SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Raven]

err no, not in civilized countries. I hit a car when on my bike I am the one paying for damages. also, it's mandatory to have a basic insurance here in the NL. like it should be everywhere.

Agree 100%. If you are on the road you should have insurance. I also think some people need to take basic cycling safety lessons. The other night I was stuck behind someone rising in the middle of a busy road at about 10mph, wobbling all over the place. There was no way to pass him as there was steady oncoming traffic, he was totally oblivious to the queue of cars behind him.

 

[TdC]

there are assholes everywhere, tis true :/

tbh one of the most awesome things about the NL is that biking is so heavily integrated and accepted. that always freaks me out in the UK. for example, I'd be scared as hell riding in the average city, because I am used to drivers "seeing" me as it's ingrained in their nature to expect the inevitable bike coming along.

I mean, take that vid: the biker has a high-vis jacket on, and his lights and it's friggin daylight and he still manages to get nearly run over by some numbnuts. I'm not saying that would never happen in NL, but I would say it's much more difficult to get in to that situation.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not sure, but i think the first car to hit the guy didn't see him coming due to the van being infront. Cars don't stop instantly afterall, so might've been the best he could do not to run the guy over.

 

[TdC]

if that is so, an accident would have been inevitable. what if the bike had been a car? the first car would not have seen him due to the van like you surmise, and would have pulled straight in.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Bit easier to spot a car that takes the whole road, instead of a bike riding at the side of it

Speculating, but it might've looked like a gap in cars and the guy thought it was a good chance to turn, while the van kept blocking the rider until it was too late to effectively stop.

the female driver is a sillybilly though, you'd think you'd stop the car if you hit something as large as a bike with your car

 

[Raven]

As a driver, no it isn't. You should see everything and anticipate other road users actions.

 

[TdC]

err no, you said he couldn't see due to the van. a van can block a car as much as it can block a bike, although I admit a bike is easier to block.

in that respect, I hated my mum's old car, because the struts separating the windscreen from the doors were really thick and would 'exactly' block my line of site to the right, when coming up on a crossing or road. almost as if they were designed to do that specific thing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeap all i was saying is that i can see how it could've blocked the bike and give the impression of a gap to get through. Not disputing blame or anything like that

Understandable mistake, even if still a mistake.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nate inc.

 

[MYstIC G]

Not quite, seeing as they were at fault. They would have to pay for damages to him/his bike.

If a cyclist takes your wing mirror off or scratches up the side of your car then they get away with a cheery "sorry mate ololol" and go about their business. Cyclists don't have to pay insurance for some reason.

Which is exactly what happened to me when one went through the passenger window of my car. If I'd have claimed on my insurance it would also have gone down as a fault claim because cyclists apparently don't count as another party in an accident.

Really shady area to be honest, whilst I don't want cyclists to pay insurance (because kids should be allowed to ride bikes without rakes of bullshit) I'm not sure how you solve this one.

 

[TdC]

err, kids fall under their parents insurance? also, how can a cyclist not count when they're as much a user of the road as everyone else is? or is this another example of fucked up UK laws that date back to the times people lived in caves?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yes everyone agrees that cyclists should be properly accountable, except cyclists. Tom's the prime example. We've been through this many times and it's hilarious.

 

[DaGaffer]

err, kids fall under their parents insurance? also, how can a cyclist not count when they're as much a user of the road as everyone else is? or is this another example of fucked up UK laws that date back to the times people lived in caves?

What "parent's insurance" would that be?

 

[MYstIC G]

err, kids fall under their parents insurance? also, how can a cyclist not count when they're as much a user of the road as everyone else is? or is this another example of fucked up UK laws that date back to the times people lived in caves?

Yes imho. Perhaps the whole insurance thing is monged up though.

Now you've put it like that frankly they should change the system and make it "Road User" insurance, i.e. I have to have insurance for my activities on the road and can then choose what those are, e.g. Car, Bike, Cycle, Lorry, etc.

 

[Olgaline]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cd0mOgAfVf8#
!

 

[dysfunction]

In London today the bloodhound ssc:

http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/news/city-london

 

[Access Denied]

Gaff, seriously. I agree with a lot of your posts but tbh I think you're talking out of your arse on this one. The woman was pulling up to a junction, she should have been paying attention and if she had been she would've seen the guy in the bright yellow jacket go flying. That being said, it's Greenford and last time I went up to Harrow (which is next door to Greenford) the driving was noticably worse than I can ever remember.

 

[TdC]

What "parent's insurance" would that be?

I'm sorry, I just assume that everyone has mandatory basic coverage like here in NL. You know, that place of free drugs and windmills where everyone does what they like all day long.

 

[TdC]

Now you've put it like that frankly they should change the system and make it "Road User" insurance, i.e. I have to have insurance for my activities on the road and can then choose what those are, e.g. Car, Bike, Cycle, Lorry, etc.

iirc you're insured against what you're licensed for. eg my license is for normal cars and vans that are not heavy duty, ie single rear axle only. in NL they have Moped, Motorcycle, Car, Heavy vehicle, Truck, Truck with multiple tow, specialist (forklift, etc) and military licenses. I'm only fully covered by the car insurance when I am in a car on a normal road (not a race track or whatever), but I am always covered by my personal insurance, so if I am on my bike and I hit someone through my error my default insurance picks it up. Or my parents, if I were still < 16 years old. (or 18, I forget)

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm sorry, I just assume that everyone has mandatory basic coverage like here in NL. You know, that place of free drugs and windmills where everyone does what they like all day long.

No, nothing like that in the UK, or Ireland. So everyone in Holland has public liability insurance? Jesus, don't give our insurance companies ideas...

 

[TdC]

I'm sorry, I just assume that everyone has mandatory basic coverage like here in NL. You know, that place of free drugs and windmills where everyone does what they like all day long.

actually, that said I can't figure out why someone would NOT choose to have at least basic coverage? I mean, it's only like a euro a month or something?

I once met a girl while travelling. she was something of a "free spirit" (eg hippy/idiot). She told me she chose to not have travel insurance because it harshed her vibe or whatever and stuff was only stuff. Her backpack vanished, and I swear I had never seen anyone more wrecked. My mate's camera also got nicked, and he had a new one inside a week thanks to his insurance. Ho hum.

 

[TdC]

No, nothing like that in the UK, or Ireland. So everyone in Holland has public liability insurance? Jesus, don't give our insurance companies ideas...

yeah from what I hear you're also in a something of a sue-their-arses culture thing like the US. all scumbag lawyer driven ofc. that sucks man, I feel bad for you tbh

 

[rynnor]

I think accidents like these demonstrate the unsuitability of our busy roads for bicycle use. I would change the law so that they could legally use all footpaths and ban them from using the road system.

They simply are not fit vehicles for modern busy roads - the highway code needs a serious upgrade to modernity.

It would also mean only taxed/insured vehicles would now be on the roads.

 

[DaGaffer]

Gaff, seriously. I agree with a lot of your posts but tbh I think you're talking out of your arse on this one. The woman was pulling up to a junction, she should have been paying attention and if she had been she would've seen the guy in the bright yellow jacket go flying. That being said, it's Greenford and last time I went up to Harrow (which is next door to Greenford) the driving was noticably worse than I can ever remember.

Looking at it again, I think she was aware of the original accident but thought she could just drive off (to get away from any involvement as a witness or be held up) and she ran over the bike because it skidded below her eye line.

 

[Access Denied]

Looking at it again, I think she was aware of the original accident but thought she could just drive off (to get away from any involvement as a witness or be held up) and she ran over the bike because it skidded below her eye line.

That is a possibilty but it then begs the question of why she pulled out and tried to drive off if she saw the accident but then couldn't see the guy or his bike because they were below the level of her window. If that was me I would wonder where they were if I couldn't see them at that point.

 

[TdC]

I think accidents like these demonstrate the unsuitability of our busy roads for bicycle use. I would change the law so that they could legally use all footpaths and ban them from using the road system.

They simply are not fit vehicles for modern busy roads - the highway code needs a serious upgrade to modernity.

It would also mean only taxed/insured vehicles would now be on the roads.

in the NL, a severely busy road like that would have separate bicycle paths. your blanket statement that a bicycle is not a fit vehicle for such a road I would have to consider very carefully tbh.

re taxing of vehicles, I am sure you'll agree that a bike issues considerably less wear and tear to a road, and ofc NO direct pollution effects. the taxing argument is usually one used by brain-dead motorists; a group I am semi-sure you are not a part of. I would be for a commute tax, were it suitably proportionate, and also ONLY if it's benefits were immediately apparent eg, clean, well defined, well maintained and adequately sized bicycle paths. proper judicial protection of cyclists adhering to road rules, that kind of thing.

 

[DaGaffer]

That is a possibilty but it then begs the question of why she pulled out and tried to drive off if she saw the accident but then couldn't see the guy or his bike because they were below the level of her window. If that was me I would wonder where they were if I couldn't see them at that point.

I don't disagree. But its London in the rush hour so I'm not surprised.

 

[Raven]

A lot of the busy roads round here have very good cycle paths. Cyclists just don't use them though.

 

[DaGaffer]

in the NL, a severely busy road like that would have separate bicycle paths. your blanket statement that a bicycle is not a fit vehicle for such a road I would have to consider very carefully tbh.

re taxing of vehicles, I am sure you'll agree that a bike issues considerably less wear and tear to a road, and ofc NO direct pollution effects. the taxing argument is usually one used by brain-dead motorists; a group I am semi-sure you are not a part of. I would be for a commute tax, were it suitably proportionate, and also ONLY if it's benefits were immediately apparent eg, clean, well defined, well maintained and adequately sized bicycle paths. proper judicial protection of cyclists adhering to road rules, that kind of thing.

Its been pointed out (repeatedly) by certain people on here that vehicle taxation has nothing to do with the upkeep of the roads (at least not in Britain), so if a bicycle tax was introduced it wouldn't be because of any costs bikes incur, just the potential revenue they can raise in general taxation. It would be a tricky tax to introduce politically and would be a bitch to administer (I actually think the only practical route would be an additional purchase tax for the bike itself personally). I do think mandatory insurance is a good idea, but I don't know what you'd do about kids etc.

As for bike lanes, the big problem with a lot of urban areas in the UK is that dedicated cycle lanes simply aren't physically possible. Its the old argument that large parts of Holland (and Germany) were knocked so flat in the War that redesigning road spaces from scratch was easier than in the UK where it all kind of evolved piecemeal. Bikes were also a much bigger part of post-War transport planning in mainland Europe than they were here (Its obviously more complex than just that).

 

[cHodAX]

For every good cyclist there is one bad one, these are the folk giving all cyclists a bad name. It's the same with motorbike users, half are cunts and the other half are gents. Pretty much a mirror of society in general.