Cyclists sued boater

[aracer]

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.

The women are retired? Lucky them! I have to admit to ownership of a Y chromosome and I am somewhat more mature than average, though not yet retired (I do sometimes find myself with time on my hands, more than most people I suspect). edit: though I feel the need to point out that I'm a lot younger than my years in a lot of ways - a lot of my friends are in their 20s and 30s and in the context of these comments, I find my views on a lot of issues far more aligned with them than with most people my own age (not that I associate with the bigoted and intolerant but I understand plenty of men my age suffer from those ailments).

 

To some extent the issue here is usage of different forms of social media. If you want to find the younger and less male contributors you're better off on FB. I'm fairly sure this is a general thing not just limited to NBs - I'm a member of what used to be a very active unicycling forum, but that is now much more quiet with only the older guys remaining, all the younger folks discuss things on FB instead.

Edited August 14, 2019 by aracer

[furnessvale]

3 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 have in the past on several occasions had to swerve to avoid an errant cyclist, thereby putting myself, my family or my vehicle in danger from other "steel boxes" not anticipating my sudden move.

 

However, you have convinced me that, in the future, I should be more circumspect and avoid any danger to me or mine.

 

George

[aracer]

2 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I have in the past on several occasions had to swerve to avoid an errant cyclist, thereby putting myself, my family or my vehicle in danger from other "steel boxes" not anticipating my sudden move.

OK, I'm curious - would you care to give me precise details of such an incident? Not something I can ever recall and I've done a lot of driving, so I'm wondering why the difference.

[furnessvale]

3 hours ago, aracer said:

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

 

Does suicide count?  There seem to be a number of instances of cyclists undertaking vehicles turning left, and clearly indicating their intention to do so, where the cyclist has been killed or injured.

 

George

Just now, aracer said:

OK, I'm curious - would you care to give me precise details of such an incident? Not something I can ever recall and I've done a lot of driving, so I'm wondering why the difference.

You've never had a cyclist come out of a side road into your path without stopping, and sometimes without even looking?

 

George

[aracer]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

I said as much. I offered two solutions that in my view would mitigate the problem and it is a growing problem.

Not on this thread you didn't. Maybe you'd care to post your thoughts here and I'm sure it will be easy to pick them apart.

1 hour 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.

Already addressed by Tumshie,  but nobody is suggesting there isn't a problem with some cyclists - personally I've been restricting myself mostly to addressing suggestions by you and others of some equivalence between the danger from cyclists and the danger from motor vehicles.

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

When you have had a couple of near misses while driving caused by idiot cyclists

As already challenged, please provide me with examples and details of cyclists endangering you whilst driving

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Interesting that under the law Cyclists do not have to report accidents, or, even stop and exchange details;

 

An article to Cyclists by the Solicitors 'Slater & Gordan' :

 

Under Sec 170 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a motorist is under a statutory duty to stop and give information or documents when ‘an accident occurs by which–

(a) personal injury is caused to a person… or

(b) damage is caused–

(i) to a vehicle… or

(ii) to an animal (defined as cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog)… or

(iii) to any other property…

(2) The driver must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.

(3) If for any reason the driver does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.

(4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.’

Sec 170 does not apply to cyclists (or pedestrians) who may cause a collision. There is, of course, no legal obligation for a cyclist or a pedestrian to have third-party insurance. (There is a body of opinion that advocates that all cyclists should be obliged to have third-party insurance and registration numbers for their bikes. This would, in my view, be unworkable, disproportionate to the risk that cyclists cause to other road users, impossible to police, and would result in a significant reduction of cycle journeys.)

Notwithstanding the lack of legal obligation, I recommend that all regular cyclists have a policy of third-party legal insurance. Cycling UK members have £10 million of third-party insurance cover included with their membership. This is a valuable benefit, which offers peace of mind should a claim be made against a member.

Here are my top 10 tips for cyclists who have been involved in a collision:

1. Exchange names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers with the other party.

2. Obtain the registration number of the vehicle. (This is the most important piece of information. We can use it to pursue a claim as we can identify the vehicle insurer through the Motor Insurer’s Database by entering the registration number.)

3. Obtain details of make, model and colour of the vehicle.

4. Obtain names, addresses, and phone numbers of any witnesses.

5. If possible, obtain photographic evidence of the position of the vehicle(s).

6. Report the incident to the police without delay. If the police attend the scene of the incident, obtain details of name, serial number and station of the officer(s), as well as the CAD reference.

7. If you were using a helmet camera, do not wipe the film! We can use this in evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.

8. If you were injured, seek medical attention.

9. Remain calm and don’t get drawn into discussion with the other party about who was at fault for the collision.

10. If injured, contact Cycling UK’s legal helpline telephone: 0844 736 8452. If the collision was your fault, and injury or loss was caused to another person, report this as a potential claim through the helpline.

 

 

[furnessvale]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

7. If you were using a helmet camera, do not wipe the film! We can use this in evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.

 

 

Unless, of course, the accident is your fault.

 

George

[Tumshie]

7 minutes ago, aracer said:

If you want to find the younger and less male contributors you're better off on FB.

What I want is for this forum to be more welcoming and accepting of the new members who come here or if they can't be welcoming that they don't jump to conclusions and start grumping at people... what I want is for this forum to remain relevant. I know several people who own businesses that they have run from facebook who have had problems when facebook has changed it's algorithms and their groups have become less accessible - if you think that something like this forum could survive in it's current or a similar format on facebook then that would be fine but I don't think Facebook can provide the service that this forum can and it saddens me greatly that new members are not staying to become regulars, I don't see why I should go to facebook to find women who boat when they do actually come here, I believe in campaigning to have them feel welcome and want to stay. It saddens me that there was a very vibrant community of women on this forum but that they felt the need to go off to start their own private group on facebook. This forum has lost something special with the loss of some of its lady members. In the same way that you feel strongly that you should counter they arguments of cyclist bashers I feel strongly that this forum would benefit greatly from diversity. I don't relish chaos but once upon a time people had a little fun on this forum; I'm not looking for love myself but I've even heard that a very special relationship or two started here. 

 

 

[aracer]

27 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Does suicide count?  There seem to be a number of instances of cyclists undertaking vehicles turning left, and clearly indicating their intention to do so, where the cyclist has been killed or injured.

You seem to have a strange idea of the definition of suicide, but no suicide doesn't count and nor really does killing yourself unintentionally. Maybe I should have written "killing somebody else" because I am aware of cyclists dying due to their own fault where no motor vehicle was involved. However in any case I was after examples of mobile phone use or speeding which doesn't seem to be covered there.

 

Though whilst I'm trying to avoid being diverted, now you've mentioned it... Yes in such incidents the cyclist is at fault - even possibly mostly at fault. However it's still not the cyclist introducing the danger to the roads - it's an interesting one as the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them by driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all.

Quote

You've never had a cyclist come out of a side road into your path without stopping, and sometimes without even looking?

I've certainly never been endangered by a cyclist doing that. Precise details of you being endangered by that please...

 

So, how about a news report of a driver being killed due to the actions of a cyclist? If you're trying to find equivalence given I can provide numerous examples of the other way round.

Edited August 14, 2019 by aracer

[aracer]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Interesting that under the law Cyclists do not have to report accidents, or, even stop and exchange details;

I thought the next bit you didn't highlight was more interesting ?

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

(There is a body of opinion that advocates that all cyclists should be obliged to have third-party insurance and registration numbers for their bikes. This would, in my view, be unworkable, disproportionate to the risk that cyclists cause to other road users, impossible to police, and would result in a significant reduction of cycle journeys.)

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, aracer said:

it's an interesting one as the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them by driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear.

"How about" when a motorist having checked the 'bit of road' is clear when all of a sudden finds it is 'filled' by a cyclist.

 

I had this happen to me on Monday of this week.

Maybe not so easy to explain, but I'll try (for those that may know it, it happened on the mini-roundabout in Newark near the railway station and the turn off to the C&RT offices at the Kiln.)

 

I was on the main road and approaching the mini-roundabout intending to turn left (the 1st turn) there was a group of pedestrians waiting on the kerb to cross but as it is quite a busy little roundabout the numbers were slowly increasing.

As I tuned onto the roundabout I saw a cyclist coming along the pavement behind the group of stationary pedestrians at an 'excessive speed' and I got the feeling ' he's not going to stop'.

He didn't, he bumped down the kerb and suddenly saw me, I slammed on the anchors and he narrowly missed going over my bonnet, he swerved to his left, hit the kerb, wobbled and went down the same road as I was intending (and signalling) to turn into.

He stopped after 50 yards and as I past him appeared to give me a mouthful of abuse and some 'gestures'.

 

Now had I knocked him off his bike and damaged my vehicle, without any insurance or requirement to stop and divulge information, how would I have got any recompense ? Should I claim on my own insurance and lose my no-claims ?

 

In such circumstances, had I injured him, I would have no remorse / guilt and would hope that it would act as a reminder to ride with a little more consideration and thought in future.

 

I guess at least I would have had 20+ witnesses.

[furnessvale]

16 minutes ago, aracer said:

You seem to have a strange idea of the definition of suicide, but no suicide doesn't count and nor really does killing yourself unintentionally. Maybe I should have written "killing somebody else" because I am aware of cyclists dying due to their own fault where no motor vehicle was involved. However in any case I was after examples of mobile phone use or speeding which doesn't seem to be covered there.

 

Though whilst I'm trying to avoid being diverted, now you've mentioned it... Yes in such incidents the cyclist is at fault - even possibly mostly at fault. However it's still not the cyclist introducing the danger to the roads - it's an interesting one as the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them by driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all.

I've certainly never been endangered by a cyclist doing that. Precise details of you being endangered by that please...

 

So, how about a news report of a driver being killed due to the actions of a cyclist? If you're trying to find equivalence given I can provide numerous examples of the other way round.

The bit I have highlighted tells me all I need to know about how you feel about cyclists.

 

I will not trouble you further, I have better things to do.

 

Interesting forum name a racer.....hmmmm!

 

George

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In such circumstances, had I injured him, I would have no remorse / guilt and would hope that it would act as a reminder to ride with a little more consideration and thought in future.

 

I guess at least I would have had 20+ witnesses.

I now have a dashcam which is always running.  I know it won't cover what the idiot at the side or rear is doing but its a start.  Perhaps I'll invest in another, rear facing.  Thy are not that expensive.

 

George

[Tumshie]

4 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

The bit I have highlighted tells me all I need to know about how you feel about cyclists.

 

I will not trouble you further, I have better things to do.

 

Interesting forum name a racer.....hmmmm!

 

George

 

And this post here tells me that every thing in your view on the subject is either black or white and has no room for expansion of thought, no room for co-operation. ?

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

The bit I have highlighted tells me all I need to know about how you feel about cyclists.

 

I will not trouble you further, I have better things to do.

 

Interesting forum name a racer.....hmmmm!

 

 

I suppose the 'direct cause' of deaths in an air crash is the 'fault of the ground' being there.

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I suppose the 'direct cause' of deaths in an air crash is the 'fault of the ground' being there.

For an intelligent man you say very silly things  of course it is. 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

For an intelligent man you say very silly things  of course it is. 

And this isn't ?

 

13 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

...the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them ………………….

 

Had the car not been there it couldn't have run into him.

 

C'mon Tumshie at least be consistent !!!

 

EDIT TO ADD 

 

- the stupid remark seems to have been credited to Furness vale instead of ARACER (its author)

Apologies Furnessvale.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

For an intelligent man you say very silly things  of course it is. 

To me it is a sensible as suggesting....... Beaten by  Alan

[furnessvale]

2 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

 

And this post here tells me that every thing in your view on the subject is either black or white and has no room for expansion of thought, no room for co-operation. ?

Not at all.  I have witnessed many instances of motor vehicles carving up cyclists and I cringe at the potential for harm it causes.

 

However when I see a reponse as printed below in relation to my comment about cyclists undertaking vehicles turning left, I wonder where that co-operation is to come from.

 

"so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all."

 

George

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And this isn't ?

 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C'mon Tumshie at least be consistent !!!

I'm pretty consistent in the fact that I'm silly 

[Tumshie]

19 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

"so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all."

See this is where you loose the credibility in what you are saying - you can not keep saying that I or any cyclist is saying that and expect not to be considered biased beyond reason. There is no argument that can hold water for long when it is not based on facts and figures and statistics. There is more than one demographic of cyclist just as there is more than on demographic of driver or doctor or politician - this is not a one size fits all argument and yet every time this conversation comes up on this forum most of the cycle bashing members try to shoehorn the argument into just that. 

 

Edit for clarity - cherry picking half a sentence is where the grip on credibility gets a bit dodgy

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tumshie

[Tumshie]

54 minutes ago, aracer said:

Though whilst I'm trying to avoid being diverted, now you've mentioned it... Yes in such incidents the cyclist is at fault - even possibly mostly at fault. However it's still not the cyclist introducing the danger to the roads - it's an interesting one as the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them by driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all.

Bugger - for once it didn't merge my post. Anyway this is the full sentence that was cherry picked. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tumshie

[furnessvale]

28 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

See this is where you loose the credibility in what you are saying - you can not keep saying that I or any cyclist is saying that and expect not to be considered biased beyond reason. There is no argument that can hold water for long when it is not based on facts and figures and statistics. There is more than one demographic of cyclist just as there is more than on demographic of driver or doctor or politician - this is not a one size fits all argument and yet every time this conversation comes up on this forum most of the cycle bashing members try to shoehorn the argument into just that. 

 

 

See, this is where you loose the credibility in what YOU are saying - I quoted aracer #112. Now corrected to #109.

 

George

Edited August 14, 2019 by furnessvale

[Tumshie]

Just now, furnessvale said:

See, this is where you loose the credibility in what YOU are saying - I quoted aracer #112.

 

George

You might wanna check your post numbers there George ? I knew exactly what I was quoting. 

[Athy]

10 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

See, this is where you loose the credibility in what YOU are saying - I quoted aracer #112.

 

George

Post 112 is by you. It has been known for posts to have differing numbers depending on who is looking at them; I don' know why this should be.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Athy

[furnessvale]

6 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

You might wanna check your post numbers there George ? I knew exactly what I was quoting. 

Correct. aracer's post was #109.  My initial response to him was #112.

 

It doesn't change the initial statement by aracer that, where a cyclist is undertaking a vehicle which is clearly indicating its intention, at least some of the fault falls on the vehicle driver.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I am NOT  talking about a vehicle overtaking a cyclist and then carving him up.

 

George