Jeremy Vine tweet tonight (cycling related)

[Rofesleg]

Haven't seen the video (I refuse so login to the cess pit that is Twitter) but it seems to be the perfect example of two idiots meeting. Cyclist thinks that the driver won't be stupid enough to try to get past him, driver thinks that the cyclist won't be stupid enough to ignore him. A lesson for idiots everywhere?

It wasn't a game of chicken. You are suggesting the driver saw the cyclist and still hit him.
That sounds more like an idiot meeting a psycho.

 

[Rofesleg]

Well no it does matter because if he’s done it on purpose that’s dangerous driving,

If he's done it on purpose it's a lot worse than dangerous driving.

 

[Muttley]

It wasn't a game of chicken.

I suspect it was (in their heads)

Haven't seen it (as I said) just sounds like stupids doing stupid.

 

[Rofesleg]

I suspect it was (in their heads)

Haven't seen it (as I said) just sounds like stupids doing stupid.

I think that's at the crux of the matter though. Those defending the driver are in the main saying the driver probably didn't see the cyclist due to his dark clothing and no lights.
If he did see him and decided to drive straight at him anyway it is beyond stupid and I would guess criminal.

 

[Rofesleg]

A driving test is about the safety of both yourself and other road users.

A car driver has more responsibility for the safety of others than a cyclist. Because a car has potential to do a lot more harm. So there is more focus on that.

I'm a car driver and not a cyclist, but I realise I have to be extra careful when sharing a road with them. Particularly when overtaking. Even if they are frustrating and annoying me. It's obvious really.

 

[Muttley]

I had it happen to me in Darlo a few weeks ago. Four kids on bikes riding spread right across Staindrop Road night time, no lights, dark clothing, basically playing chicken with cars/drivers forcing cars to stop (as I did).

Back in my day some of the kids I knocked about with used to play chicken on the railway. Last one across/off was the coolest (or whatever term we used back then). Being a wuss and my Dad being a railwayman I wouldn't play (he had regaled me with stories of drivers picking bits of body out of the train wheels)

 

[Colgates_shaving_foam]

I haven't sided with either party involved and suggested in my first post that neither are blameless. I also suggested(by implication) that better road awareness through training and re-testing may reduce these sort of situations arising. I think some of the blame should be directed at the nutcases who allow untrained people to ride on the roads.

I can't believe you still don't get it.

This isn't a 50/50, both sides equally to blame situation at all.

One is on a push bike and one is in a car, the vulnerable one (the one on the bike) is driven into from behind.

What part of that are you not willing to understand?

 

[Muttley]

As a cyclist he chose to do the trick thing on a road. You don't get to absolve yourself of any blame just because the driver is in two tons of motorised steel/composite. The cyclist could have found himself a nice empty car park or pedestrian precinct to show off.

50/50?

Ask a statistician but given that the only one likely to end up in hospital or a morgue is the squishy cyclist then my sympathy for him is somewhat reduced. Darwinism innit.

 

[Rofesleg]

As a cyclist he chose to do the trick thing on a road. You don't get to absolve yourself of any blame just because the driver is in two tons of motorised steel/composite. The cyclist could have found himself a nice empty car park or pedestrian precinct to show off.

50/50?

Ask a statistician but given that the only one likely to end up in hospital or a morgue is the squishy cyclist then my sympathy for him is somewhat reduced. Darwinism innit.

No one is saying the cyclist is blameless.
But the greater responsibility was with the car driver.
If he deliberately drove at him as you suggest, then that would be murder if the cyclist ended up squishy in the morgue.
Why didn't you drive at the 4 kids in Darlo?
Because you're not a psycho and realised the damage you could do.

 

[The Disciple]

He is clearly visible and the more you say he isn't the more ridiculous your argument looks.

Yep i now acknowledge you’re absolutely right. I didn’t realise how stupid I’ve been all these years riding along in the dark, with a front and rear light on and high visibility clothing, when in fact all i actually needed was a pair of white trainers and black trousers with black coat to make myself “clearly visible” at night. I shall also remember to ride in the middle of a busy road doing stunts on one wheel, safe in the knowledge that if i am hit by some maniac driver it won’t be my fault at all because I’ve taken every precaution necessary to be clearly visible and ridden my bicycle in as safe and courteous a manner possible hopefully the ridiculous law on cyclists having to ride with front and rear lights on during darkness will be replaced with clearly visible white trainers very soon

 

[LaPennaBianca]

Yep i now acknowledge you’re absolutely right. I didn’t realise how stupid I’ve been all these years riding along in the dark, with a front and rear light on and high visibility clothing, when in fact all i actually needed was a pair of white trainers and black trousers with black coat to make myself “clearly visible” at night. I shall also remember to ride in the middle of a busy road doing stunts on one wheel, safe in the knowledge that if i am hit by some maniac driver it won’t be my fault at all because I’ve taken every precaution necessary to be clearly visible and ridden my bicycle in as safe and courteous a manner possible hopefully the ridiculous law on cyclists having to ride with front and rear lights on during darkness will be replaced with clearly visible white trainers very soon

None of that overlong, unfunny rant changes the fact that the lad is clearly visible. A fact you've underlined by describing in detail what he was doing in the video.

 

[The Disciple]

None of that overlong, unfunny rant changes the fact that the lad is clearly visible. A fact you've underlined by describing in detail what he was doing in the video.

No one dressed in black at night is clearly visible - unless you’re a cat. His shoes might be visible but they were probably obscured by him arsing about doing stunts.

 

[equaliser]

Wow, seven pages. Anyone would think it was Keir Starmer on that bike...
The interesting question is why has teenagers' brain chemistry evolved so that young men are prone to take insane risks - often when showing off? Is it nature's way of thinning out the gene pool, weeding out the dumb specimens?

 

[Laughing]

I have visited this thread a few times. I am surprised we are not at a general consensus yet.

One acted stupidly the other criminally.

What are we actually arguing about? If it's about blame that's not difficult either, the law sorts that out. One gets a free set of lights the other jail time (assuming we have any cells available).

 

[LaPennaBianca]

No one dressed in black at night is clearly visible - unless you’re a cat. His shoes might be visible but they were probably obscured by him arsing about doing stunts.

They are when bathed in the light of street lamps and headlights of stationary cars. As you can see in the evidence we are discussing. This isn't a hypothetical situation, where your point would have merit, it is an actual situation where a driver runs him down.

 

[Hap]

The accident was caused by the motorist thinking there was enough space to overtake the cyclist, after the traffic island, when there wasn’t. I don’t think the motorist attempted to hit the cyclist for a second.

It was a poor decision and poor judgement on the drivers part, exacerbated by the cyclist edging slightly closer to the centre of the road, immediately before the collision.

Meanwhile the cyclist is being really stupid showing off in front of his mate/mates and holding up any traffic behind them, by occupying the entire lane, at what looks like rush hour judging by the oncoming traffic. Very good bike tricks for sure, but in an inappropriate setting, and definitely conducted in a provocative and confrontational manner.

It’s a literal example of dumb, insolent stupidity and frustrated poor spacial awareness colliding.

Still a motoring offence, nevertheless.

 

[MolteniArcore]

The accident was caused by the motorist thinking there was enough space to overtake the cyclist, after the traffic island, when there wasn’t. I don’t think the motorist attempted to hit the cyclist for a second.

Was it an accident? Looks pretty deliberate to me. Either way they deserve jail time for their wreckless driving.

 

[MolteniArcore]

I cannot understand why …. there isn't a national cycle test required, it's beyond me.

The national driving test didn’t do much good here did it?

Off the top of my head I once read something that 80% of adult cyclists have also passed their driving test so it would be a bit of a waste of time having a national cycling test. Plus the lad in question is a kid, you can’t be banning kids from cycling until they have passed something like a national test - it is totally unenforceable.

 

[Laughing]

The accident was caused by the motorist thinking there was enough space to overtake the cyclist, after the traffic island, when there wasn’t. I don’t think the motorist attempted to hit the cyclist for a second.

It was a poor decision and poor judgement on the drivers part, exacerbated by the cyclist edging slightly closer to the centre of the road, immediately before the collision.

Meanwhile the cyclist is being really stupid showing off in front of his mate/mates and holding up any traffic behind them, by occupying the entire lane, at what looks like rush hour judging by the oncoming traffic. Very good bike tricks for sure, but in an inappropriate setting, and definitely conducted in a provocative and confrontational manner.

It’s a literal example of dumb, insolent stupidity and frustrated poor spacial awareness colliding.

Still a motoring offence, nevertheless.

That isn't a motoring offence its a criminal offence, assuming dangerous driving was the charge. It's in the same band of offences that covers drink/drug driving.

There is no comparison between the actions of the two participants, none at all.

 

[Hap]

Was it an accident? Looks pretty deliberate to me. Either way they deserve jail time for their wreckless driving.

There is no way of interpreting intent from the footage. It looks like a rash attempt to overtake, occurring directly after passing the traffic island, to me.

The driver might be angry and feeling goaded into overtaking, but again the footage can’t prove, and doesn’t demonstrate, that.

The impact was at the far passenger side of the vehicle. Far from the centre of the vehicle and the point furthest from the drivers position.

Definitely a serious motoring offence.