Cyclist vs Landrover

[onewheeldave]

So we are back to the car drivers have to accommodate the failings of cyclists again.

 

How about cyclists accommodate for their own failings? You know - a bit of that personal responsibility thing? Or is that really so hard that understand or accept?

 

What we're back to is the fact that the road system is biased heavily against the cyclist.

 

This despite the fact that maximising cycling and minimising motoring is way better for both the world/environment (zero emmisions) and public health (motoring causes obesity (and therefore diabetes/heart disease and other chronic diseases that are rife in our civilisation), while cycling cures it).

 

Yet cyclists face death on a daily basis, with that % of motorists who routinely pass too close (risking killing a cyclist), intimidate with their horn pipping, and, occasionaly just plough into the back of a cyclist cos they're using their mobiles etc.

 

When car and cycle meet, it is sometimes the drivers fault, and, sometimes the cyclists fault, either way, it is almost always the cyclist who dies/gets maimed/injured. If the driver was negligent, rarely will they receive a punishment in any way proportionate to the consequences of their negligence.

 

It would help if motorists didn't lump all drivers into the same group, and instead heavily condemned that % of drivers who actively put cyclists in danger (by passing too close, by intimidation etc).

 

While there are a % of cyclists who are irresponsible and put themselves at risk, the consequences of their irresponsibility are simply not on the same scale when it comes to consequences.

 

So it ain't, as many seem to think, a 50/50 thing.

 

For anyone interested in seeing what is possible when sanity prevails, here's a short documentary, on both youtube and vimeo (Groningen: The World's Cycling City)

 

 

[Obelix]

occasionaly just plough into the back of a cyclist cos they're using their mobiles etc.

 

Why on earth would a motorist hit a cyclist because the cyclist was using a phone?

 

However, the point asked was "How about cyclists accommodate for their own failings? You know - a bit of that personal responsibility thing? Or is that really so hard that understand or accept?"

 

How about answering it instead of going off about how mean the roads are and how nasty some car drivers are? I wasn't being nasty, I wasnt intimidating a cyclist, I wasnt sounding a horn - but you don't see me going off at how all cyclists are lunatics.

 

Just some of them.

[onewheeldave]

Why on earth would a motorist hit a cyclist because the cyclist was using a phone?

 

However, the point asked was "How about cyclists accommodate for their own failings? You know - a bit of that personal responsibility thing? Or is that really so hard that understand or accept?"

 

How about answering it instead of going off about how mean the roads are and how nasty some car drivers are? I wasn't being nasty, I wasnt intimidating a cyclist, I wasnt sounding a horn - but you don't see me going off at how all cyclists are lunatics.

 

Just some of them.

You're right, cyclists should sort out their failings.

 

Fortunately, the consequences of a cyclists failings tend to not be that serious for anyone else- in contrast, the failings of our road policies and failings of irresponsible drivers, are, frequently, fatal for cyclists.

 

They also put people off cycling who, in the roads were safe, would be inclined to cycle way more- as previously explained, this makes the roads even less safe for existing cyclists, as well as adding to the obesity epidemic.

 

(though, bear in mind that when all relevant factors are taken into account, i.e. the health benefits of cycling, the risks of cycling are more than compensated for by the health benefits and increased longevity)

 

Info here-

 

The ‘Safety in Numbers’ effect

 

Increasing cycling appears to expose each individual to a lower risk of injury. A doubling in cycling has been found to be linked with a 40% increase in cycling casualties – or a 34% reduction in the relative risk to each individual. (Jacobsen, 2003)

 

Belgian research has found a strong link between places with low levels of

cycling and higher risks (Vandenbulcke et al, 2009).

 

CTC’s Safety in Numbers campaign (2009) compiled evidence from over 100 English local authorities and found that places with higher levels of cycle commuting tended to have lower risks of cycling.

 

Recommendations from all of these reports have been the same: that roads be better designed for cycling, encouragement of cycling and enforcement of road traffic law can enable cycle use to increase while also leading to a reduced risk of cycling. It is not, however, inevitable that the numbers of injuries will fall – merely that the risk per person cycling is likely to decline.

[RootsBooster]

In this case it was a dogmatic statement that a solution to the problem was 'people not running red lights' and, that this was simpler than attaching lights to a trailer.

 

So I went on to point out that a) it wasn't a solution (as it's not possible to bring about the state of people not running reds, and b) that even if it were a solution, it was not a simple one, and certainly not 'the simple solution' as mine was considerably simpler.

 

As the proposed solution was being put forward as being 'better' than the one I suggested, when it clearly wasn't, I believe that would constitute either a criticism, or, a misunderstanding.

 

Neither is it possible to bring about the state of people (all trailer owners) fitting extra lights to their trailers, so that eliminates that false play.

It comes down to the individual's choice (the cyclist or the motorist), so looking at the two suggestions we have (and what they involve)...

 

1. Motorist- Travels to a shop and buys several suitable lights, cable ties (or other means of securing) and possibly some spare batteries for the future. Goes home and measures up the fitting locations, fits the lights. Remembers to switch each one on and off at the start and finish of every journey. Replaces the batteries when necessary. Replaces lights if they get stolen while parked -OR- remembers to remove them all each time parked, to avoid theft.

 

2. Cyclist- Stops at red lights.

 

Of these two solutions, I know which is the simplest.

[tinfoilhat]

You're right, cyclists should sort out their failings.

 

Fortunately, the consequences of a cyclists failings tend to not be that serious for anyone else- in contrast, the failings of our road policies and failings of irresponsible drivers, are, frequently, fatal for cyclists.

 

They also put people off cycling who, in the roads were safe, would be inclined to cycle way more- as previously explained, this makes the roads even less safe for existing cyclists, as well as adding to the obesity epidemic.

 

(though, bear in mind that when all relevant factors are taken into account, i.e. the health benefits of cycling, the risks of cycling are more than compensated for by the health benefits and increased longevity)

 

Info here-

 

 

"Enforcement of road traffic laws" - that sounds a really really good idea.

[Obelix]

 

2. Cyclist- Stops at red lights.

 

Of these two solutions, I know which is the simplest.

 

But that would involve the cyclist actually taking on personal responsibility. Everyone knows it's much easier to blame nasty motorists.

 

I get the distinct impression if I had been sat stationary at the lights and someone and cycled into me it would be my fault for not having a giant dayglo cushion on the back of the trailer to accomodate the cyclist.

[onewheeldave]

Neither is it possible to bring about the state of people (all trailer owners) fitting extra lights to their trailers, so that eliminates that false play.

It comes down to the individual's choice (the cyclist or the motorist), so looking at the two suggestions we have (and what they involve)...

 

1. Motorist- Travels to a shop and buys several suitable lights, cable ties (or other means of securing) and possibly some spare batteries for the future. Goes home and measures up the fitting locations, fits the lights. Remembers to switch each one on and off at the start and finish of every journey. Replaces the batteries when necessary. Replaces lights if they get stolen while parked -OR- remembers to remove them all each time parked, to avoid theft.

 

2. Cyclist- Stops at red lights.

 

Of these two solutions, I know which is the simplest.

 

You've missed the fact that my advice was directed to trailer owners who wished to make their trailers more visible. It's in the power of trailer owners who wished to make their trailers more visible to put some £shop lights on their trailers.

 

It's not in the power of trailer owners who wished to make their trailers more visible to make all cyclists stop at all red lights.

[Squiggs]

Does current legislation demand that lights are fitted to these trailers?

 

Not clip on poundland red lights showing to the side, no

 

Depending on trailer dimensions, side marker lights may be required, which show a white light to the front and a red light to the rear (and in effect, a small amount of either light to the side)

 

Amber REFLECTORS may be required (not lights)

 

Poundland red LED lights actually must not be fitted to the side of the trailer and use of them in this way contravenes the Road Traffic Act

 

Incidentally, nor are they compliant with BS6102/3 so although legal to use on the rear of a cycle, not as the sole rear light, only as a supplementary light

 

 

Car owners "wishing to make themselves more visible" may consider mounting a flashing blue light to the top of the car. It's "in their power" to do this. I'm simply saying that this would make the car more visible.......

[onewheeldave]

But that would involve the cyclist actually taking on personal responsibility. Everyone knows it's much easier to blame nasty motorists.

 

I get the distinct impression if I had been sat stationary at the lights and someone and cycled into me it would be my fault for not having a giant dayglo cushion on the back of the trailer to accomodate the cyclist.

 

If a cyclist runs into you when you're stationary at the lights, it's their fault, and, not a single person on this thread has said, or implied otherwise.

 

It might be interesting for you to ask yourself why you're so fixated on such nonsense examples/scenarios, whilst seemingly either unaware, or uninterested, in the fact that every year, many cyclists who ride very responsibly, are killed or maimed on the roads, through no fault of their own.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 16:23 ----------

 

 

Poundland red LED lights actually must not be fitted to the side of the trailer and use of them in this way contravenes the Road Traffic Act

 

Could you post a link to the evidence for this, as it's not cropped up on any of the legal links posted thus far. If you can, I'll happily retract my advice.

 

(bear in mind the 1m rule though)

[damageandy]

But that would involve the cyclist actually taking on personal responsibility. Everyone knows it's much easier to blame nasty motorists.

 

I get the distinct impression if I had been sat stationary at the lights and someone and cycled into me it would be my fault for not having a giant dayglo cushion on the back of the trailer to accomodate the cyclist.

 

From your first post you seemed a rather sensible chap, much of your further posts let you down.

 

Simple facts SOME cyclists are crap, SOME mototists are crap, SOME pedestrians are crap. Most are not and the crap cyclists are probably crap drivers.

 

When im out driving i realise my ton of metal could easily kill people, whether it be through a mistake from me or someone else. When i cycling i realise a bad move by me could get me killed, but a bad move by a motorists could kill me through no fault of my own.

 

Its always good to hear it from another perspective and i can say doing a few days cycling on the road you will soon change some atittudes.