Jump to content

Cyclist injures pedestrian


Featured Posts

 

I read a follow-up article to that video, apparently his brakes failed. You can see he stopped pedalling as the lights changed which suggests that he didn't intend to plough straight through into the bus. Still he's lucky to be alive to tell the tale!

If a car's brakes fail the driver is to blame for driving an unmaintained vehicle .... same should apply to cyclists surely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Doesn't that depend on whether the failure was caused by a lack of maintenance?

It does ... but you try proving that it wasn't lack of maintenance. That would mean it was an inherent flaw in the brake design or material fault in the parts which you (or more likely your garage) couldn't be expected to spot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that CRT are made aware of this and maybe then they will put more barriers up with the money from sustrans instead of making towpaths speed tracks.

If I were the pensioner CRT would certainly be aware, as THEY would be the ones I would be suing NOT the cyclist, on the grounds that they are permitting shared use of towpaths, despite the vast majority of towpaths being unsuitable for such use and non compliant with national codes of practice.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Frankly, this is bollux.

 

I cycle loads and my back brake would easily stop me under those circumstances, should I be paying attention.

Last time I checked the brakes on my bike, it took between 3 and 4 times the distance to stop using the back brake alone, compared with using both brakes, even with the back wheel locked under the braking load.

 

Now, imagine you're on your bike, in a bit of a hurry, and you *know* it'll just about stop in the distance available. Now your front brake cable snaps, and your stopping distance has increased by 3 times....

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked the brakes on my bike, it took between 3 and 4 times the distance to stop using the back brake alone, compared with using both brakes, even with the back wheel locked under the braking load.

 

Now, imagine you're on your bike, in a bit of a hurry, and you *know* it'll just about stop in the distance available. Now your front brake cable snaps, and your stopping distance has increased by 3 times....

 

In fact, in emergency braking situations, the rear brake is virtually useless as all the weight transfers to the front wheel. Braking an un-weighted wheel will just put the bike into an uncontrolled slide. Emergency stops should be performed with the front brake only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Doesn't that usually result in the rider going over the handlebars?

 

If you brake too hard, yes. The maximum braking force you can apply without going over the bars is at the point where the rear wheel is about to lift. At this point there is no weight on the rear wheel and therefore no point in applying the brake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 7 months later...

We have a new post elsewhere that immediately made me think smiley_offtopic.gif ...... so rather than hijack it I'm sharing my thoughts here.

We live in a world of written procedures etc. the one I'm thinking of is "Risk Assessment"

I wonder if one was done, and by whom when it was decided to encourage cyclists onto the towpath with apparent free reign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he did ring his bell four times.....rolleyes.gif

 

And she may be hard of hearing!

 

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/pensioner-loses-four-teeth-after-collision-with-cyclist-1-7283695

 

I read that as a bit like beeping your horn but carrying on and having a crash anyway.....'But I beeped my horn officer'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When pulling ones boat in with a rope to aid mooring, while you have said rope in ones hands and stood on the tow path. Should lycra clad brigade stop and allow you to get your boat in or should they just ting ting and expect you to stop what you are doing. NO in my eyes. If I am pulling my boat in for what ever reason I have the right of way. The path is there for me the boat user, not for cyclists to race past. Surely any boater who is tending to his boat with a rope in his hand has priority to any other path users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a new post elsewhere that immediately made me think smiley_offtopic.gif ...... so rather than hijack it I'm sharing my thoughts here.

We live in a world of written procedures etc. the one I'm thinking of is "Risk Assessment"

I wonder if one was done, and by whom when it was decided to encourage cyclists onto the towpath with apparent free reign?

 

I actually asked the London BW office fir the risk assessment for the Skyline events/rides. They said they did not have one and ask sky (I think) who were the supposed organiser. I also asked for the BW risk assessment for the mixed use of the towpath, again it was not forthcoming, I only got waffle about BW are responsible blah, blah, blah.

 

Why BW you may ask. The answer is because the last time I boated through London it was BW and I felt areas were so unsafe with cyclists on towpaths and certain long term moorers I have never been back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Canals and River paths are a shared space.

 

If their were no walkers/ramblers/gongooglers/cyclists and not forget the working boats then it would end up with a bricks and mortar to house the incoming generation.

 

Be happy all it could be a lot worse.......

 

I find the anti cyclist posts pissy and very one sided.

 

After all shit happens.

 

Life is life and the most important thing in the world is our loved ones.

Edited by GreyLady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

We have a new post elsewhere that immediately made me think smiley_offtopic.gif ...... so rather than hijack it I'm sharing my thoughts here.

We live in a world of written procedures etc. the one I'm thinking of is "Risk Assessment"

I wonder if one was done, and by whom when it was decided to encourage cyclists onto the towpath with apparent free reign?

A lot of research has been done on the benefits of separating cyclists from motor traffic and the evidence is strong. I would suggest the risk of a few collisions (and where serious ones are incredibly rare) would pale against the number of lives saved due to cyclists not ending underneath lorries and busses.

 

But it is an interesting question about the level of risk assessment performed in these situations.

Edited by Daz555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest the risk of a few collisions (and where serious ones are incredibly rare) would pale against the number of lives saved due to cyclists not ending underneath lorries and busses.

Would you feel the same if it was you who had 12 stitches and lost 4 teeth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canals and River paths are a shared space.

 

If their were no walkers/ramblers/gongooglers/cyclists and not forget the working boats then it would end up with a bricks and mortar to house the incoming generation.

 

Be happy all it could be a lot worse.......

 

I find the anti cyclist posts pissy and very one sided.

 

After all shit happens.

 

Life is life and the most important thing in the world is our loved ones.

 

But there are cyclists and cyclists. Many are considerate and sensible cycling slowly with regard to boaters/anglers/walkers wildlife etc etc but a few are complete grade one morons who stand on their pedals and cycle like hell between and past boats with kids and dogs around just like the idiot in his lycra that approached my boat last week at breakneck speed until I stood and remained in his path he nearly fell off he had to break that hard. I politely ish explained my reasons and just hope his brain becomes engaged b4 he cycles again.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you feel the same if it was you who had 12 stitches and lost 4 teeth?

My feelings should not come into it. Laws/regulations where possible should look at overall benefit rather than needs or wants of smaller groups or individuals in my view.

 

So for example - if there is a demonstrable overall benefit (injuries, deaths, costs to NHS etc) in encouraging cyclists from say a red painted cycle way on the road, onto a shared pavement with pedestrians (or a tow path), then yes I think that is what we should do.

Edited by Daz555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings should not come into it. Laws/regulations where possible should look at overall benefit rather than needs or wants of smaller groups or individuals in my view.

 

So for example - if there is a demonstrable overall benefit (injuries, deaths, costs to NHS etc) in encouraging cyclists from say a red painted cycle way on the road, onto a shared pavement with pedestrians (or a tow path), then yes I think that is what we should do.

It depends on how you weigh the benefits. It seems from what reports I have seen that the majority of those injured on towpaths come from vulnerable groups - elderly, children etc against those who choose being reasonably fit and athletic to mount themselves on a machine which can cause damage to them and others.

 

I think personally the vulnerable groups who are on the towpath don't get the consideration they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of course is there are inconsiderate fools in all walks of life. Speeding motorists, speeding boaters, boaters mooring in stupid places, pedestrians on shared paths who seem each day to assume they live in a universe where bikes do not exist, lorry drivers squeezing past walkers or cyclists on narrow country roads, cyclists jumping red lights....it goes on and on.

 

And I'll mention my own pet peeve for this month - walkers on dedicated mountain bike trails. Trying to come to a stop on a downhill section of single track consisting of gravel, roots and rocks whilst doing 40mph is no easy feat.....and then to get a telling off by said walkers for "being reckless"......GRRRRR!!! LOL.


It depends on how you weigh the benefits. It seems from what reports I have seen that the majority of those injured on towpaths come from vulnerable groups - elderly, children etc against those who choose being reasonably fit and athletic to mount themselves on a machine which can cause damage to them and others.

 

I think personally the vulnerable groups who are on the towpath don't get the consideration they deserve.

And those injured on roads are from vulnerable groups - pedestrians and cyclists. I do not trade one for the other. Overall benefit is where the law needs to focus.

 

Enforcement of decent behaviour would be ideal but who has the desire or the resources? And would any money put forward for that be better spent elsewhere in terms of overall benefit?

Edited by Daz555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of course is there are inconsiderate fools in all walks of life. Speeding motorists, speeding boaters, boaters mooring in stupid places, pedestrians on shared paths who seem each day to assume they live in a universe where bikes do not exist, lorry drivers squeezing past walkers or cyclists on narrow country roads, cyclists jumping red lights....it goes on and on.

 

And I'll mention my own pet peeve for this month - walkers on dedicated mountain bike trails. Trying to come to a stop on a downhill section of single track consisting of gravel, roots and rocks whilst doing 40mph is no easy feat.....and then to get a telling off by said walkers for "being reckless"......GRRRRR!!! LOL.

And those injured on roads are from vulnerable groups - pedestrians and cyclists. I do not trade one for the other. Overall benefit is where the law needs to focus.

 

Enforcement of decent behaviour would be ideal but who has the desire or the resources? And would any money put forward for that be better spent elsewhere in terms of overall benefit?

 

As a genuine question ... how do we know that a track is designated for mountain bikers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.