Jump to content

Cyclist injures pedestrian


Featured Posts

Just to sum up my post quoted above . The point is that i did not care if he was hurt . I did not care if they were in pain . They deserved thier discomfort because they had brought it on themselves by being irresponsible. My ability to feel sorry for them was non existent. . I m quite " hard " emotionally, perhaps " cold " if you like . Where others might feel sorry for him i was indifferent as he had not thought about what his actions might do to someone elses wellbeing or safety - maybe after they got home a lesson was learnt ? I hope so and maybe they think a bit harder in  future . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chubby said:

Just to sum up my post quoted above . The point is that i did not care if he was hurt . I did not care if they were in pain . They deserved thier discomfort because they had brought it on themselves by being irresponsible. My ability to feel sorry for them was non existent. . I m quite " hard " emotionally, perhaps " cold " if you like . Where others might feel sorry for him i was indifferent as he had not thought about what his actions might do to someone elses wellbeing or safety - maybe after they got home a lesson was learnt ? I hope so and maybe they think a bit harder in  future . 

 

To re-iterate my question, should I have not bothered to go and see what had happened at the car crash at Foxton? (this was a genuine event). The driver was clearly travelling too fast and, at that time of night probably drunk so why should I bother to go and see if he was OK, if he was dead he would still be dead in the morning and could be dealt with by someone else then, and if he wasn't dead he had just learned a lesson (like your cyclist). Or is this considered different?:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with MJG.  The photo of that poor lady was very upsetting. Also the fact that she may have to forgo her holiday because of this. We need much more control on the towpaths, if these speedsters will not slow down put  a few speed bumps in..... May I add that continual use by these bikes are making ruts and we as licence payers are footing the bill for repairs!

Edited by Bobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are on the Southern end of the Staffs and Worcs. The bikes don't hang about down here. Good tow path. Just just here a whoosh as they speed past. 

Sadly our dogs don't like bikes,cars,skateboard or scooters and bark at them,may they think the machines are endangering the riders and try to save them.

whats the ruling on having a nice quiet BBQ with the dogs happily chewing a ball,stick or whatever, a bike whizzes past and the dogs take flight after it? They have never made contact with the bike or rider. If a bike slows and the rider shows courtesy nowt happens.

If the rider panics and goes for a swim, who's to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Murflynn said:

oh go on, stop keeping us on tenterhooks.......... did you get out of bed and go and pull him out of the car and give him a good kicking for being an arsehole?

I thought I'd related this before on this site; I got out of bed, walked back to the crash site and found the vehicle 20 metres into a field on its roof with two blokes and a girl climbing out through the windows. Rather helpfully I thought, and despite the driver's protestations that he didn't need the Police at the accident, I also called out the Police, rather oddly the vehicle occupants then all seem to have remembered an urgent appointment they had somewhere else and scuttled off.

This rather ignores the original point of the post however in that if it OK to leave an injured cyclist then surely it must also be OK to ignore any car crash I may come across. If the occupants are dead then there is nothing I can do and if they aren't then, like the cyclist, they have learned an important lesson, isn't that how it works?:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cycling on towpaths is an issue that definitely needs a solution. Some paths are designated as cycleways, but CRT tell me there is a code of conduct where pedestrians have the right of way, If that is the case and cyclists who fail to slow down can be taken to task, but can they be prosecuted? It seems there is a hard core of individuals who chose to cycle anywhere including footpaths and city areas which are pedestrian areas. It never ceases to amaze me that the towpath at Brindley Place, where the retail establishments line the waterway is considered place for cyclist to force their way through the many walkers. CRT appear oblivious to the problem and even allow a cycle hire faciity from a boat in a basin next to the Sea Life Centre. The worst aspect of rogue cycling are the Deliveroo people who choose pedestrian routes to get through Birmingham regardless of whom they annoy or hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's this new police initiative to tell car drivers to leave 1.5m gap when passing a cyclist - apparently it's in the Highway Code.

OK, let the cyclists ensure a similar gap when undertaking to avoid us poor car drivers being misunderstood by the police and their CCTV.

1.5m ??  that's nearly a full car's width.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

what's this new police initiative to tell car drivers to leave 1.5m gap when passing a cyclist - apparently it's in the Highway Code.

OK, let the cyclists ensure a similar gap when undertaking to avoid us poor car drivers being misunderstood by the police and their CCTV.

1.5m ??  that's nearly a full car's width.

You complain of cyclists 'undertaking' you, you need to complain to the council not the cyclists since that is where they put the naffing cycle lane. The car that you drive must clearly be a Smart car (1.66m width) most other cars are above that width.

How close do you pass a car on the motorway? here's a clue the lane width is about 3.5 metres and the 'average' car is about 1.7 metres (2 lanes width 7 metres - 2 vehicles width 3.4 metres = 3.6 metres/2 = 1.8 metres) , so is it unreasonable to pass a cyclist leaving a gap of only 1.5 metres when travelling on a 60mph road when you pass another car on the motorway both travelling at similar speed with a gap of about 1.8 metres?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You complain of cyclists 'undertaking' you, you need to complain to the council not the cyclists since that is where they put the naffing cycle lane. The car that you drive must clearly be a Smart car (1.66m width) most other cars are above that width.

How close do you pass a car on the motorway? here's a clue the lane width is about 3.5 metres and the 'average' car is about 1.7 metres (2 lanes width 7 metres - 2 vehicles width 3.4 metres = 3.6 metres/2 = 1.8 metres) , so is it unreasonable to pass a cyclist leaving a gap of only 1.5 metres when travelling on a 60mph road when you pass another car on the motorway both travelling at similar speed with a gap of about 1.8 metres?

If the cyclist was on a motorway there may be room to pass with 1.5m however on the majority of roads round this village you will struggle to get that clearance.  Does that mean I have to follow the multitude of cyclists who use these roads all the way to my destination.

Incidentally I am in the process of searching the highway code and have not yet found this distance stated.

Edit: to add all the highway code seems to say if  give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car   When I was being to taught to drive I was taught by a police drive that the open car door plus a foot (ish) was enough so that would be what?   4 feet?  (1.2m)

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

If the cyclist was on a motorway there may be room to pass with 1.5m however on the majority of roads round this village you will struggle to get that clearance.  Does that mean I have to follow the multitude of cyclists who use these roads all the way to my destination.

Incidentally I am in the process of searching the highway code and have not yet found this distance stated.

163 of the Highway Code states,".....

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would
when overtaking a car....."
 
so that'd be the 1.8metres then:rolleyes:. If the village in which you live has such narrow roads then passing a pedestrian is going to be difficult also since 206 of the Highway Code also  States, "......
approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath.
Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of
room as you drive past....."
 
in fairness the distance suggested is intended for the open road since passing a cycle on a fast piece of road at less than 1.5 metres is neither funny nor clever.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

163 of the Highway Code states,".....

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would
when overtaking a car....."
 
so that'd be the 1.8metres then:rolleyes:. If the village in which you live has such narrow roads then passing a pedestrian is going to be difficult also since 206 of the Highway Code also  States, "......
approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath.
Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of
room as you drive past....."
 
in fairness the distance suggested is intended for the open road since passing a cycle on a fast piece of road at less than 1.5 metres is neither funny nor clever.
 

I am talking about rural roads outside the village miles from the next village so no pedestrians!

Why would the distance be 1.8m?   I never found any distance mentioned and as I stated I was taught by a police drive that the width of the car door plus a bit was sufficient roughly 1.2m

You didn't answer my query about following cyclists?  How far is it reasonable to expect me to follow a cyclist before I attempt to pass with less than the 1.4m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am talking about rural roads outside the village miles from the next village so no pedestrians!

Why would the distance be 1.8m?   I never found any distance mentioned and as I stated I was taught by a police drive that the width of the car door plus a bit was sufficient roughly 1.2m

You didn't answer my query about following cyclists?  How far is it reasonable to expect me to follow a cyclist before I attempt to pass with less than the 1.4m?

So you are accepting the distance proposed by your police driver of 1.2 metres but baulk at 1.5 metres (1 foot more). If the lanes that you are referring to are single track lanes on which cars cannot pass one another then you are going to have to get the cyclist to allow you past,much the same as if you were trying to pass a slow moving car. It's a bit like asking,"Can I pass really close to a woman pushing a child's buggy if the lane is really narrow?" since you are saying that the lanes aren't safe for you to pass, but can you do so anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 you are saying that the lanes aren't safe for you to pass, but can you do so anyway?

Wrong!   I am saying that it is safe to pass at the tolerances I was taught.  It is 51 years since I started to drive I haven't killed, injured or even scared a cyclist in all that time.  However I haven't been told I have to leave a cars width between me and the cyclist or is more common round here 2 or 3 cyclists abreast.  I pointed out earlier in the thread it is not uncommon to find both sides of the road covered by cyclists.  OK if you meet them head on they can see you but they appear to be very deaf when you approach from behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Wrong!   I am saying that it is safe to pass at the tolerances I was taught.  It is 51 years since I started to drive I haven't killed, injured or even scared a cyclist in all that time.  However I haven't been told I have to leave a cars width between me and the cyclist or is more common round here 2 or 3 cyclists abreast.  I pointed out earlier in the thread it is not uncommon to find both sides of the road covered by cyclists.  OK if you meet them head on they can see you but they appear to be very deaf when you approach from behind.

I don't think that you have been told to leave a car's width. As i pointed out earlier, even a Smart car is 1.66 metres wides and most average cars are over 1.7 metres so 1.5 metres doesn't match any car width. The difference between what you seem to accept 1.2 metres (or 3ft 11ins) and 1.5 metres (4ft 11ins) being about 1 foot is probably what a cyclist will wobble if he/she hits a pothole of which there are far more of nowadays than when I cycled in my youth, so that might explain the increase in the advised distance:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You complain of cyclists 'undertaking' you, you need to complain to the council not the cyclists since that is where they put the naffing cycle lane. The car that you drive must clearly be a Smart car (1.66m width) most other cars are above that width.

How close do you pass a car on the motorway? here's a clue the lane width is about 3.5 metres and the 'average' car is about 1.7 metres (2 lanes width 7 metres - 2 vehicles width 3.4 metres = 3.6 metres/2 = 1.8 metres) , so is it unreasonable to pass a cyclist leaving a gap of only 1.5 metres when travelling on a 60mph road when you pass another car on the motorway both travelling at similar speed with a gap of about 1.8 metres?

........  and the average truck is 2.4m and lanes are often significantly narrowed at road works, but we still seem to manage to overtake safely ...........  then you introduce a 60mph road which is usually well wide and is not usually the problem; as others have stated the problem arises in narrow urban streets where cyclists are typically travelling at 15mph and cars at 25mph. 

your examples are largely irrelevant to the actual problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I don't think that you have been told to leave a car's width. As i pointed out earlier, even a Smart car is 1.66 metres wides and most average cars are over 1.7 metres so 1.5 metres doesn't match any car width. The difference between what you seem to accept 1.2 metres (or 3ft 11ins) and 1.5 metres (4ft 11ins) being about 1 foot is probably what a cyclist will wobble if he/she hits a pothole of which there are far more of nowadays than when I cycled in my youth, so that might explain the increase in the advised distance:rolleyes:

A few posts back you suggested 1.8m  My volvo is 1.86m hence a cars width.  Or am I wrong you suggested 1.8m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

A few posts back you suggested 1.8m  My volvo is 1.86m hence a cars width.  Or am I wrong you suggested 1.8m

What I said in the original post was,".... so is it unreasonable to pass a cyclist leaving a gap of only 1.5 metres when travelling on a 60mph road ....". The 1.8 metres cropped up when you said you were looking in the highway code for distances and having pointed out that on a motorway you pass other vehicles at 1.8 metres the Highway Code said you should pass motorcyclists, cyclists and animals at the same distance as you would a car. What I do as a driver is to pass any of these three with greatest distance that I can and if I cannot give them a wide enough berth, don't pass them. I think what the intention is, is more important than faffing around about distances. The intention of the advice is so that a passing vehicle doesn't either blow the cyclist over as they pass, or cause them to be sucked out into the lane of traffic to then be hit by any following traffic. In town traffic when both are travelling at a similar speed they are just treated as another lane of traffic with the sort of gap you'd have, on a high speed section of road they need to be given as much space as possible precisely because if you are travelling at 60mph (one of the rare drivers adhering to a speed limit) and the cycle is travelling at 12 mph, the rush of air as you pass is similar to that experienced by passengers on a railway platform as a train passes through which could cause the cycle to go anywhere if you pass too close.

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.