If indeed the letter writer is not guilty, then by being found not guilty he would not be "getting away" with anything, would he?
It's a cleat implication of guilt. A careless driver is trying to wriggle out of causing injury to a vulnerable road user.
And "Honest John" offers advice on how to do so.
I repeat, would HJ carry a letter from a cyclist who implies guilt but needs advice on avoiding a penalty?
There is a powerful lobby group in this country and a recurring theme seems to be the demonisation and dehumanisationof cyclists, whether it's Clarkson saying he'll run over and kill cyclists "for fun" or Matthew Parris saying piano wire should be strung at head height on cycle lanes.
Attacks on cyclists are on the rise, the second post on this thread claims a non-existent blanket antipathy from cyclists towards motorists, the whole thing drives a wedge between road users and encourages the mindless assaults on cyclists that are becoming more common.
Like I said, depressing.
|
"I would not change a word of my advice to the reader."
That's very worrying.
The responsibility among all road users is to exercise a duty of care.
If, as it appears, you think a hi-vis vest not being worn ought to be a factor in deciding the level of guilt then what next?
Flourescent vests for toddlers?
Pensioners crossing the road must carry a flashing torch?
How about a motorist who sufers whiplash but was found not to be wearing a neck brace?
It's absurd, detracting and dangerously ill-informed advice.
"Honest John's" advice is typical of Britain`s motor-centric legal system which has always tried to minimise the degree of responsibility carried by motor vehicle users and to blame the victims of the irresponsible behaviour of others wherever this is possible, especially if the victim is a cyclist.
Do we really want a society where you are liable for negligence if you did not put on a fluorescent jacket in broad daylight?
The hourly rate of injury is about the same for cycling as pedestrians and motorists. That's about one serious injury per 3000 years of cycljng. Serious injuries are not that common and the majority of them are due to motor vehicles.
If HJ is serious about road safety, and his concern is to reduce injuries rather than allow motorists to get away with hurting people, then I look forward to his proposal that every driver should wear a flame-proof suit, helmet, goggles and gloves every time they use their car.
Deal?
|
"I repeat my point that it's stupid and brainless to install cycle lanes beside busy traffic when the obvious thing to do is remove 'no cycling' notices from alleyway that link cul-de-sacs and give cyclists safer cycling routes. "
I agree with the first point, but if I'm cycling somewhere I don't want to use cut-throughs shared with pedestrians (that's against the law, in case you hadn't noticed!).
There is an extant network of dedicated cycle routes running up and down this island.
They're called "roads". Any cyclist who wishes to travel at above 10mph is better off on the roads rather than on cycle paths or shared-use lanes.
Again, your proposal with regard to cycle lanes seems to be to get them off "your " road, rather than accomodate someone who wishes to share the road with you!
|
|
|
|
Joe Public's perception of cyclists will improve considerably when he finds them complying with red traffic signals, No-entry signs and not riding at speed on the pavement or other areas where cycling is prohibited by signage and/or the law. Amazing - a pig just flew past!
|
"Amazing - a pig just flew past!"
Nice- a tendency to extend the bad behaviour of SOME cyclists to ALL cyclists!
I don't RLJ Armitage, I don't ride on the pavement or do the other things I mention, so why demonise ALL cyclists in the way I've already referred to?
A survey by the RAC found that, yes, a lot of cyclists run red lights.
It also found that one in ten drivers in Manchester and London crossed traffic lights more than three seconds after the lights turned red, and one in five bus drivers ran red lights. There are ten thousand traffic light camera prosecutions annually in London alone, a small part of the 1.5 million prosecutions annually based on camera evidence (I don't know what proportion are speed versus red lights), in turn the tip of the iceberg of twelve million prosecutions and cautions for motoring offences by UK police forces in 2002.
Lawbreaking, then, is not restricted to bikes. Motorists break the law in vast numbers. Speeding, in particular , is rife, and despite the evidence that the faster you go the more likely you are to kill or be killed if you crash, when speed cameras are erected we don't laugh at the idiots who get caught, we rail against the "stealth tax" on motorists. Gatsos are a stealth tax on motorists in the same way that city centre video cameras are a stealth tax on muggers and DNA testing is a stealth tax on rapists.
There's a nasty under-current of victim-blaming and excusing bad behaviour here.
May I ask politely again, would HJ carry a letter from a cyclist who implies he is at fault in an RTA but seeks advice avoiding penalty?
|
Ask HJ - he can speak for himself!
|
|
|
|
Perhaps if cyclists were more law abiding themselves, S, we may have more sympathy, but from the letter we cannot be certain exactly what happenned so to castigate the car driver is unfair, unless you actually know what happenned?!
Reference to Cycling Forums, I'm sure if you googled it you'd find plenty, and they are practically certain to have anti car rants, just like many car forums have anti cyclists rants...
However if you care to look back on this forum you'll find that car vs cyclists has been discussed many times and has not come out blatently anti cyclist... many HJ Forum members are cyclists as well as motorists so have a vested interest in both camps!
|
"Perhaps if cyclists were more law abiding themselves, S, we may have more sympathy"
Again, sweeping, unsupported and prejorative statements about cyclists...
Suppose here a driver asked for advice following an RTA, and I posted:
"The day drivers stop drink or drugged driving and killing thousands of people a year is the day I'll offer sympathy!"
Would that be fair?
Useful?
Constructive?
Stop slagging off other road users, cyclists aren't going to go away or get off the roads and use pedestrian alley ways as Honest John advocates, so stiop with these silly sweeping statements that demonise all based on the actions of a few.
|
|
???
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 01/06/2009 at 13:03
|
I didn't castigate anyone armitage, please don't misrepresent what I said.
I said we don't know what happened, but personally I'll accept that I have to wear fluoro when there is a rule that every car has to be fluoro.
Sake! If you can't see a 6 foot high cyclist on a clear sunny day then I don't think doing myself up like a traffic cone is going to help.
This idea that if you're not bright yellow and wearing a polystyrene hat then you're asking for being rammed off the road sucks balls.
|
|
|
There's a nasty under-current of victim-blaming and excusing bad behaviour here
From you.... You have found the car driver guilty already without any proof...
It also seems that you cannot discuss anything in a reasoned and calm basis, so I'm off this thread...
|
You have found the car driver guilty already without any proof...
Sigh.
No, I said WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED- it's there in my first post, see?
To me the motorist clearly implies guilt when he says he would like to "get away with it"- those are not the words of someone who is blameless.
Too much misrepresentation here...
To recap:
1/
Does HJ endorse the use of hi-vis by pedestrians, children, pensoners, and anyone else who wants to use the road?
2/
Does he extend the same advice to pub-goers, who would gain more from helmet enforcement than cyclists?
3/
Would he carry a letter from a cyclists who implies guilt but seeks advice on wrigging out of a penalty?
4/
Does HJ really want a society where anyone not wearing a yellow vest is adjusdged to be partly guilty?
It's the nanny state gone made, an evasion of responsibility and just plain daft.
|
|
|
Solomon, you have came on here to rant. I am an avid cyclist and I contribute to this forum and have done for years. As has been mentioned above its a forum for discussion and debate, there is always a different angle!
I risk assess as most of us do without realising it. When I get into my car I am quite happy that I am safe to a certain extent. When I go out on my bike I always wear hi vis and helmet. I don't ask for all cars to be fluorescent though.
I jump red lights. As I mentioned in another thread before it got closed, I firmly believe it is OK to get away from the lights and get up to a speed before the cars, lorries do likewise. That way you do not hold them back and do not put yourself at risk with vehicles turning at lights etc. I am not saying blanketly ignoring them. I mean keeping an eye on the sequence and pre-empting the light change from my direction.
And car drivers who criticise that, I say how many of you make a decision that you can safely ignore speed limits and do so?
There are cyclists who are idiots and break laws, similar with car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers, taxis etc etc the list is endless. So best not to tar everyone with the same brush!!
|
This thread is going downhill fast. Therefore locked. It's taken less than 1.5 hours to get there too. Reading the post I knew where this was heading unfortunately.
Welcome to the backroom Solomon. Before posting a new thread in the future remember this is a discussion forum and others will always have a different opinion and you may not agree.
Rob, Moderator
Edited by rtj70 on 01/06/2009 at 13:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
