Cambridge's local MP's latest daft idea.............

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New...ambridge-MP-Julian-Huppert-20130808121953.htm

The link, in short, says "Motorists should automatically be blamed for collisions with cyclists unless it can be proved that the rider is at fault, according to Cambridge’s MP"

Cambridge has a lot of cyclists!

What a pill0ck!

My God, you lot in Barnsley are lucky!!

 

It might make some of the tools who drive give a bit more consideration for cyclists. I once ended up on the bonnet of a car and all I got was "sorry mate I nivver saw thi" - the feckin ******.

 

So where does the blame when push bike Peter skittles a pedestrian.

 

There are just as many idiot cyclists as there are drivers. I drive trans-pennine to work and some of the cyclists I pass are literally taking massive risks due to their own poor road skills.

 

Read the article - the cyclist in your example is to blame, DT!

 

do you mean the pedestrians walking along txting with headphones on ?

 

Push iron Peter peddling down the pavement...

Jumping reds...

Etc.

 

Silly thing for the MP to say certainly.

Mind you, cyclists in Cambridge city centre are annoying. They zoom around pedestrianised areas without concern.

 

I agree mate, there are. Thing is though, you can't do nearly as much damage to other members of the public when you're on a bike compared to being in a car.

 

Works in Holland.....they have lots of bicycles too I understand.

 

I have respect people who use a bike to commute to work, but some of them really need to take a look at how much of the road they are using and the constant changing from being a yard from the curb to suddenly two or three yards from the curb. I'm really surprised I haven't had to scrape one off the car, especially over the last 12 months or so when I seem to be passing three or four on what is only a 15 minute journey to work.

 

On the cyclist.

Presumption of guilt would be with the person who's got the deadliest instrument. A cyclist against a pedestrian, a car against a cyclist and an HGV against a car.

That would be obvious, had you read the article. And all very sensible in my opinion.

 

Have you ever looked at the collection of rubbish and broken glass which accumulates against the kerb, even in the so-called cycle lanes? Imagine driving along a road strewn with broken glass, nails and bits and pieces of stuff chucked all over the place. You'd be veering around too.

 

Exactly, cyclists are open to the elements.

Giving the cyclist plenty of room in anticipation of them veering a few yards to avoid wet/slippery drain covers, being affected by gusts of wind etc, would be the best option.

Motorists just need to have a bit more patience, tolerance, and become more aware of other vulnerable road users.

 

There is absolutely no sense in guilt being assumed just because you have the more 'deadly instrument'. A HGV is perfectly safe in the hands of a cautious, courteous and skilled driver, as are cars or any vehicle and for that matter a bicycle. However put any vehicle or bike in the hands of somebody who drives / rides dangerously and without due care and attention and without regard for the safety of others and they become the problem. In my experience the culpability in accidents is probably an equal split between bikes and cars. Just because a cyclist is knocked off their bike it doesn't mean the driver of the car is to blame.

 

Re: The most annoying thing in all this ...

..(and I say this as an ex DOT driving instructor) is that, in spite of the worthy objective of getting more cyclists on the road and making the environment safer for them there is STILL no onus on them to carry any Public Liability insurance or any form of, what used to be the Road fund licence in spite of the considerable cost of amending road layouts, providing cycle routes etc. to segregate, where possible, cars from bikes and bikes from pedestrians.

Whilst the majority of cyclists stay within the law and ride sensibly, on a number occasions when I was in Newcastle whilst walking to work along Quayside I was nearly skittled by idiots on cycles, usually wearing the full Lycra outfits, who flew past within a few feet of me. Often when approaching from the rear you don't hear them and you would only need to change direction slightly say to go towards a litter bin and you would be knocked flying. I remember once shouting at a guy who had literally 'brushed my laptop bag as he shot past and all I got was the finger as he sped off into the distance.

Since unlike cars, motorcycles etc. they do not currently require any form of registration plate to enable ID, if a Hit and Run takes place there is little you can do.

It is about time these 'Road users' were made to pay some sort of insurance and display it on their bikes along with some form of ID number plate since if they do cause injury or damage to vehicles/property and it is their fault it may be impossible to recover the loss or get any legitimate compensation without taking them to court. Being hit as a pedestrian by a full grown man doing 20-25+mph on a bike can result in quite a serious injury. It's about time this 'Free Ride' (excuse the pun) for cyclists came to an end.

 

Re: The most annoying thing in all this ...

What about kiddie winks though?

 

I think its a good idea, it might force motorists to think more about cyclists and give them a little more room when passing. I am a driver and cyclist so I see both sides of this endless debate and I firmly believe that:-

1. Many drivers do not know the Highway Code with respect to cyclists.
2. Many cyclists are reckless, ignorant and stupid.
3. Most people (cyclists and drivers) are very selfish on the road and believe they are never in the wrong.

Here are a few questions for you as a driver.

1. How much room should you give a cyclist?
2. Is it legal for cyclists to ride 2 abreast?
3. Is it legal for a cyclist to ride in the centre of a lane?

 

"some cyclists if they think they are automatically in the clear will be even more dangerous than they are now."

Do you really think that's true?

Surely, the primary motivation when riding a bike is your own health and safety, not whether or not you will be blamed in an accident. We're not going to get masses of cyclists riding head long in to traffic and pitching themselves under the wheels of HGVs because they won't be blamed should the inevitable occur. Cyclists are fragile flesh and blood against huge, strong, metal boxes. To suggest they will disregard their own safety because they might not be blamed in the accident which will certainly leave them in a far worse state than the person in the car is, well, quite funny.

On the plus side, I've really enjoyed this thread. I never realised attitudes to cyclists were so prehistoric. It's like gay bashing in the 1970s. We need to draw up a new list of people we have reluctantly accepted in to our society:

1st Women
2nd Blacks
3rd Gays
4th Cyclists (still working on that one)