CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 36 min 14 sec ago

Re: Taking a bike on a train

25 February 2015 - 9:31pm
Ron wrote:horizon wrote: It is never straightforward to take a bike on a train in the UK.
Nonsense, but if you take your bike to a station with that attitude undoubtedly things will be less than straightforward.

Fair point.

But I speak from having turned up in good and cheerful spirits only to have station staff run over to me (on several occasions) to "assist" me not to get on the train.

The main point though is that "straightforward" applies to the two bikes rule: most of the time it won't affect you ... until it does.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 9:27pm
Ellieb wrote:EDIT: The reason why you have to accept that the cyclist in this sort of incident need to accept some part of the responsibilty is because it has been reported (although I don't know if it has been statistically proven) that these sort of incidents happen disproportionally more to female cyclists.
I don't follow that quote. It appears to say that because women suffer these types of accidents more they need to take more responsibility for their actions... I'm not sure that's what you meant.

As an aside, it's been suggested that women are more likely to succumb simply because they're more likely to obey rules. For all the anecdotes that abound about rule breaking cyclists they seem to be under represented in the accident stats - at least superficially.

Re: CAMS (Cycle Accident Management Service - Help!

25 February 2015 - 9:24pm
GregWoods

I think it's important to be aware that personal injury claims can take a long time to settle.

On the matter of C-AMS more generally, it looks to me as though they have extended the system of car accident management to cycling accidents. C-AMS is a subsidiary of Direct Accident Management about which I know nothing except what I've read in their www:-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=direct+accident+management
This is again speaking generally about the "accident management" industry.

For most owner/drivers involved in a car crash, the biggest problem is continued access to a car while their own is off the road. If the other party is to blame, you can hire another and add reasonable costs to your eventual claim off the other driver, but that's a gamble most people are chary of taking since they may end up paying for it themselves if their claim is successfully rebutted. Even with the rock solid claim, not everybody can afford to pay car fees out of their own savings, even if they are confident of getting the money back eventually. Twenty-five to thirty years ago, schemes began to be set up to indemnify "innocent" drivers for these costs. I've posted before that in 1991, I had an almost-new car written off when I was shunted. My own garage pointed me towards a scheme run jointly by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association (VBRA) The shunt made the case clear cut and they got me a hire car without problems, while mine was replaced. There seemed to be little control of costs. I returned the hire car as soon as mine was fixed but they rang me weeks (months ?) later to ask when I would be taking it back. In due course they funded a lawyer who got me what seemed a decent settlement for my injuries. Somehwre along the line, I asked somebody where the money was coming from and they explained they hired the cars at a wholesale rate and charged the other party retail.

Although "my" scheme was partly run by the ABI, the insurance companies did not like this type of thing at all, since it inevitably increased their costs. Several cases went to court and having been involved myself I took particular interest. One of the arguments was that the law did not allow a third party to support another in a legal claim for damages: it's known as "champerty." IIRC, the insurers lost more cases than they one in trying to outlaw this practice. I get the impression that it's mushroomed.

The difference between the typical bike crash that results in a compo claim and the majority of car crashes is that personal injury is likely to be more important. (I'm not saying that people are not injured in car crashes, just that most car crashes are "damage only" and that car repairs tend to cost much more than bike repairs.) ie I'm not sure that a system intended to enable drivers to keep driving is necessarily the best to help cyclists who have been in a crash.

Not much use to anybody who has already signed up with a lawyer, but here's something I prepared earlier.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49627

PS Forgot to say: If it's a damage-only bike crash, then the only realistic way to get the £££ out of a reluctant driver is through the small claims court system. Not necessarily for everybody, but it is intended to keep lawyers out. I was reading something recently which was saying that the Ministry of Justice is trying to simplify this system along the lines of the Ebay dispute resolution system. The case would only go to a judge if the online resolution system didn't work.

PPS Also forgot to say: if you go to a solicitor/ firm of solicitors, they are bound by certain rules intended to protect clients even though, as others have posted, they are not all up to the same standard or necessarily experienced in a particular type of case eg representing cyclists who have been knocked off their bike. I think claims handling companies are covered only by the general law and have no professional rules. If a case results in litigation, at that stage they will instruct a solicitor, of their choosing.

Re: Taking a bike on a train

25 February 2015 - 9:13pm
Must congratulate a Merseyrail train driver on 12th Feb I was getting a local train in to Liverpool, as it was late it was quite full, and a cyclist (with bike!) getting off wished me luck as it was packed. Another two bikes got on before me, so I told driver I would wait for next train ( no prob. for me would have been a 10 min wait plus my mate was on that train.) with that the driver got out of compartment and asked standing passengers to 'move along' thus making plenty of room for three bikes.
I have noticed, similar to buses, passengers prefer to congregate near exit doors and stand next to bikes, even when seats are available. Some even sit on seats where bike designated area is!!

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 8:54pm
I can't help thinking that some people on this forum think that it is a cyclist's right to ride on a road in traffic without any degree of skill or care.
Hmm Perhaps i could have phrased it better.

The point I am making is that in order to cycle safely, you do actually need to display a degree of skill and care. If not, then what about when you come across a pedestrain? Are you not supposed to be able to behave safely around them. Even allowing for that, you cannot have completely incompetent people moving around on bikes and expect everyone on four (or two motorised) wheels to be wholly responsible for avoiding the consequences of their unsafe actions (I'll say once again, I am not directly relating this statement to this accident as we don't know exactly what happened). I am not suggesting that every cyclist is going to need the skill and experience that I suspect most people on this forum possess. But they do have to behave on the roads safely: Going up the inside of a moving, indicating lorry ought to be self-evidently dangerous, you don't need 30 years and 50,000 miles of cycling to appreciate that this is so.

EDIT: The reason why you have to accept that the cyclist in this sort of incident need to accept some part of the responsibilty is because it has been reported (although I don't know if it has been statistically proven) that these sort of incidents happen disproportionally more to female cyclists. If that is the case then it would help to stop it happening if we could find out why. This may involve in the cyclists being in some way responsible...Or it may not, but you won't help matters if you just insist that none of it can ever be even partially due to the actions of the cyclist.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 8:49pm
We don't have blame someone in order to find a way to prevent it from happening again.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 8:45pm
Where I work is on a one way system, the council have supplied a safe cycle route through the area, restricted speed and directed traffic to not use some access into the system. Every day dozens of vehicle make an illegal right hand turn (including police vehicles) because they don't think it matters/can't see the point/reached the junction in error. We also see quite regularly vehicles driving through a well signposted no entry for reasons best known to the drivers. These actions have so far not resulted in death or injury as they generally occur at low speeds.

However its the 'cyclists' travelling through the area that are the biggest issue riding, often at elevated speeds, the wrong way through the main junction, jumping pavements, even waiting for a gap to ride the wrong way into the traffic. It's a wonder none have been killed, its probably a matter of time, a quick survey reveals they are mostly commuters with 'all the kit' making this dangerous manoeuvre every weekday. The cycle route would add maybe 30 seconds onto their journey.

The motorised traffic and self propelled both show different levels of stupidity. We should not automatically blame the motorised driver if there is an accident involving a bike, yes they are often at fault but not always, sometimes cyclists are b******y stupid! Better training for new drivers, training for all schoolchildren and maybe coppers doing more than strolling around talking about last nights match could make some difference. But you can't train/legislate for stupid.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 8:29pm
danhopgood wrote:taking account of the sometimes conflicting requirements of safety, cost and keeping the country moving
For the most part despite how drivers behave it isn't cyclists or pedestrians who are stopping them moving, it's the car in front - and that's usually sat in a queue.
Doesn't stop drivers from trying to get past, or turning into a road pedestrians are already crossing with hand on horn etc. The reality of it is drivers need 'reigning in', slowly but surely as their numbers have increased they've taken a ever increasing 'cut' of other peoples share to the point now where they feel it's OK to park in cycle lanes or on pavements or use their vehicles in aggressive ways intended to intimidate and for what? To get to the next queue a few seconds earlier?

Re: CAMS (Cycle Accident Management Service - Help!

25 February 2015 - 8:14pm
In my thankfully limited experience of accident claims solicitors, the quality of the service you get depends more on the individual handling your claim than the name above the door. I've had both outstanding and appalling service from the same company. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to require one again, I'll choose someone local with a good reputation.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 8:11pm
horizon wrote:I can't help thinking that some people on this forum think that it is a lorry firm's right to deliver goods in a patently unsafe vehicle without any degree of skill or care.

Not at all. But as we don't live in a perfect world the better skilled that cyclists are the fewer accidents they will be involved in. It isn't a difficult concept.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 7:40pm
horizon wrote:I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).

The problem is AFAIK that the cyclist rode up the inside of a left indicating lorry which had started it's manoeuvre.
What we don't know is if the driver checked his mirrors and or camera(s) before turning and having check(presuming he did)signalled then began the manoeuvre.
If the lorry had to stop mid manoeuvre,is it then reasonable for the driver to carry one driving without checking again.
If the lorry didn't stop should the driver continually keep checking his mirrors and or camera(s) or should his/her focus be to the front of the vehicle,considering there's more chance of pedestrians or other vehicles being in that direction.

FWIW,I see the argument for a banksman or co driver,but also think realistically the chances of such a law being implemented to be slim in the extreme if at all.
I also agree that the lorry driver should as all drivers should, be vigilant and careful of other road users,however is it reasonable under the present system that at some point the driver after satisfying himself it is safe to carry out the manoeuvre to continue?
There comes a time when the driver has to commit to continuing and after satisfying him/herself it's safe carries on.
If in the meantime someone cycles upto the inside of such a left turning and left indicating lorry,questions need to be asked of that cyclist's capability of using the road IMO.
I take the points raised that pedestrians and licence free vehicles have,for want of a better word, priority and that motor vehicles are only licensed,but we can't have a situation where pedestrians and cyclists have no responsibilities both to themselves and others IMHO that is reasonable.

Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.
The problem here is AFAICS that we have human beings operating such machines that can cause those consequences,and whilst we do there will be mistakes made by either party,the problem is then one of fault.
If a driver of such a vehicle has made all necessary checks,is conforming to all the rules,is diligent and careful in his/her driving duties and conforming to the letter and spirit of the law,if someone should step out into and under the wheels of their vehicle.
Would it then be the driver who was at fault?

Re: CAMS (Cycle Accident Management Service - Help!

25 February 2015 - 6:55pm
We loathe and detest these claims management companies who have for the last few years been a royal pain in the neck with unsolicited calls following a minor bump my wife had in her car. We keep telling them that everything has been settled and not to phone us back or pass our details on but they still do. On a few occasions I have taken to be very rude to them as polite reasoned requests seem to fall on deaf ears - pox on the lot of them.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:51pm
danhopgood wrote:
So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?

Lorry drivers would be prosecuted if:

They drove without an assistant in a built-up area
They drove a vehicle more than x feet long/wide/high in a built-up area
They drove without the required safety equipment such as mirrors etc

I'm presuming here that we have all agreed that the problem is the lorry (i.e. we have all said that cyclists should not cycle up the left hand side of a lorry).

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:47pm
danhopgood wrote:kwackers wrote:danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
As a pedestrian I long for the days drivers obey the rules. Rule 170 would be a good start.

And as a vehicle user I like pedestrians who obey Rule 7D.
Moral equivalence again (please look it up). Have you read the HC? How many of those rules for pedestrians say MUST? Do you understand the significance of this omission?

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:37pm
danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
Most of these rules do not have the force of legislation behind them. When they do, it will list the particular legislation that applies, such as 16

Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.
Law RTA 1988 sect 26

Many of the rules for motor vehicles, on the other hand, do have the force of legislation behind them.

Roads are, for the most, parts rights of way established for the passage of people. Pedestrians and cyclists have a clear and defined right to be there. Motor vehicles are only there by licence.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:35pm
horizon wrote:pwa wrote:Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....

pwa: we agree on this. Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.

So how are those revised rules going to work then Horizon? All lorry drivers to face jail any time they are involved in an injury accident to a cyclist or pedestrian, regardless of the circumstances? All van drivers? All car drivers?

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:32pm
Horizon

I suspect that if we worked on it we would find that we kind of agree on lots of things. I'm not against guards on the sides of lorries, better infrastructure at busy junctions and anything that makes things safer without stopping people going about their daily business. Things can and should be improved. But if one of my teenage kids said they were cycling around a busy city tomorrow I would want them to be 100% sure in their own minds that trying to pass any vehicle on the left when it is indicating left and has started turning left is an absolute no no.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:18pm
kwackers wrote:danhopgood wrote:Have you read the Highway Code?!

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 is not talking about prohibited areas.
As a pedestrian I long for the days drivers obey the rules. Rule 170 would be a good start.

And as a vehicle user I like pedestrians who obey Rule 7D.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 6:11pm
pwa wrote:Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....

pwa: we agree on this. Cyclists need to be careful and obey the rules of the road (such as they are). Where we disagree is in seeing the moral equivalence between a lorry (even when following the rules) and a cyclist (even when not). The point at issue is not the following of the rules but the imbalanced consequence of not doing so. We need to create rules that demand that lorries take into account the mistakes of others. That's fair, not because lorry drivers should have to follow rules and cyclists not, but because the consequences are different.

Re: Another cyclist death: left-turning lorry

25 February 2015 - 5:57pm
Beardy

I don't know how many billion people there are on the planet, but there's too many for us all to move about without a bit of regulation. We all have to conform to some agreed standards of behaviour to make our movements safe and practical. And I do mean all: cyclists, lorry drivers, pedestrians .....

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