Dangerous cyclists

[Tony]

Cyclists aren't immune from tickets. There are some bizarre fantasies being peddled on this thread.

[denlin]

What man on a disabled scooter?

 

From previous thread, got pulled near Chaucer school

[Hots on]

From previous thread, got pulled near Chaucer school

 

Was he on the road?

[Squiggs]

Thing is if a car driver gets caught doing that he/she would get fined, a cyclist gets away with it, and if hit by a car whose driver was doing a perfectly legal manoevre then the car driver still gets blamed. Do you think that is a fair and just system or just a tiny bit, sorry lot, biased in favour of cyclist.

 

As would a cyclist caught doing that

[Squiggs]

well by that logic then, motorcyclists are in more danger wearing a helmet, wonder why its the law:loopy:

 

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that if you were to go into a store, you would not be able to tell the difference between a cycle helmet and a motorcycle helmet?

 

indeed!

[Eater Sundae]

Thats a broad statement, so pray do enlighten us all as to why im wrong that its a legal requirement for a motorcyclist to wear a helmet??

 

That wasn't my claim. Why do you feel it is necessary to distort people's posts?

 

Edit. My original comment was because you were implying that cycles and motorcycles were so similar that helmet requirements must also be similar. The two types of vehicles are very different, and so are the needs of the rider.

[Eater Sundae]

This is the post I was replying to when I put this

 

Yes but an HGV driver may NOT actually be able to see a cyclist so then would have to make a manoevre presuming one was there. Not logical is it? However a think it would be fair to say a cyclist can see an arctic but still does stupid things like riding on inside of lorry which is clearly indicating left turn.

 

Perhaps you could explain how I misinterpreted it

 

My point was that if a rider couldn't see the driver of the HGV, then the driver couldn't see the rider.

 

Your response was about the driver being expected to make manoevres on the off chance that there was a cyclist. That doesn't relate to what I said.

[perplexed]

By same token it should then be compulsory for cyclist to attempt to see how quickly they can manoevre and stop an arcticulated lorry when some idiot on a bike runs a red light

 

Perhaps car drivers should have the same instruction. It may help the drivers I see jumping red lights every day to become safer drivers.

 

Drivers of lorries in particular, if we're talking about experiencing someone else's perspective, should also be made to ride a bicycle. Which is then overtaken by an artic, on a bend, at 40mph. Whilst passing within 18 inches of the end of the handlebars...

 

so you are saying its perfectly safe to travel on the road on a 2 wheeled vehicle without a helmet??, cycle helmets DO save lifes, ask James Cracknell, he would not be alive today if he hadn't had a cycle helmet on.

 

Its different in a car, they have a safety system known as a seat belt in case you were wondering, and yes it is compulsory, so safety on a bike should be the the same!!!

 

I've no doubt a helmet is useful in some circumstances. As it happens, I wear one. That is my choice. But I totally defend those who choose not to. That is their choice.

 

Helmets at best have a very limited effectiveness if you are run over by a lorry...They are designed to take low speed knocks.

 

The more people who cycle, the safer it becomes. A compulsory helmet law would run contrary to this aim, as it places obstacles in the way of cycling. The Dutch know what they're doing regarding cycling, and they have no helmet law...

 

Seat belts. When I'm in a car, driving thousands and thousands of miles, I'm aware of the belts existance, thanks. I wear it and drive as safely as I can. The roads would also be a safer placed in my opinion if some drivers (note the use of some) had a large spike sticking out of the steering wheel. Because it would hurt them, as well as someone else if they crash. It would concentrate the mind...

 

People have been killed by cyclists on pavements but you're quite right the police do nothing under normal circumstances

 

I believe that the number, depending on which source you believe, is about 0.5 a year. Which is bad enough, I agree. And as for the police doing nothing, you are incorrect. A cyclist was imprisoned recently over such a case. (And there is not an inconsiderable debate over weather the pedestrian concerned was even on the pavement at all.)

 

 

Cyclists aren't immune from tickets. There are some bizarre fantasies being peddled on this thread.

 

Not 'alf!

[Cyclone]

Well at least he'd know if there was a car behind him, cyclists don't even look and then surprise, surprise they get hit by car, fancy a car being on a road:roll:

 

A cyclist is probably more aware of nearby traffic than a comparable motorist.

What they don't expect though, is a dumb motorist to attempt to illegal overtake whilst the cyclist is also overtaking, nor the motorist to expect them to fly over the obstacle in the road.

 

If there's a surprise in this scenario, it's that a person that stupid can get a license to drive a car.

[Cyclone]

But it is illegal so your view doesn't come into it. If police can stop and give ticket to man on disabled scooter why shouldn't cyclists be pulled as well?

 

A previous home secretary said publicly that he cycled on the pavement, but in reality they ought to just change the law didn't they, then we wouldn't have to have this bit of the discussion.