Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

The price of a cyclist's life: 240 hours unpaid work


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#61 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,393 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:20 PM

What was the ratio of cars to bicycles ? 100:1 ? 1000:1? Does it really come as a shock that motorists have a higher volume of incidents than cyclists ?


Probably nearer 10:1.

How many cars can go through red lights before we accept there is a genuine problem with careless and dangerous motorists.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#62 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:25 PM

Probably nearer 10:1.
How many cars can go through red lights before we accept there is a genuine problem with careless and dangerous motorists.


The police don't give two hoots about motoring offences, the gap in my fence is testimony to it

#63 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,624 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:28 PM

Good Lord.
You should be a defence lawyer in rape cases, and highlight the length of the victim's skirt.


You are deranged. If you can't see that cycling and high-speed roads with many cars, HGVs etc on them aren't a good combination then you need help. Motorists speed on those types of road, it's a fact of life, therefore accidents will happen. I'm neither condoning or defending that, just accepting it as a fact. So, if you as a cyclist think motorists drive too fast and are all idiots then why would you voluntarily put yourself at even greater risk from their incompetence ? Cyclists are going to be even more vulnerable on those roads than anywhere else.
  • Bostik Bailey likes this
Super Clarty Git Amang It Dip Fer Dippin Owt In

#64 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,393 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:42 PM

You are deranged. If you can't see that cycling and high-speed roads with many cars, HGVs etc on them aren't a good combination then you need help. Motorists speed on those types of road, it's a fact of life, therefore accidents will happen. I'm neither condoning or defending that, just accepting it as a fact. So, if you as a cyclist think motorists drive too fast and are all idiots then why would you voluntarily put yourself at even greater risk from their incompetence ? Cyclists are going to be even more vulnerable on those roads than anywhere else.

 

Build decent cycle infrastructure (and indeed better pedestrian infrastructure) and you will reduce motorised traffic congestion & stop those cyclists getting in your way.

 

Win/win.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#65 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:47 PM

You are deranged. If you can't see that cycling and high-speed roads with many cars, HGVs etc on them aren't a good combination then you need help. Motorists speed on those types of road, it's a fact of life, therefore accidents will happen. I'm neither condoning or defending that, just accepting it as a fact. So, if you as a cyclist think motorists drive too fast and are all idiots then why would you voluntarily put yourself at even greater risk from their incompetence ? Cyclists are going to be even more vulnerable on those roads than anywhere else.


Women are stupid for leaving the house when sex offenders could be lurking.

#66 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,645 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:54 PM

The environment and location are unsafe, not necessarily their manner of riding. There's a big difference.

Again, I'm simply questioning why any sane person would expose themself to such a risk. If they wish to do so then fine, that's their right, but don't cry about it if the risk materialises.


The location is fine, it's the bad drivers that make it dangerous. The solution to this problem is to educate drivers, not stop cyclists from using the roads.
Fides invicta triumphat

#67 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,810 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:09 PM

Can this thread be locked now please? The Jeremy clarksons of the forum have now proved that any accident involving a cyclist is the cyclist's fault. The huge metal penis substitutes they drive round are obviously incapable of doing any harm.


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#68 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:11 PM

No, I'm suggesting that a responsible cyclist wouldn't choose to cycle down a very busy dual carriageway at a peak time on one of the busiest days of the year. Apart from being unsafe it's downright ignorant. It's not about blame its about making sensible choices.


As an ardent cyclist this is my way of thinking. Just because I have a right, or I am within the law does not mean that I am safe or comfortable

I am lucky my commute is to the countryside, but when I cycle I have two options

1 ride down a busy dual carriageway with a motorway roundabout at the end - 12 miles
2 ride down rural country roads which snake arround the dual carriageway and miss the motorway roundabout - 18 miles

I chose option 2 it is by far a more pleasant ride although it adds about 15 mins to my journey, oh and because I only hit a town at the end I always wait inline in traffic in the primary postion and never kerb crawl. This tactic works in that almost all the drivers respect your patience and give you the same room as a car, because let's face it cyclist get annoyed at car drivers inpatience

When I got out on a weekend ride I plan my ride to avoid main arterial routes, and stick to yellow and brown roads (OS landranger)

As a cyclist you must not forget why you are cycling,for enjoyment, there is no joy in being passed within a couple of feet by 2 tons of metal travelling at 70 mph. Cyclists want respect from other road users, but some fail to appreciate that respect should be a two way attitude.

BUT this has thread has been derailed by cycling trolls. In this case There was no issue of the cyclist being at fault in this case and I did state earlier that in some incidents cyclist MAY be culpable, but definitely not in this case.

I would like to ask all the posters on this thread to leave the generalisations behind for one post and say if they thought in this case the cyclist was at fault.

#69 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:20 PM

Women are stupid for leaving the house when sex offenders could be lurking.

Err pretty cheap shot that, sex offences are still quite rare in that they tend to make the national news, whereas cyclist deaths are just regional issues.

If (as the daily mail would have us believe) there is a sexual deviant on every corner, who on conviction got a community service sentence then yes, I would recommend that girls didn't wear short skirts etc. Derwent wasn't suggesting that the cyclist were wrong, just pointing out that they were putting themselves at risk due to the lack of deterrent that exists if a car kills them. So the car drivers will drive with impunity, until a real deterrent is actioned upon.

Edited by Bostik Bailey, 29 August 2013 - 08:24 PM.


#70 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:47 PM

Err pretty cheap shot that, sex offences are still quite rare in that they tend to make the national news, whereas cyclist deaths are just regional issues.

If (as the daily mail would have us believe) there is a sexual deviant on every corner, who on conviction got a community service sentence then yes, I would recommend that girls didn't wear short skirts etc. Derwent wasn't suggesting that the cyclist were wrong, just pointing out that they were putting themselves at risk due to the lack of deterrent that exists if a car kills them. So the car drivers will drive with impunity, until a real deterrent is actioned upon.


What's the conviction rate on rape cases these days?

#71 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:50 PM

What's the conviction rate on rape cases these days?

Fair point


Edit: Am I allowed to do this or should I just go of on a pedantic rant about grammar. And move the point away from this to something totally irrelevant to the OP.

Edited by Bostik Bailey, 29 August 2013 - 08:59 PM.


#72 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,624 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:55 AM

 

Can this thread be locked now please? The Jeremy clarksons of the forum have now proved that any accident involving a cyclist is the cyclist's fault. The huge metal penis substitutes they drive round are obviously incapable of doing any harm.


Jeez, talk about being a drama queen.

Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort, and quite clearly and unequivocally the driver was at fault in the incident that started this thread.

The point, which you and Rhubarbtriangulist seem to have missed by some distance, is that a lot of drivers show little regard for other road users (including other drivers) at the best of times. So, given that cyclists are the most vulnerable road user of all, surely its up to them to take additional precautions regarding their own safety in the knowledge that nobody else will. Whether they should have to is a different issue altogether, but the reality is that they need to. Yes in a perfect world all road users would show each other courtesy and not endanger each other but that doesn't and never will happen.
Super Clarty Git Amang It Dip Fer Dippin Owt In

#73 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,624 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:04 AM

 

Build decent cycle infrastructure (and indeed better pedestrian infrastructure) and you will reduce motorised traffic congestion & stop those cyclists getting in your way.
 
Win/win.


No arguments on the point about infrastructure.

On your second point, its not about cyclists getting in anyone's way. Living in rural Cumbria I am well used to dealing with slow moving vehicles as a fact of life. It is about their safety and risk mitigation.
Super Clarty Git Amang It Dip Fer Dippin Owt In

#74 Saint Billinge

Saint Billinge
  • Coach
  • 2,624 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:11 AM

On the other side of the coin, I was recently strolling alongside the River Mersey with family members when a dozen cyclists came roaring past at speed. Other families with children had to quickly get out of the way. I have been since and must admit there are many cyclists who are totally inconsiderate to those walking. It's very scary when a cyclist brushes past you at speed without any warning. I, too, have been a cyclist in my time but always showed consideration when near to walkers. 

 

As for the cyclists in Krakow! 


Edited by Saint Billinge, 30 August 2013 - 08:14 AM.

visit www.raygent.co.uk for football and rugby league stories. 


#75 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:53 AM

Returning to the OP, would a custodial sentence really be appropriate for what was a momentary lapse in concentration? I’m sure we’re all guilty of that at some time or other whilst driving, I know I am. But fortunately when it has happened to me the consequences have been nowhere near as serious. I know it lead to a tragic loss of life, but from what I’ve read in the report there was absolutely no malice or wilful negligence involved and the drive has demonstrated great remorse. 
 
Compare this case with the one I posted about the coach crash that claimed three lives. In this case there was wilful negligence clearly demonstrated on behalf of the coach operator (one of the tyres was 19 years old!) and yet the sentence was still ridiculously light. Strangely there has been very little outrage or condemnation of this on here. Why? This incident was far worse IMO.

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#76 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,155 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:55 AM

I go running on the local canal towpath and a lot of cyclists are indeed very ignorant when it comes to pedestrians. I think some of them expect you to dive in the water rather than them give an inch.

But this is not because they are cyclists, it is because they are ignorant people. If you have a 'get out of my way' mentality, this will manifest itself whether you are on a bike, a car or even a skateboard. Whilst modern car safety is definitely a good thing, it does tend to mean people forget they are handling a very dangerous lump of metal and drive like total idiots.

#77 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,393 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:57 AM

 

Returning to the OP, would a custodial sentence really be appropriate for what was a momentary lapse in concentration? I’m sure we’re all guilty of that at some time or other whilst driving, I know I am. But fortunately when it has happened to me the consequences have been nowhere near as serious. I know it lead to a tragic loss of life, but from what I’ve read in the report there was absolutely no malice or wilful negligence involved and the drive has demonstrated great remorse. 
 
Compare this case with the one I posted about the coach crash that claimed three lives. In this case there was wilful negligence clearly demonstrated on behalf of the coach operator (one of the tyres was 19 years old!) and yet the sentence was still ridiculously light. Strangely there has been very little outrage or condemnation of this on here. Why? This incident was far worse IMO.

 

 

It wasn't a momentary lapse of concentration.  He was fiddling with his SatNav and not looking at the road in front of him.  It's dangerous driving - he could and should have stopped to work out where he was and where he was going.  And someone died because he didn't.

 

The coach case is horrific.  Again, I don't understand how the sentence can be so light.  But that appears to come more from how nobody ever gets punished in a 'corporate' setting.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#78 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,393 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:01 AM

a lot of cyclists are indeed very ignorant when it comes to pedestrians

 

This does annoy me.  I work just off Regent's Park and spend a lot of time crossing the Outer Circle to and from the lovely grassed area with pretty maidens reading beneath trees.  As well as having to dodge the Addison Lee cabs (comfortably the most dangerous vehicles in London IMO) and insane rich young men in high powered sports cars I also have to look out for MAMILs trying to do the circuit in record time - the first two are dangerous because they are liable to pull over, turn, change direction without caring or indicating - the latter are bad because they WILL NOT STOP for anything or anyone.  There are frequent accidents amongst all these groups - never too serious but always avoidable.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#79 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,645 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:08 AM

I go running on the local canal towpath and a lot of cyclists are indeed very ignorant when it comes to pedestrians. I think some of them expect you to dive in the water rather than them give an inch.

But this is not because they are cyclists, it is because they are ignorant people. If you have a 'get out of my way' mentality, this will manifest itself whether you are on a bike, a car or even a skateboard. Whilst modern car safety is definitely a good thing, it does tend to mean people forget they are handling a very dangerous lump of metal and drive like total idiots.


I've seen some right idiots on bike on shared use paths. On shared use paths I tend to ride slowly for the reasons you and Ray mentioned. But on my regular commute I've seen bikes treat them as they would a cycle lane.
Fides invicta triumphat

#80 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,393 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:23 AM

I've seen some right idiots on bike on shared use paths. On shared use paths I tend to ride slowly for the reasons you and Ray mentioned. But on my regular commute I've seen bikes treat them as they would a cycle lane.

 

Shared paths are the work of the devil.  Pedestrians shouldn't have to walk in a state of heightened anxiety and cyclists shouldn't have to yield to every driveway, junction, random DISMOUNT sign etc etc whilst navigating people who have headphones on etc.  They always make everything worse.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users