CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 47 min ago

Re: Anyone not been hit by a car

24 March 2015 - 12:45pm
Can anyone else verify this. If this is the case I am going to get a helmet with dreadlocks on them.

Re: Anyone not been hit by a car

24 March 2015 - 12:27pm
mjr wrote:toomsie wrote:If I have not mentioned it before, I am very careful cycling relative to the average cyclist. I have the recently bought a yellow hi-vis helmet( I regret not buying an orange one), I have a loud horn, lights in the daytime, and a rear view mirror. And I generally signal and look back whenever I can. Still a bit shaky one-handed but improving. I still get stories of accidents. It’s like everyone has a story. I wonder if woman fare better.
Horn OK, but none of the others indicate care. In fact, most of them have been accused of putting one in more danger (such as the famous studies of passing distance helmetted/unhelmetted), although the evidence isn't great.


Forgot my helmet the other week, and it was only after I realised that the traffic was giving me far more space than usual, and was overtaking more carefully as well, and was wondering why that was, that I noticed I was 'without' it.

Re: Anyone not been hit by a car

24 March 2015 - 11:58am
toomsie wrote:If I have not mentioned it before, I am very careful cycling relative to the average cyclist. I have the recently bought a yellow hi-vis helmet( I regret not buying an orange one), I have a loud horn, lights in the daytime, and a rear view mirror. And I generally signal and look back whenever I can. Still a bit shaky one-handed but improving. I still get stories of accidents. It’s like everyone has a story. I wonder if woman fare better.
Horn OK, but none of the others indicate care. In fact, most of them have been accused of putting one in more danger (such as the famous studies of passing distance helmetted/unhelmetted), although the evidence isn't great.

Re: Anyone not been hit by a car

24 March 2015 - 11:53am
If I have not mentioned it before, I am very careful cycling relative to the average cyclist. I have the recently bought a yellow hi-vis helmet( I regret not buying an orange one), I have a loud horn, lights in the daytime, and a rear view mirror. And I generally signal and look back whenever I can. Still a bit shaky one-handed but improving. I still get stories of accidents. It’s like everyone has a story. I wonder if woman fare better.

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

24 March 2015 - 11:15am
There is also a distinction between "reasonable" doubt and "all" doubt. And I suspect that juries are leaning towards "all" doubt because they are bombarded in the media with a representation of cyclists as weaving, RLJing scofflaws...

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

24 March 2015 - 11:05am
karlt wrote:Vorpal wrote:When a car hits another from behind, the burden of proof is on the driver in control of the rear vehicle. Because we generally assume that if a driver cannot stop in time s/he was following too closely or distracted. I cannot see why this does not apply when a car hits a cyclist.

That's liability - responsibility in a civil case. Where damages are awarded and what insurance pays out on. The standard of proof here is "more likely than not".

In a criminal case, such as we're talking about here, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The standard of proof here is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

There seems to be a lot of confusion in people's minds about these two very separate and distinct aspects to the legal system.
I understand the distinction. And I provided an example in my following post, where someone was given the opportunity to take a driver eudcation course in lieu of points (or criminal prosecution). I suppose that it is possible that if a case had gone to court my acquaintance would have been found not guilty. But he was not given that opportunity.

Re: It me or do SUVs alway drive to close

24 March 2015 - 10:42am
More minivans now then they used to be, loads of ex-cabbie ford around on the use market. I am going to buy a Vauxhal Zafera 7 seeter. Its much better then an urban 4x4, 2x4 and takes corners very good and very cheep.

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

24 March 2015 - 10:29am
In reply to Vorpal's comment that when a vehicle runs into the back of another it is generally assumed that the following vehicle is to blame, I agree that this also applies when the "vehicle" hit is a cyclist. But there are exceptions even when it is two cars involved, especially if the vehicle in front has suddenly pulled out into the path of the other vehicle. It happens. I was driving a small van about 20 years ago and managed to drive into the back of a car that had just pulled out into my path as I drove at about 20mph. I had barely time to react. The car nipped out quickly and I hit its right side rear corner as it straightened up. The nudge my van gave it straightened it up further, making it look to any passer by that I had shunted a car that was slowing down. Fortunately the car driver was apologetic and we had a very civilised conversation and all was well. But my point is that the following vehicle is not automatically to blame.

Re: Utility Pannier Bags

24 March 2015 - 10:15am
I have a pair of prehistoric Karrimor panniers that I've had for donkey's years, much like these:


The attachment is via hooks and bungi cords which don't work very well, the material they're made of lost any resemblence of waterproofing many years ago, and they have no real redeeming features.

However, the fact that they're worthless means that I can leave them attached to the bike without any worries, and it's surprising quite how much they will hold. I'll be keeping them for a while longer yet......

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

24 March 2015 - 10:05am
Vorpal wrote:When a car hits another from behind, the burden of proof is on the driver in control of the rear vehicle. Because we generally assume that if a driver cannot stop in time s/he was following too closely or distracted. I cannot see why this does not apply when a car hits a cyclist.

That's liability - responsibility in a civil case. Where damages are awarded and what insurance pays out on. The standard of proof here is "more likely than not".

In a criminal case, such as we're talking about here, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The standard of proof here is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

There seems to be a lot of confusion in people's minds about these two very separate and distinct aspects to the legal system.

Re: SUV/Lorry/BMW/Insert/delete as appropriate Driving Too C

24 March 2015 - 10:00am
To be honest, I don't notice that any particular brand or type is worse or better than others.

I do think that the drivers of some types of vehicles are less likely to be cyclists, and therefore less able to understand the needs of cyclists. So there is probably a grain of truth in it, but not much more than that.

Re: Didn't know cyclists could be fined for speeding!

24 March 2015 - 9:42am
I don't think it is reasonable to confiscate a 4 year old's bicycle. I was referring to viewtopic.php?f=7&t=94846

Re: SUV/Lorry/BMW/Insert/delete as appropriate Driving Too C

24 March 2015 - 9:42am
I think that the height of vehicles has some impact on both the passing distance and our perception of it.

As a passenger in a high vehicle I notice that the different angle does give you a different perspective on passing distances you are looking at "gaps" from above as well as from behind.

Similarly when they pass you as a cyclist you have their straight side at your elbow rather than the sloping part of a normal car.

I am sure on occasions that car mirrors have actually passed under my arm. A similar pass would have hit me or at least felt closer if the nearest part was higher up.

Though that any of them are passing with inches to spare rather than feet to spare is the real problem.

Re: http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/victoria-hazael/children-cycl

24 March 2015 - 9:41am
brynpoeth wrote:In Germany this is covered by law: children up to 8 years old must cycle on the pavement, from 9 - 10 they may cycle on the pavement.

The policeman threatened to confiscate the bike. This reminds me of a punishment applied by the Australian Police to those cycling without a helmt: the cops let their tyres down!

Not sure if I want to laugh or cry.
I understood that in Germany, children under 8 may not cycle in the road unless accompanied by someone who is at least 15. I don't think that there is a legal requirement for them to use the pavement, but if they are out and about without someone who is at least 15, then they are effectively required to use the pavement.

Re: SUV/Lorry/BMW/Insert/delete as appropriate Driving Too C

24 March 2015 - 9:40am
reohn2 wrote:Is that an observation borne out of experience?

It's not an observation. It's a well-documented and pretty-much undisputed psychological phenomenon which explains why different people, faced with the same evidence, may make entirely different conclusions about which other road users are the antichrist.

Re: SUV/Lorry/BMW/Insert/delete as appropriate Driving Too C

24 March 2015 - 9:33am
DevonDamo wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Is that an observation borne out of experience?

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

24 March 2015 - 8:26am
When a car hits another from behind, the burden of proof is on the driver in control of the rear vehicle. Because we generally assume that if a driver cannot stop in time s/he was following too closely or distracted. I cannot see why this does not apply when a car hits a cyclist.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

24 March 2015 - 7:49am
thirdcrank wrote:gaz wrote: ... It would appear that the driver believed the fault for the collision lay with the deceased's standard of cycling. It would appear that the jury agreed.

I believe this is a form of SWISS as defined by TonyR. Dead men can't apportion blame.

That sounds right. Sometimes, evidence of a deceased's conduct will come from independent witnesses or it may be self evident, eg if the deceased collided with the side of a vehicle which had already partially passed them. The alleged texting was relied on here by the prosecution as evidence of "avoidable distraction" so the jury must have accepted that the driver wasn't distracted and thus they could believe his evidence about the behaviour of the rider.

I've done jury service once about 5 years ago. Reading about one of our cases in the paper a colleague at work said how did they find him not guilty. If all we'd had to go on was what the paper had chosen to print we'd have found him guilty. Fortunately, as with all juries, we heard all the evidence. I suspect if any reasonable person heard all the evidence in this case they might find the verdict more understandable.

Re: Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

24 March 2015 - 7:40am
My "scenario" was just one example of a way in which the driver may have not been to blame. I can just as easily imagine how the driver could be to blame, We just don't seem to have enough to be sure.

I don't accept that a driver running into the back of a cyclist must always be to blame. Usually, probably, but not always. I have seen cyclists make sudden swerves into traffic, testing the ability of a driver to react. Even a careful driver can sometimes have a close call (or worse) because of someone unexpectedly moving out. Again, I don't have any evidence that this is what happened here, but without good witness statements we are left with too little to take this further. I too find that frustrating.

Re: Yet another example of criminal justice

24 March 2015 - 6:22am
gaz wrote: ... It would appear that the driver believed the fault for the collision lay with the deceased's standard of cycling. It would appear that the jury agreed.

I believe this is a form of SWISS as defined by TonyR. Dead men can't apportion blame.

That sounds right. Sometimes, evidence of a deceased's conduct will come from independent witnesses or it may be self evident, eg if the deceased collided with the side of a vehicle which had already partially passed them. The alleged texting was relied on here by the prosecution as evidence of "avoidable distraction" so the jury must have accepted that the driver wasn't distracted and thus they could believe his evidence about the behaviour of the rider.

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

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions