Cyclists sued boater

[Lily Rose]

25 minutes ago, Steve Manc said:

 

 

Anyone know of guidance for mooring a narrowboat on CRT website? .i.e  using mooring pins

 

 

I'm not sure mooring pins would hold if you tried using them to moor a boat on CRT's website.

 

[BWM]

8 hours ago, Tumshie said:

As is normally the case and if a driver hits a pedestrian they are usually deemed to be 100% responsible but be cause this mobile phone using pedestrian didn't have the right of way and walked out into oncoming traffic the judge deemed her at fault but because oncoming traffic must bear some of the blame she stated the reasonability must be shared 50/50. 

 

This is the original thread that the zombi phone user is mentioned on

  

It is my understanding that she crossed with a group of others, and that there was no moving vehicles at that time. Also, i believe that the judge stated that it was the cyclists decision to cycle through when it would have been sensible to stop, when faced with someone clearly not paying attention. 

[aracer]

On 10/08/2019 at 20:09, BWM said:

It is my understanding that she crossed with a group of others, and that there was no moving vehicles at that time. Also, i believe that the judge stated that it was the cyclists decision to cycle through when it would have been sensible to stop, when faced with someone clearly not paying attention. 

Where are you getting that understanding from? The available information is that she stepped out on her own (there were other people on the crossing at the time, but they were in the process of stepping back onto the pavement on the other side of the crossing). Clearly there was a moving vehicle...

[Athy]

On 08/08/2019 at 22:22, Wanderer Vagabond said:

no-one is dumb enough to bang their pins actually into the towpath, are they?).

 

 

 

One hopes not - but between our mooring and Cropredy lock there are at least three CART mooring rings which are actually embedded in the towpath, so there is a precedent.

[BWM]

2 hours ago, aracer said:

Where are you getting that understanding from? The available information is that she stepped out on her own (there were other people on the crossing at the time, but they were in the process of stepping back onto the pavement on the other side of the crossing). Clearly there was a moving vehicle...

I follow several cycling related news feeds and most were critical of the cyclists decision to push through, whilst still acknowledging the pedestrians obvious stupidity. 

 As usual with media sources, they pick the aspect they wish to focus on and most went for the phone aspect without examining the entire situation in the round. 

[Dav and Pen]

Letter in torygraph today by lady who was walking t and m towpath and knocked over by cyclist. Broke elbow and injured knees and hands. She required surgery and is still recovering. She says that it was once delightful to walk along the towpath but sadly it has become to perilous.

im afraid in many places the towpath is not wide enough for for walkers and cyclists to exist together especially with the general attitude that walkers are the problem. Cycle paths are certainly needed but just letting towpaths become them is just asking for trouble.

[aracer]

3 hours ago, BWM said:

I follow several cycling related news feeds and most were critical of the cyclists decision to push through, whilst still acknowledging the pedestrians obvious stupidity. 

 As usual with media sources, they pick the aspect they wish to focus on and most went for the phone aspect without examining the entire situation in the round. 

I agree the cyclist made the wrong decision - which is very different from suggesting he was even 50% at fault (clearly he wasn't completely blameless though). That wasn't the question though - I was referring to your suggestion that she was part of a group crossing which certainly isn't the information I've seen (I've checked multiple sources). Also I'm curious what exactly you mean by "no vehicles" and what you think the significance of that is? "push through" seems a bit of a distortion from the available information - he was riding into what was a clear bit of road until a single pedestrian entered it - again we have the car/bicycle dichotomy, there would seem nothing wrong with a car driving through with less clearance on either side than he had.

[cuthound]

Long time since I studied the Highway Code in detail but doesn't it say that if any pedestrian is on the crossing vehicles must stop and wait until the crossing is clear before proceeding?

[Spanners]

A stout mop or brush stale will bring any speeding cyclist to an abrupt HALT

[BWM]

1 hour ago, aracer said:

I agree the cyclist made the wrong decision - which is very different from suggesting he was even 50% at fault (clearly he wasn't completely blameless though). That wasn't the question though - I was referring to your suggestion that she was part of a group crossing which certainly isn't the information I've seen (I've checked multiple sources). Also I'm curious what exactly you mean by "no vehicles" and what you think the significance of that is? "push through" seems a bit of a distortion from the available information - he was riding into what was a clear bit of road until a single pedestrian entered it - again we have the car/bicycle dichotomy, there would seem nothing wrong with a car driving through with less clearance on either side than he had.

The road was apparently clear due to the traffic that also consisted of the cyclist being held by lights, even though the lights may have changed, thereby releasing that group of traffic around the time that the lady crossed the road-almost certainly after the lights had changed. This still left the distance of the span of the junction as 'clear', i.e. she did not step directly into the path of the cyclist. As she walked, slowly and distracted he chose a route through, she then changed direction thinking a collision was likely, as did he and bang. The judgement against him rested on this choice apparently. 

8 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Long time since I studied the Highway Code in detail but doesn't it say that if any pedestrian is on the crossing vehicles must stop and wait until the crossing is clear before proceeding?

This applies to any stretch of road, apart from motorways with or without a crossing. The trouble is people using all forms of personal transport (with the exception of motorcyclists in general)do not appreciate being brought to a halt for any reason.

  

[aracer]

13 minutes ago, Spanners said:

A stout mop or brush stale will bring any speeding cyclist to an abrupt HALT

Try it on me it will bring you to a court.

[ditchcrawler]

8 hours ago, Athy said:

One hopes not - but between our mooring and Cropredy lock there are at least three CART mooring rings which are actually embedded in the towpath, so there is a precedent.

Down in Aylesbury they cut the new ones off because someone tripped over them on the non towpath side

[Spanners]

34 minutes ago, aracer said:

Try it on me it will bring you to a court.

aracer 

 

You are far to serious for you're own good !!!

[aracer]

3 hours ago, Spanners said:

aracer 

 

You are far to serious for you're own good !!!

I'm guessing you've never experienced somebody deliberately endangering you when riding a bike? I find it difficult to see the humour in such comments (in a country where I've seen plenty of genuine threats to cyclists in online comments)

[Tony Brooks]

9 hours ago, aracer said:

I'm guessing you've never experienced somebody deliberately endangering you when riding a bike? I find it difficult to see the humour in such comments (in a country where I've seen plenty of genuine threats to cyclists in online comments)

 

and from that I guess you have never experienced a cyclist deliberately endangering you as a pedestrian or motorist - yes cyclists do endanger motorists because the cyclists flout many aspects of traffic control and it seems cyclists are always deemed to  be in the right.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

and from that I guess you have never experienced a cyclist deliberately endangering you as a pedestrian or motorist - yes cyclists do endanger motorists because the cyclists flout many aspects of traffic control and it seems cyclists are always deemed to  be in the right.

And yet the number of accidents caused by cyclists compared with those by motorists is a mere drop in the ocean. As I say, motorists need to get their house in order before being critical of others. Running red lights, using their phone while driving, speeding and general lack of awareness are daily motorist traits. The statistics show it. Motorists are killing and injuring thousands a year.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

And yet the number of accidents caused by cyclists compared with those by motorists is a mere drop in the ocean. As I say, motorists need to get their house in order before being critical of others. Running red lights, using their phone while driving, speeding and general lack of awareness are daily motorist traits. The statistics show it. Motorists are killing and injuring thousands a year.

Can you explain why nothing should be done until you feel motorists have "got their house in order"?  Surely the best approach is trying to solve both problems simultaneously.

 

Also have you any figures which show injuries per 1000 (say) so cars and bikes can be properly compared?   Saying motorists are killing and injuring thousands per year is a fairly valueless assertion until it can be compared like with like.

 

I know this is an over exaggeration/under estimate of numbers but if there are say 10,000,000 cars and 20,000 injuries that would be better than 20,000 bikes with 50 injuries.

[Athy]

8 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Running red lights, using their phone while driving, speeding and general lack of awareness are daily motorist traits.

If you replaced "motorist" by "cyclist", the above would still be true, would it not? Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

[Jerra]

Just now, Athy said:

If you replaced "motorist" by "cyclist", the above would still be true, would it not? Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

If you take the RAC's word for things then any vehicle where part of it is over the white line it has jumped a red light.  I assume this would apply to all "vehicles".

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Athy said:

If you replaced "motorist" by "cyclist", the above would still be true, would it not? Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

Yet the repercussions of motorists driving in that manner are considerably more serious, as demonstrated by the thousands that motorists are maiming and killing every year. We ban substances that injure and kill far less! And motorists seem to have a free card. ?‍♂️

Edited August 14, 2019 by NB Caelmiri

[aracer]

44 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

and from that I guess you have never experienced a cyclist deliberately endangering you as a pedestrian or motorist - yes cyclists do endanger motorists because the cyclists flout many aspects of traffic control and it seems cyclists are always deemed to  be in the right.

You're going to have to give me an example of a way in which a cyclist endangers somebody sat in a steel box rather than just the vague last bit. Because I certainly can't think of it ever happening to me whilst driving, whereas as a cyclist I am endangered by drivers almost every time I go for a ride (it's not usually deliberate, but I can think of numerous examples where it has been), Cyclists being deemed to be in the right (which isn't true anyway) certainly isn't it.

 

Go on, if you're going to make statements like that an example please...

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

And yet the number of accidents caused by cyclists compared with those by motorists is a mere drop in the ocean. As I say, motorists need to get their house in order before being critical of others. Running red lights, using their phone while driving, speeding and general lack of awareness are daily motorist traits. The statistics show it. Motorists are killing and injuring thousands a year.

I admire your determination to instils some sense into the conversation I really do - I once tried the same thing, then the other day when the whole cyclist bashing started again and I was reading through some of the comments I though to my self "I should copy and paste all my last comments into a file and then I can just copy and paste them back into which ever cyclist bashing thread is the hot topic this time - Then I read one of Tony Brooks comments and I realise how truly pointless the whole thing is. None of these cyclist bashing topics have anything to do with sense or logic or even reality; it doesn't matter how much sense or logic you instil into the conversation they will in a couple of months time come back and have exactly the same conversation putting forward all the same petty nonsense, I'm not overly sure these threads are even about cyclist so much as just the need for a bogey monster to get worked up about. Either way I'm not saying don't keep putting forward the other side of the story I'm just saying it could start to resemble banging your head off a brick wall so don't let it get to you or spoil your day. The problem with living in a single demographic echo chamber (circlejerk) is that the BS is allowed to escalate unchecked to the point where it is a flat out lie but by that time they've spouted it back to them selves so many times it now true to then and you won't convince them otherwise. 

 

Like I say I'm quite sure the vast majority of the pet hate projects on this forum have very little to do with what is being hated and more to do with the people who really need to get angry/outraged at something - the saddest part of the whole thing is that it's driving new people and different demographics away so this forum is slowly stagnating into an old mans private chat room (or probbly already has); of course the old men don't really see that, how could they. 

 

 

[aracer]

29 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Can you explain why nothing should be done until you feel motorists have "got their house in order"?  Surely the best approach is trying to solve both problems simultaneously.

 

Also have you any figures which show injuries per 1000 (say) so cars and bikes can be properly compared?   Saying motorists are killing and injuring thousands per year is a fairly valueless assertion until it can be compared like with like.

 

I know this is an over exaggeration/under estimate of numbers but if there are say 10,000,000 cars and 20,000 injuries that would be better than 20,000 bikes with 50 injuries.

Because fundamentally the vast majority of problems on the roads are caused by drivers (certainly the vast majority of deaths and injuries). Hence solving both problems simultaneously will lead to less resources being addressed where they will make a real difference (I'm assuming you're not suggesting "simultaneously" means 300 times the resource on tackling car issues).

 

The latter points are irrelevant to this - if we want to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the road, I'm guessing you wouldn't think it sensible to address lots of resource on tackling deaths by elephant even if the stats show that in the last 100 years there has been one elephant travelling one mile along the road and it's killed one person therefore making elephants the leading cause of death on the roads per mile travelled? Though if you're just interested in numbers on the road then my understanding is that there are more bicycles than cars.

[aracer]

38 minutes ago, Athy said:

If you replaced "motorist" by "cyclist", the above would still be true, would it not? Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

Speeding? As already pointed out above, the issues (apart from that) might be same but that still doesn't make it a symmetric situation. The point you seem to be missing is that such a comment is simply expressing that drivers do break the rules just as much as cyclists (in response to those who suggest it's just cyclists), but the consequences of them doing so are far worse.

 

We could just do a for example here - provide me with an example of a cyclist killing somebody whilst using their phone, provide me with an example of a cyclist killing somebody whilst speeding

22 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I admire your determination to instils some sense into the conversation I really do

Sorry! I do hope that if specific points are addressed it might actually make people think a bit more - for all its faults and grumpy old men, this forum is more civilized than some parts of the internet where I wouldn't bother.

[Ange]

32 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I admire your determination to instils some sense into the conversation I really do - I once tried the same thing, then the other day when the whole cyclist bashing started again and I was reading through some of the comments I though to my self "I should copy and paste all my last comments into a file and then I can just copy and paste them back into which ever cyclist bashing thread is the hot topic this time - Then I read one of Tony Brooks comments and I realise how truly pointless the whole thing is. None of these cyclist bashing topics have anything to do with sense or logic or even reality; it doesn't matter how much sense or logic you instil into the conversation they will in a couple of months time come back and have exactly the same conversation putting forward all the same petty nonsense, I'm not overly sure these threads are even about cyclist so much as just the need for a bogey monster to get worked up about. Either way I'm not saying don't keep putting forward the other side of the story I'm just saying it could start to resemble banging your head off a brick wall so don't let it get to you or spoil your day. The problem with living in a single demographic echo chamber (circlejerk) is that the BS is allowed to escalate unchecked to the point where it is a flat out lie but by that time they've spouted it back to them selves so many times it now true to then and you won't convince them otherwise. 

 

Like I say I'm quite sure the vast majority of the pet hate projects on this forum have very little to do with what is being hated and more to do with the people who really need to get angry/outraged at something - the saddest part of the whole thing is that it's driving new people and different demographics away so this forum is slowly stagnating into an old mans private chat room (or probbly already has); of course the old men don't really see that, how could they. 

 

 

Well said - my feelings exactly.