Cyclist involved in collision with car

A CYCLIST has been involved in a collision with a car in Botley Road.

The incident occurred at about 9am near the junction of Bridge Street.

The rider, in his 20s, suffered minor head injuries but was not seriously hurt.

He was not wearing a helmet according to South Central Ambulance Service spokesman James Keating-Wilkes, who stressed the importance of wearing protective headgear when cycling.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:28am Fri 23 Nov 12

xjohnx says...

Man slightly hurt.

A news story????
Man slightly hurt. A news story???? xjohnx
  • Score: 0

11:33am Fri 23 Nov 12

WitneyGreen says...

xjohnx wrote:
Man slightly hurt.

A news story????
Not really, but I suppose it wouldn't have made the papers at all if he HAD been wearing a helmet and thus was not injured at all - just more good press for why cycle helmets are a good idea.
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Man slightly hurt. A news story????[/p][/quote]Not really, but I suppose it wouldn't have made the papers at all if he HAD been wearing a helmet and thus was not injured at all - just more good press for why cycle helmets are a good idea. WitneyGreen
  • Score: 1

12:01pm Fri 23 Nov 12

jochta says...

"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves.

Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"?

There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.
"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"? There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though. jochta
  • Score: 5

12:21pm Fri 23 Nov 12

icba1957 says...

jochta wrote:
"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves.

Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"?

There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.
... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately!

Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.
[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: "...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"? There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.[/p][/quote]... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately! Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety. icba1957
  • Score: -4

1:06pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Floflo says...

icba1957 wrote:
jochta wrote:
"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves.

Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"?

There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.
... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately!

Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.
Yes, a complete disregard for personal safety. Over 50% of serious head injuries are attributed to motorists. It's bonkers to go out and drive without wearing a helmet.

While I'm at it swimmers show a complete disregard for their own safety. There are more drownings than cyclist deaths so obviously wearing of life jackets should be made compulsory when anyone goes near water - surely we can solve any problems through additional bureaucracy!
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: "...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"? There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.[/p][/quote]... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately! Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.[/p][/quote]Yes, a complete disregard for personal safety. Over 50% of serious head injuries are attributed to motorists. It's bonkers to go out and drive without wearing a helmet. While I'm at it swimmers show a complete disregard for their own safety. There are more drownings than cyclist deaths so obviously wearing of life jackets should be made compulsory when anyone goes near water - surely we can solve any problems through additional bureaucracy! Floflo
  • Score: 4

1:11pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Captain J says...

My friend witnessed this accident. Neither the car or cyclist were particularly at fault, just an unfortunate accident.
My friend witnessed this accident. Neither the car or cyclist were particularly at fault, just an unfortunate accident. Captain J
  • Score: 8

1:31pm Fri 23 Nov 12

jochta says...

icba1957 wrote:
jochta wrote:
"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves.

Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"?

There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.
... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately!

Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.
You are more likely to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian. So the next time someone falls and bangs their head walking down Cornmarket I expect to see South Central Ambulance Service spokesman James Keating-Wilkes stressing the importance of wearing protective headgear when walking.
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: "...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"? There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.[/p][/quote]... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately! Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.[/p][/quote]You are more likely to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian. So the next time someone falls and bangs their head walking down Cornmarket I expect to see South Central Ambulance Service spokesman James Keating-Wilkes stressing the importance of wearing protective headgear when walking. jochta
  • Score: 7

2:10pm Fri 23 Nov 12

bart-on simpson says...

But the story is a cyclist colliding with a car and not the other way round.
But the story is a cyclist colliding with a car and not the other way round. bart-on simpson
  • Score: -3

3:29pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Dan - Eynsham says...

So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car.

One is a person, and one is a machine.

The choice of words encourages people to blame the person on the bike and ignore the person in the car, regardless of what the facts might be.

And why does it say "collision with a car" - again the presumption is that the cyclist is to blame.

The journalist and editor ought to give it some thought.
So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car. One is a person, and one is a machine. The choice of words encourages people to blame the person on the bike and ignore the person in the car, regardless of what the facts might be. And why does it say "collision with a car" - again the presumption is that the cyclist is to blame. The journalist and editor ought to give it some thought. Dan - Eynsham
  • Score: 8

3:48pm Fri 23 Nov 12

eatmygoal says...

Dan - Eynsham wrote:
So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car.

One is a person, and one is a machine.

The choice of words encourages people to blame the person on the bike and ignore the person in the car, regardless of what the facts might be.

And why does it say "collision with a car" - again the presumption is that the cyclist is to blame.

The journalist and editor ought to give it some thought.
So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car.

Probably because the motorist did not 'collide' with anyone or anything, because he/she was in their car and therefore protected from collisions, and was wearing the equivalent of a big metal helmet - with wheels. The cyclist was involved in a collision, the car was was involved in the collision, the motorist was not.
[quote][p][bold]Dan - Eynsham[/bold] wrote: So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car. One is a person, and one is a machine. The choice of words encourages people to blame the person on the bike and ignore the person in the car, regardless of what the facts might be. And why does it say "collision with a car" - again the presumption is that the cyclist is to blame. The journalist and editor ought to give it some thought.[/p][/quote]So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car. Probably because the motorist did not 'collide' with anyone or anything, because he/she was in their car and therefore protected from collisions, and was wearing the equivalent of a big metal helmet - with wheels. The cyclist was involved in a collision, the car was was involved in the collision, the motorist was not. eatmygoal
  • Score: 1

4:07pm Fri 23 Nov 12

jochta says...

eatmygoal wrote:
Dan - Eynsham wrote:
So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car.

One is a person, and one is a machine.

The choice of words encourages people to blame the person on the bike and ignore the person in the car, regardless of what the facts might be.

And why does it say "collision with a car" - again the presumption is that the cyclist is to blame.

The journalist and editor ought to give it some thought.
So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car.

Probably because the motorist did not 'collide' with anyone or anything, because he/she was in their car and therefore protected from collisions, and was wearing the equivalent of a big metal helmet - with wheels. The cyclist was involved in a collision, the car was was involved in the collision, the motorist was not.
This is the exact problem with using this language. You've said it yourself. The inference is that the motorist was not involved in the collision. i.e. they had nothing to do with it. The car spontaneously collided with the cyclist all by itself.

The connection between the motorist and the car doing things needs to be made. Cars rarely flip, overturn, drive into ditches, hit trees, collide with cyclists all by themselves.

The way this article is written the cyclist could have cycled into the back of a parked car with no motorist in it. The OM must make this distinction clearer in the way it writes these articles.
[quote][p][bold]eatmygoal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan - Eynsham[/bold] wrote: So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car. One is a person, and one is a machine. The choice of words encourages people to blame the person on the bike and ignore the person in the car, regardless of what the facts might be. And why does it say "collision with a car" - again the presumption is that the cyclist is to blame. The journalist and editor ought to give it some thought.[/p][/quote]So why is it "cyclist" and "car", not cyclist and motorist or bicycle and car. Probably because the motorist did not 'collide' with anyone or anything, because he/she was in their car and therefore protected from collisions, and was wearing the equivalent of a big metal helmet - with wheels. The cyclist was involved in a collision, the car was was involved in the collision, the motorist was not.[/p][/quote]This is the exact problem with using this language. You've said it yourself. The inference is that the motorist was not involved in the collision. i.e. they had nothing to do with it. The car spontaneously collided with the cyclist all by itself. The connection between the motorist and the car doing things needs to be made. Cars rarely flip, overturn, drive into ditches, hit trees, collide with cyclists all by themselves. The way this article is written the cyclist could have cycled into the back of a parked car with no motorist in it. The OM must make this distinction clearer in the way it writes these articles. jochta
  • Score: 1

4:37pm Fri 23 Nov 12

xjohnx says...

Stop bickering.

The point is that its a non story from the start.

"Man bumps head and is not hurt".
Stop bickering. The point is that its a non story from the start. "Man bumps head and is not hurt". xjohnx
  • Score: 9

7:54pm Fri 23 Nov 12

seamusl says...

The hoary old chestnut "He was not wearing a helmet according to South Central Ambulance Service spokesman" - tis nobody elses business until it becomes a legal requirement, every possible cycle accident Ox Mail starts a debate which usually develops into a anti cycling rant by the ill informed. Try a proper news story for once that would inform your readers please. Oh, and why is it always "Cyclist collides with car" Really ?
The hoary old chestnut "He was not wearing a helmet according to South Central Ambulance Service spokesman" - tis nobody elses business until it becomes a legal requirement, every possible cycle accident Ox Mail starts a debate which usually develops into a anti cycling rant by the ill informed. Try a proper news story for once that would inform your readers please. Oh, and why is it always "Cyclist collides with car" Really ? seamusl
  • Score: 1

8:32pm Fri 23 Nov 12

cuckoo says...

xjohnx wrote:
Stop bickering.

The point is that its a non story from the start.

"Man bumps head and is not hurt".
Chuckle, maybe just an OM excuse to fire up (yet again) the car v cyclist/cyclist v car debate! YAWN!!
It doesn't take much intellect to understand that if you cycle on busy roads/in a busy city wearing a helmet only makes good sense. Whoever may have been 'at fault' in this particular incident is really not that important....a broken arm/leg after similar incident would recover in time BUT a serious head injury lasts a life time (however long that life is!!).
[quote][p][bold]xjohnx[/bold] wrote: Stop bickering. The point is that its a non story from the start. "Man bumps head and is not hurt".[/p][/quote]Chuckle, maybe just an OM excuse to fire up (yet again) the car v cyclist/cyclist v car debate! YAWN!! It doesn't take much intellect to understand that if you cycle on busy roads/in a busy city wearing a helmet only makes good sense. Whoever may have been 'at fault' in this particular incident is really not that important....a broken arm/leg after similar incident would recover in time BUT a serious head injury lasts a life time (however long that life is!!). cuckoo
  • Score: 1

2:21am Sat 24 Nov 12

Pavinder Msvarensy says...

As a few commenters have pointed out, more swimmers die drowning, ans more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists. Thus cycling must be relatively safe, even without a helmet or lights. So why do we hear cyclists bleating on all the time about wanting shed loads of money wasted on them to make already safe roads "safer"?
As a few commenters have pointed out, more swimmers die drowning, ans more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists. Thus cycling must be relatively safe, even without a helmet or lights. So why do we hear cyclists bleating on all the time about wanting shed loads of money wasted on them to make already safe roads "safer"? Pavinder Msvarensy
  • Score: -72

11:28am Sat 24 Nov 12

SteveOX4 says...

Captain J wrote:
My friend witnessed this accident. Neither the car or cyclist were particularly at fault, just an unfortunate accident.
I'm sorry, but someone must have been at fault, either the driver, cyclist, or both. I can't see how they can collide just by accident, must have been an error by one of them.

I worry when overtaking cyclists as many of them have no idea I'm behind them. I don't know about helmets but I believe cyclists should have at least one rear view mirror on the right handlebar.
[quote][p][bold]Captain J[/bold] wrote: My friend witnessed this accident. Neither the car or cyclist were particularly at fault, just an unfortunate accident.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but someone must have been at fault, either the driver, cyclist, or both. I can't see how they can collide just by accident, must have been an error by one of them. I worry when overtaking cyclists as many of them have no idea I'm behind them. I don't know about helmets but I believe cyclists should have at least one rear view mirror on the right handlebar. SteveOX4
  • Score: 1

11:29am Sat 24 Nov 12

Phisher says...

Far more motorists die of head injuries each year compared to cyclists, so why aren`t the helmet lobby asking for compulsion for vehicle occupants?
Far more motorists die of head injuries each year compared to cyclists, so why aren`t the helmet lobby asking for compulsion for vehicle occupants? Phisher
  • Score: 0

11:43am Sat 24 Nov 12

SteveOX4 says...

Also, Botley Road is dodgy. I spent 15-20 minutes there yesterday and this is what I saw:

1: Cars hesitating when turning right onto Botley Road from Seacourt P&R, with horns blasting.

2: As above, I saw a car 'humping' the little island with the traffic light on it. I don't know what it is but many drivers are unable to turn right out of Seacourt, they try to go straight on into the leftmost lane. I believe there was an accident there a few years ago involving a bus, vehicle turned into its path from Seacourt and hit it, resulting in an ambulance for many passengers. Road markings and signage need to be improved there, I've seen too many drivers get confused on when to turn right.

3: I was stood on the footbridge of the train station, looking towards Frideswide. The lanes outside Said Business were full of vehicles. When the light turned green, one car decided to proceed even though there was no space for it. It decided to sit in the junction in the yellow boxed area while other traffic was cleared to pass over it into the station. It was there for nearly 5 minutes and every bus blasted its horn at it.

4: Same place in the evening. Large 4X4 in the bus lane part of that junction under the station bridge. Lights clear, and it drives towards the bus stops in Frideswide Square, then stops, hesitates, and turns towards Said Business school, nearly taking out a cyclist and oncoming traffic from the other lane.

Whover that poster was who suggested a website where we could post these examples was spot on. I suspect the website will crash with the amount of dodgy cyclists, motorists and motorycyclists that will be featured!
Also, Botley Road is dodgy. I spent 15-20 minutes there yesterday and this is what I saw: 1: Cars hesitating when turning right onto Botley Road from Seacourt P&R, with horns blasting. 2: As above, I saw a car 'humping' the little island with the traffic light on it. I don't know what it is but many drivers are unable to turn right out of Seacourt, they try to go straight on into the leftmost lane. I believe there was an accident there a few years ago involving a bus, vehicle turned into its path from Seacourt and hit it, resulting in an ambulance for many passengers. Road markings and signage need to be improved there, I've seen too many drivers get confused on when to turn right. 3: I was stood on the footbridge of the train station, looking towards Frideswide. The lanes outside Said Business were full of vehicles. When the light turned green, one car decided to proceed even though there was no space for it. It decided to sit in the junction in the yellow boxed area while other traffic was cleared to pass over it into the station. It was there for nearly 5 minutes and every bus blasted its horn at it. 4: Same place in the evening. Large 4X4 in the bus lane part of that junction under the station bridge. Lights clear, and it drives towards the bus stops in Frideswide Square, then stops, hesitates, and turns towards Said Business school, nearly taking out a cyclist and oncoming traffic from the other lane. Whover that poster was who suggested a website where we could post these examples was spot on. I suspect the website will crash with the amount of dodgy cyclists, motorists and motorycyclists that will be featured! SteveOX4
  • Score: 1

12:37pm Sat 24 Nov 12

davyboy says...

in all possibility, the cyclist may have been trying to avoid one of the many potholes, and didn't realise the car was quite as close as is was. driver wouldn't be expecting a sudden swerve, thus two vehicles touch each other. cyclist fall off, bumps head. no-ones fault, except council, for poor road surface!
in all possibility, the cyclist may have been trying to avoid one of the many potholes, and didn't realise the car was quite as close as is was. driver wouldn't be expecting a sudden swerve, thus two vehicles touch each other. cyclist fall off, bumps head. no-ones fault, except council, for poor road surface! davyboy
  • Score: -1

1:49pm Sat 24 Nov 12

seamusl says...

Thus cycling must be relatively safe, even without a helmet or lights. So why do we hear cyclists bleating on all the time about wanting shed loads of money wasted on them to make already safe roads "safer"?

Yes Cycling is relatively safe etc (and the healh benefits outweigh most other dangers) However - there is no such thing as a "Safe" road and most of the safish ones are negated by This part comment - "the cyclist may have been trying to avoid one of the many potholes, and didn't realise the car was quite as close as is was. driver wouldn't be expecting a sudden swerve" - in other words one should not assume, the cyclist that the car driver has seen you and will act accordingly and vice versa that the cyclist knows what the car driver will do etc. Assume makes an **** of U'n me. I cycle all year round in all weathers and obey traffic regs and rules to the best of my ability, I will just say, from the cyclist that assumes he/she can get safely up the inside of a lorry to the car driver that assumes no one is about at 04-00 in the morning and flys out of their drive that Assume is to blame for a high proportion of accidents so don't assume and save yourselves a lot of hassle. Sorry I will get off me soap box now.
Thus cycling must be relatively safe, even without a helmet or lights. So why do we hear cyclists bleating on all the time about wanting shed loads of money wasted on them to make already safe roads "safer"? Yes Cycling is relatively safe etc (and the healh benefits outweigh most other dangers) However - there is no such thing as a "Safe" road and most of the safish ones are negated by This part comment - "the cyclist may have been trying to avoid one of the many potholes, and didn't realise the car was quite as close as is was. driver wouldn't be expecting a sudden swerve" - in other words one should not assume, the cyclist that the car driver has seen you and will act accordingly and vice versa that the cyclist knows what the car driver will do etc. Assume makes an **** of U'n me. I cycle all year round in all weathers and obey traffic regs and rules to the best of my ability, I will just say, from the cyclist that assumes he/she can get safely up the inside of a lorry to the car driver that assumes no one is about at 04-00 in the morning and flys out of their drive that Assume is to blame for a high proportion of accidents so don't assume and save yourselves a lot of hassle. Sorry I will get off me soap box now. seamusl
  • Score: -1

2:06pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Ians view says...

icba1957 wrote:
jochta wrote:
"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves.

Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"?

There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.
... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately!

Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.
50% of head injuries are suffered by motorists - it's time for those in cars to wear helmets!
[quote][p][bold]icba1957[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: "...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"? There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.[/p][/quote]... because, as we all know, those nasty motorists do it deliberately! Of course the failure to wear a helmet is relevant. It shows a complete disregard for personal safety.[/p][/quote]50% of head injuries are suffered by motorists - it's time for those in cars to wear helmets! Ians view
  • Score: 0

10:10am Sun 25 Nov 12

sparro says...

SteveOX4 wrote:
Also, Botley Road is dodgy. I spent 15-20 minutes there yesterday and this is what I saw:

1: Cars hesitating when turning right onto Botley Road from Seacourt P&R, with horns blasting.

2: As above, I saw a car 'humping' the little island with the traffic light on it. I don't know what it is but many drivers are unable to turn right out of Seacourt, they try to go straight on into the leftmost lane. I believe there was an accident there a few years ago involving a bus, vehicle turned into its path from Seacourt and hit it, resulting in an ambulance for many passengers. Road markings and signage need to be improved there, I've seen too many drivers get confused on when to turn right.

3: I was stood on the footbridge of the train station, looking towards Frideswide. The lanes outside Said Business were full of vehicles. When the light turned green, one car decided to proceed even though there was no space for it. It decided to sit in the junction in the yellow boxed area while other traffic was cleared to pass over it into the station. It was there for nearly 5 minutes and every bus blasted its horn at it.

4: Same place in the evening. Large 4X4 in the bus lane part of that junction under the station bridge. Lights clear, and it drives towards the bus stops in Frideswide Square, then stops, hesitates, and turns towards Said Business school, nearly taking out a cyclist and oncoming traffic from the other lane.

Whover that poster was who suggested a website where we could post these examples was spot on. I suspect the website will crash with the amount of dodgy cyclists, motorists and motorycyclists that will be featured!
There is a site, if you have registration
number. Look at "regerme"
[quote][p][bold]SteveOX4[/bold] wrote: Also, Botley Road is dodgy. I spent 15-20 minutes there yesterday and this is what I saw: 1: Cars hesitating when turning right onto Botley Road from Seacourt P&R, with horns blasting. 2: As above, I saw a car 'humping' the little island with the traffic light on it. I don't know what it is but many drivers are unable to turn right out of Seacourt, they try to go straight on into the leftmost lane. I believe there was an accident there a few years ago involving a bus, vehicle turned into its path from Seacourt and hit it, resulting in an ambulance for many passengers. Road markings and signage need to be improved there, I've seen too many drivers get confused on when to turn right. 3: I was stood on the footbridge of the train station, looking towards Frideswide. The lanes outside Said Business were full of vehicles. When the light turned green, one car decided to proceed even though there was no space for it. It decided to sit in the junction in the yellow boxed area while other traffic was cleared to pass over it into the station. It was there for nearly 5 minutes and every bus blasted its horn at it. 4: Same place in the evening. Large 4X4 in the bus lane part of that junction under the station bridge. Lights clear, and it drives towards the bus stops in Frideswide Square, then stops, hesitates, and turns towards Said Business school, nearly taking out a cyclist and oncoming traffic from the other lane. Whover that poster was who suggested a website where we could post these examples was spot on. I suspect the website will crash with the amount of dodgy cyclists, motorists and motorycyclists that will be featured![/p][/quote]There is a site, if you have registration number. Look at "regerme" sparro
  • Score: 1

11:18am Sun 25 Nov 12

daft_evader says...

SteveOX4 wrote:
Captain J wrote:
My friend witnessed this accident. Neither the car or cyclist were particularly at fault, just an unfortunate accident.
I'm sorry, but someone must have been at fault, either the driver, cyclist, or both. I can't see how they can collide just by accident, must have been an error by one of them.

I worry when overtaking cyclists as many of them have no idea I'm behind them. I don't know about helmets but I believe cyclists should have at least one rear view mirror on the right handlebar.
Its unlikely that the cyclist would not be aware of you - unlike car drivers, cyclists can hear clearly when someone is behind them (unless they are wearing headphones, which is stupid).
[quote][p][bold]SteveOX4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Captain J[/bold] wrote: My friend witnessed this accident. Neither the car or cyclist were particularly at fault, just an unfortunate accident.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but someone must have been at fault, either the driver, cyclist, or both. I can't see how they can collide just by accident, must have been an error by one of them. I worry when overtaking cyclists as many of them have no idea I'm behind them. I don't know about helmets but I believe cyclists should have at least one rear view mirror on the right handlebar.[/p][/quote]Its unlikely that the cyclist would not be aware of you - unlike car drivers, cyclists can hear clearly when someone is behind them (unless they are wearing headphones, which is stupid). daft_evader
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Sun 25 Nov 12

jochta says...

davyboy wrote:
in all possibility, the cyclist may have been trying to avoid one of the many potholes, and didn't realise the car was quite as close as is was. driver wouldn't be expecting a sudden swerve, thus two vehicles touch each other. cyclist fall off, bumps head. no-ones fault, except council, for poor road surface!
This is covered in detail by Highway Code rules 211-213 (https://www.gov.uk/
road-users-requiring
-extra-care-204-to-2
25/motorcyclists-and
-cyclists-211-to-213
)

"Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."

And Rule 163 (https://www.gov.uk/
using-the-road-159-t
o-203/overtaking-162
-to-169)

"...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

To the other comment about mirrors for cyclists, most are useless due to the road vibrations. And just as when you are a motorist you should never rely on mirrors as your only source of information. Cyclists should always look over their shoulder before making any manoeuvre, not always easy if they are trying to avoid a pothole!
[quote][p][bold]davyboy[/bold] wrote: in all possibility, the cyclist may have been trying to avoid one of the many potholes, and didn't realise the car was quite as close as is was. driver wouldn't be expecting a sudden swerve, thus two vehicles touch each other. cyclist fall off, bumps head. no-ones fault, except council, for poor road surface![/p][/quote]This is covered in detail by Highway Code rules 211-213 (https://www.gov.uk/ road-users-requiring -extra-care-204-to-2 25/motorcyclists-and -cyclists-211-to-213 ) "Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make." And Rule 163 (https://www.gov.uk/ using-the-road-159-t o-203/overtaking-162 -to-169) "...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car." To the other comment about mirrors for cyclists, most are useless due to the road vibrations. And just as when you are a motorist you should never rely on mirrors as your only source of information. Cyclists should always look over their shoulder before making any manoeuvre, not always easy if they are trying to avoid a pothole! jochta
  • Score: 2

4:29pm Sun 25 Nov 12

the wizard says...

jochta wrote:
"...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves.

Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"?

There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.
Lets do a comparison of road users,

A Motorist of any sort, car,van or truck driver , must,

under go training on the Highway Code and pass a test on that

under go training on how to drive a vehicle and pass a test which includes all kinds of obstacles and environments

have a vehicle, which passes a test every year after three years of age to prove it is to a acceptable safe and proper standard

have tax, insurance and above mentioned certificate known as an MOT

the driver and all passengers must wear seat belts

the driver must be sober and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs


Now the cyclists,

None of the above apply, and any measures such as helmets, insurance and servicing of the bike are solely at the users discretion, and that includes lights,bell etc

What a joke this is. Time for the Government to make lights, bell and wearing of helmet compulsory, and that sticky item call insurance also compulsory. Time for the odds being evened up and all riders to pass a course to show they are competent to ride among those that pay for the privilege to use the roads.
[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: "...in a collision with a car..." was it a parked car with nobody in it?! Cars when driven usually have motorists in them. Why is it with all these stories the car is an inanimate object with a life of its own? According to the OM they appear to have the ability to flip, roll over, hit trees and collide with cyclists all by themselves. Whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not is irrelevant when we have no details of how the collision occurred. If he'd injured his leg would it say "He wasn't wearing leg protection"? There is no compulsion to wear helmets and for lots of reasons there should never be. There is a compulsion on motorists to not collide with cyclists though.[/p][/quote]Lets do a comparison of road users, A Motorist of any sort, car,van or truck driver , must, under go training on the Highway Code and pass a test on that under go training on how to drive a vehicle and pass a test which includes all kinds of obstacles and environments have a vehicle, which passes a test every year after three years of age to prove it is to a acceptable safe and proper standard have tax, insurance and above mentioned certificate known as an MOT the driver and all passengers must wear seat belts the driver must be sober and not under the influence of alcohol or drugs Now the cyclists, None of the above apply, and any measures such as helmets, insurance and servicing of the bike are solely at the users discretion, and that includes lights,bell etc What a joke this is. Time for the Government to make lights, bell and wearing of helmet compulsory, and that sticky item call insurance also compulsory. Time for the odds being evened up and all riders to pass a course to show they are competent to ride among those that pay for the privilege to use the roads. the wizard
  • Score: -51

4:56pm Sun 25 Nov 12

jochta says...

Motorists require to pass a test to show they are competent of operating a big dangerous piece of equipment. They have to be licensed and 'taxed' to gain permission to use the roads which are for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

The reason why the controls are so much stricter is because motorists kill and maim thousands of people every year in this country. Cyclists don't.

A lot of cyclists have insurance. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. Nearly all pay council tax that pays for the roads.

Lights are already compulsory on bicycles after sunset and before sunrise. Cycling whilst intoxicated is prosecutable (http://www.legislat
ion.gov.uk/ukpga/198
8/52/section/30). You are hugely more likely to suffer a head injury as a driver or passenger in a car, better make the wearing of helmets compulsory for them too to even up the odds.
Motorists require to pass a test to show they are competent of operating a big dangerous piece of equipment. They have to be licensed and 'taxed' to gain permission to use the roads which are for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. The reason why the controls are so much stricter is because motorists kill and maim thousands of people every year in this country. Cyclists don't. A lot of cyclists have insurance. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. Nearly all pay council tax that pays for the roads. Lights are already compulsory on bicycles after sunset and before sunrise. Cycling whilst intoxicated is prosecutable (http://www.legislat ion.gov.uk/ukpga/198 8/52/section/30). You are hugely more likely to suffer a head injury as a driver or passenger in a car, better make the wearing of helmets compulsory for them too to even up the odds. jochta
  • Score: 2

7:11pm Sun 25 Nov 12

the wizard says...

jochta wrote:
Motorists require to pass a test to show they are competent of operating a big dangerous piece of equipment. They have to be licensed and 'taxed' to gain permission to use the roads which are for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

The reason why the controls are so much stricter is because motorists kill and maim thousands of people every year in this country. Cyclists don't.

A lot of cyclists have insurance. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. Nearly all pay council tax that pays for the roads.

Lights are already compulsory on bicycles after sunset and before sunrise. Cycling whilst intoxicated is prosecutable (http://www.legislat

ion.gov.uk/ukpga/198

8/52/section/30). You are hugely more likely to suffer a head injury as a driver or passenger in a car, better make the wearing of helmets compulsory for them too to even up the odds.
Yes, quite correct, lights are already part of the law, but only a minority fit them and even fewer have them in working order.

Motorists have seat belts and now the majority also have air bags. Air bags save head injuries as do seat belts, cyclists have no mandatory protection what so ever, yet in other countries it is lawful for them to do so. If you wish to broaden the argument let us also include hi-viz vests for cyclists as so many wilfully neglect their lights anyway, and instead of writing of fines for no lights such as TVP have done yet again recently, lets make them stick in the future.

As goes pedestrians, wilfull walking on the highway is Jay walking and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act.
Horse riders mostly wear Hi Viz and all wear protective head gear, so why not cyclists.
Horse riders now have to conform with a Code Of Conduct and are insured, and Horse Riders are supposed to be above a stipulated standard before being allowed on the highway, where as anyone can simply get on a bike and cause havoc, and many, not al, do just that. To deny it shows you in a bad light.
[quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: Motorists require to pass a test to show they are competent of operating a big dangerous piece of equipment. They have to be licensed and 'taxed' to gain permission to use the roads which are for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. The reason why the controls are so much stricter is because motorists kill and maim thousands of people every year in this country. Cyclists don't. A lot of cyclists have insurance. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. Nearly all pay council tax that pays for the roads. Lights are already compulsory on bicycles after sunset and before sunrise. Cycling whilst intoxicated is prosecutable (http://www.legislat ion.gov.uk/ukpga/198 8/52/section/30). You are hugely more likely to suffer a head injury as a driver or passenger in a car, better make the wearing of helmets compulsory for them too to even up the odds.[/p][/quote]Yes, quite correct, lights are already part of the law, but only a minority fit them and even fewer have them in working order. Motorists have seat belts and now the majority also have air bags. Air bags save head injuries as do seat belts, cyclists have no mandatory protection what so ever, yet in other countries it is lawful for them to do so. If you wish to broaden the argument let us also include hi-viz vests for cyclists as so many wilfully neglect their lights anyway, and instead of writing of fines for no lights such as TVP have done yet again recently, lets make them stick in the future. As goes pedestrians, wilfull walking on the highway is Jay walking and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act. Horse riders mostly wear Hi Viz and all wear protective head gear, so why not cyclists. Horse riders now have to conform with a Code Of Conduct and are insured, and Horse Riders are supposed to be above a stipulated standard before being allowed on the highway, where as anyone can simply get on a bike and cause havoc, and many, not al, do just that. To deny it shows you in a bad light. the wizard
  • Score: -45

7:59pm Sun 25 Nov 12

jochta says...

I'm not denying there are bad cyclists just as there are bad motorists. Cyclists should have lights, it's incredibly foolish to not have lights after dark and they should be stopped and fined for not having them.

They should also obey the highway code, they are bound by the same rules as motorists. They should cycle safely and sensibly at all times.

Sadly the same could be said about motorists causing havoc on the roads. Driving whilst using a mobile, driving through red lights, speeding. All offences seen daily on our roads. A large heavy metal box when not driven safely and sensibly does a hell of a lot more damage than a bicycle.

Helmets are a red herring in cycling safety, they do not provide some sort of miraculous force field that saves a cyclist from injury. It puts the blame on the cyclist to protect themselves when they shouldn't be driven into in the first place. Evidence points to the fact that they are ineffective and cycling really isn't that dangerous.

I'm most annoyed at the tone of this story. Cyclist and motorist collide, cyclist bangs head and wasn't wearing helmet therefore it's entirely their own stupid fault they got knocked off and deserved to hurt their head. This is the wrong attitude and the OM need to change the way they write these articles.

We all can share the roads safely and get along. The hostility of some motorists inside their 2 tonne cars towards cyclists is frankly ridiculous and scary.
I'm not denying there are bad cyclists just as there are bad motorists. Cyclists should have lights, it's incredibly foolish to not have lights after dark and they should be stopped and fined for not having them. They should also obey the highway code, they are bound by the same rules as motorists. They should cycle safely and sensibly at all times. Sadly the same could be said about motorists causing havoc on the roads. Driving whilst using a mobile, driving through red lights, speeding. All offences seen daily on our roads. A large heavy metal box when not driven safely and sensibly does a hell of a lot more damage than a bicycle. Helmets are a red herring in cycling safety, they do not provide some sort of miraculous force field that saves a cyclist from injury. It puts the blame on the cyclist to protect themselves when they shouldn't be driven into in the first place. Evidence points to the fact that they are ineffective and cycling really isn't that dangerous. I'm most annoyed at the tone of this story. Cyclist and motorist collide, cyclist bangs head and wasn't wearing helmet therefore it's entirely their own stupid fault they got knocked off and deserved to hurt their head. This is the wrong attitude and the OM need to change the way they write these articles. We all can share the roads safely and get along. The hostility of some motorists inside their 2 tonne cars towards cyclists is frankly ridiculous and scary. jochta
  • Score: 3

10:26am Mon 26 Nov 12

seamusl says...

cyclists have no mandatory protection what so ever, yet in other countries it is lawful for them to do so. If you wish to broaden the argument let us also include hi-viz vests for cyclists as so many wilfully neglect their lights anyway, and instead of writing of fines for no lights such as TVP have done yet again recently, lets make them stick in the future.

1. In all countries that have mandatory helmet use cycling has decreased with subsequent health issues also no decrease in serious injuries (real term increase).
2. High viz vests are no substitute for obeying the law and using decent lights, the police force should enforce the law and fine anyone breaking it 9equally, (cyclist or motorist) in Spain if a cyclist breaks the law the police are allowed to take the cyclists front wheel until they come and pay the fine.
3. I feel that all has been said, we all feel that there are simple common sense remedies but unfortunately all will continue as before ie. I commented to a middle aged woman who went through a red light (I was riding my recumbent trike) that they had a special offer at Specsavers, she gave me a look and I then said "well, you are obviously colour blind", the torrent of abuse would have shamed the proverbial navvie, nope, tis up to lack of policing, if people can get away with things then people will take the micky, simples.
cyclists have no mandatory protection what so ever, yet in other countries it is lawful for them to do so. If you wish to broaden the argument let us also include hi-viz vests for cyclists as so many wilfully neglect their lights anyway, and instead of writing of fines for no lights such as TVP have done yet again recently, lets make them stick in the future. 1. In all countries that have mandatory helmet use cycling has decreased with subsequent health issues also no decrease in serious injuries (real term increase). 2. High viz vests are no substitute for obeying the law and using decent lights, the police force should enforce the law and fine anyone breaking it 9equally, (cyclist or motorist) in Spain if a cyclist breaks the law the police are allowed to take the cyclists front wheel until they come and pay the fine. 3. I feel that all has been said, we all feel that there are simple common sense remedies but unfortunately all will continue as before ie. I commented to a middle aged woman who went through a red light (I was riding my recumbent trike) that they had a special offer at Specsavers, she gave me a look and I then said "well, you are obviously colour blind", the torrent of abuse would have shamed the proverbial navvie, nope, tis up to lack of policing, if people can get away with things then people will take the micky, simples. seamusl
  • Score: -1

2:51pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Alex O says...

Pavinder Msvarensy wrote:
As a few commenters have pointed out, more swimmers die drowning, ans more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists. Thus cycling must be relatively safe, even without a helmet or lights. So why do we hear cyclists bleating on all the time about wanting shed loads of money wasted on them to make already safe roads "safer"?
112 cyclists killed on UK roads already this year.

We're "bleating on" about safety because motorists, insulated in their metal vehicles traveling at 30mph plus can kill us with a moments inattention.

Stop attributing worth to a life based on the mode of transport people pick. We're all entitled to get where we need or want to be safely.
[quote][p][bold]Pavinder Msvarensy[/bold] wrote: As a few commenters have pointed out, more swimmers die drowning, ans more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists. Thus cycling must be relatively safe, even without a helmet or lights. So why do we hear cyclists bleating on all the time about wanting shed loads of money wasted on them to make already safe roads "safer"?[/p][/quote]112 cyclists killed on UK roads already this year. We're "bleating on" about safety because motorists, insulated in their metal vehicles traveling at 30mph plus can kill us with a moments inattention. Stop attributing worth to a life based on the mode of transport people pick. We're all entitled to get where we need or want to be safely. Alex O
  • Score: 4

2:52pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Pavinder Msvarensy says...

I wonder if the OM will contact TVP, and get the figures for the cyclists with no lights in The High Street last night, and to the guy that gave me the 4 letter tirade just before getting nicked HA HA. Courtesy of Nelson Muntz.
I wonder if the OM will contact TVP, and get the figures for the cyclists with no lights in The High Street last night, and to the guy that gave me the 4 letter tirade just before getting nicked HA HA. Courtesy of Nelson Muntz. Pavinder Msvarensy
  • Score: -67

5:50pm Mon 26 Nov 12

seamusl says...

I have a Lumicycle front and rear light (excellently bright and made in England) I also have a B&M front and Cateye A1100 rear light (all used together) on my recumbent Trike (and before anyone starts, yes it is low but after 20,000 + touring and commute miles I guess I am see able or I wouldn't be about), anyone who rides without lights deserves to have their bike confiscated, I drove professionally for 26 years and although near misses never had an own fault accident, the mere motion of a cycle can alert you to its presence, it certainly saved one young mans life by the Regal one dark night, he then proceeded to have a go at me for saying please get some lights, I then asked him how his family would feel at him being such an idiot for having no lights and being killed and how mine would feel that I had not been unable to prevent an un needed death. Complete lack of comprehension. Still, the strong protect the weak I was always taught so lets trog on :-)
I have a Lumicycle front and rear light (excellently bright and made in England) I also have a B&M front and Cateye A1100 rear light (all used together) on my recumbent Trike (and before anyone starts, yes it is low but after 20,000 + touring and commute miles I guess I am see able or I wouldn't be about), anyone who rides without lights deserves to have their bike confiscated, I drove professionally for 26 years and although near misses never had an own fault accident, the mere motion of a cycle can alert you to its presence, it certainly saved one young mans life by the Regal one dark night, he then proceeded to have a go at me for saying please get some lights, I then asked him how his family would feel at him being such an idiot for having no lights and being killed and how mine would feel that I had not been unable to prevent an un needed death. Complete lack of comprehension. Still, the strong protect the weak I was always taught so lets trog on :-) seamusl
  • Score: 1

8:57am Wed 28 Nov 12

gkec says...

He obviously wasn't wearing a wig either!
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/yoursay/colu
mns/10071656.ON_YER_
BIKE__Cyclists_shoul
d_choose_whether_to_
wear_a_helmet/
He obviously wasn't wearing a wig either! http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/yoursay/colu mns/10071656.ON_YER_ BIKE__Cyclists_shoul d_choose_whether_to_ wear_a_helmet/ gkec
  • Score: 0

11:04am Wed 28 Nov 12

museli says...

the wizard wrote:
jochta wrote:
Motorists require to pass a test to show they are competent of operating a big dangerous piece of equipment. They have to be licensed and 'taxed' to gain permission to use the roads which are for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

The reason why the controls are so much stricter is because motorists kill and maim thousands of people every year in this country. Cyclists don't.

A lot of cyclists have insurance. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. Nearly all pay council tax that pays for the roads.

Lights are already compulsory on bicycles after sunset and before sunrise. Cycling whilst intoxicated is prosecutable (http://www.legislat


ion.gov.uk/ukpga/198


8/52/section/30). You are hugely more likely to suffer a head injury as a driver or passenger in a car, better make the wearing of helmets compulsory for them too to even up the odds.
Yes, quite correct, lights are already part of the law, but only a minority fit them and even fewer have them in working order.

Motorists have seat belts and now the majority also have air bags. Air bags save head injuries as do seat belts, cyclists have no mandatory protection what so ever, yet in other countries it is lawful for them to do so. If you wish to broaden the argument let us also include hi-viz vests for cyclists as so many wilfully neglect their lights anyway, and instead of writing of fines for no lights such as TVP have done yet again recently, lets make them stick in the future.

As goes pedestrians, wilfull walking on the highway is Jay walking and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act.
Horse riders mostly wear Hi Viz and all wear protective head gear, so why not cyclists.
Horse riders now have to conform with a Code Of Conduct and are insured, and Horse Riders are supposed to be above a stipulated standard before being allowed on the highway, where as anyone can simply get on a bike and cause havoc, and many, not al, do just that. To deny it shows you in a bad light.
the wizard says..

"As goes pedestrians, wilfull walking on the highway is Jay walking and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act."

No it's not - it's perfectly legal to walk on the road in the UK (with the exception of motorways and a very few specific major A roads).
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jochta[/bold] wrote: Motorists require to pass a test to show they are competent of operating a big dangerous piece of equipment. They have to be licensed and 'taxed' to gain permission to use the roads which are for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. The reason why the controls are so much stricter is because motorists kill and maim thousands of people every year in this country. Cyclists don't. A lot of cyclists have insurance. The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. Nearly all pay council tax that pays for the roads. Lights are already compulsory on bicycles after sunset and before sunrise. Cycling whilst intoxicated is prosecutable (http://www.legislat ion.gov.uk/ukpga/198 8/52/section/30). You are hugely more likely to suffer a head injury as a driver or passenger in a car, better make the wearing of helmets compulsory for them too to even up the odds.[/p][/quote]Yes, quite correct, lights are already part of the law, but only a minority fit them and even fewer have them in working order. Motorists have seat belts and now the majority also have air bags. Air bags save head injuries as do seat belts, cyclists have no mandatory protection what so ever, yet in other countries it is lawful for them to do so. If you wish to broaden the argument let us also include hi-viz vests for cyclists as so many wilfully neglect their lights anyway, and instead of writing of fines for no lights such as TVP have done yet again recently, lets make them stick in the future. As goes pedestrians, wilfull walking on the highway is Jay walking and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act. Horse riders mostly wear Hi Viz and all wear protective head gear, so why not cyclists. Horse riders now have to conform with a Code Of Conduct and are insured, and Horse Riders are supposed to be above a stipulated standard before being allowed on the highway, where as anyone can simply get on a bike and cause havoc, and many, not al, do just that. To deny it shows you in a bad light.[/p][/quote]the wizard says.. "As goes pedestrians, wilfull walking on the highway is Jay walking and is an offence under the Road Traffic Act." No it's not - it's perfectly legal to walk on the road in the UK (with the exception of motorways and a very few specific major A roads). museli
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree