Re: cyclist nearly kills himself

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, [email protected] <> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:31:29 +0000, Al C-F
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Ian wrote:
> >>
> >> That's most of the cyclists in my area partly responsible for any accident
> >> in which they are involved. Most don't wear safety helmets,
> >
> >Please explain to me how wearing a safety helmet would prevent an
> >accident, rather than, say, possibly mitigating its consequences.
> >
> >Inquiring minds need to know.
>
> Possibly is, on average, wrong.

It's probably wrong more often that it is right, but it is certainly
100% correct that it is possible for a cycle helmet to mitigate the
consequences of an accident. I don't think anyone has ever claimed
that helmets increase the severity of absolutely every
conceivable accident.

Further, it may even be true that helmets mitigate the consequences of
most accidents, the available statistics could occur if they made the
most serious 30% of accidents worse, for example.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Paul Rudin]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:


> Further, it may even be true that helmets mitigate the consequences of
> most accidents...

Unlikely, since most accidents do not involve any head injuries.

 

[TripleS]

Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:47:46 +0000, TripleS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>> Señor Chris wrote:
>>>> The HC is rendered completely irrelevant when someone is unable to see
>>>> what is right in front of their eyes (or was he looking elsewhere ?).
>>>> Everything else is just a smoke-screen for the driver's glaring
>>>> incompetence.
>>> The cyclist was at fault for failing to wear light clothing at dusk, was
>>> further at fault by failing to approach a roundabout correctly positioned in
>>> the Primary position, was further at fault for undretaking on the inside of
>>> a stationary vehicle waithing to enter the roundabout.
>>>
>>> The driver was at fault for failing to observe fully.
>>>
>>> Who was the more incompetent?
>>>
>>> If each were taking a driving or cycling competncey test both would fail.
>>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
>> mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
>> discourage) a driver from overtaking you?
>
> Yes - well at least prevent / discourage a driver overtaking without
> giving you the same room as they would do for a car.
>
>> If this is the case
>> presumably the thinking is that the cyclist will be able to dominate the
>> proceedings and protect his own safety (though I have my doubts about
>> that) and drivers will have to follow until he has negotiated the hazard
>> and got out of their way. In theory I can see some merit in that, but
>> at the same time it also sounds like a recipe for cyclists to be
>> bloodyminded and promote added conflict with drivers - so it's not
>> totally good news.
>
> The alternative is to cower towards the left-hand side and leave a
> tempting gap for a car to squeeze past when in fact there probably isn't
> room. Also you are right in a driver's field of view and at no danger
> of being hit as a driver not noticing you, turning left and hitting you.
>
> Those people who cycle in the primary position (as I do when appropriate)
> do find it to work pretty well. It certainly is much better than any
> alternative when approaching a hazard such as the road narrowing for
> example.


Well as I said, I can see some merit in the idea, but unless it is done
in a reasonable manner I can imagine it may upset some drivers, and
possibly lead to conflict.

I'm not saying that drivers would be right to expect cyclists to 'keep
out of my way' etc., but I'm wary of anything that might increase that
feeling.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

[TripleS]

Al C-F wrote:
> TripleS wrote:
>
>>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
>> mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
>> discourage) a driver from overtaking you?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If this is the case presumably the thinking is that the cyclist will
>> be able to dominate the proceedings and protect his own safety (though
>> I have my doubts about that) and drivers will have to follow until he
>> has negotiated the hazard and got out of their way.
>
> Yes.
>
>> In theory I can see some merit in that, but at the same time it also
>> sounds like a recipe for cyclists to be bloodyminded and promote added
>> conflict with drivers - so it's not totally good news.
>
> This is how some of the ignorami driving cars react. That there may be
> an alternative reason for this positioning does not appear to enter
> their minds. This is an unfortunate consequence of so few drivers ever
> having cycled.

Oh I have been a cyclist in the UK prior to 1960, then I did a spell
while on holiday in Skiathos in 2001, so I do have some awareness of the
considerations, if that counts for anything.

>> With regard to my initial question it would be appreciated if we could
>> avoid getting sidetracked onto Kama Sutra type considerations etc. We
>> don't want young Silk getting over excited!
>
> Pure in thought and motive...

Quite so!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

[TripleS]

Al C-F wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>>
>> The primary error was by the cyclist in not adopting the Primary
>> Position,
>> the second error was by the motorist passing the cyclist too close to
>> the roundabout
>> the third error was by the cyclist passing on the left of a stationary
>> vehicle and stopping at the front left comer of the car at the
>> roundabout,
>> the fourth error was by the motorist failing to observe fully.
>>
>> The Key initiating error was by the cyclist & a contributing factor
>> was wearing dark clothing.
>>
>> pk
>>
>
> Though the motorist overtaking so close to a junction could hardly have
> helped.
>
>
> Observation: the layout of some cycle lanes approaching and around
> roundabouts may cause confusion as to the correct positioning of cyclists.

Further observation: A fair number of cycle lanes appear to be a
complete waste of time and money, as they are often applied in such a
piecemeal fashion. In many cases I can see little benefit from them -
for anybody, apart from certain groups of road safety 'experts' -
creating jobs for the boys, and being seen to be doing something, etc.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Rudin wrote:
>Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Further, it may even be true that helmets mitigate the consequences of
>> most accidents...
>
>Unlikely, since most accidents do not involve any head injuries.

But helmets will also reduce leg injuries, and indeed injuries of other
cyclists who aren't wearing helmets, if some of the more extreme pro-helmet
statistical studies are to be believed....

 

[Paul Boyd]

Alan Braggins said the following on 19/12/2006 14:49:

> But helmets will also reduce leg injuries, and indeed injuries of other
> cyclists who aren't wearing helmets, if some of the more extreme pro-helmet
> statistical studies are to be believed....

Last Sunday I went straight over the bars of my MTB on a rooty muddy
slope. My right elbow is nicely swollen, and I have bruising to my
forearm. If I'd been wearing a helmet, perhaps I would have escaped
injury, according to these pro-helmet studies

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[NM]

Ian wrote:
> "Art" wrote in message
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Art wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
> >>> Highway Code as car drivers.
> >>
> >>Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
> >>before they can leave their house.
> >
> > Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
> >
>
> How do motorists or cyclists get to or from their vehicle?
>
Legover usually gets them on or off

 

[Ian]

"p.k." wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>>> True, but if they act against the recommendations of the Code or the
>>> law from which some of it derives, ignorance would be no defence.
>>>
>>
>> You would have thought so, but last year a foreign cyclist illegally
>> riding on the pavement killed a pedestrian. He was let off as he was
>> only doing what all of the other cyclists were doing, and he knew no
>> better.
>
> Can you give a reference to a report on that?
>

I can't find a report on the Court case at the moment, but it related to
this incident http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4262766.stm
.. I note that another pedestrian was killed by a cyclist only just over a
week ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6168129.stm in Devon.

Ian

 

[Art]

On 18 Dec 2006 22:28:13 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Art wrote:
>>
>> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
>> means.
>
>ITYM most humans, given that 1 in 10 car drivers and 1 in 5 bus drivers
>went through red lights in one study, and that was only measuring a
>full three seconds after the light turned red, rather than from orange
>when including safe stopping.

I would bet that the proportion of cyclists doing so is much higher.

>In general, motor vehicle drivers aren't especially law abiding either,
>it seems all will break laws we think we can get away with breaking.

You bet.

 

[Art]

On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Art wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Art wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
>> >
>> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>> >before they can leave their house.
>>
>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>
>Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>
>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm

When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
violating the Highway Code?

>I expect most pedestrians would also be motons and cyclists at some
>point.

Quite possibly.

 

[Art]

On 19 Dec 2006 08:35:07 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Art ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
>
>>>Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>>before they can leave their house.
>
>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>
>Have you ever read the HC?

Yes. If you're walking you can't be riding/driving at the same time.

 

[Paul Rudin]

Art <[email protected]> writes:

> On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Art wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Art wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>> >
>>> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>> >before they can leave their house.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>
>>Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>>
>>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm
>
> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> violating the Highway Code?

Nobody can be arrested or fined or imprisoned simply for violating the
highway code. It's rules don't have the force of law. Some of it's
rules make reference to laws... but that's another matter. From the
HC:


"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted The Highway Code may
be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to
establish liability."

 

[Art]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:31:10 GMT, "Ian" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Art" wrote in message
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Art wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>>> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>
>>>Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>>before they can leave their house.
>>
>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>
>
>How do motorists or cyclists get to or from their vehicle?

Once they get into their vehicle or onto their bike they cease to be
pedestrians.

 

[Brimstone]

Art wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Art wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>>>> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a
>>>> test before they can leave their house.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>
>> Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>>
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm
>
> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> violating the Highway Code?

Another example of a septic's inability to understand that things are
different here compared to home.

 

[James Grabowski]

Ian wrote:
>
> "James Grabowski" wrote in message
> > Ian wrote:
> >>
> >> "p.k." wrote in message
> >> > Señor Chris wrote:
> >> >> p.k. wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> a contributing factor was
> >> >>> wearing dark clothing.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Would that be in the same way that cars contribute to accidents by
> >> >> being painted a dark colour ?
> >> >
> >> > No the clothing advised in the highway code, if the motorist is being
> >> > criticised for not following the HC, so should be the cyclist.
> >> >
> >> > 45: Clothing. You should wear
> >> >
> >> > a.. a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
> >> > b.. appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get
> >> > tangled
> >> > in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
> >> > c.. light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road
> >> > users
> >> > to see you in daylight and poor light
> >> > d.. reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands)
> >> > in
> >> > the dark.
> >> > If as a cyclist, I wear inappropriate clothing in poor light and
> >> > position
> >> > myself incorrectly then any accident is partly my fault.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's most of the cyclists in my area partly responsible for any
> >> accident
> >> in which they are involved. Most don't wear safety helmets
> >
> > Do you wear a helmet in your car?
> >
>
> The Highway Code doesn't suggest I should, whereas it does for cyclists.

So? You're more at risk of a head injury in a car than on a bike, quite
apart from the debatable benefits of bike helmets.

--
James

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...

> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
> mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
> discourage) a driver from overtaking you?

Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I recall on a
motorbike.



--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:12:45 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
> >
> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
> >>
> >>
> >Fact of life is they don't so you drive accordingly.
>
> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
> means.
>
What would you know? You're a septic tank and you lot don't even walk
from one side of a carpark to the other, let alone do anything as
energetic as cycling.


--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart

 

[Mark Thompson]

>>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>
>>Have you ever read the HC?
>
> Yes. If you're walking you can't be riding/driving at the same time.

Fred Flintstone.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Art says...

> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> violating the Highway Code?
>
When was the Highway Code the Road Traffic Act?


--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart