Search found 894 matches
- 2 Jul 2010, 6:32pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Copengaenize.com & Vehicular Cyclists
- Replies: 88
- Views: 6536
Re: Copengaenize.com & Vehicular Cyclists
Well I think it shows, if you rotate the view 90 degrees clockwise, someone who has squeezed past the lorry driver (standing in the road next to a double parked lorry) just as the Google streetcar goes by. Are you advocating this as good riding?
- 2 Jul 2010, 6:04pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Copengaenize.com & Vehicular Cyclists
- Replies: 88
- Views: 6536
Re: Copengaenize.com & Vehicular Cyclists
I didn't realize that Copenhagen was a New Town?
- 2 Jul 2010, 12:07am
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Copengaenize.com & Vehicular Cyclists
- Replies: 88
- Views: 6536
Re: Copengaenize.com & Vehicular Cyclists
Oh dear. There might be a few people on this board who recognise themselves in this article
- 29 Jun 2010, 12:31pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Cyclesheme & HMRC
- Replies: 13
- Views: 1297
Cyclesheme & HMRC
On another board (cyclechat) there is a lot of talk that the tax authorities appera to be taking a tougher line on the cycle to work sceme. In particular they are insisting that there is an assessmnt at the end of the year to determine the 'full market value' of the bike which could mean people having to pay a lot more at the end of the year. Does anyone know if this is the case & if it is shouldn't the CTC be on the case? I haven't used the scheme myself, but it seems to be counter-productive fot the IR to crack down on this given the tiny amount of extra revenue this represents. Let's face it: the point of the sceme is to encourage people to cycle to work.
- 17 Jun 2010, 10:39pm
- Forum: On the road
- Topic: Helmet - recent accident
- Replies: 212
- Views: 10094
Re: Helmet - recent accident
Suprise suprise. A study in the parts of the USA that have introduced child helmet laws finds they caused a reduction in cycling of 4 or 5%.
& a reduction in fatalities by 19%
- 14 Jun 2010, 2:36pm
- Forum: On the road
- Topic: Helmet - recent accident
- Replies: 212
- Views: 10094
Re: Helmet - recent accident
My friend who is a neurosurgeon frequently cites some Australian research that cycling helmets only help prevent surface injury to the skull and do nothing to prevent your brain smashing into the inside of your skulll which is apparently when the real damage is done.
Apprently this tends to be more significant if the brain has shrunk slightly due to alcohol abuse. This probably explains why the research comes from Austrailia.
- 20 Dec 2009, 10:02pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: The uselessness of cycle lanes illustrated...
- Replies: 17
- Views: 2794
Re: The uselessness of cycle lanes illustrated...
Shouldn't this thread be entitled ' The uselessness of policeman illustrated...' ?
- 22 Oct 2009, 10:38pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Road markings
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1380
Re: Road markings
I rather think that Jens came off because of a bump & not because of the road surfacing material
- 16 Oct 2009, 9:20pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
- Replies: 149
- Views: 7886
Re: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with recklessness. It is about being aware of your surroundings. If I am on a shared use cycle path I take note that there are people on bikes around and act accordingly. If I'm on a bike on a cyclepath I allow for pedestrains, dogs and other cyclists. You can still have an accident without people being reckless. They can merely be failing to pay proper attention to what they are doing. By definition, nobody has a right to behave recklessly, but if you are in a place where you are aware that people may act in a reckless manner I would argue you are being negligent if you don't take that fact into account. Many years of motoring and cycling mean that I don't give much sympathy to people who get hurt while not driving/riding defensively.
- 14 Oct 2009, 3:14pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Sue heads for Court, helmets case, down under
- Replies: 62
- Views: 7541
Re: Sue heads for Court, helmets case, down under
I'm sorry. You think this thread isn't about the case for or against helmets
- 10 Oct 2009, 6:00pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Sue heads for Court, helmets case, down under
- Replies: 62
- Views: 7541
Re: Sue heads for Court, helmets case, down under
she lost...no surprise there then
- 26 Sep 2009, 8:56am
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
- Replies: 149
- Views: 7886
Re: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
Hmmm. It was a third party quote I'm afraid I'll see if I can find it again.. No luck so far
- 25 Sep 2009, 5:31pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
- Replies: 149
- Views: 7886
Re: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
Here's a thought experiment
My view is both. When I am walking on a cycle path, I take note of the fact and act accordingly. If I got smacked by a bike when doing something stupid I would blame myself. Why should other people be different? This doesn't mean that I think that I shouldn't take care on a shared use path. Shared use is just that: Shared use & shared responsibilty for safety.
- 25 Sep 2009, 2:58pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
- Replies: 149
- Views: 7886
Re: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
From the Soilicitors Journal ;
"The duty of care that road-users owe is a two-way street. Pedestrians not only owe a duty to other road-users but arguably, in a broader sense, to themselves as well."
Sorry guys, but the fact that it is the pedestrian (or cyclist) comes off worse does not mean that the car driver (or cyclist) is the only one who has duty of care in an incident. Yes, you have to anticipate other road users actions but if a pedestrian acts in a wholly unreasonable fashion, then the drivers liaibilty is limited. A pedestrian cannot just treat a road as an area of tarmac they can ignore, and which happens to have vehicles on it. They have a duty to behave responsibly and to take note of the danger that vehicles on it represent.
"The duty of care that road-users owe is a two-way street. Pedestrians not only owe a duty to other road-users but arguably, in a broader sense, to themselves as well."
Sorry guys, but the fact that it is the pedestrian (or cyclist) comes off worse does not mean that the car driver (or cyclist) is the only one who has duty of care in an incident. Yes, you have to anticipate other road users actions but if a pedestrian acts in a wholly unreasonable fashion, then the drivers liaibilty is limited. A pedestrian cannot just treat a road as an area of tarmac they can ignore, and which happens to have vehicles on it. They have a duty to behave responsibly and to take note of the danger that vehicles on it represent.
- 21 Sep 2009, 9:53pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
- Replies: 149
- Views: 7886
Re: Cycling plan to blame drivers for all crashes
Mmmm. I'm struggling with these analogies.. No offense but could you be a little less opaque