Jump to content

Cyclists sued boater


Steve Manc

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, aracer said:

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

To add to this - provide me with an example of a cyclist killing someone while drunk.

 

(An estimated 9,040 people were injured or killed on Britain’s roads in 2016 in incidents where a driver was over the alcohol limit, according to the Department for Transport.)

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing anything about reckless cycling along the towpath. We certainly should do but putting licence plates on bikes isn't practical, it's going to put people off riding - introducing laws forcing cyclists to wear helmets in Australia had a massive impact on the number of cyclists - and that is bound to have a knock-on effect of more vehicles on the road which is going to make grumpy old men even more grumpy when they're stuck in even more traffic, among other effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aracer said:

Speeding?

Yes, along canal towpaths for example.

18 minutes ago, aracer said:

 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.

No, I did not miss that point at all, hence my remark which implied exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, aracer said:

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.

The problem is that we don't have elephants causing a problem.  We do have cyclists.   My experience suggests that per (pick a number) I'll say 1000 there are more problems with cyclists than there are with cars.   In 70+ years as a pedestrian I have never had a collision with a car and I must have been exposed to several million passing me.  However during the same length of time also as a pedestrian I have had about half a dozen with a tiny fraction of the number compared to that of cars.

 

With regard to elephants I have never been passed by any let alone touched by one.

 

While I agree things need to be done (and are being) to reduce road injuries it is IMO a little daft to see a problem developing and say we will leave that for another 10 or 20 years before we tackle it.  Ignoring developing problems, just the sort of thing CRT are regularly criticised for and yet you suggest, that as a nation we should do just that.   It doesn't make sense.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, aracer said:

Sorry! I do hope that if specific points are addressed it might actually make people think a bit more

I'm sure some of them will eventually - I have felt in the past like a very lone voice battling against a very deaf crowd, if more cyclist banded together more often and called out the BS then I'm sure the tides would turn much quicker. It can get very time consuming, frustrating and at times very soul destroying saying the something over and over again and then a week later reading the same people write the same carp that you debunked last week. Some of us aren't retired and don't have all day to sit on this forum fighting our corner. I'm not saying that we shouldn't stand up for those of us who are law abiding cyclists but just that NB Caelmiri is a new member and that he may find himself fighting this battle more than once. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, aracer said:

for all its faults and grumpy old men, this forum is more civilized than some parts of the internet where I wouldn't bother.

I rather like this forum and I'm rather fond of some of those grumpy old men (even when I'm giving them a bit of a telling off) but as someone who is not an old man I would really like to see more diversity, more members on the forum who I can relate to and some that I really can't (other than old men) so I can learn new things from. If all the new members are giving up and this place and going off to join facebook groups then how long is this forum going to be providing the wonderful wealth of knowledge that it has? Older people complain that the younger people are changing life on the canals - well it they want the younger generations to care or understand what they do then they have to pass that on and that requires actually interacting with people not just grumping at them. 

 

Edited by Tumshie
  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The problem is that we don't have elephants causing a problem.  We do have cyclists.   My experience suggests that per (pick a number) I'll say 1000 there are more problems with cyclists than there are with cars.   In 70+ years as a pedestrian I have never had a collision with a car and I must have been exposed to several million passing me.  However during the same length of time also as a pedestrian I have had about half a dozen with a tiny fraction of the number compared to that of cars.

Sure, but that is your experience. I've also never been in anything remotely close to a collision with a car as a cyclist or as a pedestrian (had a couple of car-car bumps though). There's a whole lot more out there than you or I who have.

 

You say there are more problems with cyclists than with cars yet the statistics say otherwise..

 

"In 2017, 24,831 people were seriously injured on the road in Britain"

"In 2017, there were 1,793 people killed on the roads in Britain, the highest annual total since 2011"

 

"In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jerra said:

While I agree things need to be done (and are being) to reduce road injuries it is IMO a little daft to see a problem developing and say we will leave that for another 10 or 20 years before we tackle it.

Wow - I really wish your generation had taken that attitude when it came to climate change. :glare:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Sure, but that is your experience. I've also never been in anything remotely close to a collision with a car as a cyclist or as a pedestrian (had a couple of car-car bumps though). There's a whole lot more out there than you or I who have.

 

You say there are more problems with cyclists than with cars yet the statistics say otherwise..

 

"In 2017, 24,831 people were seriously injured on the road in Britain"

"In 2017, there were 1,793 people killed on the roads in Britain, the highest annual total since 2011"

 

"In 2015, two pedestrians were killed and 96 seriously injured after being hit by a bicycle"

 

According to a BBC article each year about 100 cyclists die as a result of non motorised vehicle collisions or coming off their bikes on the roads in Great Britain. And more than 3,000 are seriously injured.

 

Some interesting stats considering that Holland is always quoted as the system that we should aspire to :

 

In the Netherlands some 24% of road deaths are cyclists, whilst in the UK it is 6%

Denmark 17%

Hungary 12%

Estonia 12%

 

And when you look at the 'non-cycling' countries

 

Greece is 2%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

Pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, bus and hgv drivers all flout traffic controls and laws, the difference being that pedestrians and cyclists do not have the same capacity to maim and kill and to suggest that is disingenuous.

1 hour 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.

There was no suggestion in the comment that nothing should be done to control inappropriate behaviour by cyclists, only the inference that motorists are in no position to criticise their behaviour without looking inwards beforehand. Motorists have been causing carnage on the roads since their appearance on our streets, anyone with a grasp on reality needs no figures to back this up. 

  There is a reluctance throughout society to address this, an example might be that deaths caused by vehicular traffic far outnumber those caused by knife crime but one is covered constantly by media and the other is largely ignored. 

1 hour 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.

True or not, the capacity to injure is vastly different. 

1 hour 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. 

 

 

I agree with everything you say, apart from the grumpy old men/old mans chatroom. Bigotry and shallow thinking are not confined to this group alone. 

31 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, along canal towpaths for example.

No, I did not miss that point at all, hence my remark which implied exactly that.

It is impossible to be speeding in the absence of a limit, that is not to say that riders are not travelling at an inappropriate speed but if we are talking about facts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The problem is that we don't have elephants causing a problem.  We do have cyclists.   My experience suggests that per (pick a number) I'll say 1000 there are more problems with cyclists than there are with cars.   In 70+ years as a pedestrian I have never had a collision with a car and I must have been exposed to several million passing me.  However during the same length of time also as a pedestrian I have had about half a dozen with a tiny fraction of the number compared to that of cars.

 

With regard to elephants I have never been passed by any let alone touched by one.

 

Thank you for perfectly helping me make the point. So despite the death rate of 1000 per 1000 elephants you agree it's not an area we should be addressing. Maybe it's the absolute figures which show where the problem we should be addressing is?

 

Though as I keep pointing out, you also have to compare properly like with like. I'm assuming you weren't walking in the road, so you've not actually had any cars or cyclists pass you in the road (and if you did you'd quickly come to the conclusion it's not cyclists which are the problem). So the issue is actually cyclists passing you on the pavement. Dare I ask how many cars have passed you on the pavement? It might not be your personal experience as you're here to tell the tale, but in both absolute and relative terms the death rate due to vehicles on the pavement is much higher for cars than bicycles.

 

Oh and personally I've ended up in hospital twice due to the actions of drivers, never due to a cyclist if personal anecdotes are important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BWM said:

I agree with everything you say, apart from the grumpy old men/old mans chatroom. Bigotry and shallow thinking are not confined to this group alone. 

I in no way suggested that bigotry is limited to old men but the vast majority of regular posters and this forum are men to the point where you can count the women on one hand and they are overwhelmingly retired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

According to a BBC article each year about 100 cyclists die as a result of non motorised vehicle collisions or coming off their bikes on the roads in Great Britain. And more than 3,000 are seriously injured.

You need to check your source - that's the total number killed and seriously injured, the vast majority of which involve motor vehicles (and the vast majority of which are the fault of the driver). What point were you trying to make.

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Some interesting stats considering that Holland is always quoted as the system that we should aspire to :

 

In the Netherlands some 24% of road deaths are cyclists, whilst in the UK it is 6%

I'd guess there are at least 4 times as many cyclists in the Netherlands - what point are you trying to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

The argument about legalities and liabilities detracts from the main issue.  Many parts of the towpath are places where people like to relax, possibly daydream, as they wander along, idly gazing at the view, the boats, the wildlife.   It is not just the towpath - many footpaths in parks and the countryside are (or should be) places where users do not need to be constantly on the alert for possible hazards that are not directly related to the environment they are enjoying.  A minority of bikers (and joggers) who do not take this into consideration are spoiling the amenity enjoyed by so many.   CRT are actively promoting the canals as a place to relax and get away from the stresses of modern life, and should be proactive in ensuring that this is a realistic objective. 

 

As a cyclist I think this is the crux of the matter. Towpaths were a place where it was possible to switch off and relax. Unfortunately that is no longer possible due to the significant minority who are looking to make faster progress than most boaters find comfortable. 

 

I was out a couple of weeks ago around Birmingham and was surprised by the noticeable increase in Ebikes. That will take the problem to a whole new level

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BWM said:

 

It is impossible to be speeding in the absence of a limit..

It most certainly is not. Speeding simply means making quick progress. That it is often used to describe ugsome behaviour by people in or on wheeled transport does not alter that original meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aracer said:

You need to check your source - that's the total number killed and seriously injured, the vast majority of which involve motor vehicles (and the vast majority of which are the fault of the driver). What point were you trying to make.

I'd guess there are at least 4 times as many cyclists in the Netherlands - what point are you trying to make?

Cyclists can kill & injure themselves driving into the back of parked cars, falling off etc etc.

They manage quite well without the involvement of a motor vehicle - lack of concentration, Ear phones and inadequate spatial awareness means they cannot even steer around potholes.

I guess it comes down to "natural selection".

 

Courtesy of the Independent :

 

Dozens of cyclists are being killed or seriously injured every year because of poorly maintained roads, figures show.

Cycling groups have warned of a “worrying” upward trend of deaths and injuries on British roads after new data revealed almost 100 people had died or been left with life-changing injuries as a result of accidents caused by potholes and cracks in the tarmac over a two-year period. 

In 2015, the last year for which figures are available, 46 people were knocked off their bikes because of unsafe road surfaces. A year earlier, 53 cyclists were killed or seriously hurt.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aracer said:

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...

I picked my words carefully. It is very possible that someone who has to drive to earn a living and the driving may be ancillary to their actual job could lose their license or their job just because an idiot cyclists jumped a red light, came up the inside despite left turn indicators flashing, rode straight across a crossroads and so on. That endangers the drivers lively hood and probably a lot more these days - and no I don't think the court processes would side with the driver, just like when it was cyclist V pedestrian it did not side with the cyclist.   You and NB Calmiri can protest as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that too many cyclists ride like complete idiots who do injure pedestrians, pets and damage cars without any form of sanction being taken against them.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

You and NB Calmiri can protest as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that too many cyclists ride like complete idiots who do injure pedestrians, pets and damage cars without any form of sanction being taken against them.

The problem with that argument is that it is not remotely logical - it is an argument based entirely on your fear and bias. It's an argument that holds all the same logic / reason as the flat-earth and anti-vaxxer arguments. Just because you want something to be so does not  magically make it so. 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

The problem with that argument is that it is not remotely logical - it is an argument based entirely on your fear and bias. It's an argument that holds all the same logic / reason as the flat-earth and anti-vaxxer arguments. Just because you want something to be so does not  magically make it so. 

 

 

I said as much. I offered two solutions that in my view would mitigate the problem and it is a growing problem. That is all. It is up to those in power to actually act and so far they are not. Your argument cuts both ways and applies equally to those who alleged there is not a problem and nothing needs doing. When you have had a couple of near misses while driving caused by idiot cyclists, you, a family member, or a pet gets injured or your car/boat gets damaged then you may well change your mind about it being just fear and bias. Just keep an ear to the ground and your eyes open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I picked my words carefully. It is very possible that someone who has to drive to earn a living and the driving may be ancillary to their actual job could lose their license or their job just because an idiot cyclists jumped a red light, came up the inside despite left turn indicators flashing, rode straight across a crossroads and so on. That endangers the drivers lively hood and probably a lot more these days - and no I don't think the court processes would side with the driver, just like when it was cyclist V pedestrian it did not side with the cyclist.   You and NB Calmiri can protest as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that too many cyclists ride like complete idiots who do injure pedestrians, pets and damage cars without any form of sanction being taken against them.

The word you picked very carefully is "endanger" - you didn't make any mention of the driver's livelihood, hence at the very best you were being disingenuous - given the context and what you wrote the only possible way to interpret it is that you were suggesting endangering the driver physically in the same way a cyclist is endangered. When I talk of being endangered by drivers whilst cycling I'm thinking of incidents where a very slight difference might have resulted in me being killed.

 

But then the whole of that post is utterly disingenuous, I'll need to address several different points:

1) so you're suggesting some equivalence between a cyclist being killed or seriously injured by a driver and a driver losing his job? ?

2) please provide me with an example of a driver losing his or her licence despite being completely blameless as a result of a cyclist deliberately "endangering" them - remember your carefully chosen words "a cyclist deliberately endangering you as a pedestrian or motorist - yes cyclists do endanger motorists..." If your point has any truth at all to it then this should be dead easy for you - a failure to provide such evidence shows that your whole assertion is a complete load of rubbish.

3) no form of sanction being taken against cyclists? I'm guessing you've forgotten all about the incident which started this discussion... Meanwhile I can provide you with numerous examples of drivers killing cyclists who have completely escaped any sanction, hence your suggestion of courts siding with cyclists is a complete load of rubbish

Edited by aracer
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Your argument cuts both ways and applies equally to those who alleged there is not a problem and nothing needs doing.

See this is the problem with your participation in these conversation you seem to be under the impression that people are saying things they aren't, that people are making arguments they aren't. Like all good echo chambers half truths are echoed back to you and you automatically pounce on them calling them whole truths. 

 

I have always stated - and you will find those posts simply by reading any cyclist bashing thread that I have participated in - that anybody who breaks the law and does harm to another human should be held responsible that there are cyclists out there not as courteous as they could be. What I am arguing is that your experience is not a reasonable argument, you remember your experiences tainted with your own biases. There is good reason why we look to science to answer our questions about the universe and not the church. You have escalated you arguments on this subject to the point where they can not reasonably be taken seriously, this does not help you convince me as a cyclist that you are anything other than a hater and I've rarely found haters constructive - if you want me to listen to you, to learn from you then the best way to do that is not by making me your enemy. 

 

The Biggest problem I've had discussing any thing on this forum of late is that I struggle to find any middle ground - nothing is all bad or all good, all too often I feel the discussion  isn't about the thing being discussed as it is about bashing anything thats not us. 

 

 

Edited by Tumshie
spelling
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Some interesting stats considering that Holland is always quoted as the system that we should aspire to :

 

In the Netherlands some 24% of road deaths are cyclists, whilst in the UK it is 6%

 

My brother has lived in Holland for years and is married to a Dutch lady. They drive but more regularly cycle. The infrastructure for cyclists is obviously very good as there are so many cyclists. Apparently if as a driver you hit a cyclist you almost always deemed to be at fault. The standard of cycling is also pretty appalling and not just in the young Lycra clad types. Drink cycling is also a lot more prevalent than here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tumshie said:

I in no way suggested that bigotry is limited to old men but the vast majority of regular posters and this forum are men to the point where you can count the women on one hand and they are overwhelmingly retired.

You are probably right about this forum's regular posters being more er mature men.

But speaking for myself,when I was working,I simply did not have the time or spare money for boating (paying mortgage, etc) taking kids to school/choir/dancing/school functions etc.

Now that most of that is done with (except for one still at school) I do have a little spare money,and the time for boating and posting on here.

It's just the way things are.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Cyclists can kill & injure themselves driving into the back of parked cars, falling off etc etc.

They manage quite well without the involvement of a motor vehicle - lack of concentration, Ear phones and inadequate spatial awareness means they cannot even steer around potholes.

I guess it comes down to "natural selection".

Well there you go with an assertions based on your own biases - sure cyclists can kill or injure themselves riding into parked cars, but please show me the stats - as I already stated the vast majority of cyclist KSI are the fault of the driver of a motor vehicle.

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Courtesy of the Independent :

 

Dozens of cyclists are being killed or seriously injured every year because of poorly maintained roads, figures show.

Cycling groups have warned of a “worrying” upward trend of deaths and injuries on British roads after new data revealed almost 100 people had died or been left with life-changing injuries as a result of accidents caused by potholes and cracks in the tarmac over a two-year period. 

In 2015, the last year for which figures are available, 46 people were knocked off their bikes because of unsafe road surfaces. A year earlier, 53 cyclists were killed or seriously hurt.

A perfectly valid bit of reporting and indeed poorly maintained roads is an issue (an issue I agree needs addressing), however it's still a much smaller issue than bad driving. I think you're mixing up your stats - you originally claimed 100 cyclist deaths and 3000 serious injuries a year as a result of non vehicular collisions - as I pointed out that is the total number including vehicular collisions. SO we have a total of 3000 or so cyclist KSI every year, of which about 50 are caused due to poor road surfaces. I would guess over 2000 due to bad driving, feel free to do the research if you think I'm wrong.

 

I'm happy to accept that the way the stats are reported is confusing - they talk about deaths and then give the KSI figure which is much higher, so it would be easy to think that is 100 deaths when it isn't, so I'm definitely not having a go, I presume you have just misunderstood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

You are probably right about this forum's regular posters being more er mature men.

But speaking for myself,when I was working,I simply did not have the time or spare money for boating (paying mortgage, etc) taking kids to school/choir/dancing/school functions etc.

Now that most of that is done with (except for one still at school) I do have a little spare money,and the time for boating and posting on here.

It's just the way things are.

I can appreciate that. :) 

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.