Sorry, but some "cyclists" are asking to get hit.

JonEdwards

So I'm waiting at the lights in Victoria about 9.15 this morning. A guy on a hybrid/city bike pushes (literally) past me between me and the pavement, carries on into the junction. Part way across, sticks his hand in his trouser pocket and pulls out his phone, answers it and carries on riding through the (busy) junction whilst talking on the phone.

Couple of minutes later I pass him on the way down to Parliament Square, still on the phone. Staring at his front wheel, completely oblivious of the world around him.

Again, stopped at the lights onto parliament square, he comes past me, still yakking away, and pedals off serenely into the traffic. Doesn't look, doesn't even seem to be aware of the oncoming traffic, but seems to merge in OK

Now if this was a car driver, we'd all be up in arms about driving on the phone, not paying attention etc. Sadly it would appear there are people equally oblivious to the world around them on bikes. I just feel a bit sorry for the driver they eventually wander in front of with no warning, as they'll almost certainly be blamed automatically for the accident, and then have to prove their inncocence.

I just find it mind boggling that people have that little ability to assess their actions and the potential effects of them.

hatbeard

Sadly an idiot is still an idiot whether they're on a bike or in a car.

And there's a lot of idiots out there.

shouldbeinbed

+1 to both of the above.

some are quick to coin terms like Moton to disparage bad drivers, might i suggest people like this on bikes go by the name Cyclunts in the name of fairness.

Awaiting the tons of metal are more dangerous apologists for selfish crap cycling

Moomin23

+1 here too, whilst I don't endorse anyone getting knocked off, if you're riding at night with no lights or reflectors, bouncing on and off the pavement and going through red lights, I find it hard to have sympathy

wizzlebanger

+1 to everything already said.

I was driving hope the other night (had pregnant wife in car after pick up so no bike) and was reasonably close to home along a quite busy B road. 30mph traffic both directions.

Coming towards me on a BMX, dressed in black with no lights or reflectives was some hoodied youth oblivious to what he was doing. He was riding along the centre line towards me!!!

I checked in my mirrors and watched him ride at least 400m along the centre of the road.

The world would not have shed a tear at his demise I expect. Sad to think like that but some people get what's coming to them. It's the innocent ones who follow the rules that are often the victims though. As in life!

Alas the upshot of this and it's not nice is that you have to treat everyone apart from yourself as a potential idiot. It's the way the world is going.

hfidgen

There is only one answer - and fortunately it's illegal. With any luck though he'll have ridden into a lamppost or something

cougie

What a nobber.

I saw a lad on a mtb last night riding in pitch black - no lights - no hi vis - no hands - down the centre of an admittedly quiet road - but still slicked in ice. And the bugger didnt fall off.

shm_uk

hatbeard wrote:

Sadly an idiot is still an idiot whether they're on a bike or in a car.

And there's a lot of idiots out there.

This.

The number of idiots generally equals the number of people, I find.

Add to the mix that a lot of the idiots are too dumb, arrogant or self-righteous to take advice... recipe for trouble.

rhext

shm_uk wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

Sadly an idiot is still an idiot whether they're on a bike or in a car.

And there's a lot of idiots out there.

This.

The number of idiots generally equals the number of people, I find.

Add to the mix that a lot of the idiots are too dumb, arrogant or self-righteous to take advice... recipe for trouble.

Not quite. The number of idiots generally equals the number of people minus 1

Hoopdriver

The one of course being me. :-)

Valy

Maybe he is is just 1337 2 z3 m4x0rz?

Berk Bonebonce

An idiot in a car has a whole lot greater chance of seriously harming someone than an idiot on a bike.

gaz545

And this is why i'm doing a series called silly cyclists.
About cyclists that put them selves and others in danger.

bearfraser

Perhaps they are all auditioning for this years "Darwin Awards" ?????????????

mybreakfastconsisted

There is no law against cyclists using mobiles. To pass such a law would discriminate against one-armed cyclists.

Also, unlit cyclists rarely cause accidents, having no lights is not a commonly cited cause of an accident.

Thirdly, saying soemone deserves it if they get killed or that they "had it coming" is sick, have a word.

Numpties on bikes are suicidal.

Numpties in vehicles are homicidal.

Big difference.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

There is no law against cyclists using mobiles. To pass such a law would discriminate against one-armed cyclists.





....

Erm really

So if Parliament passed the following clause in a bill

1. It shall be an offence to use a mobile telecommunications device whilst in motion cycling
1.1 The offence shall be punishable by a fine at level 3


Pray tell how that discriminates against a 1 armed cyclists?

Can you see any mention of the number of arms or other limbs in that clause


Try a bit harder

kurako

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

There is no law against cyclists using mobiles. To pass such a law would discriminate against one-armed cyclists.





....

Erm really

So if Parliament passed the following clause in a bill

1. It shall be an offence to use a mobile telecommunications device whilst in motion cycling
1.1 The offence shall be punishable by a fine at level 3


Pray tell how that discriminates against a 1 armed cyclists?

Can you see any mention of the number of arms or other limbs in that clause


Try a bit harder

Fark! I find myself agreeing with something spen said. Didn't BoJo use that 1 armed argument? It's totally friggin idiotic.

kurako

Hah! I found it. MBC is Boris Johnson and I claim my reward :shock:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 442754.ece

[EDIT: Reading some of the others BoJo is either taking the p!ss or a complete buffoon. I'm not sure which]

dilemna

It's their funeral.

mybreakfastconsisted

Kurako wrote:

Hah! I found it. MBC is Boris Johnson and I claim my reward :shock:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 442754.ece

[EDIT: Reading some of the others BoJo is either taking the p!ss or a complete buffoon. I'm not sure which]

He's extracting the urine, as am I. That's a pretty funny interview actually, I wish he'd do more interviewing and less mayoring.

Number of people killed by cyclists on a mobile or cyclists using a mobile last year?

Zero.

Number of people killed by drivers on phones?

Eleven.


Nothing you say can change the behaviour of a numpty cyclist, until they learn the hard way. I was overtaken at every red light down City Road by a cyclist (with a helmet on over a wool headscarf).

Eventually, when I overtook her for the fourth time I said "Jumping reds is really dangerous!"


She said:

"I know! Once a car nearly hit me!"

Any bad behaviour on the roads is depressing, remonstrating with anyone, driver or cyclist, is often unwise, and it's especially annoying when you see a cyclist carrying out manoevers that are then used by drivers to criticise all cyclists. Especially me, so I end up being asked to defend the cycling behaviour of those stupid chavvy kids on stuntpeg bmxs with their arse hanging out of their jeans. They're annoying and they give cyclist-haters ammunition, but I wouldn't say they "deserve" to die!

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Kurako wrote:

Hah! I found it. MBC is Boris Johnson and I claim my reward :shock:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 442754.ece

[EDIT: Reading some of the others BoJo is either taking the p!ss or a complete buffoon. I'm not sure which]

He's extracting the urine, as am I. That's a pretty funny interview actually, I wish he'd do more interviewing and less mayoring.

Number of people killed by cyclists on a mobile or cyclists using a mobile last year?

Zero.

Number of people killed by drivers on phones?

Eleven.

Source?

Evidence to back this up- not hearsay random figures

Nothing you say can change the behaviour of a numpty cyclist, until they learn the hard way. I was overtaken at every red light down City Road by a cyclist (with a helmet on over a wool headscarf).

Eventually, when I overtook her for the fourth time I said "Jumping reds is really dangerous!"


She said:

"I know! Once a car nearly hit me!"

Any bad behaviour on the roads is depressing, remonstrating with anyone, driver or cyclist, is often unwise, and it's especially annoying when you see a cyclist carrying out manoevers that are then used by drivers to criticise all cyclists. Especially me, so I end up being asked to defend the cycling behaviour of those stupid chavvy kids on stuntpeg bmxs with their ars* hanging out of their jeans. They're annoying and they give cyclist-haters ammunition, but I wouldn't say they "deserve" to die!

ct4oc

though some people do bring things upon themselves dressed for stealth with no lights, which does do my head in, if you'd been to as many rtcs with dead or dying bikers involved you'd not wish it on anyone. trauma is not a nice way to go.

wizzlebanger

Having sympathy for someone who has been knocked off their bike and saying 'they had it coming' are two very different things. I doubt anyone who has posted here wants someone to be killed on a bicycle but as fellow cyclists we are acutely aware of the danger they put themselves (and others) in by their reckless actions. 'They had it coming' merely refers to the fact that we know it is only a matter of time before they have a close scrape or worse and that their actions where a mitigating factor.

Provide all the statistics in the world about non lit cyclists you like but the fact is it's against the law and inevitably leads to accidents.

If one of these cycle ninjas is riding down the wrong side of the road, at night, with no lights and hits a pedestrian who stepped into the road who subsequently dies because they hit their head on the curb then is the cyclist at fault? Of course they are.

You cannot justify cycling without lights.

mybreakfastconsisted

wizzlebanger wrote:

Provide all the statistics in the world about non lit cyclists you like but the fact is it's against the law and inevitably leads to accidents.

.

No, it doesn't. It's nowhere near the main cause of cycling accidents.

Risky cyclist behaviour rarely causes accidents. This isn't justifying unlit cyclists, merely pointing out they are not as much of a danger as some would have you believe.

owenlars

What's the main casue of bike accidents after dark then?

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

wizzlebanger wrote:

Provide all the statistics in the world about non lit cyclists you like but the fact is it's against the law and inevitably leads to accidents.

.

No, it doesn't. It's nowhere near the main cause of cycling accidents.

Risky cyclist behaviour rarely causes accidents. This isn't justifying unlit cyclists, merely pointing out they are not as much of a danger as some would have you believe.

I am presuming your refusal to provide evidence to back up your figures re the number of people killed by drivers on the phone meas you have no evidence to back up your claims

spen666

owenlars wrote:

What's the main casue of bike accidents after dark then?

randomly invented statistics

mybreakfastconsisted

owenlars wrote:

What's the main casue of bike accidents after dark then?

"The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals," said Chris Peck, from the lobby group.

"We believe this report strongly supports our view that the biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... ents-study

wizzlebanger

I'm amazed that some particularly poor statistics are trying to be used to defend riding without lights or reckless cycling.

Just because you have a statistic to 'prove' that not many accidents have been directly linked to riding without lights or riding recklessly doesn't justify the action of doing so.

Statistics can be manipulated to present almost any result for the given argument. However, I will back the law and riding with common sense and consideration for myself and other road users every time.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

owenlars wrote:

What's the main casue of bike accidents after dark then?

"The main cause of crashes seems to be 'failed to look properly', whereas very few cyclists are injured or killed acting illegally, such as failing to use lights at night or disobeying traffic signals," said Chris Peck, from the lobby group.
"We believe this report strongly supports our view that the biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... ents-study

where is the source of your figure of 11 cyclists killed by drivers on phones? you know the one you posted earlier. Or are you just inventing figures? If you have a source, let us know it

BTW quoting a statement of opinion from a pressure group or interested party like in this quote is not fact

mybreakfastconsisted

wizzlebanger wrote:

Just because you have a statistic to 'prove' that not many accidents have been directly linked to riding without lights or riding recklessly doesn't justify the action of doing so.

.

I didn't justify anything.

I merely said if you want to reduce cycling deaths and injuries it would be better to focus on driver behaviour because that is easily the main cause of the accidents.