"Howard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:On Apr 10, 11:19 am, "Simon Finnigan" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
To be fair, when a cyclist collided with my car and was knocked off, it
was
essentially silent - if I had my radio on at any volume I wouldn`t have
heard it.
There is a lot of difference between a cyclist falling off at walking
speed after catching a traffic cone and actually being hit by a
vehicle travelling at speed. Have you ever seen the sort of damage
resulting from a high speed impact (say anything over 20 Mph)? There
is NO WAY a motorist can 'collide' with a cyclist at anything above
walking pace and not know about it, especially when the impact was
serious enough to cause fatal injuries. In my experience of driving
even a piece of debris thrown up under ones wheels at speed can sound
apocalyptic.
I`d put money on having seen the result of a lot of impacts of differents
types than you have, any yes I`ve have seen the damage that can be done to a
car in said impacts. However, the slightest clip of a wing mirror could
knock a cyclist off, and why would the impact with the car have to be
particularly hard to kill them? I don`t know whether the bike in the story
was clipped, or hit full on, but surely a slight knock on a handle bar at
the wrong time could cause you to lose control and fall off, suffering fatal
injuries along the way - correct? A slight bang noise in the vehicle (which
the driver may not be able to hear, for example having their radio on, loud
road noise, deaf driver etc) resulting in a fatal injury.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:he decided that it
was my fault (how he can blame me when he had no qualification to drive a
vehicle on the road, couldn`t give even the most basic of answers to
questions about what the highway code said about filtering and when he
had
been stupid enough to try and squeeze down a ga that wasn`t there is
beyond
me).
It strikes me that YOU are the one who never read the Highway Code, as
it says nothing specifically about filtering by cyclists! On the other
hand the official handbook of safe cycling 'Cyclecraft' does, and this
points out that 'filtering' is a legitimate manoeuvre, although not
one that should be done at speed. The 'Code does say "only overtake
on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and
there is room to do so'' but this is not 'filtering' as such and any
case the 'Code also says "If the queue on your right is moving more
slowly than you are, you may pass on the left".
So the highway code says nothing about filtering - where did I say it did?
What I said was that the cyclist couldn`t tell me what it said - in other
words he didn`t know. I`ve described the situation we where in, and the
cyclist was trying to ride through a non-existant gap.
The cyclist also wasn`t aware (I did ask him) that the vehicle infront of me
was indicating right, and the cyclist would have riden into the side of him
if he hadn`t first hit my car.
Quoted message said:Also a cyclists needs no 'qualification' to use the public road as
they have a legal right to do so. On the other hand, for motor vehicle
users driving on the public road is merely a privilege controlled
through licence, and this is because of the amount of danger motor
vehicles pose to others.
So I`ve proven that I am competent to use the roads safely in a particular
vehicle (a motorbike as well, since I passed that test). The biker has no
obligation to pass a test, which is blatently obvious from the way that some
(note NOT all) riders have absolutely no idea of what is going on around
them, what the rules of the road are or how to avoid dying a horrible
painful death. For every bike I see with decent lights on and the cyclist
making an effort to let me see him as far away as possible, there are others
who ride at night with nothing at all to make them more visible. And the
fact is that whatever the position is from a legal point of view, riding
something that offers as little protection during a crash as a bike while
not doing everything reasonable you can do to protect yourself is stupid.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:But the point is that if it where dark, and the cyclist wasn`t using
suitible lights, I could very easily have driven off without knowing that
anything had happened at all
The story does not say that the cyclist was riding without lights, or
even that it was dark at the time, merely that is was 'evening'.
(Think on, what time does it actually get dark now we are on summer
time). In any case what do you think the headlights on your vehicle
are for numbskull!
The lights are to help me see what is coming ahead of me yes, but what if
the cyclist was wearing only dark material, with nothing reflective? It
seems to me that there are a lot of knee jerk reactions in this group - car
drivers must be evil - but you don`t want to take the time to look at the
evidence do you? Do you accept that it IS possible for a car to be involved
in an impact with a bike and the driver to be unaware of this impact, with a
driver of a standard to pass the current driving test? No arguements about
whether the test is too lenient, whether more effort needs to be made in
making people more aware of the road in all directions around them, a bog
standard DSA driving test.
As for the story in question - yes it was evening, my story wasn`t
necessariyl related to that particular impact, but making the point that is
IT possible to be involved in an RTC and not be aware of it, especially with
a vehicle such as a bike. A motorbike will make more noise and be more
noticible, due to the added size and weight, a car more so, and hit a wagon
and you really know about it.
--
Items on ebay:
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZscousesifinQQhtZ-1
