bikeperson45 Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 Personally I think that bikes used on public roads should be fitted with both brakes but I do agree it's harsh the emphasis their putting on it. Fixies are a thing, brakeless is a thing and nothing's ever done about it so how illegal is it really? Now it's just looking like an 'as it suits' law rather than anything serious. And really I'd want the CCTV, with bikes being on the left it could be impossible to avoid if she was just stepping out while on her phone and I don't think he should have to pay for that mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 From what I can make out, she walked into the road without looking, playing on her phone and not paying attention. He shouted, she didn't hear and carried on into the road. He shouted again and she finally looked up, jumped back towards the pavement but he'd already swerved that way (his left, presumably) to avoid contact. Unfortunate, but she seems largely at fault on paper. Seems a bit of a pitchforks and torches affair. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niconj Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 2 hours ago, ogre said: plus if you're riding brakeless fixed you've probably got a better skillset than your average dickhead on a bike. This. I worked 8 years as a bike messenger, three of which I rode brakless. I hated when people came up to me telling me that I'm endangering others whilst old people rode their brake(less, as in brakes didn't work) bikes all over the place and nobody really cared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Harrison Posted August 24, 2017 Report Share Posted August 24, 2017 I think that is a fair point, especially given that lots of bikes have brakes that don't work, or in the wet rim brakes can go to sh't. Seems to me that the woman wasn't paying attention and this seems to have become a real disease. Every time I go out on my motorbike I'm put in danger because some dipsh't pulls out without noticing me. The phones thing takes it to another level - generally a lot of people aren't 'present' or aware, their attention is elsewhere. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 If it was a car, they'd get done in the same way or worse both in the media and the courts. Especially if the car didn't have brakes. Cyclists always want to be given the same rights as other road users, so they'd best take the same punishments too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusevelt Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) Well he's been convicted on causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving/cycling. Will be interesting what the sentence will be in terms of making him an example and possibly changes in the law that need to be brought up to date. https://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-24/husband-of-woman-killed-by-cyclist-calls-for-tougher-laws/ Edited August 25, 2017 by Rusevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 2 hours ago, JD™ said: If it was a car, they'd get done in the same way or worse both in the media and the courts. Especially if the car didn't have brakes. Cyclists always want to be given the same rights as other road users, so they'd best take the same punishments too. nonsense. it is still infinitely less likely that you injure someone severely/ fatally in an accident with a bike than with a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 They're also almost infinitely less wide but want cars to treat them as the same width. What a shitter equality can be, eh? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 17 minutes ago, JD™ said: They're also almost infinitely less wide but want cars to treat them as the same width. What a shitter equality can be, eh? as if carrying around a lot of useless extra-width is supposed to entitle one to something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 As usual for a cyclist, completely flipping the point. I'm not saying the extra width implies entitlement, I'm saying that the width should not be implied if you don't have it. Personally, when I'm in a more vulnerable I tend to act accordingly, not expect that everyone around me shouldn't kill me and thus I'm invincible. Ironically, that also applies to pedestrians compared to cyclists, so luckily in this incident everyone was a prat. My point is that if it'd been an unsafe and illegal car vs a pedestrian the car driver would be inside, and so should this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) edit: double Edited August 25, 2017 by JD™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, JD™ said: As usual for a cyclist, completely flipping the point. I'm not saying the extra width implies entitlement, I'm saying that the width should not be implied if you don't have it. Personally, when I'm in a more vulnerable I tend to act accordingly, not expect that everyone around me shouldn't kill me and thus I'm invincible. Ironically, that also applies to pedestrians compared to cyclists, so luckily in this incident everyone was a prat. My point is that if it'd been an unsafe and illegal car vs a pedestrian the car driver would be inside, and so should this guy. it's exactly the opposite, shmoopie. if a pedestrian walked blindly into car traffic, he/she would be blamed in full, ridiculed and called a public hazard. there would be zero discussion about anything. Edited August 26, 2017 by jeff costello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusevelt Posted August 25, 2017 Report Share Posted August 25, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 22 hours ago, jeff costello said: it's exactly the opposite, shmoopie. if a pedestrian walked blindly into car traffic, he/she would be blamed in full, ridiculed and called a public hazard. there would be zero discussion about anything. Not if they found the car that hit them didn't have working brakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, manuel said: Not if they found the car that hit them didn't have working brakes. not the same thing. not even on the same planet. have you heard about people riding around on skateboards without rubber bumpers?! god knows what that could do to people's ankles!! Edited August 26, 2017 by jeff costello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 It's the law to have working brakes on a cycle on a public highway. The same is not true of rubber bumpers on skateboards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 it is also law to not look at your phone instead of your surroundings when walking in traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 You are bonkers. If the traffic does not have the ability to stop properly, then no matter what the pedestrian does - the traffic is going down. Car, bike, bus, lorry or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 26, 2017 Report Share Posted August 26, 2017 3 hours ago, jeff costello said: it is also law to not look at your phone instead of your surroundings when walking in traffic. It quite literally isn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 27, 2017 Report Share Posted August 27, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, manuel said: You are bonkers. JD took an accident which had nothing to do with cars to complain about how unfairly car drivers are being treated, harping on about that very annoying myth that citizen car driver is oh so important that his free reign must never be curtailed. as if all of traffic (and with it a lof of public space and money) wasn't already tailored to fit the interests of car drivers. fixed-brakeless doesn't mean one can't stop. it's different to trials or bmx brakeless. it's a different technique of braking. whether that's a smart thing to use in a busy city is another question, but it's by far not the murder weapon you make it out to be. with a bike it takes a lot of bad luck to hurt someone else severely; you might knock someone down, but luckily that very, very rarely ends in serious injuries or death. source (1) states 32 people were killed by cyclists in the last 10 years. source (2) states that in 2015 alone there were 408 pedestrians killed and 100 cyclists (assuming here that the vast majority of those involved cars). a car is on another level of potential destruction, hence different rules apply. (1) https://cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/786119b7-2dba-4f5f-8565-045f1672329a.html (2) http://www.brake.org.uk/facts-resources/1653-uk-road-casualties 14 hours ago, JD™ said: It quite literally isn't. of course it is. 7C.https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/rules-pedestrians-1-35 Edited August 27, 2017 by jeff costello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Booth Posted August 27, 2017 Report Share Posted August 27, 2017 I think you misunderstood JDs argument Jeff, it wasn't car drivers are the high and mighty. It was if a cyclist wants to use the roads and be treated with the common curtosies of a motorist then expect the same punishments as a the motorist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 27, 2017 Report Share Posted August 27, 2017 2 hours ago, jeff costello said: JD took an accident which had nothing to do with cars to complain about how unfairly car drivers are being treated In opposite land, maybe. But actually I was saying the cyclist was being treated fairly - which is what they all want. 'Fair' has both negative possibilities as well as positive ones. Cyclists want - quite rightly - to be treated fairly in terms of space on the roads, but that means taking the negatives with class too. You are exactly what I'm talking about - an entitled prat who only wants the positive side and as such can't see that the cyclist was in the wrong. I ride without brakes, if I hit someone it's my fault and I'll take my punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 27, 2017 Report Share Posted August 27, 2017 regarding being aware of your surroundings: you do realize you are on a cycling forum...? i'm the prat, yet you still play the victim even though in the current system everythings stacked in favour of your side. roads are holy places of driving no one is allowed to infringe on, lest mr. goodcitizen does not get to the drive-through burger place a minute later. now how dare other road-invaders threaten the safety of people with less consequence! that 'equal consequences' argument is just pure nonsense. this case is more or less the worst that can happen with a bike. and it took multiple errors on both sides to make it happen. it was an unfortunate occasion which rarely happens. i think it's ok that the cyclist got a punishment. but this case doesn't warrant a discussion about anything. and nowhere near the same thing as mowing down people with your unsafe car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 27, 2017 Report Share Posted August 27, 2017 Lol. 'My side', while saying I ride without brakes. I'm out on this one, just to save you making yourself look like more of an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted August 27, 2017 Report Share Posted August 27, 2017 what?? who in this conversation rides brakeless? (i don't, never did, just for protocol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.