HeliX Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Helix , pleased to see you post that you give folk plenty of room , one problem I have , as an old boy on vintage machinery , is that some motorists ( particularly idiots in big red Ferrari's) and some modern motorcyclists who overtake just before a road junction and immediately 'chop in' and brake heavily as they assume that all other road vehicles have brakes as efficient as their own. There's just no excuse for doing otherwise. What does being a few meters closer to the vehicle in front gain you? Absolutely bollock all. A second, maybe two. The overtaking and then cutting in thing is just people who think the world revolves around them. When you're in charge of an extremely effective weapon, you should be at your most courteous, polite and forgiving. But some people seem to be at their worst, effing and blinding at every perceived slight and trying to intimidate the people around them. Mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I suppose the concept of 'the cyclist' having some regard for the traffic he's holding up and pulling over is out of the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 the cycling thing is kneejerk the kneejerk should be 'build the bypass' and stop being in so much of a b****y hurry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I suppose the concept of 'the cyclist' having some regard for the traffic he's holding up and pulling over is out of the question? Every cyclist I've been behind for any length of time has made every effort to give people opportunity to pass. Not stopping, which is fair enough, because it's a lot more effort to accelerate a bicycle than a car, but things like riding along the white line at laybys or bus stops etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Regarding the 5 feet practicality; the campaign is suggesting 3 feet at 30mph and below, 5 feet outside that. Obviously some roads are narrow, and that is covered in equivalent laws elsewhere, eg: "If the road is too narrow for a vehicle to overtake a cycle at a distance of 1.5 metres, then that vehicle must travel behind the cycle until it is able to overtake it lawfully" 1.5 meters is not unreasonable where there is no limit. Any closer than that and you really are risking someone's life. I wouldn't say this is a kneejerk, it's a law that's been adopted elsewhere, and the supporters are using it as a way of doing some good in the way of this tragic incident. I suppose the concept of 'the cyclist' having some regard for the traffic he's holding up and pulling over is out of the question? For every car, or just the one you're driving? It simply isn't practical, I pull over when I can, but cars are faster than me obviously, if I pulled over all the time I'd never get anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I've given a bit of thought before commenting on this, and it's only my opinion, so here goes. Cyclists are not my favourite road users, but that's just me. But --- in this case, and I stress it's just my opinion, the driver was outrageous in her actions before the incident (by her own admittion) , after the offence, the charge was wrong, and the sentence is derisory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I've given a bit of thought before commenting on this, and it's only my opinion, so here goes. Cyclists are not my favourite road users, but that's just me. But --- in this case, and I stress it's just my opinion, the driver was outrageous in her actions before the incident (by her own admittion) , after the offence, the charge was wrong, and the sentence is derisory. I don't mind Cyclists as long as they respect the other road users. This woman has got away with it. Admits driving erratically, lies twice and kills someone. Accidents happen. But this was avoidable and there has to be some sort of acknowledgment that careless driving that causes death carries some sort of penalty other than a suspended sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sentencing will always be controversial. Earlier this week a woman was fined £250 for not seeing a red light on a new route to work on the main road through Glen Vine and wiping out a car going through the green light. Had the car been a cyclist or motorbike the outcome would have been different. But the offence and her actions would have been exactly the same, should the punishment for the offence or the outcome? Similar can be said about people getting into fights. People get punched or pushed outside pubs in Britain every week and most get no charge or a very modest fine. If the victim happens to fall and smack his head causing serious injury the offence and punishment suddenly escalate although the intent and actions of the attacker were exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You have to deal with the result. In the case of punching someone - if you hit someone you will be getting done for assault. How that might esculate will depend on the outcome of the punch. If the outcome is nothing more than the victim reporting it and no damage is done then that is one thing. If they cause them damage then it could be ABH. If they hit them, they fall and hit their head an die, then that is another. All three punchs could be identical but you have to punish in relation to the outcome. In the case of this woman, if she had just knocked the cyclist of her bike with no realy injury, or minor injury I can see the rationale for the sentence. But to kill someone cannot be treated the same. Same accident, very differing results. She got away very very lightly indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sentencing will always be controversial. Earlier this week a woman was fined £250 for not seeing a red light on a new route to work on the main road through Glen Vine and wiping out a car going through the green light. Had the car been a cyclist or motorbike the outcome would have been different. But the offence and her actions would have been exactly the same, should the punishment for the offence or the outcome? Similar can be said about people getting into fights. People get punched or pushed outside pubs in Britain every week and most get no charge or a very modest fine. If the victim happens to fall and smack his head causing serious injury the offence and punishment suddenly escalate although the intent and actions of the attacker were exactly the same. No comparison. She knew the cyclist was there and deliberately put her own interests before the safety of the cyclist. The red light event was carelessness, the smacked head resulting in death was an unforseen outcome, in this case she put the cyclist in harms way deliberately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I mis understood the highway code when I was younger and got it into my head that I needed to "leave the space of a car" (I think it's supposed to be "the same space as you would a car") between the cyclist and my car, this isn't one of my worst mis understandings as I still do it now & have never annoyed a cyclist (except for this one time when I was heading to Peel and the sun was in my eyes and I didn't see the cyclist at all..yeah, he and I were very very lucky that day) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 As far as this woman goes... Maybe she should be banned from driving for ever? Big car, no sense of other road users... standard big car mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterflies Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 In this case the driver said she didn't see the cyclist so the 3 (or 5) metre rule would have been unlikely to have made a difference. That said I fully support the idea, I am not a cyclist but they are vulnerable road users and should be given consideration and space. I have no problem waiting behind one until it is safe to pass & give them a wide berth and I cannot understand people who get annoyed or impatient and pass without giving room or consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterflies Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sentencing will always be controversial. Earlier this week a woman was fined £250 for not seeing a red light on a new route to work on the main road through Glen Vine and wiping out a car going through the green light. Had the car been a cyclist or motorbike the outcome would have been different. But the offence and her actions would have been exactly the same, should the punishment for the offence or the outcome? Similar can be said about people getting into fights. People get punched or pushed outside pubs in Britain every week and most get no charge or a very modest fine. If the victim happens to fall and smack his head causing serious injury the offence and punishment suddenly escalate although the intent and actions of the attacker were exactly the same. No comparison. She knew the cyclist was there and deliberately put her own interests before the safety of the cyclist. The red light event was carelessness, the smacked head resulting in death was an unforseen outcome, in this case she put the cyclist in harms way deliberately. You should be careful what you say. There is nothing suggesting anything like what you are saying. There was nothing deliberate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sentencing will always be controversial. Earlier this week a woman was fined £250 for not seeing a red light on a new route to work on the main road through Glen Vine and wiping out a car going through the green light. Had the car been a cyclist or motorbike the outcome would have been different. But the offence and her actions would have been exactly the same, should the punishment for the offence or the outcome? Similar can be said about people getting into fights. People get punched or pushed outside pubs in Britain every week and most get no charge or a very modest fine. If the victim happens to fall and smack his head causing serious injury the offence and punishment suddenly escalate although the intent and actions of the attacker were exactly the same. No comparison. She knew the cyclist was there and deliberately put her own interests before the safety of the cyclist.The red light event was carelessness, the smacked head resulting in death was an unforseen outcome, in this case she put the cyclist in harms way deliberately. You should be careful what you say. There is nothing suggesting anything like what you are saying. There was nothing deliberate. The road was narrow, she deliberately overtook the cyclist. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.