Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Better idea than taxing cyclists - and likewise that won't happen!

Well, that's a matter of opinion - on both counts. But I agree it's likely it won't happen.

A bit of gratuitously ill thought trolling....

 Carry  on as you were!

JamieWednesday posted:

OMG. This thread is still going.

Jamie, some things in life are really important...........

...........what do you mean, Trump ? Qatar ? Brexit ? Election ?...........

BevC posted:

Motorists wear seat belts, motorcyclists wear crash helmets - both of which are a legal requirement. In terms of safety why aren't cycle helmets mandatory, along with the requirement to pass some kind of test and to have insurance?

It's not 100% clear that compulsory helmet laws are actually helpful. I always wear one, but don't fully agree they should be compulsory (I'm a bit on the fence there). The lowering of participation rates when helmets are compulsory is one counter-factor to the idea that helmets improve safety on average. Larger numbers of cyclists improve safety (per km cycled) by  increasing motorist awareness and expectations. More cyclists also supports better infrastructure for cyclists (we pay taxes and vote!); and and cycling brings significant health benefits to those who partake.

In contrast, seatbelt laws (sadly) do not reduce participation in motoring, seatbelts are demonstrably beneficial and have saved many lives. (Here's a thought, compulsory helmets worn when riding in cars would actually also save a lot of lives at little cost.)

Motorists have to pass license tests and have insurance because they are piloting large, heavy, fast and demonstrably hazardous vehicles (30,000 killed every year on the roads in the US and countless more maimed and injured). Cyclists, on the other hand, present little risk to others, with almost zero fatalities attributed to cyclists. The benefit of licensing and insurance for cyclists would address a very small risk and is simply not worth the cost.

Don Atkinson posted:

BevC posted:

Motorists wear seat belts, motorcyclists wear crash helmets - both of which are a legal requirement. In terms of safety why aren't cycle helmets mandatory, along with the requirement to pass some kind of test and to have insurance?

Society works on the basis of risk.

Self-inflicted risk (such as cycling) only incurs mandatory legal requirements when larger numbers of injuries or fatalities to the participants occur. eg the wearing of seat belts. This cuts down on general costs and burdens to society.

If the risks to non-participants is perceived as unlikely to occur, or of little consequence, such as injury to pedestrians caused by careless or inconsiderate cyclists, then mandatory legal requirements might not be imposed eg there is no mandatory requirement for cyclists to be third-party insured.

It generally makes sense (but not always). Until you are personally involved !

Perhaps it's time for a change ?

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on perception, but can instead rely on the actual rates of injury and death.

Fatalities caused by US motorists per year: approx. 30,000.

Fatalities caused by US cyclists per year: <1.

My use of the word "perceived" was intended to include "understand" "grasp" "based on fact" etc. It wasn't intended to be limited to "I think" " I imagine" etc.

dictionary definitions vary somewhat. 0/10 for use of English.

Don Atkinson posted:

My use of the word "perceived" was intended to include "understand" "grasp" "based on fact" etc. It wasn't intended to be limited to "I think" " I imagine" etc.

dictionary definitions vary somewhat. 0/10 for use of English.

 

Thanks for the score. your intention may be as stated, but I'd contend that "perceived" is a significantly less definitive word than "known". Perception implies a level of subjectivity. Few people would choose "perception" as a synonym for "knowledge" or "based on fact".

Consider the following two examples:

1) "Don, based on his personal experience perceives cyclists as a material threat to pedestrians." This means it is Don's perception. This is not same as a fact.

2) "Neil, after researching accident statistics, knows that historically, cyclists have killed very few pedestrians". It is a fact that cyclists have killed very few pedestrians. It is not subjective. This is not Neil's perception, but rather it his his knowledge.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Crikey, even I didn't realise just how devastating an effect one or two cyclists can have on our road system. Makes £2k pa look like peanuts...........but I agree that the old A4 cycle lane should be re-dedicated to cyclists and the parked cars moved. A bit like the A1 in Co Durham which is now downgraded but still a heavily used local road, which still has its dedicated cycle lanes. Struck me as a really good idea in my youth. But never fully utilised, I wonder why ?

While we're in the realms of completely non-sensical suggestions ... many years ago while I was at university I lived with a militant anti-car guy:  His solution to the problem of people parking in red-routes ... drive a monster truck / roller along the red-routes several times a day!

I did something like that on parked cars on the American Truck Simulator game. It was a good monster truck build by my close buddy who's real truck guy in life. He got this F250 with Moto metal wheels and 35" aggressive truck you wouldn't park next to it.

I was chatting with one of my "students" today. He's basically a retired RAF/BA pilot who wants to renew his recreational licence so that he can enjoy flying his grandchildren around Europe. His (re)training started in October but was interrupted when he was in collision with a cyclist in Winchester and broke his collar bone.

I happened to ask him how his collar bone was, now that it seemed better. I was horrified to learn that after some six months, the surgeon was recommending a further operation to install some sort of reinforcement plate.

I was even more shocked and dismayed to learn the collision (this was no accident !) occurred whilst he was walking along a one-way "mixed-use" street, facing the on-comming traffic, when the cyclist, coming the wrong way, crashed into him from behind. Witnesses reported the the cyclist was using his mobile phone at the time !! The cyclist rode off quickly, leaving my friend and the witnesses aghast and angry. This ba*tard of a cyclist hasn't been traced.

So much for a well-earned retirement with morons like this around. Perhaps we should "chip" bikes with a "gps" transmitter ?

Anyone using a mobile phonw while in charge of a mechanical device, whose lack of attention causes or fails to prevent a preventable accident, should be held legalkt responsible - no matter whether cyclist, car driver or anything else. (Nothing whatsoever to do with taxing car or cycle use). Arguably the same should apply to people not in charge of mechanical devices, e.g. a pedestrian stepping into the road while distracted by a phone (or even music) stepping unexpectedly into the road and causing an accident, but how far is it reasonable to go? I do hope Britain avoids the claim culture of USA, though we do seem to be inexorably following them.

Eleven months on, I'm still waiting for my compensation from being knocked of my bike by a half blind 89 year old who should not have been driving, which put me in a coma on life support and has left me unable to work due to a frontal lobe brain injury. Let's give cyclists a break.

...bloody hell HH what a terrible accident...sorry to hear of it...all good wishes...

Hungryhalibut posted:

Eleven months on, I'm still waiting for my compensation from being knocked of my bike by a half blind 89 year old who should not have been driving, which put me in a coma on life support and has left me unable to work due to a frontal lobe brain injury. Let's give cyclists a break.

Sorry HH, But NO ! Absolutely not.  No breaks whatsoever for THAT sort of cyclist.

He's basically a moron on a bike.

Same as a moron in a car.

And, as IB states, same as a moron in a pair of shoes.

THAT sort of cyclist (and car driver) deserves the full weight of the law coming down on him like a ton of bricks.

I don't expect you, or winky (or anyone else, myself included) will give (moronic) motorists a break, and I for sure, will not give (moronic) cyclists a break.

Never-the-less, HH................

I do hope your condition continues to improve and that you get sensible compensation for your injuries and consequences thereof.

Your posts don't give any hint of brain injury (that's meant to be both a compliment and reassurance) so I guess for much of the time, many of us keep forgetting the terrible injury you suffered, and probably seem somewhat insensitive towards you. Rest assured, I often recall your situation and do genuinely hope that you are improving.

Cheers, Don

Don Atkinson posted:

I was chatting with one of my "students" today. He's basically a retired RAF/BA pilot who wants to renew his recreational licence so that he can enjoy flying his grandchildren around Europe. His (re)training started in October but was interrupted when he was in collision with a cyclist in Winchester and broke his collar bone.

I happened to ask him how his collar bone was, now that it seemed better. I was horrified to learn that after some six months, the surgeon was recommending a further operation to install some sort of reinforcement plate.

I was even more shocked and dismayed to learn the collision (this was no accident !) occurred whilst he was walking along a one-way "mixed-use" street, facing the on-comming traffic, when the cyclist, coming the wrong way, crashed into him from behind. Witnesses reported the the cyclist was using his mobile phone at the time !! The cyclist rode off quickly, leaving my friend and the witnesses aghast and angry. This ba*tard of a cyclist hasn't been traced.

So much for a well-earned retirement with morons like this around. Perhaps we should "chip" bikes with a "gps" transmitter ?

Why were you "shocked and dismayed" that the guy that ran into him was on a bike? What if he'd been hit by a guy driving car? Would that be OK? After all, the vast majority of pedestrian deaths and injuries are caused by people driving cars. In comparison to the danger caused by driving, cycling hardly counts at all as a source of danger for people walking.

Is your implicit assertion that your guy is indicative of "cyclists" generically (thus requiring gps transmitters), the same as the assertion that the guy in the pickup in the story below is indicative of "motorists" in general?

http://vancouversun.com/news/l...ed-in-west-vancouver

Broad daylight, wide, straight suburban street that is a designated cycle route (and part of my daily commute). The charge for almost killing the cyclist was "leaving the scene of an accident". No penalty for running the guy down at all.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I was chatting with one of my "students" today. He's basically a retired RAF/BA pilot who wants to renew his recreational licence so that he can enjoy flying his grandchildren around Europe. His (re)training started in October but was interrupted when he was in collision with a cyclist in Winchester and broke his collar bone.

I happened to ask him how his collar bone was, now that it seemed better. I was horrified to learn that after some six months, the surgeon was recommending a further operation to install some sort of reinforcement plate.

I was even more shocked and dismayed to learn the collision (this was no accident !) occurred whilst he was walking along a one-way "mixed-use" street, facing the on-comming traffic, when the cyclist, coming the wrong way, crashed into him from behind. Witnesses reported the the cyclist was using his mobile phone at the time !! The cyclist rode off quickly, leaving my friend and the witnesses aghast and angry. This ba*tard of a cyclist hasn't been traced.

So much for a well-earned retirement with morons like this around. Perhaps we should "chip" bikes with a "gps" transmitter ?

Why were you "shocked and dismayed" that the guy that ran into him was on a bike? What if he'd been hit by a guy driving car? Would that be OK? After all, the vast majority of pedestrian deaths and injuries are caused by people driving cars. In comparison to the danger caused by driving, cycling hardly counts at all as a source of danger for people walking.

Is your implicit assertion that your guy is indicative of "cyclists" generically (thus requiring gps transmitters), the same as the assertion that the guy in the pickup in the story below is indicative of "motorists" in general?

http://vancouversun.com/news/l...ed-in-west-vancouver

Broad daylight, wide, straight suburban street that is a designated cycle route (and part of my daily commute). The charge for almost killing the cyclist was "leaving the scene of an accident". No penalty for running the guy down at all.

Please read my post more carefully. I was shocked and dismayed that he was going in the wrong direction, using his mobile, left the scene of the crime (and it was a bloody f***ing crime !).

And YES, this guy IS indicative of moronic cyclists. That is the gist of THIS thread. In my experience, more than HALF the cyclists I have encountered since starting this thread can be classified as moronic !

Motorist in the UK who kill people, usually wind up being charged with manslaughter, or dangerous driving and get a custodial sentence. And rightly so. Like cyclists who almost kill people, motorists who almost kill people, might also avoid a prison sentence.

I'm 53. I've never witnessed a cyclist almost killing someone. Neither have the people at work I asked yesterday. Neither has my wife. Donworld is a scary, strange, parallel world.  

Late to the party but I'll give my 2 cents. I live in a city that caters to bicyclists, lots of bike lanes, many companies provide onsite secure bike storage, bike rental stalls throughout the city. I own two bike and ride occasionally, my wife has one and likes to ride more then I do.    My observation is that some bicyclists obey the rules of the road (like some car drivers), some ride like they have the right of way at all times (like some car drivers), and some should not be on a bike at all (like some car drivers should not be behind the wheel) .

Not to long ago a visit to state parks was free, now it is $10.00 a day or buy a yearly pass for $30.00. When this was first suggested there was a public outcry, at least from the folks who used the parks. Now most of them pay the $30.00 per year, like myself, if they use the parks as often as I do.

So the mention of a yearly fee for bicyclists to help with the upkeep and maintenance of roadways will come to pass at some point in time. No rock will go unturned for city, county, state, federal or other municipality to raise revenues when other sources start to dry up.  There are a lot of younger people in Seattle that do not own cars, they Uber and do daily rentals if they need a vehicle. Less cars on the road, the mayor, the Sierra club and the bicyclists are happy. The tax collector not as happy, less money to pay for all those bike lanes.

My prediction is that there will be a day when bicyclists are taxed, required to to have some sort of ID or tag on their bike for the privledge of using the road. The government and the tax man needs the revenues, take something away and another revenue source will need to replace it.

JMHO - YHOMV 

Where on Earth did this idea that cyclists don't pay tax come from?! In the UK, car tax is a notional sum, vaguely related whichever fuel is currently out of favour with the idiot government of the day. The vast majority of road building and maintenance is funded from general taxation, and any cyclist who works and pays his taxes has contributed.

Hi Don

You might want to have a look at an article on today's Guardian website. In it is the following statement:

Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems,” they respond. “That’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our region’s roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do.

“Bad cycling is an irritant to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alleviate many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an irritant.”

That's a police statement!

The article is by Peter Walker and is titled: 'No matter what the road safety issue is, cyclist-hating always seems acceptable'

Nice find, Clive.

"Motorist in the UK who kill people, usually wind up being charged with manslaughter, or dangerous driving and get a custodial sentence. And rightly so. "

Just on this narrow point - it is untrue. Motorists are almost never charged with manslaughter. It is actually rare that they get charged with "causing death by dangerous driving", often the CPS goes with the lesser charge of "causing death by careless driving" because you have to prove a state of mind in the former which in practice juries seem unwilling to convict on. I'd argue that is because we (as in our society) is far too tolerant of very poor standards of behaviour on the roads (there is a bit of "there for the grace of god" because so many people do pretty inexcusable things at times).

The net of this is that custodial sentences for causing death behind the wheel of a motor vehicle are very unusual.

On a slight wider point as a driver and a cyclist I am acutely aware that when I am behind the wheel of a car I have taken a GRAVE responsibility for other people safety. It is really the only time* I take people's lives in my hands. As far as I can see a lot of people forget this.

I could hurt someone cycling but in 11 years of commuting by bike (including in busy central London) I am yet to come close to hitting anyone. Clearly some cyclists behave like @rseholes and they should be treated accordingly. But people who behave like @rseholes steering a tonne of metal at 60mph are in a whole other category of menace. 

*actually that's not entirely true - I sail, ski off piste and do a little easy mountaineering but my opportunity to kill someone is much less doing those things than driving 

Good, thoughtful article. I've just spent a spare 30 minutes reading this thread, which surprised and bemused me in equal measure. As a recreational cyclist and lifelong car driver, with quite a few years of experience dealing with bad driving and its consequences, my sympathies rest firmly with the cyclist. Yes, there are a few idiotic morons who ride cycles badly, without thought for other road or path users, but they are a very, very small minority. To even think of penalising the majority of well behaved cyclists because of them is verging on the moronic.

Investment in cycle paths and upgrading major routes to make them cycle friendly, à la Netherlands, should be funded from the public purse and car tax revenue, not by taxing the very people of whom we want more. Sorry Don, you're living in cloud cuckoo land (although I have a sneaking suspicion you may just be being deliberately mischievous and playing Devil's Advocate!).

Tim

Tony Lockhart posted:

I'm 53. I've never witnessed a cyclist almost killing someone. Neither have the people at work I asked yesterday. Neither has my wife. Donworld is a scary, strange, parallel world.  

Yes. But I don't know that Donworld is a real place, even for Don. I suspect we've been trolled.

(Been riding 40+ years. Never come close to hitting a pedestrian, in spite of the best efforts of some pedestrians. Been hit by motorists a couple of times, though.)

Yes So called Don world is real, I walked out of my dentist last week to be narrowly missed by a cyclist hurtling town the hill on the pavement, I could have been seriously hurt. I used to travel to work at about 4:30, and the local postman used to jump the red light at the bottom of the hill, so they could use the momentum to travel the other side of the junction up an incline. Until one of them died!

I think the response to the original post seems to be cyclists are saints, he was obviously upset about his friend, show some compassion.