***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 34 *****
==============================================================
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 29 Sep 17 at 01:53
|
That made me laugh.
Funny how she rushes back home to change her panties.
|
|
And there, in the headline picture, are 9 people moving through a city, causing no pollution at all, using no fossil fuels and taking up the room that would accommodate only one car. Oh and keeping a bit fitter too.
|
|
Hundreds of branch lines were left to overgrow after Beeching took the knife to the rail system in 1963. If they had been paved over they would have made ideal cycle and bus routes between many small towns and villages, with the advantage of being flat enough to encourage casual cyclists.
|
>> Hundreds of branch lines were left to overgrow after Beeching took the knife to the
>> rail system in 1963. If they had been paved over they would have made ideal
>> cycle and bus routes between many small towns and villages, with the advantage of being
>> flat enough to encourage casual cyclists.
>>
Absolutely.
There were a few lines locally that were closed. One is a cycle lane and is very popular but only covers part of the original route.
Another had a beautiful 17 arch viaduct over a marshy valley and would have been perfect for a light rail / tram system between local towns and villages or even as a cycle way.
Demolishing it was pure vandalism, though I expect there would have been costs in maintaining it.
The bricks were used as infill for housing estates for people shipped from the slums in London.
|
|
Branch lines were closed because of lack of demand, expensive permanent way costs, suitable road networks and buses. Those of any merit are now cycle or walking ways. To think they could be turned into bus routes is sheer folly, as the Cambridge guided bus way will prove. Ex metropolitan or urban lines have more or less been converted to light tramways.
|
>>To think they could be turned into bus routes is sheer folly, as the Cambridge guided bus way will prove.
The Luton - Dunstable guided bus way uses an old railway line. Seems to be quite successful.
|
>> >>To think they could be turned into bus routes is sheer folly, as the Cambridge
>> guided bus way will prove.
>>
>> The Luton - Dunstable guided bus way uses an old railway line. Seems to be
>> quite successful.
I'd check that if I were you. Over budget, over timescale, operational difficulties, injuries, closures, and no appreciable difference in off road traffic levels or timekeeping.
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4512066/Moment-thief-tries-steal-bike-car.html
I think I would be tempted to slam the car in to reverse, though would probable be arrested for hurting him!
|
|
Don't bike racks have locks these days? Mine did, roof ones though, rack locked to the car, and bikes locked to the rack.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 18 May 17 at 10:51
|
>> Don't bike racks have locks these days? Mine did, roof ones though, rack locked to
>> the car, and bikes locked to the rack.
Some do but it's by no means universal and locks are and extra cost/premium product line. My racks (roof) were without locks but I'd use padlock/chain if car unattended. The idea of a thief brazen as this guy probably wasn't on most people's radar.
Mugging from scooters for phones etc is becoming too common in parts of London. People have also been relieved of expensive bikes, including Bromptons, in similar circumstances.
|
The junction at Bank in City of London where cyclist Ying Tao was killed by a skip lorry two years ago has been closed to most traffic:
www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/may/24/londons-bank-junction-closed-to-most-traffic-as-part-of-new-safety-scheme
A good move I think. Not just for cyclists but for all road users for whom it was too complex to negotiate.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40105253
Very sad incident yesterday, cyclist got bike jammed in tram tracks and fell off under the wheels of a bus. There has been hundreds of bike / track related injuries in Edinburgh and a fatality was always feared.
The Council's response was to advise cyclists to cross tracks at right angles which really isnt doable if you are cycling parallel to the tracks.
How do other cities with trams manage the combined spaces?
|
|
Lycra was only invented d in 1958 so hoW was that possible?
|
This would make a great little commuter, and you don't even have to pedal. 30km range from a three hour charge would cover many people's daily needs, I should think.
www.airbike.com/airbike-mx5.html
|
>> This would make a great little commuter, and you don't even have to pedal. 30km
>> range from a three hour charge would cover many people's daily needs, I should think.
I think you will find the current UK EAPC* law states a maximum power output of 250 watts and a motor that should not propel the e-bike past 15.5mph (25kph).
*Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle
And you have to pedal.
|
|
No problem for anyone with a licence though.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-40412209/cyclist-repeatedly-attacked-by-staffordshire-bird-of-prey
This bloke keeps getting attacked by a big bird when he cycles on a particular road (calm down BBD!!). Why keep going there then?
Presumably he's upsetting this bird in some way, but doesn't even let that stop him ( - the article suggests it may have a nest and young which it is protecting).
People!!
|
>> This bloke keeps getting attacked by a big bird when he cycles on a particular road.
Maybe it's his breadcrumb aftershave. I hear the birds love it ;)
I'll get me coat.
|
Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321
" A pedal bike.... drop handlebars gears and two breaks"
" fixed gear bike.... usually ridden in a velodrome"
Source - Cycling UK.
What a load of old tosh those description are!
|
>> Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321
Not guilty of manslaughter, but:-
"guilty of causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving"".
What does that mean?
|
>> What does that mean?
Means he's probably going to jail for "any term not exceeding two years"
|
Which is certainly not enough.
Pat
|
|
Reckless and selfish, and seemingly no remorse, not that it would change anything now.
|
|
Typical of the modern fashion cyclist with little or no idea how to ride properly. If you are stupid enough to ride a fixed wheel bike on the roads without a front brake then at least wear a proper pair of padded cycle gloves or mitts and learn to scrub off speed by pressing the palm of your hand onto the front tyre. Not as good as a brake, bur surprisingly effective.
|
|
Should the pedestrian have any responsibility for stepping off the pavement, walking in the road, while, apparently, on her mobile phone?.
|
>> Should the pedestrian have any responsibility for stepping off the pavement, walking in the road,
>> while, apparently, on her mobile phone?.
Certainly agree with this, would an electric car driver travelling at a higher speed had been punished?
Although I certainly think the cyclist should have some punishment for riding a bike on the road with no brakes, apparently, other than a fixed wheel.
|
>>Should the pedestrian have any responsibility for stepping off the pavement, walking in the road, while, apparently, on her mobile phone?.
Where is the evidence for that?
|
>> Where is the evidence for that?
It was reported by the press to be Alliston's evidence to the court, possibly corroborated by other eye witnesses. I've not seen anything to suggest prosecution challenged it.
But it's not all that helpful for defendant as such behaviour is endemic in busy streets; he should have been riding accordingly.
|
>> Typical of the modern fashion cyclist with little or no idea how to ride properly.
( Yes there are many cyclists who buy lots of fashion items but a lot of these items are very well designed and some clever materials used)
There was a long interview on R4 this morning with the widower.
I had not realised that it was a fashion for courier bike riders to have no front brake!!!
It was also pointed out that BMX bikes were also implicated.
A Google search for BMX bikes shows many without a front brake.
Some have the cable brake on the REAR wheel.
Since I was at school I have always understood that a front brake on all bikes was mandatory.
I had a so called track bike for many years and used it for commuting to work and time trialing.
I cannot believe that many BMX bikes are sold for use just on a BMX track.
Time for the laws to be updated.
|
|
I don't know the full details of this tragic case though would think that the cause was not looking before stepping off the pavement ...
|
>> I don't know the full details of this tragic case though would think that the
>> cause was not looking before stepping off the pavement ...
>>
....odd comment that.
It might or might not have been a contributory factor, but 12 people who were in full possession of the details, and had been shown a CCTV video of the incident, unanimously found the cyclist guilty.
:-(
|
Why is it an odd comment?
I said that I did not know tue full details though if the victim had seen the cyclist then the accident would surely have been avoided irrespective of his lack of brakes, his speed and his attitude
|
|
...I think I've already answered that question......
|
Ok, let's turn this one round a bit (as I heard on an interview on the news this morning)
Had it been a car driver or a lorry driver we would have all said it is any motorists duty to be alert and observant of other road users at all times, and not to travel faster than we can safely stop in an emergency.
In the case of it being a lorry the words 'professional duty' would have been brought into plat both at court and in the Press.
I assume the cyclist considered he was a professional and experienced cyclist to ride such a bike.
It's time the law was updated to make ALL road users face the same duties and penalties.
Pat
|
He had apparently worked as a cycle courier so I agree he should have appreciated the issues and possible consequences.
I'm not defending the arrogant and irresponsible cyclist. The jury has decided he was riding wantonly and furiously. If you have to shout at a pedestrian you should be braking as well, and if you have next to no brakes you should be going more slowly (leave aside the law on the matter).
I don't know what came out in the trial, but if some of the other reports are true he may well have been deliberately riding wantonly and furiously:
In February 2015, he tweeted: “The time when you first take your brakes off and feeling like you’re in a @lucasbrunelle movie.â€
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/845074/alleycat-Lucas-Brunelle-fan-Charlie-Alliston-cyclist
His apparent deliberate preference for a lack of brakes would aggravate the offence IMO.
However I don't think that in general dangerous cycling is comparable with dangerous driving, resulting in death. It is much less foreseeable that a collision with a cycle would result in a death than one with a car or lorry.
The two year limitation on the sentence will operate anyway in this case; but I don't think the range for causing death by dangerous driving (up to 14 years) would be appropriate for any cycle-specific legislation.
Certainly a suitably applicable law seems appropriate. The wording of the law reproduced in the article is said to date from 1861, when the bicycle had not properly been invented and was certainly not in common use. It was almost certainly intended to refer to the driving or riding of horses, so obvious presumably that it was not even necessary to state it.
Stand by for an appeal, if allowed.
|
>>and not to travel faster than we can safely stop in an emergency.
I certainly agree with that
>>I assume the cyclist considered he was a professional and experienced cyclist to ride such a bike.
>>
He was not a professional. None is " experienced" to safely ride such a bike at speed on the road.
and brake/stop safely.
>>It's time the law was updated to make ALL road users face the same duties and penlties.
I agree
|
>> It's time the law was updated to make ALL road users face the same duties
>> and penalties.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Including pedestrians?
|
>> ...I think I've already answered that question......
>>
Odd comment that.
|
|
I've certainly seen new BMX bikes sold through high-street shops without a front brake, just a side-pull to the rear, I suspect this is due to how the front wheel is spun around, there used to be a complex setup which did allow a front brake but this seems to have been dropped.
|
|
There seems to be a lot of media time given to this horrible incident, but how many pedestrians get hit by speeding cars and don't survive and what would the equivalent sentence be?
|
If they stepped out in front of a fully legal car, I'm guessing not much.
If they stepped out in front of a car with defective brakes, and the experts said that the accident would have been avoided if the brakes had been properly functioning, then I'm guessing substantial.
|
>> There seems to be a lot of media time given to this horrible incident, but
>> how many pedestrians get hit by speeding cars and don't survive and what would the
>> equivalent sentence be?
>>
The media time given to this was both because it was an unusual occurrence and the attitude the cyclist displayed both at the time, afterwards on social media and during the trial itself. He is at best a very stupid young man, and if he also drives or does so in future he will almost certainly display exactly the same attitude toward fellow road users as he did in this case.
It is too easy to catagorise people as cyclists, bikers, truckers or motorists when bad driving occurs, but the same people are just as dangerous no matter what mode of transport they are using.
|
...and that's the second thread I've agreed with you on Zippy!
He failed the attitude test quite spectacularly. He will continue to do that whatever he's driving and most probably throughout his whole life.
Pat
|
The 'I was a professional courier' bit doesn't hold up. Enquiries revealed he lasted 1 day with Firm 1, 1 week with Firm 2 and the third wasn't even set up when he claimed to work for them. Also, Police investigators confirmed that her phone wasn't in use at the time, merely being held in her hand.
Sounds like an arrogant little snide to me.
|
Not that I believe what he what he said, but to be accurate he said...
"...said he saw HR consultant Mrs Briggs step out into the road while looking at her phone."
I guess what the police investigators established is that no call was being made.
|
>>police investigators established is that no call was being made. <<
Or text message sent or recieved, Facebook or Twitter updated, What'sAp or Facetime used.
These are all checked routinely now after a vehicle accident where injuries are serious and if it's a lorry involved, the phone is confiscated before breathalyser and tacho records are checked.
Pat
|
Does anyone here watch programmes like 24 Hours in Police Custody? Where real-life events are followed from when they happen through to being charged? ( - nearly all, if not all, recent ones have ended up with a charge). And at the end there is a summary of how it turned out.
In most cases they seem to me to have the person bang to rights, with CCTV, DNA and/or credible witnesses.
However most people, oddly enough, don't want to plead guilty and come up with often fantastically unbelievable tales, sometimes changing their story along the way, and invariably seem to get off completely, or get sentenced on a much reduced charge, presumably because they have introduced an element of doubt.
I'm sure that's what happened here.
btw I'm intrigued how once can judge with such confidence from this case how he will behave in the future behind the wheel.
(As an aside, I don't know how solicitor's can sleep at night, when they assist people guilty of some really nasty crimes to get off the hook. And very few police interviews under caution get any responses other than No Comment.)
|
A solicitor is duty bound to represent their client but there is a balance and they also have a duty to the courts.
My ex worked on the defence team where two brothers were being prosecuted for the murder of their father.
All three were in the car at the time. Both were covered in cuts and bruises.
One brother claimed to have got the injuries trying to protect the father from the other one, who was the murderer.
Ex believed her defendant but he got life and the other one was found not guilty.
The other one was an ex soldier. Drummed out and a known good fighter but had a presence in court. The man found guilty was significantly smaller and couldn't have put up much of a fight / resistance to the brother.
Only they know the truth but ex is convinced the wrong person went to prison.
|
>>These are all checked routinely now after a vehicle accident where injuries are serious and if it's a lorry involved, the phone is confiscated before breathalyser and tacho records are checked.
Bit of a pain to do if its a modern Android or iPhone. Just refuse to hand over the password / finger print scan.
There was a case recently where a "bad un" had an iPhone that the police wanted access to.
They didn't spend millions trying to hack the phone. They put a tail on the guy when in public and stole the phone off him whilst he was making a call and therefore would be unlocked. They then employed an officer to keep using it until forensics has access to it.
Of course you could be prosecuted for not giving up a password where the maximum penalty is up to 2 years (or up to 5 years for more serious crimes).
|
They just go to your service provider for a record of all your activity on that day and usually the previous month.
There was a recent case of a lorry driver involved in a fatal accident where they matched his phone records with his tacho's and found he routinely used the phone at the same time he was driving, for the previous few weeks.
Bang to rights of course, but scary to realise what can be done now.
Pat
|
Has anyone looked at their Google timeline? I think that this is at least private at the moment (to other ordinary users I mean, not the powers that be).
Did you know others can track exactly when you were where, and for how long, using a simple app which simply interrogates Facebook Messenger, if you happen to have installed it?
I am a very infrequent Facebook user. In Cologne recently I got a FB message saying one of my mates had been to the same town, and had spent some time at xyz location. I hadn't even asked to spy on him...
|
>>Has anyone looked at their Google timeline?
I often do. It shows a rather sad picture of my life as a small circle encompassing my home, the kids' school, my club, and a local bar.
Ok, there's the occasional dramatic spike somewhere impressive, but overall its a fairly sad tale.
|
>> It shows a rather sad picture of my life as a small
>> circle encompassing my home, the kids' school, my club, and a local bar.
>>
Well yes, but I raised it more to highlight what data is kicking around in an easy-to-access place than how sad we all are!! :-)
|
>> Also, Police investigators confirmed that her phone
>> wasn't in use at the time, merely being held in her hand
Checking diary or previously downloaded texts/whatsapp etc messages?
|
Or simply just carrying it?
It's what hands are normally used for.
Pat
|
... listening to music, reading a book, listening to podcast (episode 149 thanks CG) etc etc
The truth is I don't think it matters very much.
If one is in a car, and someone steps out in front of your outside the stopping distance one is supposed to maintain, surely there is guilt? More difficult to specify with a bicycle for sure, but surely still a valid approach?
From afar, this particular cyclist would appear to be exactly the type of cyclist who makes all cyclists so unpopular in London.
The fact is that a pedestrian behaving much as pedestrians do was killed by a cyclist behaving much as cyclists should not. Perhaps the pedestrian contributed. So lets say the cyclist's illegal behaviour was only 50% responsible for her death - that still warrants punishment.
And she's dead. So two years doesn't seem that tough. Frankly I think he deserved the 2 years for his attitude alone.
(I don't know why I have 2 years in my mind given that sentencing hasn't yet occurred, was that the maximum for wanton and reckless or am I simply confused?)
|
>> (I don't know why I have 2 years in my mind given that sentencing hasn't
>> yet occurred, was that the maximum for wanton and reckless or am I simply confused?)
>>
...that is the maximum sentence and you are simply confused....
;-)
|
...was the word you were looking for "very", or "easily".....
;-)
|
|
I think the question in my mind is as follows, the guy seems like a bit of a nutter with a bad attitude though does that make him more guilty than if it were a vicar that she had stepped out in front of? On the otherhand perhaps the vicar, or anyone else for that matter, could have and would have stopped. So if he was on a collision path with the unfortunate victim and rather than trying to stop he shouted at her and berated her that's a completely different matter.
|
>> I think the question in my mind is as follows, the guy seems like a
>> bit of a nutter with a bad attitude though does that make him more guilty
>> than if it were a vicar that she had stepped out in front of? On
>> the otherhand perhaps the vicar, or anyone else for that matter, could have and would
>> have stopped. So if he was on a collision path with the unfortunate victim and
>> rather than trying to stop he shouted at her and berated her that's a completely
>> different matter.
>>
It's about attitude. I suspect the vicar would be devastated to know he caused someones' death.
He wouldn't post on facebook etc about who was in the right and would be contrite. He would probably be in a road legal vehicle as well which would make a difference.
I know its about attitude, I am not a particularly good driver but avoided running over a Japanese child (tourist?) whilst working in Midhurst last week. He came right out of a T - Junction and I was on the main road coming down a hill.
The posted limit was 40. I saw him well ahead and realised that he had no road sense, so slowed right down and stopped about 15 feet in front of the lad. The parents trying to catch up with him. They looked suitably embarrassed.
In contrast in Bromsgrove on Tuesday evening a group of English kids with bikes crossed a busy road just in front of me with out looking. Again, anticipation prevented an accident but all I got for not running them over was the bird!
|
>> ...was the word you were looking for "very", or "easily".....
>>
>> ;-)
"Often"
|
"listening to music, reading a book, listening to podcast (episode 149 thanks CG) etc etc"
Ah King Offa. Only a hundred or so more and you will reach the year 900
Let me recommend another podcast you might also like
"The Weird History Podcast"
www.interestingtimespodcast.co
Deals with lesser know and curious items from history.
To get a taste try episode 135, "Pad Thai Nationalist and Mandatory Hats" and episode 133 "Hachiko"
Each episode usually stands on its own but there are a dozen or more episodes on the rise of Italian Fascism that are well worth listening to
|
>> From afar, this particular cyclist would appear to be exactly the type of cyclist who
>> makes all cyclists so unpopular in London.
I agree. He gives every impression of being a complete cock with all the over confidence of youth. Track bikes have no place on road and I have serious reservations about suitability of road legal 'fixies' for London traffic.
There's some commentary here by Martin Porter QC (known as the cycling silk):
www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge
He makes some interesting points about the prosecution's 'expert' evidence on how quickly a bike can be stopped. When I read the media reports my eyebrows were seriously raised by suggestion of a stopping distance of 3 metres (less than two bikes lengths) when compared to a how long it takes to stop a car at c20mph.
I am though gobsmacked by his suggestion that 18mph is 'OK' in circs Alliston was in on Old Street. A street in a busy commercial area during the whole working day, never mind at lunchtime, is full of hazard. Taxis etc veering in to pick up/drop off, construction trucks and pedestrians who step off the kerb without proper observation. Assuming effective brakes 10mph is a peak and you need brakes and bell covered at all times. Watch the peds, make eye contact and be sure they WILL step back when you'd like them to keep on.
It's actually rewarding to watch and interact with them as people - a wave and word of thanks when they've seen you or stop and smile while they cross your path.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 Aug 17 at 20:08
|
This arrogant little p r I c k should be locked up.No remorse playing the innocent victim.
No brakes on a bike cycling with no care in the world.It always amazes me in the U.K how lightly traffic offences are punished.
|
>> I am though gobsmacked by his suggestion that 18mph is 'OK' in circs Alliston was
>> in on Old Street. A street in a busy commercial area during the whole working
>> day, never mind at lunchtime, is full of hazard.
...in recognition of which, a large part of Old Street carries a 20mph speed limit (though whether the accident occurred in or out of that, I don't know).
|
I'm a fairly experienced cyclist. From the age of 9 or so, I used to ride into and around Edinburgh city both to and from school and for leisure. By the time I was in my teens, I was building bikes from scratch for various purposes. Some for road use, others for off road "tracking" as we used to call it, but what has now become known as mountain biking.
At one point I built a fixie. A fixed wheel, stripped down bike (to reduce weight.) The whole idea was to remove, or more accurately, not add anything you could live without, and even brakes were seen as an unnecessary luxury because to slow or stop you only had to use your legs to slow the fixed wheel.
I tried riding the stripped fixie across the city only once. Even for someone who was by now a very confident cyclist, it was just too scary, and way too unpredictable for use in traffic.
After I took it home, I immediately fitted it with brakes, front and back, and indeed a freewheel single speed hub.
Fixies have no place on the road in my opinion. On a velodrome they are fabulous machines, light, fast and raw, but just not suitable for mixing it in the city.
|
>>
>>
>> Fixies have no place on the road in my opinion. On a velodrome they are
>> fabulous machines, light, fast and raw, but just not suitable for mixing it in the
>> city.
>>
>>
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unsafe in using a fixed wheel bike in traffic. Like Henry I used them regularly in the past, both for racing, club riding and commuting in London. Once you get the hang of them they give you a greater degree of control at low manouvering speed than a freewheel does.
As Henry also says, the bike this lad was riding, a Planet X had no facility for fitting either a front or rear brake and only an idiot would use one on the road.
www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXPCTB/planet-x-pro-carbon-track-sport-bike
|
" Track bikes have no place on road and I have serious reservations about suitability of road legal 'fixies' for London traffic."
In my late teens I rode a "track bike" with a fixed wheel, every weekday to commute 10 miles or more each way to my job.
I raced on local roads, like the A3, the same bike in time trials in the mid week evenings and on Sundays.
Of course it had a front brake and yes I have been straight over the handlebars on several occasions.
In that period virtually all time trialists rode such bikes
Track bikes? IMO there seems to be a little confusion on what they are etc.
The image shown certainly seems to show a track bike.
Aerodynamic parts of the frame point to that and it also has a short wheelbase.
I would expect no hole through the top of the front forks to accept the normal fitting of a common caliper brake, so not legal to be on the road.I guess a disk brake could be fitted ?
The clearance between the tyre and the frame would be absolutely minimum to save weight and reduce drag.
In my day a track bike certainly had a much shorter wheelbase but of course no advanced aerodynamics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_end
Shows a a rear drop out and this used to be one of the main distinguishing feature of a "track bike " even if it was only, like mine, for use on the road.
But there are "track bikes " with two brakes.
www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/thehour_plus.htm
All such bikes have a "fixed wheel"
IMO a legal fixed wheeled bike is fine on the road.
I could still ride one today.
|
Interesting Henry, looks like we posted on the same subject at the same time, with fundamentally different opinions.
;-)
|
>> Interesting Henry, looks like we posted on the same subject at the same time, with
>> fundamentally different opinions. ;-)
>>
We will continue to disagree and I have no problem with that :-)
p.s.
I had no vehicle transport to events so we pedaled to the start with our racing wheels
attached as shown below and would swap wheels be for and after the race.
I was surprised to find reference for such " sprint wheel carriers " .
janheine.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/spare-wheel-carriers-for-cyclocross/
"Years ago, I read how British time trialists faced a similar problem. They did not want to wear out their tubulars on the way to their events, or worse, get a flat that couldn’t easily be repaired on the road. So they made spare wheel carriers that allowed carrying a second wheelset on the bike.
I suspect the first of these were hand-made, but the British Cyclo company offered an aluminum version."
|
'Why I ride a bike without a brake'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036581
"A fixed-wheel bicycle has a single gear, no freewheel mechanism and dropped handlebars."
Not true re dropped handlebars see below and at least three have a front brake fitted.
road.cc/content/news/198458-london-bike-couriers-set-map-capitals-pollution
"but says his fellow couriers are among the most trained urban cyclists in London"
I suspect trained is not the word.
"People just step out in front and expect us to stop. There needs more education for pedestrians dealing with cyclists.......
So pay attention all!
|
|
What sort of age are you Henry? I lived in Surrey from 18 months until about 40, leaving 15 years ago. In my teens I time trialed around the reservoirs near Molsey and Staines, around Chobham and Longcross amongst others, and hill climbed in the Surrey hills. I simply road the bike I had, nothing fancy, to an event, competed and road home again. I road at Herne Hill a couple of times borrowing a fixed wheel track bike.
|
I am retired. Re time trialing, I too rode the Waterworks course at Hampton, the Wraysbury course near Staines, the Bells of Ouseley course from Runnymede through Windsor Great park /Bracknell, the Amersham course and the A3 from Esher.
I am not on the road early enough ( 5am /6am starts to see the lads flogging themselves :-(
I suspect mid week evening 10/15 mile events would be difficult these days.
I never rode on a cycle track like Herne Hill but did ride a road race on the Crystal Palace motor racing circuit.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41306738
A cyclist who knocked over and killed a 44-year-old woman in east London has been sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Charlie Alliston, then 18, was travelling at 18mph on a fixed-wheel track bike with no front brakes before he crashed into Kim Briggs in February last year.
|
|
Cue the campaign to include cyclists in driving law and penalties.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 14:34
|
>> Cue the campaign to include cyclists in driving law and penalties.
>>
There would seem to be a reasonable case for updating and harmonising said laws. Whilst this particular incident is particularly extreme and tragic, it's not going to be the last of its kind; particularly as virtually everyone in a large city seems to be insulated from their surroundings by the distraction of either a mobile screen or headphones..
|
Well, well, well, I said that last week and got thoroughly shouted down HM but you get a thumbs up:)
>> it's not going to be the last of its kind; particularly as virtually everyone in a large city seems to be insulated from their surroundings by the distraction of either a mobile screen or headphones..<<
I was told that 4 deaths a year is nothing to be alarmed at!
Surely the fact that the prosecution had to be brought using a Victorian law designed for horses and carriages to get some sort of justified penalty, proves the laws for cyclists need updating.
Pat
|
>> Yet another one.
Another what? It's Oxford Street, she may simply have stepped out in front of him as pedestrians on that thoroughfare are wont to do. I'd avoid cycling down there for exactly that reason. God knows how the bus drivers cope.
He was arrested but not for any offence connected to the collision.
|
Another death involving a pedestrian and a cyclist Bromp.
I know you don't like to accept it happens but the facts are there and can't be denied.
Pat
|
We know there are around 4 such cases in average year.
I don't deny they happen but I believe your 'yet another' apart from disregarding the real probability was intended to imply 'yet another' reckless cyclist.
|
Well, you believe wrong Bromp, it was in response to a comment made on here (possibly by you but I'm not sure and don't have time to look for it) that it's relatively rare for a cyclist to cause a death.
It stuck with me.
It does actually point to 'yet another' cyclist with an attitude problem as the video shows.
Pat
|
It is more than relatively rare. There are about four cases a year and while there are cases where cyclist is reckless and culpable I have numerous personal experiences of peds stepping off the pavement.
The man had a problem with being arrested for another offence. Cyclism is entirely incidental to that.
|
|
Am I missing something or is it if a driver flattens a pedestrian it is the drivers fault but if a cyclist flattens a pedestrian it is the pedestrians fault?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 13:35
|
|
In Central London, there is a significant minority of cyclists who don't stop at zebra crossings, and as a pedestrian I have narrowly avoided being hit a handful of times. One of these idiots even had the temerity to start arguing with me after riding up the middle of two lanes of stopped traffic and missing me and another chap by inches on the crossing. I think it was only when he realised there were two incensed people one of whom (not me) had amusingly threatened to dismantle his bicycle and insert it piece by piece up his fundament, that he backed down and rode off, bravely sticking his middle finger up when out of range.
|
|
In Central London, there is a significant majority of pedestrians who don't look before they step out into the road, and as a cyclist I have narrowly avoided hitting them a handful of times. These idiots don't look to see if the road is clear, rather they use their ears as 'eyes' and if they can't hear anything, they assume the road is clear and cross without using their eyes. Their eyes are usually glued to their smartphone screens of course. I have often been tempted to shove their smartphones up their fundaments, but have avoided temptation thus far. :-)
|
>> I have often been tempted to shove their smartphones up their fundaments, but have avoided temptation thus far. :-) <<
I agree with that BB!
Problems start though when motorists have to legally avoid them of face very stiff penalties, cyclists don't seem to face that at all.
Whatever will happen when London is full of EV's!
Pat
|
>> Whatever will happen when London is full of EV's!
>>
>> Pat
>>
Beat me to that one! Carnage! I know a Swiss village which has been all EV for decades. They have cow bells fitted which jingle on the cobbled streets.
www.zermatt.ch/en/sustainability
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 14:13
|
Darwinism will eventually deal with those people. They are going to come off worst in any collision.
|
That's ringing a bell ON, and I'm sure it was a thread in the past where that was discussed, where the comment I refer to was made.
We were discussing the need for stronger penalties in cases like this for cyclists and 'only' four deaths a year certainly justifies that.
At the very least it would serve as something of a deterrent.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 13:56
|
"No arrests have been made in relation to the collision".
Had the cyclist been arrested and charged, it would have been cited as evidence of recklessness.
The fact that he hasn't is NOT evidence of cyclists being treated differently to motorists.
This looks like a tragic accident. From the picture, it looks as if the lady was in the road about 40 feet from a crossing point.
|
>>The fact that he hasn't is NOT evidence of cyclists being treated differently to motorists.<<
I beg to differ on that one.
Standard procedure if it had been an HGV and pedestrian would have been an arrest, a breathalyser, mobile phone seized and checked, reported in the Press and then either charged or released without charge.
That's where it is so unjust.
Pat
|
>> Standard procedure if it had been an HGV and pedestrian would have been an arrest,
>> a breathalyser, mobile phone seized and checked, reported in the Press and then either charged or released without charge.
There is no specific legal alcohol limit for cyclists, so there would be little point in one making one take a breath test. As for the mobile, as the man was arrested how do you know it was not checked? And as a cyclist using a mobile is more visibly doing so than someone inside a car maybe one or more of the many witnesses were able to confirm that he wasn't.
I agree that negligent cyclists should be penalised in the same way as motorists, but your OP gives the impression that deaths caused by cyclists are a major problem when in fact they are so low they would show up as zero on a set of statistics.
(Before the forum's smart rectums jump on it, I mean the figure zero rather than our esteemed trainspotter of the same name).
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 01:38
|
I am concerned at the disparity between cyclist and motorists after an accident involving a death.
They are on the increase and one set of road users (cyclists) cannot expect to be treated equally as a road user in only the parts of the law they want to.
I realise there is no present alcohol limit...there should be.
Similarly with the drug driving laws for motorists, they should apply to cyclists too.
Deaths caused by cyclists are increasing and will become a problem unless they have a deterrent the same as any other road user.
The lack of any real penalties for cyclists has a negative effect on their riding, and responsibilities that no other road user has the pleasure of....that is very unfair.
Pat
|
|
Unfair does not put it on political agendas until it becomes a serious problem, unfortunately half a dozen dead pedestrians a year is not even on the radar.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 16:39
|
>>I realise there is no present alcohol limit...there should be.
>>Similarly with the drug driving laws for motorists, they should apply to cyclists too.
Just a few years ago very late in the evening we found a teenage cyclist flat out on the road ( a bus route). My daughter a doctor did a quick examination and said he should go to hospital.
He was more concerned about his bike than his head.
He gave all the indications of too much booze.
It the end he was threatened with us calling the police unless he went in the ambulance.
Fortunately he was OK when I returned his bike to his parents.
|
>> Deaths caused by cyclists are increasing and will become a problem unless they have a
>> deterrent the same as any other road user.
What are the year on year statistics for death caused by cyclists?
Just a question as I have no idea myself.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 01:38
|
I don't think you can argue that something is "on the increase" as a trend based on 4 deaths in a year.
The idea that cyclists should be subject to the same breath tests etc as drivers is, I am sorry to say, ludicrous. It completely ignores
- the risks, which are a orders of magnitude apart for a <15Kg vehicle compared with a 1.5 tonne car or a 44 tonne wagon.
- the fact that the collision is as potentially as dangerous to the cyclist as the ped. Drivers in urban areas take risks with other people's lives, cyclists risk their own too. It's the equivalent of driving a car with the proverbial spike in the centre of the steering wheel.
You might as well argue that pedestrians should be breathalysed/penalised too.
There's also the point that it is far better for somebody to have a few pints and cycle than to drive. Apply the same penalty for cycling and he could decide he might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 18:05
|
>>There's also the point that it is far better for somebody to have a few pints and cycle than to drive.<<
Having tried in vain to pass a large number of intoxicated cyclists over theyears in a 44 ton lorry I cannot agree with you.
What is wrong with a taxi or walking?
Cycling is very much on the increase so along with that so will all cycling accidents increase too.
Pat
|
I'm not recommending cycling while drunk.
But you are describing a circumstance in which the cyclist is a danger almost exclusively to his own life and limb - much like inebriated pedestrians, who are a much nearer comparison to tipsy cyclists than are intoxicated carists or lorryists.
|
>> I'm not recommending cycling while drunk.
>>
Maybe not, but you appear to be condoning while tipsy and putting the onus on other road users to accommodate your reduced capabilities and awareness....is that fair?
>>inebriated pedestrians, who are a much nearer comparison to tipsy cyclists than are intoxicated carists or lorryists.<<
Who both have far more to lose if involved in an accident and so don't drink and drive.
The reason that has reduced dramatically in the last 20 years is simply because of the penalties acting as a deterrent.
Pat
|
[quote]Standard procedure if it had been an HGV and pedestrian would have been an arrest, a breathalyser, mobile phone seized and checked, reported in the Press and then either charged or released without charge.[/quote]
I think these are vastly different things, so can't be compared. The number of people killed by dangerous cycling is so low that the Court had to resort to a 300-year-old law to get a prosecution recently. While people are occasionally killed by cyclists, it's almost invariably their own fault (stepping out without looking), hence the lack of case law.
The number of people - pedestrians or cyclists - killed by vehicles (cars or HGVs) is orders of magnitude more. It's also rarely their own fault. We all notice examples of dangerous driving on every journey. Doesn't matter if it's a car, or a van, or an HGV - if it goes wrong there's a decent chance someone will die. If I do something stupid on a bike (running a red light, for example), there's a decent chance that ***I*** will die.
My strong advice is that anyone who feels that the media, and the police, and the public, in general, is biased towards cyclists should hop on a bike for an afternoon in a busy town and see what happens.
Edit: oh, for crying out loud. I didn't use any bad language and it's deleted half the post.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 09:14
|
>> There is no specific legal alcohol limit for cyclists,
I believe there is a charge of cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol, the maximum penalty used to be a £50 fine.
|
Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: “It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs – that is to say – is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle
Max penalty 1000 pounds
|
|
Indeed. And there is also the ancient "reckless riding" offence that someone was charged with recently.
|
>> Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: “It is an offence for a person to
>> ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through
>> drink or drugs – that is to say – is under the influence of a
>> drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper
>> control of the cycle
>>
>> Max penalty 1000 pounds
>>
Correct, but the opinion as to whether a cyclist is drunk is subjective, there is no proscribed alcohol limit. Pat says the number of accidents involving cyclists has increased because there are more of them, which is logical. But she still has not shown anything to back her original claim that pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists is rising.
|
|
I recon the Putney pusher is also a cyclist, same pedestrian hating attitude.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 20:33
|
|
You do come out with some old tosh at times - well quite often actually. Anything to be controvertial eh?
|
>> You do come out with some old tosh at times - well quite often actually.
>> Anything to be controvertial eh?
>>
Better than the forum dying of apathy.
|
|
In legal terms being drunk is classified as what's known as a "simple drunk" - i.e. a Police Officer provides evidence such as "he was unsteady on his feet, his eyes were glazed and his speech was slurred" in practice they could ask for a screening breath-test - not an offence to refuse or fail but it would provide excellent corroborative evidence.
|
>>But she still has not shown anything to back her original claim that pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists is rising.<<
There are quite a few statistics out there to show an increase RR, but none of them are from what I would consider to be a reliable, unbiased source, that's why I haven't backed it up.
Maybe I should have said IMHO.
In all honesty, with the increase in cyclists in built up areas and the propensity for pedestrians to walk around looking at their phones, it's somewhat inevitable the increase will continue.
It is my opinion that a legal way of making the cyclist responsible for their actions would act as a deterrent to irresponsible riding, and also address the attitude problem so many seem to have.
Pat
|
There does, seem to be a type of person who is permanently, and somewhat inevitably, trying to find fault with anyone who is not of their peer group.
It reminds me of a school playground. There will always be the kids who will cause trouble and disrupt, another group, the vast majority, who just get on with their lives and lessons, and a third group whose mission in life seems to be desperately trying to the first to report the bad kids to the teacher.
As pretty much always is the case, the real, but more difficult answer, lies in better education ( of all concerned ) rather than the banning and punishment of the many, in order to control the few.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 08:30
|
|
Spot on Runfer (not for the first time).
|
The bigger problem by far, bluntly, is the bigoted, hostile and offensive attitude of probably the majority of car drivers to cyclists.
Our 'local' FB page recently had a post ranting about being held up by cyclists for a whole mile on a country road (shock, horror). Cue dozens of responses, the vast majority critical of cyclists for not immediately getting out of the way, not using cycle lanes or staying on the pavement, riding two abreast, etc., some just contented themselves with calling all cyclists by one abusive term or another.
I don't know about lorry drivers specifically, most are also car drivers, but it would be nice to think that as full time professional drivers they remain calm and considerate - in the same way that most (I also like to think) avoid pulling out suddenly in front of an approaching car to indulge in an amusing three mile elephant race.
|
Noting that it's the cyclists on here who are objecting strongly to the proposal that some legislation is need to make them responsible for their own actions makes me ask why?
Surely if there wasn't a need for it then it wouldn't be used, and none of you would be affected.
Much like many of the obscure laws affecting motorists, but they are in place should they be needed.
Why do cyclists always seem to be reluctant to take any responsibility for their own safety, and expect others to do it.
Most of you drive cars and if you see a pedestrian walking near a kerb, engrossed in a phone, the warning bells ring and you cover the brake pedal in readiness.
Surely if a cyclist doesn't take that same care then he should face the same penalties.
Pat
|
>> Noting that it's the cyclists on here who are objecting strongly to the proposal that
>> some legislation is need to make them responsible for their own actions
I don't accept the premise of your post, which seems to be that cyclists are not responsible for their own actions. They are, and they can be and have been held liable if they have injured somebody wilfully or negligently.
For the last time - careless or drunk or red-light-running cyclists much more of a danger to themselves than they are to anyone else. They don't need a steering wheel with a spike in the middle, it's there already.
The reverse applies to a driver of a car or lorry, the reckless use of which is far more likely to injure a third party.
>>Why do cyclists always seem to be reluctant to take any responsibility for their own safety, and expect others to do it.
I don't recall anybody saying that. See above - cyclists unless insane don't need any more incentive to try and stay safe - they are the ones who usually get hurt.
>>Most of you drive cars and if you see a pedestrian walking near a kerb, engrossed in a phone,
>> the warning bells ring and you cover the brake pedal in readiness.
>>Surely if a cyclist doesn't take that same care
What on earth makes you think they don't? You know the old saying "expect everyone else on the road to do something stupid"? People who aren't encased in a metal shell are much more likely to remember that, not less.
I seem to lack the words to state this clearly enough, so I will retire from the field!
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 11:40
|
>> >> > I don't recall anybody saying that. See above - cyclists unless insane don't need any
>> more incentive to try and stay safe - they are the ones who usually get
>> hurt.
I don't know about other places but round here it's not uncommon to see those on push bikes to have no lights all black. Its out the back of beyond here so no street lights or lights of any sort.
I wouldn't exaggerate and says it's daily but it's often enough that it doesn't surprise me any more.
|
The government is launching a review into whether a new law is needed to tackle dangerous cycling.
It will consider whether an equivalent offence to causing death by dangerous driving is needed for cyclists.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41337440
|
A review, provided it is fair and open, is to be welcomed. When truly egregious cases like Alliston can only be charged under Victorian legislation framed for horses or with manslaughter - next to zero chance of conviction we need change. That may be no more than reframing law in modern context and with modern penalties. Or it may need something more nuanced covering careless, reckless dangerous etc.
Trying to replicate law and penalties related to motor vehicles with mass of 2000kg plus and capable of three figured speeds is apples/oranges territory. A jury would be rightly reluctant to convict where victims death was result of falling badly rather than the traumatic injury of high speed vehicle impact.
On that basis you could justify death by dangerous jogging.
|
>>A jury would be rightly reluctant to convict where victims death was result of falling badly rather than the traumatic injury of high speed vehicle impact.
And there was me thinking that a Jury was there to decide if something had happened or not, and the judge to guide and rule on points of law.
|
>> And there was me thinking that a Jury was there to decide if something had
>> happened or not, and the judge to guide and rule on points of law.
The word rightly should not have been there.
There's lots of anecdotal evidence (real research speaking to jurors is illegal) that there is reluctance to convict in serious motoring offences such as death by dangerous. Jurors are either sympathetic to defendants circs and effect of conviction/sentence or think 'there but for grace of God'. Exactly why option of jury for Drink Driving was removed 40 or so years ago.
Knock on effect is CPS charging lower offence as 50% probability of conviction threshold is not crossed.
|
>> On that basis you could justify death by dangerous jogging.
>>
As was almost the case with the Putney Bridge pusher. Or would that be covered by the legislation used against railway platform pushers?
|
>> As was almost the case with the Putney Bridge pusher. Or would that be covered
>> by the legislation used against railway platform pushers?
>>
Surely that's simply GBH or something, doesn't matter if you are walking or cycling or hopping or whatever when you do it, it's the action that is the crime.
I am still uncomfortable with this case, I have every sympathy with the victim and her family though if your are driving a legal car and you pull our on an illegal car it is still your fault, you pulled out. The driver of the illegal car will get done for no insurance or faulty this and that though you will get done for pulling out.
We have all done it, not looked properly when crossing a road, and got away with it though she had the terrible misfortune to step out in front of an oik with an attitude riding a bike with no rear brake, however she should have looked, should have seen him, maybe should have used the pelican crossing 10m away, surely it's unfair for the blame to sit solely on his shoulders for the rest of his life even though she has so tragically lost hers.
|
>> surely it's unfair for the blame to sit solely on his shoulders for the rest of his life
>>
He was riding a bike which should not have been on the road, from what I have read about it he was basically an accident looking for a place to happen
|
>>>The bigger problem by far, bluntly, is the bigoted, hostile and offensive attitude of probably the majority of car drivers to cyclists.
And let's not forget... The bigger problem by far, bluntly, is the bigoted, hostile and offensive attitude of probably the majority of cyclists to car drivers.
As a lifetime cyclist and car driver I despair of the attitude on both sides.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 11:19
|
>> >>>The bigger problem by far, bluntly, is the bigoted, hostile and offensive attitude of probably
>> the majority of car drivers to cyclists.
>>
>> And let's not forget... The bigger problem by far, bluntly, is the bigoted, hostile and
>> offensive attitude of probably the majority of cyclists to car drivers.
Ha ha, very droll.
Aren't the majority of cyclists car drivers themselves?
Let's just say it's a very uneven contest when the two come into contact.
|
|
I have been, and continue to be, a driver, a pedestrian and a cyclist, often all three in the same day. I have been all of those all my adult life, and two of them pretty much my whole life. I've never once come into inadvertent physical contact with another road user. We don't need more damned rules. All we need is for common sense to prevail. Most conflict occurs when one ignorant bigot comes into contact with another one. Normally adjusted people recognise the idiots or potential ones, and take steps to avoid them rather than conflict with them. Battles generally require at least two combatants.
|
It was really pleasant to be thanked by a lycra clad, lit up and helmeted cyclist recently when I didn't pass him for about 30 seconds until it was totally safe to do so. (Devon)
I got the finger from a group of camouflaged cyclists at about 7:45 PM who were on the pavement and suddenly cycled out across the road from a private drive to get to the other side, forcing an emergency stop. No use of horn from me but they were exceptionally lucky not to be dead. (Redditch)
When being polite to other car drivers, it irks me a little when not thanked for giving way or letting someone out. The society and attitudes show up when using vehicles.
When I am near my destination on business, I do wonder if I will meet any of the rude vehicle users when I arrive at my destination and will my attitude to them differ!?
|
>> There are quite a few statistics out there to show an increase RR, but none
>> of them are from what I would consider to be a reliable, unbiased source,
They are probably rubbish, then.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 16:54
|
>> There are quite a few statistics out there to show an increase RR, but none
>> of them are from what I would consider to be a reliable, unbiased source, that's
>> why I haven't backed it up.
>>
>> Maybe I should have said IMHO.
According to the BBC, two people were killed by cyclists in 2015. If that represents an "Increase", it can only be by one at the most.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41346237
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 22 Sep 17 at 02:45
|
Unbelievable! - zippy
