Just because you can't see anyone doesn't mean there's nobody there. For that simple reason, I'll still signal regardless of whether I can see anyone.
Spot on!
Just because you can't see anyone doesn't mean there's nobody there. For that simple reason, I'll still signal regardless of whether I can see anyone.
I don't know how the "cyclists on here" could possibly comment on an incident we've not witnessed.....do the cyclists on here consider that if I'd smashed into these 3 fools that I would be responsible ?
oh come on, I can think of some roundabouts where the majority of car drivers don't signal!Same applies with making it law for cyclists aswell really.. I see a lot more cyclists that do it to drivers to be honest!
You're against strict liability laws? Well it would be in line with the Railway Byelaws!So a driver could be considered responsible for something that wasn't his fault, just because he just couldn't *prove* it wasn't his fault?
Well the question stated you would be responsible. If you were fully adhering to the rules regarding overtaking, and if they immediately traversed two lanes instantly then, of course you wouldn't be responsible.Well I'm awfully sorry yorkie, I realise I should have been filming the incident while I was driving
I've described the incident and asked what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question, do people only comment on this forum if they've actually witnessed something ?
If you're talking London, it is my experience that people who adhere to all the rules of the road are in the minority, irrespective of what type of vehicle they are riding/driving. It's a different world to the roads of York.Having spent a little over 15 years working in London I've seen horrific behaviour by cyclists which always seems to be blamed on drivers and while I fully accept that some driving is equally awful I fail to see why cyclists regularly consider themselves to be above the law and totally blameless, I also fail to see why my life was regularly at risk from cyclists while walking on the pavement between St Pancras and Kings Cross Thameslink
People who cycle on the pavement for no apparent reason are often just nothing more than a chav who has stolen a bike, but then gets re-labelled a 'cyclist'.
One of the best examples of pedestrians presenting a hazard to cyclists is between St Pancras and Kings Cross on Euston Road (the mainline stations, not the old Thameslink station).. . . . I also fail to see why my life was regularly at risk from cyclists while walking on the pavement between St Pancras and Kings Cross Thameslink
Some cyclists already put themselves at risk by running red lights without actually checking whether anything is coming (such as the guy who came past me on Princes Street and was nearly taken out by a Citylink bus turning out of Frederick Street)
That's all very true, and regrettable. It's also irrelevant to my proposal. I am not suggesting that anything you've described should be legal. I'm suggesting that red lights should mean *give way*. Give way, does not mean 'dash through without any consideration for other road users', it means the same as it's always meant: (Roughly) slow down enough to be able to check if the way is clear (of both vehicles and pedestrians) and only proceed if you can cross the junction without inconveniencing other road users, or getting in the way of road users that may have priority, etc. etc.
Worst of all, and where I come from this turns out to be the majority of bad road users on bikes, is the DDOB - Disqualified Driver on Bike.A man carrying a football may be a footballer or merely a pedestrian whereas any fool transporting themselves using a bicycle is a cyclist.
As a "serious" cyclist, I find sharing the noun with certain examples to be an uncomfortable experience.
Strict liability not only works, it's actually Best Practice. End of story.So a driver could be considered responsible for something that wasn't his fault, just because he just couldn't *prove* it wasn't his fault? If the article you quoted is correct, that would be very unfair, and against the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Much as I'd like to see more protection for cyclists, I couldn't support that.
Right, so I should have to wear a helmet on a quite country road?
So you are saying that a country lane is softer than a city road and you won't get a head injury if you fall off or get hit by something :roll:
This site is pretty much saying not to bother with helmets (http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets) but some of the data seems rather suspect and I expect I'll be making my son wear one until he's old enough to make his own, educated, decision.
The point is, helmet promotion gives the impression that cycling is dangerous.