedestrian.

Equestrians don't quite fit in the same scale...

Re: Cycling on single-track roads

27 July 2014 - 4:29pm
Vorpal wrote:Elizabeth_S wrote:in their haste didn't see the no entry signs, fortunately they met me and not someone driving fast. Sure it does meet up with a cycle path, but you can't get to it that way. There were some great looking roads and cycle paths around Aviemore and I'll enjoy exploring them (but I wanted to go and walk in in Glen Feshie).
Are you sure about that? No entry signs or 'no motor vehicle' signs, are often placed at the beginning of false one way roads. They aren't actually one way, but motor traffic can only enter from one direction. Sometimes there are private drives or something that allow traffic to go the other way. The cyclists could have dismounted, walked past the no entry signs, then started pedalling again, and it would have been perfectly legal. If it is actually marked as one way, that would not be legal, but I would be very surprised if it were one way.
I think it is this road: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.17571 ... !2e0?hl=en
It is indeed a "false one way road", there are no one way signs but there is a no entry sign at the other end (no cycle contraflow): https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@57.17511 ... !2e0?hl=en

So, yes, the cyclist were legally travelling along the road. Though they may have illegally cycled past a no entry sign.

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

27 July 2014 - 4:25pm
I think we're of the same outlook* so I'll let Shootist answer for himself.


*other than some people's POV which seem to think cyclists can't be wrong.I can't bring any to mind ATM but it does happen from time to time.

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 4:20pm
ChrisButch wrote:BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!
There's a readily available solution, both legally neutral and free of language abuse, which avoids that dilemma. Simply don't use any of the parties to the incident as the subject of a verb. So instead of saying 'x was in collision with y', or 'x collided with y', you say 'there was a collision between x and y'. Police and press seem rarely if ever to use that form of words, for reasons hard to understand.

Because it takes a modicum of English grammar?

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

27 July 2014 - 4:15pm
reohn2 wrote:Whilst I agree total with your point,do pedestrians,cyclists and other adult vulnerable road users have no responsibilities?
They do have responsibilities. I agree with your summary that the motorists' is the "greater responsibility".

nevertheless when someone's wrong they're wrong,if they're partly to blame likewise,and in this case there can be no doubt the cyclist was wholly to blame.
I agree with your summary that the incident (as described) was totally the fault of the cyclist. The driver did all he could do, having anticipated (or at least seen) the cyclist's action and performed an emergency stop. Had the driver been less attentive and hit the cyclist I could not say that the cyclist's injury or death was totally the cyclist's fault; it would have been a combination of poor cycling and inattentive driving.

In the case of Shootist's post IMO he was,albeit sarcastically,illustrating that some on here think cyclists can do no wrong which is clearly a wrong attitude and riding with that kind of outlook can get a cyclist in world of trouble.
I knew the point Shootist was making and said it was nonsense because I have yet to see any evidence of that attitude. As far as I can tell, no-one has suggested that the cyclist wasn't at fault for making an inappropriate manoeuver. That accusation tends to get trotted out when people point out the absurdity of focusing on cycling offences (RLJing, pavement cycling etc.) whilst ignoring more dangerous motor offences. We also hear it when someone makes the point about drivers bearing the greater responsibility for the safety of others on the road. It's often just a subtle variation of the "SO WHY SHOULD I BE TO BLAME IF I HIT A JAYWALKING PEDESTRIAN WHO WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD!!!! IT IS MY RIGHT OF WAY IDIOTS!!!" comments underneath every online newspaper article which ever discusses strict/presumed liability.

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

27 July 2014 - 3:42pm
Bicycler wrote:The key word there is "largely". Certainly they pose much less of a threat to others than drivers of motor vehicles and I believe that this should be reflected in how we judge their actions. Let's be very clear. pedestrians don't die because they "jaywalk", cyclists don't die because they wobble and fall, turn when they shouldn't or ignore a light, they are killed because they are hit by motor vehicles. Their mass and speed raise the stakes of mistakes in such intrinsically safe activities as going for a walk or riding a bike. Because of this greater danger, drivers are licensed and tested with the intent of ensuring a minimum standard not required of other road users who do not pose such a danger. It is only right that they shoulder the greater burden of responsibility.
Whilst I agree total with your point,do pedestrians,cyclists and other adult vulnerable road users have no responsibilities?

In truth I find the concepts of 'fault' and 'blame' a bit unhelpful where people are killed or injured. No doubt there's some small comfort in holding somebody responsible after the event but it is better that such events do not happen at all.
As someone who two years ago next month lost my 19year old granddaughter,one of identical twins,to a maniac illegal young driver.
I'm acutely aware the effects of bad driving and the fallout both emotionally and financially.Not to mention the police investigation being woefully inadequate,and who's lack of action prior to her death didn't remove this lunatic,who also killed himself in the crash,from our roads.

As cyclists we need to account for inadequate driving, as drivers we need to allow for the actions of inadequate cyclists. I'm sure that it comes as little comfort to say the cyclist or pedestrian that you hit and killed was 'at fault'. Certainly I would need to know that I could not have foreseen and prevented the collision. Priority would simply not be sufficient. I believe these values would be best codified in law by a strict or presumed liability system (as adopted in many countries): http://road.cc/content/news/89960-lib-d ... y%E2%80%99

Apologies for going off on a tangent there.
I've long been a believer in strict/presumed liability where the driver of the bigger vehicle should carry the greater responsibility and should also be held responsible when his/her driving can't be proven to be faultless.
Unfortunately in the UK we find ourselves in the current dire situation where victim blaming seems to be the default position and attitude,but nevertheless when someone's wrong they're wrong,if they're partly to blame likewise,and in this case there can be no doubt the cyclist was wholly to blame.
In the case of Shootist's post IMO he was,albeit sarcastically,illustrating that some on here think cyclists can do no wrong which is clearly a wrong attitude and riding with that kind of outlook can get a cyclist in world of trouble.
I'm no shrinking violet when cycling on the road and almost daily witness extremely bad driving some of which is deliberate,most thoughtless idiocy.
But I do see some incredibly stupid cycling too and as the vulnerable party in the current climate find some of their antics unbelievably stupid in the extreme,so if some cyclists will treat their own safety with scant regard,one has to ask how they'd behave with a presumed liability law in place,and as such it's no wonder there's resistance to it.

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 3:42pm
BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!
Yes but this language isn't neutral. There is a difference between your example "a collision between" and "collided with". Obviously the examples with the child and pedestrian are absurd but using less prejudicial language becomes more important in other cases. When we read " a cyclist [active] collided with a car [passive]" we infer that the cyclist has hit the car rather than the other way around. They should not use any language which implies something which is not known.

Edit Chris made this point whilst I was typing this post

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 3:36pm
BeeKeeper wrote:There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!
There's a readily available solution, both legally neutral and free of language abuse, which avoids that dilemma. Simply don't use any of the parties to the incident as the subject of a verb. So instead of saying 'x was in collision with y', or 'x collided with y', you say 'there was a collision between x and y'. Police and press seem rarely if ever to use that form of words, for reasons hard to understand.

Re: Cycling on single-track roads

27 July 2014 - 3:25pm
Elizabeth_S wrote:in their haste didn't see the no entry signs, fortunately they met me and not someone driving fast. Sure it does meet up with a cycle path, but you can't get to it that way. There were some great looking roads and cycle paths around Aviemore and I'll enjoy exploring them (but I wanted to go and walk in in Glen Feshie).
Are you sure about that? No entry signs or 'no motor vehicle' signs, are often placed at the beginning of false one way roads. They aren't actually one way, but motor traffic can only enter from one direction. Sometimes there are private drives or something that allow traffic to go the other way. The cyclists could have dismounted, walked past the no entry signs, then started pedalling again, and it would have been perfectly legal. If it is actually marked as one way, that would not be legal, but I would be very surprised if it were one way.

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 3:07pm
There is a reason for the use of this language, which I suspect is why 3rd crank posted it. The reporting has to be sure it does not prejudice any possible prosecution. Hence the concept of a "collision" between a child and a car. To infer the car hit the child is to possibly prejudge the case as it suggests the child was innocent of any blame. As we don't have strict liability in this country the press have to be careful what they say. I remember being in collision with a car when on my trike as a nipper. The driver was not at fault as he was inside his house drinking a cup of tea at the time I ran into his parked car!

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 3:00pm
Bicycler wrote:It's ten times better than "a pedestrian and dog were killed when they collided with a motorbike".

I disagree. Both are equally as bad for the person and the dog.

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

27 July 2014 - 2:02pm
Bicycler wrote:........... A few of us did find the OP's language a touch insensitive

OK the humour was a little dark but I think only because no one was injured.
However,stupid is the only way to describe the cyclist's actions if the OP's observations are correct and I've no reason to believe they weren't.
If the cyclist had been hit and KSI'd then yes the OP's post would have been in extremely bad taste.

Poor cycling can can be the cause of collisions. Cyclists do have a responsibility for the safety of other road users. They do not, however, have the same responsibility as those driving tons of metal at high speed. Poor cyclists are largely a danger unto themselves rather than those around them.
What if the motorist who had to stop for the stupid cyclist as a result had a heart attack?

Re: Cycling on single-track roads

27 July 2014 - 1:46pm
Vorpal wrote:Elizabeth_S wrote:suddenly I was surrounded by a family of cyclists of all ages that were all over the place, both sides of me and a very cross looking father, like it was my fault, and a mother that cycled straight across my path.
How are you suddenly surrounded by cyclists? Where did they come from, and why didn't you know which side of the road they'd been on?
My thoughts exactly.

Edit: Apologies I deleted a further comment here because I hadn't read your initial post properly

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 1:23pm
It's just Red Top journalism. Something similar happened on a BBC report about the Oscar Pistorius trial when they described how the accused "threw up" in court. What's wrong with "vomited"?

Re: Tell it how it is

27 July 2014 - 1:10pm
It's ten times better than "a pedestrian and dog were killed when they collided with a motorbike".

Re: 50 mph for lorries

27 July 2014 - 1:09pm
Safeway I think!

Re: 50 mph for lorries

27 July 2014 - 1:05pm
Ellieb wrote:^ don't know why that would be. I don't think Waitrose have a shop north of Stirling
Because they get products from lots of places?

Re: 50 mph for lorries

27 July 2014 - 1:04pm
brynpoeth wrote:Waking speed! No, just the legal maximum as MAX and not as minimum or standard.

I agree the speed limit is not a minimum. The speed limits are not always correct though.

40mph HGV limit ....

drumochter.jpg

30mph HGV limit .....

renfield street.JPG

I remember seeing a Waitrose railfreight container at Wick. Couldn't Tesco use the railway?


They do.

It said supermarket chain Tesco's daily freight train to Inverness removed the need for 20 lorries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h ... s-23470170

Re: 50 mph for lorries

27 July 2014 - 1:00pm
^ don't know why that would be. I don't think Waitrose have a shop north of Stirling

Re: Ring, ring?

27 July 2014 - 12:56pm
A bell that goes drring drring makes a lovely sound and people know it is a bike. Ring it some time before you reach the person you want to warn. On shared paths it may be best to assume all walkers are drunk/hearing very loud music. Or they have a unontrolled dog nearby in the undergrowth.

Ring it loud and slow down until you are sure they have percieved you.

What makes me sick is when a group of people move left and right and expect me to go through the middle.

But on shared space paths the person-to-person communication works mostly. Not like on the road. How should I communicate with the driver in his air-conditioned cell?

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