To the cyclist of Superhighway 7 tonight

W1

notsoblue wrote:

andrewc3142 wrote:

The liability in, for example, The Netherlands, doesn't mean cyclists are in the right whatever. It just means the burden of proof is on the car driver. And my observation from working, driving and cycling and from talking to friends in those countries, it certainly makes drivers think and usually when in doubt give way to the cyclist. As a cyclist and one who would like to see cycling as the normal way of travelling to school, shopping, around town generally, I think that would be very positive.

+1. Having spent most of my youth in NL, it was a huge shock coming to the UK. The roads here are incredibly inhospitable and dangerous for cyclists by comparison. And I think the circular reason for this is that most people consider roads to be far too inhospitable and dangerous for cyclists. The perception in any accident involving a cyclist is that the cyclist was negligent from the start by even being on a bike on a main road in the first place. The knee jerk reaction to any news story about a cycling mortality is to assume that the cyclist must have done something wrong, or been in the wrong place, to have caused the accident. This just isn't the case in any country that has default driver liability.

Drivers who use their cars to intimidate (swerving at cyclists, intentional close overtaking etc) would think twice if this kind of law was in place. And "Sorry Mate I Didn't See You" wouldn't be a valid excuse.

I'm all for it.

I'm uncomfortable with the principle of having to prove innocence - what is the level of proof required for example?

Are you equally happy to have to prove your innocence should you be involved in an accident with a pedestrian (as a cyclist)?

andrewc3142

Well for one I cycle at more than 20 mph on a cruise

So do I. 20mph is an average not a limit for a decent ride. But not in the middle of a town.

W1

andrewc3142 wrote:

Well for one I cycle at more than 20 mph on a cruise

So do I. 20mph is an average not a limit for a decent ride. But not in the middle of a town.

I think you might be a bit shocked to see the Embankment most mornings then!

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Are you equally happy to have to prove your innocence should you be involved in an accident with a pedestrian (as a cyclist)?

I'm not sure what the law is on this is officially, but I have first hand experience of this (as the cyclist) and it is effectively the case right now. My experience was a very negative one. But I still think that the more vulnerable party should be protected. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be against this, other than because they fear that pedestrians and cyclists will be hurling themselves at motor vehicles for compensation claims?

fatherted

notsoblue wrote:

snooks wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

fatherted wrote:

Gaz , take 'em off.
Get some more miles under your belt.
You're young , a lot of us have seen it all before and shouting at drivers and banging on windows shoutung "YOU'RE BEING FILMED, YOUTUBE !!! LJ09 QWE" doesn't help.

Er, well thats clearly an exaggeration of what he actually does.

Erm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6g79GZsZws

Wheres the banging on windows bit? I missed that.

You didn't need the banging on windows, the tone was enough to cause a reaction.
You speak like that to *some* people and don't be surprised if you find you've picked on the WRONG person.

Lets see what gaz said ..
"What are you doing ?"
"Do you know how to drive ?"
"Clearly not"
"Because that was *very* [1] foolish"

[1] It's like he's reprimanding a child.

Sc00bs

To echo many other points made here, the 1st pass wasn't that close at all. No closer than a lot of passes I encounter each and every day in SarfLondon. Any cyclist who pulls out to overtake another cyclist without looking runs the risk of putting themselves too close to car drivers who not unreasonably may wish to pass.

Did Gaz have a word with the female cyclist about her actions? Doubt it. Would anyone who finds themselves berated by 3 cyclists automatically get defensive? Probably.

This chap's intentions weren't known and he was confronted with threats of police action and public humiliation on Youtube - that would pi$$ a lot of people off (me included) from the get-go. Had he immediately started shouting the odds it would have been a different story, but as far as I saw he wasn't given the opportunity to say anything before he was castigated.

I've filmed my commute before - for fun, not in case I'm knocked off. Relying on camera evidence is a mug's game anyhow. Chances are when you most needed it would be when it's turned itself off and the constant filming as others points out may increase your chances of finding 'faults' with other road users.

Maxticate makes valid points about 'putting yourself out there' - there are some vindictive people around who could make Gaz's life difficult or worse endanger him on his regular commute - worth bearing in mind before further uploads to youtube perhaps?

andrewc3142

W1 wrote:

andrewc3142 wrote:

Well for one I cycle at more than 20 mph on a cruise

So do I. 20mph is an average not a limit for a decent ride. But not in the middle of a town.

I think you might be a bit shocked to see the Embankment most mornings then!

I very much doubt it would shock me.

Still working on the 20mph average from Woking, though, I admit. It's all the cars when I get nearer London

northstar

To echo many other points made here, the 1st pass wasn't that close at all. No closer than a lot of passes I encounter each and every day in SarfLondon. Any cyclist who pulls out to overtake another cyclist without looking runs the risk of putting themselves too close to car drivers who not unreasonably may wish to pass.

Whether the cyclist didn't look over her shoulder is neither here nor there - if the driver was a good driver and had some consideration for cyclists, he woud have let of his accelerator a bit and held back til the cyclist has passed the other, it's good observation and what makes a good driver.

Sc00bs

Whether the cyclist didn't look over her shoulder is neither here nor there

Oh I think it is.

Good example of this is the electric car or scooter - silent and potentially life threatening. If you can't be ar$ed to throw a lifesaver you surely can't have any complaint if you were to be knocked off by a silent electric vehicle can you?

And surely a good rule of thumb is to treat all drivers as potentially bad drivers - it's your life and mobility you're looking after - don't expect others to do this for you!

feltkuota

Northstar,

Seriously?

Are you saying:Don't bother checking over your shoulder for traffic coming behind you therefore placing entire faith in their ability to react to what you do. I've read plenty of dumb stuff on here but that's right up there with the worst of it.

snooks

northstar wrote:

it's good observation that makes a good cyclist.

FTFY

Kieran_Burns

I would like to chip in with a good example of a life saver, and a good reason to have a helmet cam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-eY1c15vKY

8)

for the record: 40mph limit, and I took primary while I overtook.

kurako

feltkuota wrote:

Northstar,

Seriously?

Are you saying:Don't bother checking over your shoulder for traffic coming behind you therefore placing entire faith in their ability to react to what you do. I've read plenty of dumb stuff on here but that's right up there with the worst of it.

I think what Northstar is saying is that a good driver/cyclist/sheep-herder will alter their speed to deal with the conditions which includes people ahead doing dumb stuff like swerving around without looking.

'He/she should have seen me' is not really a valid excuse although it does seem to get trotted out a lot when folk crash into stuff.

feltkuota

Kurako



When we are out on the road we are always reliant on whomever is behind us not running into us. If we decide to change direction, for whatever reson, then the least we should do, whether we are cyclists or drivers is have a look behind before changing direction. It used to be mirror, signal manouvre but probaly called something different now.

Choose to look or choose not to look entirely one's choice. I know which is safer.

kurako

I didn't say not to look. You are confusing two seperate issues.

A. Take responsibility for your own safety. Be observant and don't put yourself in unnecessary danger.

and

B. Look out for others. People do stupid stuff occasionally and you should make allowances for it.

The cyclist didn't do A. The driver didn't do B.

feltkuota

Kurako,

Had the cyclist done A Then there would have been no (non) situation..

kurako

feltkuota wrote:

Kurako,

Had the cyclist done A Then there would have been no (non) situation..

I'm not denying that.

notsoblue

Kurako wrote:

feltkuota wrote:

Kurako,

Had the cyclist done A Then there would have been no (non) situation..

I'm not denying that.

Are you guys actually disagreeing about the same thing or just arguing across each other?

feltkuota

Notsoblue,

Is this a quiz?

notsoblue

feltkuota wrote:

Notsoblue,

Is this a quiz?

Yes, answers in the form of an interpretive dance please.

kurako

I'm just trying to make a point that one party showing a lack of care and attention doesn't absolve the second party from their own responsibilities.

Here's one then. Hypothetically speaking, you're pegging it through town and you see a ped wandering towards the side of the road. They're not looking around, too engrossed in their iPhone to even notice you steaming towards them. You have a suspicion they'll step out in front of you. Do you:

A) Carry on regardless. They should see you and if you hit them it'll be their fault. That'll teach them a lesson.

Ease of the pace. Cover the brakes. Move further into the lane (having done a shoulder check of course). Prepare to stop if needs be.

C) Sound your airhorn and shout and scream abuse at the moron.

I dare say I would do B which is the point I'm trying to make in a sort of a roundabout Friday afternoon way.

snooks

B, C then A

Do I win?

What's the prize? Is it beer? I like beer!

notsoblue

snooks wrote:

B, C then A

Do I win?

What's the prize? Is it beer? I like beer!

C? You're a disgrace to all cyclists, no wonder everyone hates us!

kurako

C is a better option than A I must admit. Not very zen though.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Are you equally happy to have to prove your innocence should you be involved in an accident with a pedestrian (as a cyclist)?

I'm not sure what the law is on this is officially, but I have first hand experience of this (as the cyclist) and it is effectively the case right now. My experience was a very negative one. But I still think that the more vulnerable party should be protected. I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be against this, other than because they fear that pedestrians and cyclists will be hurling themselves at motor vehicles for compensation claims?

I don't understand how this is the case right now? And if, as you say, your experience was a very negative one I'm not sure I grasp why you support automatic liability?

What makes me uncomfortable is the stepping away from innocent until proven guilty principle. I shouldn't have to prove my innocence to avoid having to make a payout or face a liability. In this compensation culture I wouldn't be surprised if people did stage accidents - and how much easier would it be to be awarded some cash if you didn't even need to prove any cause of action?

deptfordmarmoset

This may be coming at it from a different point of view but - from personal experience - I know that when things go ''oh, this might get a bit nasty!'' I've got a fraction of a second before I react or sit back to see how things develop. Again, personally, and with a little shame, I know that if I don't go in pro-actively I won't go in at all. That window of react-or-not time is very short.

Gaz is a cyclist who is pro-active. He doesn't just go for drivers, or cabs, he'll interact with cyclists about to take unreasonable risks - and his videos show that.

In this case there was no time to stand back and do a deep assessment of the situation before elaborating a 6-point strategic plan of action. No, he got in before all that - there was, as far as I can see, no time to reflect. It's something we'll often expect the police to do, even though they may get accused afterwards of ''escalating'' a situation.

So, while the driver's conduct after the confrontation seems to show that the situation had not been fully resolved - it is not the driving-off of a happy or even reasonable man - I'd still rather have a Gaz on the road than not at all. I suspect that a number of others might also feel safer knowing that he's around.

andrewc3142

In this compensation culture I wouldn't be surprised if people did stage accidents

Stage an accident by riding a cycle and deliberately being hit by a car? Really?

The point is that it is assumed that the person controlling the vehicle very likely to cause the most damage has the primary duty of care on the basis they have a responsibility to look out for those most vulnerable to their mistakes. If the cyclist is negligent, drunk, whatever then said car driver has no problem.

I have no issue with making the same assumption for cyclists in respect of peds and no problem with such an assumption as a car driver.

I have to say I'm surprised about comments above that 20mph limits are pointless and/or unenforceable, scepticism about traffic calming measures and against us following most cycling friendly countries regarding liability. Have I logged on to the Daily Mail by mistake?

andrewc3142

he'll interact with cyclists about to take unreasonable risks

I come across these from time to time, giving me lectures about wearing a helmet and hi-viz, etc. Good grief.

W1

andrewc3142 wrote:

In this compensation culture I wouldn't be surprised if people did stage accidents

Stage an accident by riding a cycle and deliberately being hit by a car? Really?

The point is that it is assumed that the person controlling the vehicle very likely to cause the most damage has the primary duty of care on the basis they have a responsibility to look out for those most vulnerable to their mistakes. If the cyclist is negligent, drunk, whatever then said car driver has no problem.

I have no issue with making the same assumption for cyclists in respect of peds and no problem with such an assumption as a car driver.

I have to say I'm surprised about comments above that 20mph limits are pointless and/or unenforceable, scepticism about traffic calming measures and against us following most cycling friendly countries regarding liability. Have I logged on to the Daily Mail by mistake?

Well people stage accidents by disconnecting their brake lights and getting hit from behind - which also seems spectacularly stupid - but it happens and can be a good money earner. It's interesting that in those accidents there's also presumed liability....Anyway, without any need to prove liability, who's to say the accident actually has to happen?

Can you not see the points being made re 20mph limits (particularly as many cyclists would be guilty of breaking it!)? And what about the points I raised about traffic calming not actually being a safety mechanism to cyclists in their present form? And I'm not sure how seriously you want to be taken with regards to the safety of cyclists when you're an advocate of red light jumping.....

deptfordmarmoset

andrewc3142 wrote:

he'll interact with cyclists about to take unreasonable risks

I come across these from time to time, giving me lectures about wearing a helmet and hi-viz, etc. Good grief.

Yes, but that's not something I've seen Gaz do.

EDIT: I mean the lid and luridity bit.