Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 24 April 2017
Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!
We’ve just got back from a delightful family weekend at Centre Parcs (Longleat). Don’t ask, it’s not relevant !
We took our bikes and enjoyed cycling around the park. I’m totally satisfied that my lot were completely aware of pedestrians. We slowed down, gave way, dismounted and were pleasantly polite to any pedestrians who eased over to let us pass. I don’t recall any one of us feeling the urge or the need to ring a bell or shout, to inform a pedestrian of our presence. There were 7 of us plus the latest addition in a trailer-buggy.
However, when we were walking, I have lost count of the times I heard an aggressive warning bell just prior to a cyclist, or group of cyclists, whizzing past too fast to cope with a wandering youngster, or simply just “demanding” a mere pedestrian to shift out of their way!
We frequently stroll along sections of the Kennet & Avon canal. Again, cyclists seem to think that sounding their bell (or shouting) is all that is required to ensure that the two of us re-position to line-astern and step aside from the tow-path and into the long grass/nettles/reeds to enable their continued passage at upwards of 15 mph !!
Well, I’m fed up with this element of society. However, I am undecided as to what course of action to take.
Advice ?
Two small points.
I drive with TWICE the sighting or stopping distance, approximately, to allow for oncoming traffic at a similar speed. Not perfect, but a rough guide.
What is legal and what is safe are usually linked, but not foolproof. For example, I often see people Bligthly step out onto a Zebra crossing, deliberately ignoring the road traffic. Perfectly legal, I guess, but not always safe !
In other words, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's safe !
And as I think should have been evident from my post the pedestrian should exercise due care, which equally relates to stepping on a zebra crossing or walking on a country lane.
And I agree legal doesn't mean safe - but it also doesn't mean that walking on country lanes is tantamount to committing suicide (or a more accurate interpretation of that assertion, perhaps, Russian roulette)
IB, I think most of us are in agreement that motorists have a duty of care (as you sad). And I also agree that walking/cycling country lanes isn't tantamount to committing suicide - but I personally, won't cycle country lanes and I avoid or take great care if my walking route crosses or includes a length of country lane. It's probably just my perception od danger, wheras others have a diferent perception.
Innocent Bystander posted:And as I think should have been evident from my post the pedestrian should exercise due care, which equally relates to stepping on a zebra crossing or walking on a country lane.
And I agree legal doesn't mean safe - but it also doesn't mean that walking on country lanes is tantamount to committing suicide (or a more accurate interpretation of that assertion, perhaps, Russian roulette)
On 'some' country roads it is certainly Russian roulette and if you were with me on that particular road watching the people chancing their luck walking on that road I think you may agree with me. I have been driving since the late 70's and if I just stuck strictly to the rules of the Highway Code I would of had a lot more accidents purely because of the fault of the other driver. I've had some minor prangs but experience of driving has given me two fundamental lessons, always keep you distance from the next vehicle and always expect the other driver to do something stupid, so in that way you are prepared for the worst.
A tragic pedestrian death case of 44 year old woman - caused by collision with cyclist in London is presently unfolding.
It's an interesting case, the woman stepped out into the road [while on mobile phone apparently] and cyclist was going so fast he could not avoid hitting her, however the cyclist was using a fixed geared track bike with no brakes [so not road worthy] and was travelling rather swiftly within a densely populated area.
Anyone cycling at speed on an open road without brakes is clearly foolish and has a scant regard fo his own or others's safety. If said person causes injury -or death as in this case- and it is found that the absence of brakes a significant contributory factor then he deserves conviction for manslaughter, or at the very least contributory negligence. If he did have properly functioning brakes, yet was unable to stop in time or safely swerve to avoid a pedestrian who did not check the road was clear before stepping into the road, then may not be guilty of an offence unless there is some other factor, like exceeding the prescribed speed limit, or being distracted himself and not watching the road ahead which includes watching for pedestrians who might step into the road).
It can be difficult for a cyclist to know if he's exceeding the speed limit since it is not compulsory for cyclists to use a speedometer. Most cyclists I know use a Garmin.
Most cyclists I know don't have a speedo or a sat nav...
A few years ago I did pick up a speedo going cheap and fitted it - it lasted all of a couple of months or so before rain destroyed it, bit that was long enough to learn that on the downhill stretch of my commute to work if I pedalled hard I could get close to the 40mph speed limit (and so knew I had to reduce speed for the school 20 limit stretch when in operation), but on the level I only normally got up to a maximum of about 20. Clearly a young fit person with a race bike could go quite a bit faster, but the fact of having such a bike is no indication of speed, and pedestrians saying he was going fast are a poor measure. In the particular case cited the most useful information for the accident investigators will be the distance the cyclist flew threw the air after impact, and the evidence of any motor vehicles he may have overtaken immediately prior. But in this particular case the absence of adequate brakes may be of great significance especially if he wasn't speeding.
The tragedy for me she is dead and cannot represent herself in court. This young man still has his life, and is able to stand in court and tell the truth, or maybe otherwise...
naim_nymph posted:A tragic pedestrian death case of 44 year old woman - caused by collision with cyclist in London is presently unfolding.
It's an interesting case, the woman stepped out into the road [while on mobile phone apparently] and cyclist was going so fast he could not avoid hitting her, however the cyclist was using a fixed geared track bike with no brakes [so not road worthy] and was travelling rather swiftly within a densely populated area.
This is news because it is so rare. We don't link to each of the thousands of deaths each year caused by cars. In all cases the actions of the person causing the death is inexcusable.
Yes, and fixies with no brakes are totally stupid and dangerous on the roads. Generally, the person most likely to be killed or injured is the rider. Tragically and unforgivably in this case, the complete numbskull riding the fixie killed someone other than himself.
Winky, I fear it's not so straightforward in this case re who is to blame in such a tragic event. I've witnessed many incidents in Central London where pedestrians have walked in to roads where traffic signals are green - there's a clip on 'Tube where a cyclist literally goes head over heels. It's scary how 'detached' some people are, and often the (silent) cyclists don't stand a chance, good and legal brakes or no. The worst I've seen is a pedestrian who had a moby pinned to their ear + wheeling a flight-case, who stepped out on to a pedestrian crossing (controlled by lights) just as a double-decker bus was approaching. The lights were green for traffic. I winced. Fortunately, the bus driver had not long pulled away and managed to take avoiding action. The person didn't even look back.
London's traffic planning and cycling routes are a bit 'all over the place' in parts e.g. where the cycle lanes cut directly across what appear to be pedestrian thoroughfares. Often the signage is unclear and in the rush hour many riders don't tend to hang about, and they come in waves after lights change. I've been that rabbit in the headlights on a couple of occasions! AFAIK, priority should remain with the pedestrian as the riders only have a right of access but it's not something to debate in the heat of the moment.
Happy Listener posted:Winky, I fear it's not so straightforward in this case re who is to blame in such a tragic event. I've witnessed many incidents in Central London where pedestrians have walked in to roads where traffic signals are green - there's a clip on 'Tube where a cyclist literally goes head over heels. It's scary how 'detached' some people are, and often the (silent) cyclists don't stand a chance, good and legal brakes or no. The worst I've seen is a pedestrian who had a moby pinned to their ear + wheeling a flight-case, who stepped out on to a pedestrian crossing (controlled by lights) just as a double-decker bus was approaching. The lights were green for traffic. I winced. Fortunately, the bus driver had not long pulled away and managed to take avoiding action. The person didn't even look back.
London's traffic planning and cycling routes are a bit 'all over the place' in parts e.g. where the cycle lanes cut directly across what appear to be pedestrian thoroughfares. Often the signage is unclear and in the rush hour many riders don't tend to hang about, and they come in waves after lights change. I've been that rabbit in the headlights on a couple of occasions! AFAIK, priority should remain with the pedestrian as the riders only have a right of access but it's not something to debate in the heat of the moment.
Without knowing the details, I'd accept that their may have been some contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, but that doesn't absolve the idiot who chose to ride a bike with no brakes in a crowded city.
But this is hardly worth discussing. The overwhelming majority of pedestrian deaths are at the hands of motorists. That in this case the vehicle was a bike is essentially irrelevant. Bike, bus, truck, car? Whatever? Don't run down pedestrians is a good rule.
winkyincanada posted:But this is hardly worth discussing. The overwhelming majority of pedestrian deaths are at the hands of motorists. That in this case the vehicle was a bike is essentially irrelevant. Bike, bus, truck, car? Whatever? Don't run down pedestrians is a good rule.
Without absolving responsibility of drivers... essentially don’t be an idiot and be aware of everyone around you! Whether driving, cycling, walking or running!
According to BBC/ITV news last night, the cyclist one of the charges against the cyclist being prosecuted is "furious cycling". Also stated was that he had been travelling at 18mph.
Now, I do not consider a speed of 18mph to be anywhere near "furious cycling", although it is possibly a little above average, which I guess is may be closer to 15mph for reasonably fit road cyclists on the flat (i have not researched this), and it is deeply concerning if that should be considered to be furious. My intepretation of "furious cycling" would be a racing cyclist sprinting to the finish, which I think wold be more like double the speed the cyclist was doing in this unfortunate case. To put 18 in context, someone sprinting to catch a bus could well go faster.
Contrary to some earlier observations, the news stated that the bike did have a back brake, but not a front one (so was still not road-legal), and the bike had slowed to 10mph at the point of impact (and had yelled warnings that went unheeded). The fatal injury would appear to have been a result of the victim hitting her head on the ground when she fell. In reality, and without in any way meaning to detract from the awfulness of the outcome, if anyone steps into the road without looking they risk being hit by a moving vehicle and injury might be expected, but for the outcome to be fatal or even life-changing at that impact speed is very rare.
The main charge is manslaughter, the 'furious' part relates to the offence of 'causing grievous harm by wanton and furious driving' under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. The charge concerns cycling at 18mph on a busy city intersection with an illegal fixed wheel drive track racer with no actual brakes at all, other than the fixed wheel "back peddle". Deserves what coming to him IMO, the cycling community don't need idiots like him.
From the photo provided; the only rear braking capability of the track bike in question would be purposeful applied brake-pedal action though the fixed gear. The law requires a fixed wheel bike to include a typical bicycle calliper [disc or rim] front brake and with handlebar lever. A rear calliper brake is not required on a fixed wheel bike due to the limited amount of braking capability of the fixed wheel which is considered enough when the machine is fitted with a normal bicycle front brake.
To put this into context, bicycles have similar braking dynamics of a cars, motorcycles, trucks, and busses in that 80% of the braking power comes from the front wheel(s) and only around 20% from rear which primarily gives a steadying effect - as long as it is not 'locked up' into a skid.
The bicycle in question is a dedicated track bike which may or may not have a drilled fixing point in the folks to allow a bolt on brake calliper. It is an unsuitable and dangerous machine to use on any public highway at any speed.
Debs
naim_nymph posted:
From the photo provided; the only rear braking capability of the track bike in question would be purposeful applied brake-pedal action though the fixed gear. The law requires a fixed wheel bike to include a typical bicycle calliper [disc or rim] front brake and with handlebar lever. A rear calliper brake is not required on a fixed wheel bike due to the limited amount of braking capability of the fixed wheel which is considered enough when the machine is fitted with a normal bicycle front brake.
To put this into context, bicycles have similar braking dynamics of a cars, motorcycles, trucks, and busses in that 80% of the braking power comes from the front wheel(s) and only around 20% from rear which primarily gives a steadying effect - as long as it is not 'locked up' into a skid.
The bicycle in question is a dedicated track bike which may or may not have a drilled fixing point in the folks to allow a bolt on brake calliper. It is an unsuitable and dangerous machine to use on any public highway at any speed.
Debs
Agree with all you say. The guy was a numbskull for choosing a bike like this for riding on the roads.
Innocent Bystander posted:According to BBC/ITV news last night, the cyclist one of the charges against the cyclist being prosecuted is "furious cycling". Also stated was that he had been travelling at 18mph.
Now, I do not consider a speed of 18mph to be anywhere near "furious cycling", although it is possibly a little above average, which I guess is may be closer to 15mph for reasonably fit road cyclists on the flat (i have not researched this), and it is deeply concerning if that should be considered to be furious. My intepretation of "furious cycling" would be a racing cyclist sprinting to the finish, which I think wold be more like double the speed the cyclist was doing in this unfortunate case. To put 18 in context, someone sprinting to catch a bus could well go faster.
Contrary to some earlier observations, the news stated that the bike did have a back brake, but not a front one (so was still not road-legal), and the bike had slowed to 10mph at the point of impact (and had yelled warnings that went unheeded). The fatal injury would appear to have been a result of the victim hitting her head on the ground when she fell. In reality, and without in any way meaning to detract from the awfulness of the outcome, if anyone steps into the road without looking they risk being hit by a moving vehicle and injury might be expected, but for the outcome to be fatal or even life-changing at that impact speed is very rare.
18 mph is not particularly fast IF YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE BRAKES. Cars tend to travel at speeds much higher than this (when not queued behind other cars). He had time to shout a warning, and to slow to 10 mph using the wholly inadequate braking available on his idiotic bike. If he had had a working front brake, we would not be having this conversation on this thread. There are enough motorists with irrational, seething, white-hot hatred of cyclists already. This idiot has just made it worse.
winkyincanada posted:Innocent Bystander posted:According to BBC/ITV news last night, the cyclist one of the charges against the cyclist being prosecuted is "furious cycling". Also stated was that he had been travelling at 18mph.
Now, I do not consider a speed of 18mph to be anywhere near "furious cycling", although it is possibly a little above average, which I guess is may be closer to 15mph for reasonably fit road cyclists on the flat (i have not researched this), and it is deeply concerning if that should be considered to be furious. My intepretation of "furious cycling" would be a racing cyclist sprinting to the finish, which I think wold be more like double the speed the cyclist was doing in this unfortunate case. To put 18 in context, someone sprinting to catch a bus could well go faster.
Contrary to some earlier observations, the news stated that the bike did have a back brake, but not a front one (so was still not road-legal), and the bike had slowed to 10mph at the point of impact (and had yelled warnings that went unheeded). The fatal injury would appear to have been a result of the victim hitting her head on the ground when she fell. In reality, and without in any way meaning to detract from the awfulness of the outcome, if anyone steps into the road without looking they risk being hit by a moving vehicle and injury might be expected, but for the outcome to be fatal or even life-changing at that impact speed is very rare.
18 mph is not particularly fast IF YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE BRAKES. Cars tend to travel at speeds much higher than this (when not queued behind other cars). He had time to shout a warning, and to slow to 10 mph using the wholly inadequate braking available on his idiotic bike. If he had had a working front brake, we would not be having this conversation on this thread. There are enough motorists with irrational, seething, white-hot hatred of cyclists already. This idiot has just made it worse.
I wholeheartedly agree. My point about 18mph was purely in relation to an allegation of furious cycling, and my comment about the speed of impact was merely observing how extremely unfortunate an outcome it was for a low speed collision.
With no brakes, or with just a back brake whether just a fixed wheel or even with a caliper he should not have been riding on a road - not at all legally, and not above about walking pace for his and others safety. Even without consideration for others, goodness knows what he expected to do if he was faced with car crossing his path, far from uncommon, and sometimes difficult to avoid having an accident with fully functioning brakes on both wheels.
However, from the account given the poor pedestrian was guilty of contributory negligence stepping out without looking - that does not in any way absolve the cyclist for not having a road-legal bike, but it is a significant factor, just as it would be if a cycle were to turn across the path of a car without checking that the road is clear.
Innocent Bystander posted:winkyincanada posted:Innocent Bystander posted:According to BBC/ITV news last night, the cyclist one of the charges against the cyclist being prosecuted is "furious cycling". Also stated was that he had been travelling at 18mph.
Now, I do not consider a speed of 18mph to be anywhere near "furious cycling", although it is possibly a little above average, which I guess is may be closer to 15mph for reasonably fit road cyclists on the flat (i have not researched this), and it is deeply concerning if that should be considered to be furious. My intepretation of "furious cycling" would be a racing cyclist sprinting to the finish, which I think wold be more like double the speed the cyclist was doing in this unfortunate case. To put 18 in context, someone sprinting to catch a bus could well go faster.
Contrary to some earlier observations, the news stated that the bike did have a back brake, but not a front one (so was still not road-legal), and the bike had slowed to 10mph at the point of impact (and had yelled warnings that went unheeded). The fatal injury would appear to have been a result of the victim hitting her head on the ground when she fell. In reality, and without in any way meaning to detract from the awfulness of the outcome, if anyone steps into the road without looking they risk being hit by a moving vehicle and injury might be expected, but for the outcome to be fatal or even life-changing at that impact speed is very rare.
18 mph is not particularly fast IF YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE BRAKES. Cars tend to travel at speeds much higher than this (when not queued behind other cars). He had time to shout a warning, and to slow to 10 mph using the wholly inadequate braking available on his idiotic bike. If he had had a working front brake, we would not be having this conversation on this thread. There are enough motorists with irrational, seething, white-hot hatred of cyclists already. This idiot has just made it worse.
I wholeheartedly agree. My point about 18mph was purely in relation to an allegation of furious cycling, and my comment about the speed of impact was merely observing how extremely unfortunate an outcome it was for a low speed collision.
With no brakes, or with just a back brake whether just a fixed wheel or even with a caliper he should not have been riding on a road - not at all legally, and not above about walking pace for his and others safety. Even without consideration for others, goodness knows what he expected to do if he was faced with car crossing his path, far from uncommon, and sometimes difficult to avoid having an accident with fully functioning brakes on both wheels.
However, from the account given the poor pedestrian was guilty of contributory negligence stepping out without looking - that does not in any way absolve the cyclist for not having a road-legal bike, but it is a significant factor, just as it would be if a cycle were to turn across the path of a car without checking that the road is clear.
We continue to furiously agree.
I think the news report which said the bike had a rear brake was misleading. The only brake on a track bike is that available by easing the force on the pedals. Incidentally, if you stop pedalling on a track bike, you're off.
I live on a country lane in Shropshire. The lane is used by pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, tractors (now there's a whole new subject worthy of its own thread) and the occasional motor cyclist. And dog walkers. Quite a mix, but it's generally a quiet lane with not much traffic. I fit in to all the categories with the exception of the agricultural stuff. Although my car did have a tractor shaped front end a while ago as the lunatic race down the lane and even though I'd stopped when I saw him coming towards me at 30mph.......still, he had a bear the cost of refitting the 2 huge tyres back on to his 2 huge back wheels
it is the (Lycra clad) cyclists that are the biggest pain irrespective of the category I have adopted on that particular occasion. I'm walking the dogs and a bike comes flying down the lane. I quickly bring the dogs in close to avoid the inevitable. Not a word of thanks...nothing, zilch.
Bike looms up in 'furtive mode' from behind. No warning. Zooms by. Wasn't aware he/she was there until they whooshed by. Wasn't able to secure the dogs this time, but he/she was travelling so fast, even they wouldn't have caught him/her. They have since gone on some intensive training to up their pace to more effective chasing speeds. Next time we'll be ready for him.......or her.
Driving the car along our single track with passing spaces lane. Bike ahead but clearly no room to get by safely unless he/she decides to let me by. He/she doesn't seem to want to for some obscure reason. Up the hill....now doing less than 10mph. Long hill and I so enjoyed watching their effort to top the hill. Why not let me by? I would...and I do when I ride a bike.
Club run on a weekend. 15-20 bikes in one elongated group. A long line of cars behind. I counted 26 vehicles (luckily I was travelling in the opposite direction). More joining the throng by the minute. Seen this more and more in the past year or two. Long lines of cyclists make it almost impossible for vehicles to pass. The cyclists are oblivious to all this. They should break up in to smaller groups to allow vehicles to pass a small group at a time. It's in the interest of both cyclists and drivers to co-operate and ride/drive defensively.
Walking through Ludlow town centre recently. It's one way for traffic. Cyclist riding through the middle of town in the wrong direction. I politely inform matey of his oversight. He impolitely tells me to mind my own business.
A bell should be a requirement for all bikes. Used sensibly and in tandem with other options already discussed, should avoid many problems I see. Have a bell on my bike, and when used with consideration, works well. A smile, nod, good morning etc etc work well with a bell.
Mirrors...or at least one. You wouldn't drive a car or ride a motorbike without the ability to know what's going on behind you.
Insurance...already done to death, but should be a requirement. Most cyclists are considerate, sensible reasonable people. An increasing number are not.....in my experience.
Just my take on the subject.
Peter
I make no excuses for inconsiderate cyclists, including those travelling in bunches that dont allow cars to pass on a narrow road.
with regard to a single cyclist giving way to a car, if I understood that correctly he was going uphill, and struggling. In that scenario the last thing a cyclist wants is to lose what little momentum he has, so I would not expect him to pull ober, unless it was a very long hill and very clear to him that it was impossible for the car behind to pass.
All bikes on the road in the UK are required to have a pn audible means of warning - however that can be voice, and sometimes a bell is singularly useless (I have a bell, voice and airhorn, and use them in different scenarios - but yes, a spoken "excuse me please" or "thank you" and a smile and acknowledgement make all tne difference for everyone.
i agree that a cyclist should always know what is behind, just as any road user - however frequent looks over the shouldercombined with use of ears can be very effective, wheras mirrors make a bike wider than necessary and so a potential hazard, as well as causing drag which is something a cyclist would prefer not to suffer.
As for the speed issue, it is hard to comment without witnessing the precise scenario, but a bike is entitled to travel at any speed up to the speed limit provided it is safe to do so, while dog walkers should keep their dogs under control at all times on the road, which with some animals at leat means using a lead (and not one of those extending ones that can be more of a danger to other road users if the dog if well extended than a loose dog), if only because another road user could appear travelling faster than the dog walker and doge are unpredictable.
as for increasing inconsiderateness, sadly that seems to be the world we live in, and not just on the road. I truly wish it would reverse.
Pedro posted:A smile, nod, good morning etc etc work well.....
Peter
Just like how motorists interact with each other, eh?
Your cyclist-clogged country lanes sound like paradise to me. When I lived there, the riding out of Bristol was fantastic for exactly that reason. I can't recall seeing many pedestrians, though. Perhaps I was going too fast.
Do you leash your dogs when walking on these country lanes? Do they have insurance?
seems sensible for bikers that enter/town/cities should pay, may be a licience that lasts a few years. cycle lanes are expensive to install