Someone has read their guide to derailment....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaptain Badrukk
TfL are doing driver trainign for professional drivers ([url]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/22830.aspx[/url]) but the problem is that outside of London (and Oxford) the density of cyclists means that it is less finacially worthwhile...
I'd say even one saved human life justifies the financial cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshade
Here in Bournemouth motorists are in a tizzy because one of our major junctions is being cyclist made friendly and it's slowing traffic etc.
This is the roundabout my wife was nearly killed on by some jerk who drove away.
All in all I am glad.
Unfortunately, society measures things in money not lives.
It is "interesting" that one of the claims why some people are so against cycling infrastructure is that it will slow down their journeys, which is a legitimate concern, however, these sorts of people tend to suggest that cycling should be confined to the pavement which would signficantly slow down a cyclists own journey time.
Not to mention make my life harder!
On the subject of idiocy and cycling;
Couple of weeks back I was walking home when a car and cyclist were both approaching down a steep hill.
Car stops at give way point, checks traffic and begins to pull away.
Cyclist comes down said hill at break-neck speed corners into traffic, undercutting the car and causing them have to stop.
"Huh, Lycra-lout jerk." I think.
Because we get a lot of the around here, it's hilly and they'd rather nearly mow you down on a zebra crossing or on the footpath than apply the breaks.
THEN the car comes out of the corner at an unsafe speed, hammers it along to reach a parallel with the cyclist, and winds down the window. They then have a shouting match, whilst moving at high speeds, in a built up urban area.
If i'd had a camera I'd have taken a picture and reported them both.
Moral of the story?
"Don't forget that the guy being inconvenienced by a jerk may also be a jerk."
This is one of the problems in trying to raise awarness/defend cyclists is that there are some idiots on the road, and they are often "high profile".
This is of relevance: [URL="http://invisiblevisibleman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-speeding-cyclist-momentum-and-how.html"]A speeding cyclist, momentum - and how sustained velocity is the enemy of consideration [/URL]
To be honest my biggest gripe is moronic behavior on both counts.
EG the guys who hit my wife and drove off, VS the woman who plowed her bike into the driver's side of our parked car because she was on her mobile and didn't notice a bright red car pull out to join the flow of traffic and then stop. We were stationary a full minute!
Mind you the number of pedestrians that wander blithely into traffic still shocks me too.
I have decided that people are idiots.
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaptain Badrukk
A number of cyclists having met with violence or poor behaviour have started to record their rides. Not because they particularly want to watch them again but because having had an incident or having a friend who has had one they feel the need for some impartial evidence of what has happened. This has spread through the community and there are quite a few cyclists who will record their daily commute. Indeed this idea has started to creep into the motorcycling community.
This started as there were a number of incidents which the CPS did not take to court as there was lack of evidence.
However we now have this from the CPS:
"Minor traffic offences" are any offence which doesn't actually cause a collision, so parking on double yellows, illegal overtaking, crossing solid white lines, crossing stop lines, use of mobile phones et al.Quote:
In relation to the concept of prosecution of mobile phone and other minor traffic offences from video submissions where and accident has not occurred, the ACPO Roads Policing following guidance form the Crown Prosecution Service and expert advice from Road Policing bodies, concluded that prosecution for offences based solely upon video evidence submitted by members of the public are unlikely. The value of evidence that has not been seized and stored according to the police business processes is limited form an evidential point of view.
The ACPO recommends that a suitable letter to the registered owner of the vehicle would be proportionate where the submitted clips meet a high enough standard.
So it is a fixed penalty if a Policeman sees you do them, but a letter telling you off if you are just caught on camera because a policeman's sight is more important than reviewable evidence...
double post.
But police, and police recordings have to obey a certain standard, and will do it routinely.
The time/cost they'd have to spend to prove the video isn't doctored because it isn't to that standard would out weigh the "public interest"