Poxy cyclists

[WavyD]

Originally Posted by JPDirect

Some of you sound confused as to what I mean. The diagram CLEARLY shows what happened:

Nice picture. You should be employed to illustrate the new version on the Highway Code.

[Daren]

Originally Posted by WavyD

Last thing first. I just like to be controversial. I know that you all do a very demanding job and that times have moved on. I just couldn't resist stairing it up a little!

PS your Avatar is a bit suspect! We can always find you a better one if you like!

Firstly - I bite quite easily

Secondly - I've changed my avatar just for you....

Lastly - now I have seen the diagram (great graphic!). I will pass this on to one of my traffic buddies for his opinion - watch this space.

[JPDirect]

Originally Posted by Daren

...now I have seen the diagram (great graphic!). I will pass this on to one of my traffic buddies for his opinion - watch this space.

Hey Daren, if you could ask your friends about this, I would be very grateful - thanks to EVERYONE for all your support on this one too.

[WavyD]

Originally Posted by Daren

Firstly - I bite quite easily

Secondly - I've changed my avatar just for you....

Lastly - now I have seen the diagram (great graphic!). I will pass this on to one of my traffic buddies for his opinion - watch this space.

Nice Avatar. Much more you I think! LOL

I'm impressed with his graphic representation of the situation. I think he works for HMSO on the side!

[Skippy]

Thanks for the diagram. Much clearer. I wish I could explain why you got a bike in the side of you. Hitting a car hurts so is normally to be avoided! My only thought is that he didn't have a fully working front brake.

This is a bad junction layout if you ask me. bikes crossing on the carriageway have priority over emerging vehicles, those 2 feet to one side don't have any. This layout requires the cyclist on the lane to give way to traffic from all sides. I would avoid this like the plague on a bike since a) it's going to be slower. b) no one is going to be looking out for you because you're not on the road.

Originally Posted by WoolyCiv

before the cycle ways were introduced the cars used the full width of the carriageway and in doing so 'swept' the road. With cycle ways, cars avoid them so they don't get 'swept' and the cyclist suffer from a greater number of punctures, so they avoid them also! Seems at the end of the day they are a costly failure for a great number of cyclist.

Yup. When I've done urban commuting by bike I've used the most puncture resistant tyres and tubes. Even the 'footpath' cycle paths end up covered in glass.


Hope it gets resolved JP.

[cb550]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Thanks for the diagram. Much clearer. I wish I could explain why you got a bike in the side of you. Hitting a car hurts so is normally to be avoided! My only thought is that he didn't have a fully working front brake.

This is a bad junction layout if you ask me. bikes crossing on the carriageway have priority over emerging vehicles, those 2 feet to one side don't have any. This layout requires the cyclist on the lane to give way to traffic from all sides. I would avoid this like the plague on a bike since a) it's going to be slower. b) no one is going to be looking out for you because you're not on the road.



Yup. When I've done urban commuting by bike I've used the most puncture resistant tyres and tubes. Even the 'footpath' cycle paths end up covered in glass.


Hope it gets resolved JP.

As a cyclist I never never never use the road given a dedicated seperate off the road cycle path.In/around Notts the council have largely repainted the nearside of the road and called it a cycleway, which is basically a death trap.

The cyclist was either going too quickly or saw your car in front too late to stop,considering his bike was 'off the back wheel'.Surely he should have stopped anyway given(his) 2 white lines at the junction?

Has he refused to pay? Hope you get your car put right at his expense and glad there were no serious injuries resulting.

[Swindon Japster]

Under the banner of irresponsible road users (and upstting people) I would also like to include motorcyclists who display similar traits (but possibly with insurance!)

[The Doctor]

I would have thought that there would be instances when the Police would be able to take action against the cyclist - i.e. if he was drunk in charge of a bicycle on the highway. Regarding the aerial ripping off incident, I would have thought that that came under the heading of criminal damage just as it would have if he had been a pedestrian & the car had been parked in a car park? I bet if the car in question had been a police car something would have been done...

[Unknownsoldier]

Just reading this with the link from the other posting, I have to say I'm of the opinion you should have to be insured and pay road tax to ride a bike.

Tom

[JPDirect]

My court case is on the 5th of June so I'll let you all know the outcome!

[LNT]

Originally Posted by JPDirect

Some of you sound confused as to what I mean. The diagram CLEARLY shows what happened:

Assuming the illustration is perfectly to scale, is there any particular reason why, when you were static at the junction, you were in the line of the cycle lane and not behind it? There is no great advantage to being right at the line on the junction as it is illustrated, and bearing in mind the width of the cycle track is quite small, had you actually stopped prior to the width of the cycle track, he would have only hit you if you were in the process of moving off. Up our way, at a junction like that, the lines prior to the junction would actually stop you prior to where the cycle lane crosses the road, creating a Cycle crossing if you will. There is an offence of careless cycling, and if there were any independent witnesses, this offence could well be summonsed. However, if not, the case would be unlikely to go to court. That is unless you used your insurances legal cover to sue him for the damage in the civil court.It can't be criminal damage, because even though the criminal damage act considers Recklessness to be criminal, again, you would have to be reliant on independent witnesses showing that he was reckless as to whether damage was caused to your car or not. I don't think either the CPS or a court would consider that a cyclist would risk injury just so that he could damage your car, so on that basis, criminal damage is a non starter. As someone mentioned, when the cyclist starts to cross the road and joins a road (s)he becomes liable for the Road Traffic Act.I think, in all honesty, again, referring to the diagram, there is a case for asking why you have pulled right up and effectively blocked the cycle lane access. Even though the cycle lane has give way markings. Just like cars, not all cyclists give way! I'm not saying that you don't have a right to, as you're in a car and pay car tax etc, but it's all about accident avoidence, and if it were me and the cycle track was as illustrated, I'd be stopping prior to it, just in case.Sorry if it's not what you want to hear, but at the end of the day, we have to live life as it is, and not how it ought to be.
One more point, if (Shock horror) a Civic driver had caused an accident and everyone on here was tarred with the same brush as someone who was obviously a driver driving without due care, how would you feel?
PS don't know why it won't split into paragraphs!

[NEEMSTAR]

Originally Posted by LNT

Assuming the illustration is perfectly to scale, is there any particular reason why, when you were static at the junction, you were in the line of the cycle lane and not behind it? There is no great advantage to being right at the line on the junction as it is illustrated, and bearing in mind the width of the cycle track is quite small, had you actually stopped prior to the width of the cycle track, he would have only hit you if you were in the process of moving off.

that is taking it too far in my opinion of course.

how do you know what the conditions of the junction are ?
might be hard to see oncoming traffic so the driver had to be at the line.
or a constant flow of traffic where you're only chance to get in is to wait AT the line and pull into a gap swiftly.

the cyclepath clearly had a giveway so the driver has no reason to stop short of the cyclepath just in case a cyclist decides to go across.

[Unknownsoldier]

Not being silly, but surely in the 'Top Trumps' of vehicles, Car Vs Cycle has Car winning everytime, ergo the cyclist should be watching out for the bigger vehicle??? I know I'm careful of Lorries, because no matter how 'in the right' you are, they will still crush you.

Tom

[smurf79]

My sister had her wing mirror broken by a cyclist whilst at a junction. Instead of waiting, he squeezed past on the inside between her car and the railings and broke her wing mirror. She put her window down and said something to which he replied "shouldn't have such big mirrors then should you". She's got a Megane and their mirrors are smaller then ours! Its now gonna cost her £100+ for new housing, mirror and electrics. Wasn't able to get his details cos he buggered off down a side alley. I'm sorry but if you ride on the roads you should have to pay tax just like everyone else!!!!

[illegalhunter]

i hate bus drivers a lot more than cyclists, both think the world owes them somthing

[gray52]

i second that!!

[LNT]

Originally Posted by NEEMSTAR

that is taking it too far in my opinion of course.

how do you know what the conditions of the junction are ?
might be hard to see oncoming traffic so the driver had to be at the line.
or a constant flow of traffic where you're only chance to get in is to wait AT the line and pull into a gap swiftly.

the cyclepath clearly had a giveway so the driver has no reason to stop short of the cyclepath just in case a cyclist decides to go across.

Neem: If you read my post correctly, it states that if the junction was as illustrated, and I think the original poster suggests that it is. Therefore, the picture seems to indicate that it is perfectly straight, and the view is not hampered by anything to the left and right. In these circumstances, there is a case for suggesting that the car could well stop prior to the cycle lane, if they were not bloody minded and thinking "I'm on the road so if a bike hits me, it's not my fault". Something may well not be your fault, but it's you who ends up with a bent car and all the hassle. I'd prefer to keep my car unbent, and if it means stopping a yard prior to the junction in case a stupid cyclist listning to his mp3/on the phone/picking his nose (delete as appropriate) then that's what I'll do, because being right in principle doesn't fix your car, and doesn't stop the inevitable. As a matter of fact, the diagram also appears to be so straight as to make one wonder why a cyclist wasn't seen earlier that he was. How many people on this forum have had an accident owing to a vehicle pulling out in front of them? And how many have pulled out of a junction and been hit by a vehicle on the main road having misjudged their speed?

Tom is also quite right, but I would then refer him to the final sentence in this post above. I also refer him to my previous post which stated that we should live life as it is, and not as it ought to be.

The fact of the matter is, it's all very well denouncing cyclists, but my whole point about all this is that being in the right and being bloody minded doesn't fix the car, or avoid it getting bent in the first place.

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by LNT

Tom is also quite right, but I would then refer him to the final sentence in this post above. I also refer him to my previous post which stated that we should live life as it is, and not as it ought to be.

I agree.

Cyclists however seem to take far too many libeties, and assume that a car has seen them and will not kill them, that is why so many cyclists do not wear helmets carry lights or have reflective clothing, any offence on a car in similar circumstances, no seat belt, no lights on, no reflectors or incorrect lights, would render us liable to a fine and/or a criminal prosecution. Why is it one rule one and one for another?

Tom

[Kremmen]

I fully understand the problem.

I had a cyclist in front of me the other day and no matter how much I tried I just couldn't get past.

[Unknownsoldier]

Handy she's got a built in parking space though.

Tom