What's the legal position?

[Postboxer]

Those repair costs are surely more than the 4 year old bike was worth though, it depends how bothered they are about arguing about it, but they could just make an offer for a similar replacement off ebay. It's up to them though it's not huge figures so they may just pay you the repair quote, or even the cost of a new replacement if you're lucky.

[Syd]

....Cycling less just means it'll probably be sooner.

What complete, presumptuous, nonsense.

I cycle, run and attend my local gym. I’m sure I’m not alone in being the only person on this forum who has others forms of regular exercise to fall back on if cycling was given up.

[mjr]

....Cycling less just means it'll probably be sooner.

What complete, presumptuous, nonsense.

I cycle, run and attend my local gym. I’m sure I’m not alone in being the only person on this forum who has others forms of regular exercise to fall back on if cycling was given up.

You're probably not alone but on average, it doesn't happen, hence the "probably". Replacing 40-60 minutes a day of cycle-commuting with stuff like gym is a big ask for most people.

It's not presumption when it's based on hard numbers.

And it's not nonsense just because you don't like it.

[Syd]

....Cycling less just means it'll probably be sooner.

What complete, presumptuous, nonsense.

I cycle, run and attend my local gym. I’m sure I’m not alone in being the only person on this forum who has others forms of regular exercise to fall back on if cycling was given up.

You're probably not alone but on average, it doesn't happen, hence the "probably". Replacing 40-60 minutes a day of cycle-commuting with stuff like gym is a big ask for most people.

It's not presumption when it's based on hard numbers.

And it's not nonsense just because you don't like it.

Ok, provide hard numbers.

Depending on intensity the workout of 40 to 60 minutes commute pace would likely be covered in a much shorter gym session.

[Postboxer]

Suppose a cycle commute takes 60 minutes a day, the same journey by car is 30 minutes a day. In order to get the same exercise within the same time frame one would have to work twice as hard exercising at home or running from home, for the 30 minutes they've saved off their journey, unless the gym is very local or on the way, any time taken travelling to and from the gym would be eating into the time saved by driving or start eating into the rest of the free time.

To me it seems unlikely that someone driving instead of cycling to and from work everyday would spend the time saved working out at twice the intensity every day before or after work. I'm not sure whether banking the time into one or two big weekly work outs would be more or less effective than the regular, twice daily exercise of commuting.

[Pete Owens]

Hi,
MSM
I hope we're not confusing overtaking with what I believe the OP (IIRC) Was doing, filtering up the left hand side Within the same lane?

Overtaking as in the driver of the following vehicle passing the vehicle in front. That is overtaking whether the driver does it safely by changing lanes and passing to the right, dangerously by trying to squeeze past while sharing a lane, or suicidaly by squeezing past on the wrong side though a junction.

as the OP was injured the motor is always going to be at fault and in this case may be a bit negligent to.

That is not how it works - and would not be, even in the case of presumed liability.

Again, imagine a situation where you are cycling downhill and turning sharp left at an acute angled junction. You signalled at the top of the hill, but are now riding well out from the kerb with both hands on the brakes in preparation for the turn. You check that the road you are turning into is clear and that there are no pedestrians about to cross. Just as you start to turn you are taken out by a motorcyclist attempting to overtake you on the left. Are you really saying that you would consider yourself rather than the motorcyclist to be at fault?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Just to clarify the word I used "negligent" was for the motor driver, I E he didn't look to see if there was anything to the side of him, not that most people do this anyway.
If I've seen a cyclist on the road I always keep track of them till they are far behind me or gone another way. That way they won't be Creeping up the side of me.

The word filtering IIRC was used in the opening post?
Although not illegal in the sense of overtaking on the left on the motorway, The word filtering unless there is a specific lane for filtering, seem to suggest they were coming up the inside of the vehicle?
Just in case there is any misunderstanding in what I'm saying.

pete owens- In your motorcycle scenario the only way the motorcycle could not be negligent, is if the cyclist was turning right and indicating to do so, in any case it has to be a safe overtake if it is done on the left, there are only two cases were overtaken on the left is allowed , In the highway code.
But even so the motorcyclist drove into the rear of another road user.

[mjr]

What complete, presumptuous, nonsense.

I cycle, run and attend my local gym. I’m sure I’m not alone in being the only person on this forum who has others forms of regular exercise to fall back on if cycling was given up.

You're probably not alone but on average, it doesn't happen, hence the "probably". Replacing 40-60 minutes a day of cycle-commuting with stuff like gym is a big ask for most people.

It's not presumption when it's based on hard numbers.

And it's not nonsense just because you don't like it.

Ok, provide hard numbers.

I already provided some references. https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... nd-cycling has many more if you want: "Cycling to work is linked with a 45% lower risk of developing cancer, and a 46% lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), compared to commuting by car or public transport.
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the injury risks by between 13:1 and 415:1, according to studies. The figure that is most often quoted is 20:1 (life years gained due to the benefits of cycling v the life-years lost through injuries)."

Or did you mean about not going to the gym for 30 minutes a day? Well, surveys find that gym users go there just five to eight times a month. The average visit is less than two hours. And only 17% of UK residents are gym users at all. All in all, if you combine that with Postboxer's calculations, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the average UK newly-ex-cycle-commuter won't be in the gym enough to make it up.

Depending on intensity the workout of 40 to 60 minutes commute pace would likely be covered in a much shorter gym session.

And I think it's far from certain that high intensity gym work would have the same benefits as regular variable intensity cycle-commuting.

Again, imagine a situation where you are cycling downhill and turning sharp left at an acute angled junction. You signalled at the top of the hill, but are now riding well out from the kerb with both hands on the brakes in preparation for the turn. You check that the road you are turning into is clear and that there are no pedestrians about to cross. Just as you start to turn you are taken out by a motorcyclist attempting to overtake you on the left. Are you really saying that you would consider yourself rather than the motorcyclist to be at fault?

False dilemma. If I've understood the description then currently, both would be to blame: the motorcyclist for an unsafe overtake through a junction, but also you for not signalling (if it's acute and left then the brake controlled by your right hand alone should be sufficient to modulate your speed) and not correctly checking the line of traffic you were crossing had a gap (aka a shoulder check or lifesaver).

Anyway, it's far more frequent that a car driver attempts to pass you on the left in that situation, rather than a motorcyclist, so please always look back before turning!

[Syd]

You're probably not alone but on average, it doesn't happen, hence the "probably". Replacing 40-60 minutes a day of cycle-commuting with stuff like gym is a big ask for most people.

It's not presumption when it's based on hard numbers.

And it's not nonsense just because you don't like it.

Ok, provide hard numbers.

I already provided some references. https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... nd-cycling has many more if you want: "Cycling to work is linked with a 45% lower risk of developing cancer, and a 46% lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), compared to commuting by car or public transport.
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the injury risks by between 13:1 and 415:1, according to studies. The figure that is most often quoted is 20:1 (life years gained due to the benefits of cycling v the life-years lost through injuries)."

Or did you mean about not going to the gym for 30 minutes a day? Well, surveys find that gym users go there just five to eight times a month. The average visit is less than two hours. And only 17% of UK residents are gym users at all. All in all, if you combine that with Postboxer's calculations, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the average UK newly-ex-cycle-commuter won't be in the gym enough to make it up.

Depending on intensity the workout of 40 to 60 minutes commute pace would likely be covered in a much shorter gym session.

And I think it's far from certain that high intensity gym work would have the same benefits as regular variable intensity cycle-commuting.

I am fully aware that regular exercise is a health benefit.

The survey you quote is meaningless in the context of the question asked.

You are also focusing on gym activity whilst I included running too, and yes, I run 4 or 5 times a week.

Your assumption is that people who give up cycling give up physical exercise to an extent it may impact longevity and there are hard facts showing that. I have yet to see any.

A properly planned gym visit can give ample benefit.

[mjr]

No assumption. Stop moving the goalposts and either ask some clear questions or look at the briefings from Cycling UK and Sports England and so on for yourself.

[Syd]

No assumption. Stop moving the goalposts and either ask some clear questions or look at the briefings from Cycling UK and Sports England and so on for yourself.

You have stated multiple times that people who give up cycling will likely die younger.

You state there is evidence to support this.

You supply evidence that cycling benefits health. I do not dispute that.

You supply a survey which shows, what I already believe, people only attend the gym of a few occasions a week.

I have stated that use of the gym is not the only alternative exercise to cycling.

You have, despite claims that evidence exists, been unable to show that individuals who give up cycling do not carry on, or substitute that, with other exercise to the detriment of their long term health.

Nothing has changed.

[mjr]

Nothing has changed. Still no questions. Still just wild claims that ex-commuters are doing other exercise which somehow doesn't show up at all in the gym surveys or Active Lives Survey or any other data source seen yet. Still just general demands that I prove that something isn't happening in any significant numbers, when of course all anyone can say is that there's no evidence that it is. That's why we say it's "probably" not happening. If it was, we'd expect some evidence in all this data, but it's surveys and sampling, so it's not impossible they were missed out by a freak chance - it's only improbable.

Unless we get questions "did you used to commute by cycle?" and "do you do the same quantity of other exercise instead?" added to the census, I can't see how else we're going to prove to Syd's satisfaction that ex-commuters generally don't replace the exercise.

[Syd]

Nothing has changed. Still no questions. Still just wild claims that ex-commuters are doing other exercise which somehow doesn't show up at all in the gym surveys or Active Lives Survey or any other data source seen yet. Still just general demands that I prove that something isn't happening in any significant numbers, when of course all anyone can say is that there's no evidence that it is. That's why we say it's "probably" not happening. If it was, we'd expect some evidence in all this data, but it's surveys and sampling, so it's not impossible they were missed out by a freak chance - it's only improbable.

Unless we get questions "did you used to commute by cycle?" and "do you do the same quantity of other exercise instead?" added to the census, I can't see how else we're going to prove to Syd's satisfaction that ex-commuters generally don't replace the exercise.

You are the one who said there was evidence earlier. Finally admission it doesn’t.

You always seem to ask for facts and criticise those who assume / assume / guess / go with gut feelings etc hence the challenge I made.

In my experience 80%+ of those I know who have stopped commuter cycling (most often by change of job) have replaced that exercise with other forms of it. The only exceptions I know of are two individuals who had to stop through chronic health issues. YMMV.

[Pete Owens]

pete owens- In your motorcycle scenario the only way the motorcycle could not be negligent, is if the cyclist was turning right and indicating to do so, in any case it has to be a safe overtake if it is done on the left, there are only two cases were overtaken on the left is allowed , In the highway code.
But even so the motorcyclist drove into the rear of another road user.

Quite.

The motorcycle scenario is identical to the OPs incident in all respects except which of the vehicles is equipped with a motor.

[Pete Owens]

Could you vary your route to use any of the infrastructure being created by Boardman?

And to see the latest cunning plan Boardman is subjecting the cyclists of Manchester to take a look at:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/111508/