Tomfoolery!!!

gtvlusso

Today, as a bit of a treat and for no "real" reason, I drove to work in the car....

Okay - so, my journey was an hour in the traffic, whereas it is about 30 mins on the bike.....But I was toasty warm and may do the weekly shop on the way home, in some small justification for my bicycle absence.

Anyway, as a driver today, I could not help but notice an awful lot of cyclists who are, without doubt, f*cktards. I am putting this down to the New Year Resolution people who will cycle for a couple of months then give up.

But watching the melle of "nodders" - hopping off and on pavements to avoid lights, using pedestrian crossings to turn right, and the idiot who was trying desperately, whilst wobbling, to force a route down the left side of traffic where there was simply no room. Especially as there was a clear lane on the right of the traffic he could have breezed along....with the more seasoned commuters.

I found my self facepalming and shaking my head in shame.....please don't associate me, as a cycle commuter, with this muppetry.

Do people lose all road sense/common sense when they step out of a car and give cycling a shot?

gtvlusso

I guess what annoys me, is that there are so many great cyclists, but it only takes a couple of numpties to screw all of us and put us all in the same pot.....

:?

wgwarburton

gtvlusso wrote:

...Do people lose all road sense/common sense when they step out of a car and give cycling a shot?

Pretty much, I think. Though it's not so much losing it as not having it in the first place:

Bear in mind that their experience of cycling is probably limited to childhood expeditions to the park and their observations are probably restricted to the behavior they are emulating, since they will see the "seasoned commuters" as a different subspecies of human, with whom they do not relate.
Finally, they are starting from the assumption that cycling is easy- they learned when they were kids and, after all, you never forget.. it's like riding a bike...

So they think they know what they are doing but have no real understanding of how they should ride in traffic.

Fortunately, (and I keep banging on about this because I think it's important) cycling isn't dangerous, so they generally get away with it.

Cheers,
W.

wgwarburton

gtvlusso wrote:

I guess what annoys me, is that there are so many great cyclists, but it only takes a couple of numpties to screw all of us and put us all in the same pot.....

:?

It strikes me (and this probably needs a bit more thought) that to the casual observer (ie the vast majority of motorists and pedestrians) there are really only two types of cyclists- numpties, who go too slowly and wobble about getting in the way and louts, who go too fast and are dangerously aggressive.

If you try and pop every cyclist you notice into one or other of these categories there probably won't be many exceptions.

Cheers,
W.

dhope

Shenanigans and ballyhoo are rife lately too

hfidgen

WGWarburton wrote:

there are really only two types of cyclists- numpties, who go too slowly and wobble about getting in the way and louts, who go too fast and are dangerously aggressive.

I fear I verge on joining the "louts" on occasion despite my best efforts to retain road sense, road position and a broken leg-less existence! I'm a sticker for red lights though - I stop and tut at the jumpers (pretty much) every time :P

wgwarburton

May I emphasise that I wrote:

hfidgen wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

To the casual observer there are really only two types of cyclists- numpties, who go too slowly and wobble about getting in the way and louts, who go too fast and are dangerously aggressive.

I fear I verge on joining the "louts" on occasion despite my best efforts to retain road sense, road position and a broken leg-less existence! I'm a sticker for red lights though - I stop and tut at the jumpers (pretty much) every time :P

Thanks!

Cheers,
W.

Drysuitdiver

gtvlusso wrote:

I guess what annoys me, is that there are so many great cyclists, but it only takes a couple of numpties to screw all of us and put us all in the same pot.....

:?

I have the same thoughts. i try to not let it bother me.

sadly there are too many cyclists who think they are gods gift and can do what they like on the road

pst88

I hate other cyclists too.

hatbeard

I just hate people...

Jay dubbleU

I hate people and small animals................

cyberknight

[/quote] different subspecies of human, with whom they do not relate.

.[/quote]


That about sums it up a chubber at work known for his like of pies asked me if i enjoy cycling home after a 10 hour shift ???

I said "Yes "

snailracer

I just assume "nodders" know no better and give them lots of space when driving around them.

I don't think it's actually even fair to expect cyclists to be as competent as the average motorist, who has undergone compulsory training.

As it's legal for kids and untrained people to cycle on the road, I think the onus has to be on motorists to look out for them and anticipate their inevitable mistakes.

W1

snailracer wrote:

I just assume "nodders" know no better and give them lots of space when driving around them.

I don't think it's actually even fair to expect cyclists to be as competent as the average motorist, who has undergone compulsory training.

As it's legal for kids and untrained people to cycle on the road, I think the onus has to be on motorists to look out for them and anticipate their inevitable mistakes.

Cobblers. A motorist is no more liable for an incompetent cyclist's mistakes than I am liable for a stupid ped stepping out without looking.

snailracer

W1 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

I just assume "nodders" know no better and give them lots of space when driving around them.

I don't think it's actually even fair to expect cyclists to be as competent as the average motorist, who has undergone compulsory training.

As it's legal for kids and untrained people to cycle on the road, I think the onus has to be on motorists to look out for them and anticipate their inevitable mistakes.

Cobblers. A motorist is no more liable for an incompetent cyclist's mistakes than I am liable for a stupid ped stepping out without looking.

Your comparison is apples to oranges.

In a ped/cyclist collision, it is assumed that ped and cyclist are both untrained, therefore of equal (in)competence. Whereas in a car/cyclist collision, one side is expected to be more competent than the other.

If you're talking about hitting peds while driving a car, you're on the wrong forum.

sketchley

snailracer wrote:

I just assume "nodders" know no better and give them lots of space when driving around them.

I don't think it's actually even fair to expect cyclists to be as competent as the average motorist, who has undergone compulsory training.

As it's legal for kids and untrained people to cycle on the road, I think the onus has to be on motorists to look out for them and anticipate their inevitable mistakes.

Interesting conclusion could be drawn from that. Say I'm in court trying to claim for injuries and repairs to bike follow a collision. If I state that I was an untrained and inexperienced cyclists therefore the car driver must take responsibility for the accident, I would stand a better chance of winning than say if said I had completed lots of cycle training and had years of experience of riding?

wgwarburton

Sketchley wrote:

snailracer wrote:

I just assume "nodders" know no better and give them lots of space when driving around them.

I don't think it's actually even fair to expect cyclists to be as competent as the average motorist, who has undergone compulsory training.

As it's legal for kids and untrained people to cycle on the road, I think the onus has to be on motorists to look out for them and anticipate their inevitable mistakes.

Interesting conclusion could be drawn from that. Say I'm in court trying to claim for injuries and repairs to bike follow a collision. If I state that I was an untrained and inexperienced cyclists therefore the car driver must take responsibility for the accident, I would stand a better chance of winning than say if said I had completed lots of cycle training and had years of experience of riding?

IANAL... but possibly: There are stories of IAM members suffering heavier penalties than "normal" motorists because they ought to have known better.

They may well be the stuff of urban legend, though. It seems the sort of thing that would be!!

Cheers,
W.

snailracer

Sketchley wrote:

snailracer wrote:

I just assume "nodders" know no better and give them lots of space when driving around them.

I don't think it's actually even fair to expect cyclists to be as competent as the average motorist, who has undergone compulsory training.

As it's legal for kids and untrained people to cycle on the road, I think the onus has to be on motorists to look out for them and anticipate their inevitable mistakes.

Interesting conclusion could be drawn from that. Say I'm in court trying to claim for injuries and repairs to bike follow a collision. If I state that I was an untrained and inexperienced cyclists therefore the car driver must take responsibility for the accident, I would stand a better chance of winning than say if said I had completed lots of cycle training and had years of experience of riding?

I think it would depend on whether it was reasonably obvious that you were a poor cyclist i.e. you were wobbling all over the road, or 9 years old riding a BMX, or 79 years old wobbling about on a shopper.

snailracer

The Highway Code has specific instructions regarding vulnerable road users. The onus is on drivers AND RIDERS to take extra care:

204
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

Pedestrians
205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

208
Near schools. Drive slowly and be particularly aware of young cyclists and pedestrians. In some places, there may be a flashing amber signal below the ‘School’ warning sign which tells you that there may be children crossing the road ahead. Drive very slowly until you are clear of the area.

W1

snailracer wrote:

The Highway Code has specific instructions regarding vulnerable road users. The onus is on drivers AND RIDERS to take extra care:

204
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

Pedestrians
205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

208
Near schools. Drive slowly and be particularly aware of young cyclists and pedestrians. In some places, there may be a flashing amber signal below the ‘School’ warning sign which tells you that there may be children crossing the road ahead. Drive very slowly until you are clear of the area.

Highway Code isn't law.

But in other words, saying "I'm an incompetent cyclist" doesn't disclaim you from liability. If you're not competent then that doesn't make others liable for your actions.

snailracer

W1 wrote:

Highway Code isn't law.
...

Agreed.

W1 wrote:

...saying "I'm an incompetent cyclist" doesn't disclaim you from liability. If you're not competent then that doesn't make others liable for your actions.

In criminal law, someone is either found totally guilty, or totally not guilty, based on whether they broke criminal laws. It's not against the law for a ped to step out into the road in front of vehicle, so they can't be found "guilty" of anything, nor "liable" because that concept doesn't exist in criminal law.

But if you're talking about civil law and monetary damages, then the highway code carries weight because the percentage of liability assigned to each party depends on how "reasonably" each party has acted, and the HC defines what is reasonable. If, as a motorist, you saw a kid on a BMX from half a mile away, but hit them partly because you made no allowance that they were incompetent n00bs, then your share of the liability goes up, theirs goes down.

W1

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

Highway Code isn't law.
...

Agreed.

W1 wrote:

...saying "I'm an incompetent cyclist" doesn't disclaim you from liability. If you're not competent then that doesn't make others liable for your actions.

In criminal law, someone is either found totally guilty, or totally not guilty, based on whether they broke criminal laws. It's not against the law for a ped to step out into the road in front of vehicle, so they can't be found "guilty" of anything, nor "liable" because that concept doesn't exist in criminal law.

But if you're talking about civil law and monetary damages, then the highway code carries weight because the percentage of liability assigned to each party depends on how "reasonably" each party has acted, and the HC defines what is reasonable. If, as a motorist, you saw a kid on a BMX from half a mile away, but hit them partly because you made no allowance that they were incompetent n00bs, then your share of the liability goes up, theirs goes down.

If the kid on a BMX jumps off the kerb without looking, the driver won't be liable. If an adult noob does the same, ditto. It's not the motorist's responsibility to presume that all cyclists are untrained and then be responsible for their actions. Sure, drivers should be particularly aware of cyclists, but that's because they are vulnerable, not because it's OK to ride in whatever manner the cyclists wishes with no liability for their actions.

snailracer

W1 wrote:

If the kid on a BMX jumps off the kerb without looking, the driver won't be liable. If an adult noob does the same, ditto. It's not the motorist's responsibility to presume that all cyclists are untrained and then be responsible for their actions. Sure, drivers should be particularly aware of cyclists, but that's because they are vulnerable, not because it's OK to ride in whatever manner the cyclists wishes with no liability for their actions.

Never said that it was.

In civil cases, liability is not necessarily assigned 100% to one party or the other. It can be 50-50, or 70-30, etc. From your post it's not clear you're aware of this fact. "Reasonableness" sways the percentage, and to expect kids to ride as competently as adults is not reasonable, both according to the HC and common sense.

W1

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

If the kid on a BMX jumps off the kerb without looking, the driver won't be liable. If an adult noob does the same, ditto. It's not the motorist's responsibility to presume that all cyclists are untrained and then be responsible for their actions. Sure, drivers should be particularly aware of cyclists, but that's because they are vulnerable, not because it's OK to ride in whatever manner the cyclists wishes with no liability for their actions.

Never said that it was.

In civil cases, liability is not necessarily assigned 100% to one party or the other. It can be 50-50, or 70-30, etc. From your post it's not clear you're aware of this fact. "Reasonableness" sways the percentage, and to expect kids to ride as competently as adults is not reasonable, both according to the HC and common sense.

I can assure you that I am perfectly aware of it.

What you said is that the onus is on the motorist to take care of cyclists because they haven't undergone any training. In other words, if the onus is on the motorist, the onus is not on the cyclist. I don't agree. The cyclist is liable for his own safety and competence. Do you think cyclists should be given discretion to break the law because they haven't been trained? Surely not? In which case, using the same principle, a lack of training doesn't shift the burden of care and liability to the motorist.

snailracer

W1 wrote:

...
What you said is that the onus is on the motorist to take care of cyclists because they haven't undergone any training. In other words, if the onus is on the motorist, the onus is not on the cyclist. I don't agree...

Everything is black-and-white for you, isn't it? The onus is simply more (not total) on motorists than other road users. The list of what to "consider" is much longer and more detailed for drivers than for other road users. "Consideration" not in some abstract navel-gazing sense, but actually modifying your driving (or riding) depending on what sort of traffic is around you - you are not supposed to treat kids on BMXs the same as adult cyclists, for instance. HC rules 204-225 are a tedious list of what those other road users are, and exactly how you are supposed to "consider" them.

204
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

There you go, inexperienced riders (amongst others) are explicitly identified - why bother if you can treat all road users the same?

W1 wrote:

...The cyclist is liable for his own safety and competence...

Liability is what the court decides. Usually, it isn't assigned 100% on one party or the other.

W1 wrote:

...
Do you think cyclists should be given discretion to break the law because they haven't been trained? Surely not?...

The HC gives no-one permission to break the law, it simply deals with the fact that certain road users are more likely to do so, which is common sense - a kid on a BMX is legally entitled to ride in the road, but has likely never read the HC. As for "The Law", most adults have never read those, never mind kids. Also, a civil case can proceed even when no motoring law has even been broken - it is only required to prove loss on account of the other party's negligence.

W1 wrote:

...a lack of training doesn't shift the burden of care and liability to the motorist.

A motorist is supposed to drive more carefully around vulnerable road users. Whether or not this "shifts" a burden onto the motorist is just semantic hair-splitting.

W1

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

...
Do you think cyclists should be given discretion to break the law because they haven't been trained? Surely not?...

The HC gives no-one permission to break the law, it simply deals with the fact that certain road users are more likely to do so, which is common sense - a kid on a BMX is legally entitled to ride in the road, but has likely never read the HC. As for "The Law", most adults have never read those, never mind kids. Also, a civil case can proceed even when no motoring law has even been broken - it is only required to prove loss on account of the other party's negligence.

What I was suggesting is that "ignorance" is no excuse for breaking the law. Equally applying the same principles, lack of training is no excuse for shifting the burden of "care" from the cyclist to the motorist. If someone is "legally" entitled to be on the road, but they haven't availed themselves of the law, that doesn't mean the rozzers will let them off. Ditto if they have no road sense at all, and dive accross traffic without looking, no court in the land will find the driver liable.

gtvlusso

I must admit that I forget that I judge other commuters by myself, i.e. I enjoy cycling and do more cycling than most. For some people it is simply a means to get to wokr and back on the cheap and they have no further interest......hence, they just do what they need to do.