Accident outside Primark 28/03/15

[gnomi]

*sigh*

 

Let's all hope the cyclist involved is on the mend and isn't reading this thread.

 

:wave:

[Timeh]

I agree, almost. I do hope hes ok and not badly hurt but do hope he reads this thread.

It was a constructive and a useful one

[Cyclone]

Im taking a punt here but was it a silver Astra?

 

No, it was a taxi, Vectra or something like that.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 14:36 ----------

 

But cyclists have the potential to both injure (or worse) pedestrians, and cause damage to property and vehicles. Of course not to the extent of a motor vehicle, but the potential still exists.

As do other pedestrians, horses, invalid carriages and so on. But we don't expect those to be licensed or insured.

 

Therefore how is it unreasonable to expect them to abide by the same rules as every other road user?

 

Very. Because other road users include pedestrians, horses, and so on. Motor vehicles need licenses and insurance, nothing else, and that's how it should be.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 14:37 ----------

 

I agree, almost. I do hope hes ok and not badly hurt but do hope he reads this thread.

It was a constructive and a useful one

 

It failed to be constructive from the point where cyclists were blamed for no reason, and then people started on with the drivel about licenses, insurance and VED.

[Locksley]

As do other pedestrians, horses, invalid carriages and so on. But we don't expect those to be licensed or insured.

 

Very. Because other road users include pedestrians, horses, and so on. Motor vehicles need licenses and insurance, nothing else, and that's how it should be.

 

Erm, pedestrians don't use roads, and there are far, far more cyclists on the road than either horses or invalid carriages.

 

I fail to see the point you're making.

 

Surely it would be better for both parties if cyclists were required to, at the very least, take a theory test?

Edited March 30, 2015 by Locksley

[perplexed]

Erm, pedestrians don't use roads, and there are far, far more cyclists on the road than either horses or invalid carriages.

 

I fail to see the point you're making.

 

Surely it would be better for both parties if cyclists were required to, at the very least, take a theory test?

 

You've managed to fall at the first hurdle of your argument. It doesn't bode well for the rest of it...

[Locksley]

You've managed to fall at the first hurdle of your argument. It doesn't bode well for the rest of it...

 

Sorry, do you generally walk along main roads, walk around roundabouts, and run along dual carriageways on your way to work in the morning?

 

I was under the impression that that's what sidewalks and crossings were for?

[Cyclone]

Erm, pedestrians don't use roads, and there are far, far more cyclists on the road than either horses or invalid carriages.

I'll try to remember that the next time I'm walking and there's no pavement.

I'll engage my hover jets and fly instead of using the road!

And indeed, the next time I come to cross it, I will pull out my extendable poll vault, and leap high above the cars.

I fail to see the point you're making.

 

Surely it would be better for both parties if cyclists were required to, at the very least, take a theory test?

 

No, because it creates a barrier to cycling, which will reduce the number of people taking it up, and the single greatest factor in cycle safety is the number of cyclists using the roads! More cyclists = safer cyclists.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 15:05 ----------

 

I was under the impression that that's what sidewalks

 

Are you an American?

[perplexed]

Sorry, do you generally walk along main roads, walk around roundabouts, and run along dual carriageways on your way to work in the morning?

 

I was under the impression that that's what sidewalks and crossings were for?

 

You said pedestrians don't use roads. You did not qualify it specifically. Pedestrians do use roads. Therefore you are wrong.

 

Pedestrians use roads where there is no footpath (or when the footpath is full of parked cars), and they cross roads, not necessarily at designated crossings. We do not have jaywalking laws in the UK.

 

If you can't get your first basic premise correct, you're not going to convince anyone of the validity of your argument. Well, only those with the same agenda, who don't need any convincing anyway...

[Timeh]

 

It failed to be constructive from the point where cyclists were blamed for no reason, and then people started on with the drivel about licenses, insurance and VED.

 

Cyclists were given a share of the blame. Their share of the blame. If you cant handle cyclists getting their share of the blame then i cant help you

[Locksley]

My argument was simply that a pedestrian walking along the road is unlikely to cause much damage by colliding with another pedestrian than someone on a bicycle or in a motor vehicle.

 

It is also against the highway code for a bicycle or motor vehicle to use a footpath, whereas it is not for a pedestrian, therefore the pedestrians' main highway is the footpath, not the road.

 

Unfortunately for me I failed to remember just how pedantic some of the users on this forum are.