Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Likely Lad – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!

    Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!


    Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
    Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
    Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
    Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!

    It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here



    And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabucco
    The Med and Adriatic coasts are just so beautiful.
    It’s utterly magical here - at this time of year anyway. I hear it is hideously rammed in July August and you have to book a space on the beach and reserve restaurants ten days in advance. But now? There’s no one here. Maybe the odd German hiker. Locals drink wine and argue, languidly, in the 14th century piazzas. A workman whistles and a lizard skitters, then all is quiet again. And as the afternoon passes the old Jewish ghetto dreams of itself, and the pines on the cliffs give their scent to the sun, and the sea


    Lovely.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.

    It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.

    Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.

    The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.

    The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.

    The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).

    So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.

    The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.

    Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.

    Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.

    Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
    The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.

    image
    Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
    He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
    This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"

    That driver is now uninsurable.
    Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.

    When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
    The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.

    The cyclist was not at fault.
    The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
    Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
    I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.

    In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.

    Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
    My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
    So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.

    The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
    Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).

    But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
    "Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."

    From: https://www.askthe.police.uk/
    I can't spot drinking in there?
    "According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.”
    So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."


    If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
    Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
    Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.

    A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
    Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal.
    We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
    Just to write that do you see how bizarre it sounds "the cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as..."

    How anyone could think that it is ok for a cyclist to be drinking at that particular point is extraordinary. It's hardly pinging along the C3 on the Embankment. He was undertaking in heavy traffic.
    I watched the video with an objective head and no particular preconceptions. I can now pronounce conclusively that both were somewhat at fault, but the cyclist more so.

    Fin.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.

    It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.

    Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.

    The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.

    The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.

    The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).

    So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.

    The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.

    Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.

    Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.

    Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
    The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.

    image
    Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
    He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
    This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"

    That driver is now uninsurable.
    Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.

    When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
    The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.

    The cyclist was not at fault.
    The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
    Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
    I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.

    In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.

    Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
    My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
    So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.

    The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
    Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).

    But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
    "Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."

    From: https://www.askthe.police.uk/
    I can't spot drinking in there?
    "According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.”
    So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."


    If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
    Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
    Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.

    A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
    Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal.
    We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
    Just to write that do you see how bizarre it sounds "the cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as..."

    How anyone could think that it is ok for a cyclist to be drinking at that particular point is extraordinary. It's hardly pinging along the C3 on the Embankment. He was undertaking in heavy traffic.
    Where he had as much right to be as any driver. Notwithstanding what I said earlier about it only being of limited consolation being in the right while he's lying in the gutter, he shouldn't need to be hypervigilant all the time in case someone carelessly and wrongly ploughs across him.
    Amazing. Having a drink, one hand on the handlebar, not in control of his bike, rendering it impossible to stop in reasonable time for anything, heavy traffic, undertaking. All good in your eyes.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    ANYWAY.

    That's it from me on cyclegate.

    I think we know where we stand and in the spirit of reconciliation and harmony I only hope that in time people will come to realise that I am right.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727
    TimS said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.

    It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.

    Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.

    The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.

    The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.

    The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).

    So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.

    The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.

    Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.

    Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.

    Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
    The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.

    image
    Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
    He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
    This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"

    That driver is now uninsurable.
    Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.

    When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
    The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.

    The cyclist was not at fault.
    The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
    Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
    I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.

    In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.

    Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
    My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
    So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.

    The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
    Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).

    But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
    "Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."

    From: https://www.askthe.police.uk/
    I can't spot drinking in there?
    "According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.”
    So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."


    If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
    Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
    Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.

    A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
    Yes but it's much higher risk. A driver is in charge of a much heavier and faster moving piece of metal.
    We all drive and/or pilot our bikes in a way that is not totally risk free. Which is fine, until someone pulls across us/steps out in front of us/does something else unexpected. The cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as someone pulled directly into his path. But I'd suggest even if he'd had an extra half second from not putting his drink away he'd have been very lucky to avoid impact.
    Just to write that do you see how bizarre it sounds "the cyclist was unlucky in that he was putting his drink away as..."

    How anyone could think that it is ok for a cyclist to be drinking at that particular point is extraordinary. It's hardly pinging along the C3 on the Embankment. He was undertaking in heavy traffic.
    I watched the video with an objective head and no particular preconceptions. I can now pronounce conclusively that both were somewhat at fault, but the cyclist more so.

    Fin.
    I blame the person filming. Without that, the whole crash debate would have been avoided :wink:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,635

    NEW THREAD

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    edited May 7
    Vieste is definitely noomy. Italy gives good noom, unlike France

    This castle at crown of vieste, overlooking the fish restaurants and the cathedral and the ancient trabucci, was built by Frederick II, the first Holy Roman Emperor who spoke six languages, was famously permissive, had a court full of clever Jews and clever wives, was rumoured to be an occultist, was denounced as the “predecessor of the Antichrist” by the pope…

    “Frederick's contemporaries called him stupor mundi, the "astonishment of the world"; the majority of his contemporaries were indeed astonished – and sometimes repelled – by the pronounced unorthodoxy of the Hohenstaufen emperor and his temperamental stubbornness.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

    The castle is quiet now. If he did sex magic here then there are no traces - except for the noom that sadly and sweetly suffuses the place, like the scent of fried seafood in the old town alleys


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,329
    Taz said:

    WillG said:

    148grss said:

    Donkeys said:

    Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.

    Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.

    On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.

    Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
    Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
    CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.

    Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.

    There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
    Agree with all of this. But I would say the only thing that will allow an end to endless war is a greater parity of power. That means an end to funding Israel.
    That will never happen

    Israel will keep taking the aid and just pay lip service to its "allies" even to the point of blatant discourtesy.

    The West will keep funding Israel as it opposes Iranian proxies.

    Western Aid should come with strings. He who pays the piper, same with Ukraine which all the uber hawks here seem to have forgotten about.
    As long as various Middle East countries fund Hamas terrorists teh US will need to fund Israel. They should have their cards read.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,329
    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.

    It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.

    Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.

    The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.

    The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.

    The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).

    So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.

    The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.

    Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.

    Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.

    Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
    The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.

    image
    Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
    He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
    This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"

    That driver is now uninsurable.
    Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.

    When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
    But Topping, did you have an ashtray and did you use it whilst driving?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    New thread.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,091
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

    Taz said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.


    The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.

    BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
    Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
    As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
    People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
    God, those Fatleks were awful...
    The Fatleks/Tellytubby Daleks/Skittle Daleks/New Paradigm Daleks are probably never coming back: the props are no longer viable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWReZfjFxY

    I Saw one at the Dr Who Exhibition in London over a decade ago. It was where they had the 3D Weeping Angels streaming out at you at one stage.

    It looks just as bad in real life as on TV.
    The original dalek design is iconic and I find it hard to believe that there exist other 'monsters' from 1960's sci fi that are essentially unchanged and yet look totally right. (I guess the last Capaldi story muddies the water a bit with the old style Cybermen, but Cybermen have been updated on a number of occasions, while a 2024 dalek will be the same as one from 1963.
    The Cybermen got a facelift in virtually every story. Even in the eighties there were subtle differences.

    The Moonbase ones are my favourites personally, the ones with Flares from Revenge of the Cybermen less good.

    I am trying to think of another sixties monster that came back and was unchanged and it is a struggle.
    (technically the Macra. They were in the Tennant one with Father Dougal)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437
    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.


    The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.

    BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
    It has nothing to do with Ratner. If 'Ratnering' is a verb (it isn't) it means trashing your own brand publicly, with predictable commercial consequences.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9BZz71yQE
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,259
    TOPPING said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.

    It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.

    Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.

    The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.

    The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.

    The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).

    So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.

    The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.

    Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.

    Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.

    Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
    The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.

    image
    Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
    He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
    This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"

    That driver is now uninsurable.
    Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.

    When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
    The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.

    The cyclist was not at fault.
    The cyclist was drinking and then trying to replace the B*d*n into its holder. He looks up, car. How is that not driving without due care and attention.
    Because it is a cyclist doing it and, to some of our fellow cyclists, they can do no wrong.
    I am a fellow cyclist but you've got to look at the situation.

    In this case cyclist = taking refreshments, so for me this puts him in the wrong.

    Surely no one on this board is saying it's ok for a cyclist to be eating and drinking (and texting?) while cycling.
    My car comes with a cup holder for some reason. Weighs 1.5 tonnes.
    So does my car. So what. It does not matter what extras your car has what matters is how you use them.

    The cupholder is not just there to service the driver but passengers as well.
    Struggling to find anything in the Highway Code that prohibits drinking while on the move (for either cyclists or motorists).

    But perhaps it is a bit silly that people in control of a massive chunk of metal are allowed to do so. Same with those big touch screens that most cars come with nowadays - very difficult to use while keeping your eyes on the road.
    "Cyclists are required by law to act responsibly. It is a criminal offence to ride a cycle either dangerously or without due care and attention whilst on a road."

    From: https://www.askthe.police.uk/
    I can't spot drinking in there?

    "According to the Highway Code, rule 148 states that: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as eating and drinking.”
    So while it’s not against the law to eat and drink at the wheel, the police can still prosecute motorists if they think their ability to control their vehicle is in question."


    If you are genuinely saying that drinking one-handed while on a bike cycling through, actually undertaking in Central London is all fine and dandy then that is the most bonkers thing I've read on here for a while and it's a high bar.
    Have you never had a drink while driving a car? I certainly have. And drinking while cycling is a lot less dangerous than drinking while driving.
    Your kidding, right? Drinking while cycling is much more dangerous than drinking while driving. As we can see in the vid. He only had control of the bike with one hand and therefore couldn't get himself into the right place to brake. Hence smacked into the car.

    A driver can make a car brake, change direction, do all kinds of things easily with one hand.
    Making a car brake using one hand would result in an odd driving position.

    Unless you are donutting with the e-brake 🥴
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,161

    There are bad cyclists and there are bad drivers.

    London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.

    There are large parts of Greater London, where you do need to own a car.

    A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
    I think the word is "preferable" rather than "need": the proliferation of easy vehicle rental by the hour, app based taxi services, easy access to live displays of public transport times, segregated bike lines and Internet delivery means that a smaller proportion of the population than ever before is completely dependent on their cars.

    When we lived in London (on the borders of zones two and three and a good 15 minutes walk to the nearest tube), we needed a car. If we were to move back there today, we wouldn't need one. We might still get one... But I think we'd probably try without first.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,329

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    TOPPING said:

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Good morning everyone.

    Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.

    I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.

    "Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"

    I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.

    https://archive.ph/1BfAa

    I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
    The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.

    The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...

    The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.

    I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.

    (Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
    There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
    There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.

    My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.

    https://twitter.com/EnemyCoastAhead/status/1787182732109586839?t=nI4xpr4aRfHU2AatKLQpvg&s=19
    It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini :smile: Remember to identify Ratnered brands.

    I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.

    It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.

    Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.

    The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.

    The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.

    The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).

    So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.

    The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.

    Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.

    Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.

    Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
    The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.

    image
    Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
    He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
    This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"

    That driver is now uninsurable.
    Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.

    When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
    The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.

    The cyclist was not at fault.
    If you look at the screen grab you can see he is looking down at the point the MINI is obvious. It wasn't a lack of time to react, he didn't see the MINI as he wasn't looking.


    Cyclist should be charged with it for sure.
This discussion has been closed.