Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Entwood on 16 December 2016, 13:12:19
-
Don't "undertake" ... especially cyclists ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38340125
"Mr Grayling's car was stationary in traffic outside the Palace of Westminster when Mr Liu passed it on the inside."
I have little sympathy for the cyclist and think the press is now trying to "blame" a minister for the cyclists fault ...
Never let the truth get in the way of a good headline .... :(
-
Footage here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI0dPGuP2zE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI0dPGuP2zE)
To be honest, it's standard in London to cycle down the inside. This is where a lot of the 'super highways' for cyclists are built, also look at the traffic it's stationary for considerable distance. A simple over the shoulder check from the minster would have avoided this situation, cyclist is also fully lit up, high vis vest, flashing lights.
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
Given the long line of cars, I cannot see how that is possible. Passing on the off-side means threading through traffic which is on-coming and has faster motorbikes filtering in both directions.
Someone should have check their shoulder before opening, as they would have known cyclists would be passing.
-
To be honest, it's standard in London to cycle down the inside.
It's standard to be a lot of undesirable things in London .. doesn't necessarily make it right ;)
Looking at the footage a cycle lane does start just past the car, though. Unfortunate timing..
The way I read the story:
Minister knocked cyclist of bike. Minster and cyclist shook hands and said "Well, sorry about that" and "Never mind, accidents happen" and went their separate ways.
Minister then said something about cycle lanes being a pain in the ass in london and helmet-cam cyclist - who is completely unrelated to the incident and just happened to be following - thought "EVIL MINISTER! I SHALL DESTROY HIM AND GET MY FAME BY SENDING FOOTAGE TO THE NEWS!"..
..basically.
We could solve this easily by banning both cyclists and ministers ;) ;D
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
Given the long line of cars, I cannot see how that is possible. Passing on the off-side means threading through traffic which is on-coming and has faster motorbikes filtering in both directions.
Someone should have check their shoulder before opening, as they would have known cyclists would be passing.
Typed before I saw your link Tunnie ;)
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
Given the long line of cars, I cannot see how that is possible. Passing on the off-side means threading through traffic which is on-coming and has faster motorbikes filtering in both directions.
Someone should have check their shoulder before opening, as they would have known cyclists would be passing.
Typed before I saw your link Tunnie ;)
:y :y
Yeah you need the footage to go with the article :)
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
Given the long line of cars, I cannot see how that is possible. Passing on the off-side means threading through traffic which is on-coming and has faster motorbikes filtering in both directions.
Someone should have check their shoulder before opening, as they would have known cyclists would be passing.
Typed before I saw your link Tunnie ;)
:y :y
Yeah you need the footage to go with the article :)
No worries ;D
Tbh, I hate driving inside the M25 and London with a passion :D
Its got to a point that i've even turned down work off the muppets I work for if its inside the M25 because I get so wound up I end up wanting to friggin kill people :-[ ;D
You must either by very brave or stupid to ride a push bike in London ;D
-
Grayling was sat in the back wasn't he? With a 'simple look over his shoulder' he'd have seen the C post of his ministerial car! ::)
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
Given the long line of cars, I cannot see how that is possible. Passing on the off-side means threading through traffic which is on-coming and has faster motorbikes filtering in both directions.
Someone should have check their shoulder before opening, as they would have known cyclists would be passing.
Typed before I saw your link Tunnie ;)
:y :y
Yeah you need the footage to go with the article :)
No worries ;D
Tbh, I hate driving inside the M25 and London with a passion :D
Its got to a point that i've even turned down work off the muppets I work for if its inside the M25 because I get so wound up I end up wanting to friggin kill people :-[ ;D
You must either by very brave or stupid to ride a push bike in London ;D
I cycled from London Marylebone to Covent Garden for couple of years, it's by far quickest way to get around London. It's free, quick and generally very easy. Saw this type of incident a lot, but I see there are motions to propose vehicles turning left must give priority to cyclists already on their left.
That's the setup in Holland, cycles always given priority. worked well there was I was cycling around Amsterdam.
To be honest, I think it's more stupid to drive in London. ;D
-
This is the best bit about your soot chucker, Tunnie, it's slowly killing cyclists. :)
-
Car driver should have indicated left prior to the door being opened, otherwise unfortunate timing, nowt more.
As for motorbikes 'filtering' through traffic :-X
Had it been a truck dropping a passenger off, that would have made for a much better story... Evil truck driver decapitates cyclist...
-
The incident seems pretty trivial.
As Shakespeare would say 'much ado about nothing' :y
-
At least it wasn't Boris on his bike who got hurt. I'm sure we are all thankful for that. :)
-
50/50 imo
Dickhead cyclist should have seen the car and having anticipated that somebody might get out, passed on the off side.
Dickhead minister should have looked over his shoulder before opening the friggin door ::)
Total non story by the BBC again ::)
Given the long line of cars, I cannot see how that is possible. Passing on the off-side means threading through traffic which is on-coming and has faster motorbikes filtering in both directions.
Someone should have check their shoulder before opening, as they would have known cyclists would be passing.
Typed before I saw your link Tunnie ;)
:y :y
Yeah you need the footage to go with the article :)
No worries ;D
Tbh, I hate driving inside the M25 and London with a passion :D
Its got to a point that i've even turned down work off the muppets I work for if its inside the M25 because I get so wound up I end up wanting to friggin kill people :-[ ;D
You must either by very brave or stupid to ride a push bike in London ;D
I cycled from London Marylebone to Covent Garden for couple of years, it's by far quickest way to get around London. It's free, quick and generally very easy. Saw this type of incident a lot, but I see there are motions to propose vehicles turning left must give priority to cyclists already on their left.
That's the setup in Holland, cycles always given priority. worked well there was I was cycling around Amsterdam.
To be honest, I think it's more stupid to drive in London. ;D
To be honest ?? Totally irrelevant ... :)
In Holland they drive on the RIGHT with LEFTHAND drive cars .. so a cyclist on the LEFT is actually in the middle of the road (unless in a one-way street - but that is also irrelevant to this discussion) .. or in the common parlance .. the "outside" ... the "normal" overtaking position. Priority to the left over there = priority to the RIGHT in UK..... (which actually is a decent idea) :)
This idiot, and the following one who took the video, were both travelling, at some speed, down the INSIDE, the PASSENGER side, and NOT in a cycle lane. IMHO they are the culpable ones as they were on the "wrong" side and should expect passenger doors to open onto pavements .. it's how people get out of cars, buses etc .. :)
-
Well try cycling in London, have you done it? I did for several years until recently :y
To allow passengers out of the car, the driver should have indicated and pulled to the left. (it was in standard flow, it was not close to the pavement as per a bus) There was no indication that someone was about to exit the car, additionally due amount of cycles in London the passenger should have done a shoulder check to confirm it was clear before exiting.
Cycling on the inside is perfectly fine, thats how everyone does it in London. In the middle (traditional over-take) it's full of motorcycles going faster. Its not perhaps the highway code, but that's how it works in London.
So in my view, 100% complete driver/passenger fault. :)
-
Also if you want to get technical, the Highway Code:
"A regulation under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which designates criminal motoring offences, states: “No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.”
-
The whole reason for using two-wheeled vehicles in traffic is to filter through it. If you're not going to do that, you might as well be in a car. But anyone who does it must accept the risks involved: other road users may not realise that you can still be moving past them even if they are stationary.
As for cycles only passing on the right, that would mean far more, and dangerous, movements through the traffic. It can be hard enough moving over just to turn right.
The real problem here is that traffic incidents are actually uncommon enough to make most road users(drivers, cyclists, motor-cyclists, truck/bus drivers, pedestrians - ALL of them) complacent about their actions. And there is no cure for this.
-
The whole reason for using two-wheeled vehicles in traffic is to filter through it. If you're not going to do that, you might as well be in a car. But anyone who does it must accept the risks involved: other road users may not realise that you can still be moving past them even if they are stationary.
As for cycles only passing on the right, that would mean far more, and dangerous, movements through the traffic. It can be hard enough moving over just to turn right.
The real problem here is that traffic incidents are actually uncommon enough to make most road users(drivers, cyclists, motor-cyclists, truck/bus drivers, pedestrians - ALL of them) complacent about their actions. And there is no cure for this.
Afraid I disagree .. if all the stationary car drivers had moved well left BEFORE stopping there would be a) no room for cyclists to pass on the left, b) plenty of room for bikes, both pedalled and motored, to pass on the right..... however all you see is numpties moving out and sitting on the white line so they can look down the line and see when the car 12 in front of them moves ... a somewhat pointless procedure. :)
-
Also if you want to get technical, the Highway Code:
"A regulation under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which designates criminal motoring offences, states: “No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.”
I believe your quote is somewhat out of date, no idea which version of the highway code you are using, but the latest (on line) version gives rule 239, and a nice picture to go with it that clearly shows that is relevant to the DRIVER not the passenger.......
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
and while its not down to me to question the law .. RTA section 42 refers to construction and use ... ...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents
There are of course also rules 67, 68, and rule 162 - 169 which apply to cyclists (and other road users) .......
-
I fully agree with Entwood. Cyclist was illegally undertaking. Anything which results from that is the cyclists responsibility. End of.
If cycling in London is only made feasible by undertaking, then don't cycle.
I have undertaken when riding motorbikes, but in the full awareness that any incident that happens during the manoeuvre is going to be my fault and no-one elses.
-
The whole reason for using two-wheeled vehicles in traffic is to filter through it. If you're not going to do that, you might as well be in a car. But anyone who does it must accept the risks involved: other road users may not realise that you can still be moving past them even if they are stationary.
As for cycles only passing on the right, that would mean far more, and dangerous, movements through the traffic. It can be hard enough moving over just to turn right.
The real problem here is that traffic incidents are actually uncommon enough to make most road users(drivers, cyclists, motor-cyclists, truck/bus drivers, pedestrians - ALL of them) complacent about their actions. And there is no cure for this.
Afraid I disagree .. if all the stationary car drivers had moved well left BEFORE stopping there would be a) no room for cyclists to pass on the left, b) plenty of room for bikes, both pedalled and motored, to pass on the right..... however all you see is numpties moving out and sitting on the white line so they can look down the line and see when the car 12 in front of them moves ... a somewhat pointless procedure. :)
I would suggest you cycle in London for yourself, see where you like filtering ;) :y
You would soon realise the left is the place to be. :)
-
The whole reason for using two-wheeled vehicles in traffic is to filter through it. If you're not going to do that, you might as well be in a car. But anyone who does it must accept the risks involved: other road users may not realise that you can still be moving past them even if they are stationary.
As for cycles only passing on the right, that would mean far more, and dangerous, movements through the traffic. It can be hard enough moving over just to turn right.
The real problem here is that traffic incidents are actually uncommon enough to make most road users(drivers, cyclists, motor-cyclists, truck/bus drivers, pedestrians - ALL of them) complacent about their actions. And there is no cure for this.
Afraid I disagree .. if all the stationary car drivers had moved well left BEFORE stopping there would be a) no room for cyclists to pass on the left, b) plenty of room for bikes, both pedalled and motored, to pass on the right..... however all you see is numpties moving out and sitting on the white line so they can look down the line and see when the car 12 in front of them moves ... a somewhat pointless procedure. :)
I would suggest you cycle in London for yourself, see where you like filtering ;) :y
You would soon realise the left is the place to be. :)
What I "like" and what the law allows are often diametrically opposed, in many areas not just cycling .....If I was allowed to do what I "like" ....... :)
-
I would suggest you cycle in London for yourself, see where you like filtering ;) :y
You would soon realise the left is the place to be. :)
If cyclists filter on the right, will car drivers refrain from undertaking them? That seems unlikely. I've had a beer, so I'm feeling charitable.
Also, being just to the left of the centre of the road gives oncoming traffic a sporting chance of not seeing cyclists too. This is a common cause of motorcycle crashes.
-
I've never cycled in London, or anywhere else for that matter. But I did drive there for a couple of years (a combination of hating all forms of public transportation and having someone else pay your parking bill!).
Whenever I was planning to turn left, or coming to a halt for that matter I simply positioned my car over to the left, leaving only 6" or so between the wheel and the curb. And consequently plenty of space on the outside. By removing the opportunity for a cyclist to pass you on the inside, and giving them space on the correct side. You prevent the problem arising.
Beats me why everyone (in a car) doesn't drive this way in London. I appreciate this isn't an option for many larger vehicles as they need to swing wide in order to turn.
As to the vid in question, 50/50 and a non-story IMHO. Just because everyone does it, doesn't absolve the cyclist of blame. Presumably the same logic would have made it my fault when a cyclist Collided with me while I was walking on a pedestrian crossing (my priority). After all, they all seem to ignore the rules on traffic lights as well ::)
-
I don't know what it is about cyclists that provokes such venom (Well, I do actually), but some people have it in for them. It's probably, as has been mentioned, their selfish, holier than thou attitude.
Where I walk the dog in the morning, there is a lakeside path surrounded by woods. Cyclists are not allowed on the path, but they ignore this. Because they are not allowed on the path, they think the woods belong to them, and take great delight in charging past people on muddy tracks, ringing their silly little fairy bells and barely missing people (and dogs).
Every morning when I walk in the woods, people have gone to a great deal of trouble to put large branches and even small trees across the paths, no doubt hoping one of the two wheeled terrorists will come a cropper. For folk to be bothered doing this, they must be really pissed off, it takes some effort by the look of it.
I must confess, if one of them went a bit too close to my dog, I think I would probably kill him.
Dogs are another pet :) hate of some people. They have to be kept on a lead on the path, but dog owners ignore this. There are signs threatening huge fines should your dog shit on the path and you fail to pick it up. As there is no one to enforce this, there is dog shite everywhere. Cyclists must get this stuff all over the bike and themselves when illegally cycling through the illegal dog shit.
Children are not the favourite type of human for a lot of older couples who walk on the path. Noisy little beggars spoil the peaceful walk with their shouting, screaming and running around. Shouldn't be allowed anywhere near. Old people are generally disliked by everyone. Moany old bastids.
So....that leaves young, childless couples who don't own a dog or a bicycle. But I'm sure someone must hate them too. :)
-
In other words, we all break the rules, every day. We just hate the people who, by breaking the rules, interfere with our rule breaking.
I think.
-
People can break the rules all they like as far as I'm concerned. I always have, and probably always will.
Its when it goes wrong and they wont take it on the chin, and try and blame anyone but themselves, that I lose all sympathy for them.
-
I would suggest you cycle in London for yourself, see where you like filtering ;) :y
You would soon realise the left is the place to be. :)
If cyclists filter on the right, will car drivers refrain from undertaking them? That seems unlikely. I've had a beer, so I'm feeling charitable.
Also, being just to the left of the centre of the road gives oncoming traffic a sporting chance of not seeing cyclists too. This is a common cause of motorcycle crashes.
Yeah, left is far better in all areas. Road speeds change and as you say cars would just undertake cycles.
Filtering on left allows cars to over take when they need, cycle lanes come and go. Sometimes painted lines, or filters onto a painted section of pavement.
-
Hmmmm. and there just happened to be a camera there, at the right time.
-
People can break the rules all they like as far as I'm concerned. I always have, and probably always will.
Its when it goes wrong and they wont take it on the chin, and try and blame anyone but themselves, that I lose all sympathy for them.
Exactly.
Leaving the house and doing stuff means there's a risk of something going wrong. There are lots of other incompetent, inconsiderate arseholes out there who aren't aware of your existence, let alone concentrating on what they are doing. And it's highly likely that you are going to be the direct cause of much of your trouble.
Hopefully the opps up won't be too disastrous, but any blame will probably have to be shared.
-
I would suggest you cycle in London for yourself, see where you like filtering ;) :y
You would soon realise the left is the place to be. :)
If cyclists filter on the right, will car drivers refrain from undertaking them? That seems unlikely. I've had a beer, so I'm feeling charitable.
Also, being just to the left of the centre of the road gives oncoming traffic a sporting chance of not seeing cyclists too. This is a common cause of motorcycle crashes.
Big difference between 'filtering' and overtaking or undertaking legally or safely.
If I owned a bike it would be a Billy Connelly style trike. And I would ride it like I would ride a push bike...
... In the same road position as I drive a car ;)
-
Big difference between 'filtering' and overtaking or undertaking legally or safely.
Only when written down. On the road there is NO physical difference. Anyone who does either needs to be aware of the consequences. All road users ought to be aware that other road users are likely to do things they wouldn't. That is a human problem with no solution.
-
I don't know what it is about cyclists that provokes such venom (Well, I do actually), but some people have it in for them. It's probably, as has been mentioned, their selfish, holier than thou attitude.
Where I walk the dog in the morning, there is a lakeside path surrounded by woods. Cyclists are not allowed on the path, but they ignore this. Because they are not allowed on the path, they think the woods belong to them, and take great delight in charging past people on muddy tracks, ringing their silly little fairy bells and barely missing people (and dogs).
Every morning when I walk in the woods, people have gone to a great deal of trouble to put large branches and even small trees across the paths, no doubt hoping one of the two wheeled terrorists will come a cropper. For folk to be bothered doing this, they must be really pissed off, it takes some effort by the look of it.
I must confess, if one of them went a bit too close to my dog, I think I would probably kill him.
Dogs are another pet :) hate of some people. They have to be kept on a lead on the path, but dog owners ignore this. There are signs threatening huge fines should your dog shit on the path and you fail to pick it up. As there is no one to enforce this, there is dog shite everywhere. Cyclists must get this stuff all over the bike and themselves when illegally cycling through the illegal dog shit.
Children are not the favourite type of human for a lot of older couples who walk on the path. Noisy little beggars spoil the peaceful walk with their shouting, screaming and running around. Shouldn't be allowed anywhere near. Old people are generally disliked by everyone. Moany old bastids.
So....that leaves young, childless couples who don't own a dog or a bicycle. But I'm sure someone must hate them too. :)
Think you will like this one Stemo LINKY (https://www.facebook.com/AllesCannes/videos/1522477648018325/)
-
Very good, but deffo a set-up. ;D
Unless someone with a camera boom, or a tree climbing cameraman just happened to be there at the time. :-\
-
Very good, but deffo a set-up. ;D
Unless someone with a camera boom, or a tree climbing cameraman just happened to be there at the time. :-\
Yeah it's a set up but thought that you'd like it ;D
-
People can break the rules all they like as far as I'm concerned. I always have, and probably always will.
Its when it goes wrong and they wont take it on the chin, and try and blame anyone but themselves, that I lose all sympathy for them.
*In other words, we all break the rules, every day. We just hate the people who, by breaking the rules, interfere with our rule breaking.
I think.*
...I think you both summed that up superbly!! :y
-
This thread still going ::) :P
We need the general to give us the definitive answer on this :D
-
In other words, we all break the rules, every day. We just hate the people who, by breaking the rules, interfere with our rule breaking.
I think.
Simple solution, just bring back dualling, everybody would then be more respectful of the rules, and those that weren't wouldn't be around for long. :y :y :y
I'm sure TB would approve!
-
I've been to Liverpool and back today. I wouldn't have the time nor the memory to list all of the rules I saw broken today. It's getting worse, I'm sure it is.