Cyclist knocked down at Greenwich junction during rush hour

This Is Local London: Cyclist knocked down at Greenwich junction during rush hour Cyclist knocked down at Greenwich junction during rush hour

A CYCLIST was knocked down on a busy Greenwich road during rush hour yesterday evening (Jan 8).

The collision occurred at around 5.55pm between a car at the junction between Shooter's Hill and Well Hall Road.

The cyclist, a 30-year-old man, was fully conscious and breathing after the accident and was sent to King's College Hospital with an arm injury.

A London Ambulance Service spokeswoman said: "We got the call at 5.55pm to Well Hall Road at the junction with Shooter's Hill Road to reports of a road traffic collision involving a car and a cyclist.

"We sent one of our ambulance crews and a single responder in a car.

"We treated one patient that was a 30-year-old man and took him to King's College Hospital with an arm injury."

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:24pm Thu 9 Jan 14

BUSTER 1 says...

i dont under stand why cyclists dont have to pay to use the roads.they have no ins.so what happens if they scratch your car or knock your wing mirror off?.every one else has to pay to use our roads.so why not cyclist.
i dont under stand why cyclists dont have to pay to use the roads.they have no ins.so what happens if they scratch your car or knock your wing mirror off?.every one else has to pay to use our roads.so why not cyclist. BUSTER 1

12:49pm Thu 9 Jan 14

potts77 says...

There is no such thing as road tax, the roads are paid for by the local goverment authority via council tax!! So if he pays Council Tax he's contributing to the up keep for the highway!!!
There is no such thing as road tax, the roads are paid for by the local goverment authority via council tax!! So if he pays Council Tax he's contributing to the up keep for the highway!!! potts77

12:57pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Biffo. says...

I drive in central London most days and some of these cyclists and I may add motorcyclists are idiots. Accidents just waiting to happen.
I drive in central London most days and some of these cyclists and I may add motorcyclists are idiots. Accidents just waiting to happen. Biffo.

1:06pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

Here we go again...

1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid.

2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty.

3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that.

Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads.

HTH.
Here we go again... 1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid. 2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty. 3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that. Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads. HTH. Dr. Nick

1:36pm Thu 9 Jan 14

rojo174 says...

Dr. Nick wrote:
Here we go again...

1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid.

2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty.

3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that.

Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads.

HTH.
You pompous prat
[quote][p][bold]Dr. Nick[/bold] wrote: Here we go again... 1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid. 2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty. 3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that. Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads. HTH.[/p][/quote]You pompous prat rojo174

1:40pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

rojo174 wrote:
Dr. Nick wrote:
Here we go again...

1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid.

2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty.

3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that.

Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads.

HTH.
You pompous prat
If stating the facts makes me a "pompous prat" as you suggest... then yes, I have to agree with you I am a "pompous prat", and very proud of it I am too :)
[quote][p][bold]rojo174[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr. Nick[/bold] wrote: Here we go again... 1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid. 2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty. 3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that. Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads. HTH.[/p][/quote]You pompous prat[/p][/quote]If stating the facts makes me a "pompous prat" as you suggest... then yes, I have to agree with you I am a "pompous prat", and very proud of it I am too :) Dr. Nick

1:44pm Thu 9 Jan 14

the wall says...

Biffo. wrote:
I drive in central London most days and some of these cyclists and I may add motorcyclists are idiots. Accidents just waiting to happen.
Likewise with some car drivers. Roads are a shared space, users need to remember this.

Vehicle Excise Duty is based on either engine size or fuel type and CO2 emissions. So has a bike got any of these? No.
[quote][p][bold]Biffo.[/bold] wrote: I drive in central London most days and some of these cyclists and I may add motorcyclists are idiots. Accidents just waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]Likewise with some car drivers. Roads are a shared space, users need to remember this. Vehicle Excise Duty is based on either engine size or fuel type and CO2 emissions. So has a bike got any of these? No. the wall

3:23pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Biffo. says...

I have to agree with you on that point Wall. I own up to having my eyes glued at times to some young lady in Lycra bicycle shorts rear end as she is peddling away. Very distracting even for an experienced driver.
I have to agree with you on that point Wall. I own up to having my eyes glued at times to some young lady in Lycra bicycle shorts rear end as she is peddling away. Very distracting even for an experienced driver. Biffo.

3:30pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Citygirl83 says...

We had an argument last night with a cyclist who at a crossroads went when his traffic was stationary, the consequence being we were turning right and he was in our path, we didn't hit him, we stopped and let him past but still got a mouthful of abuse.
We had an argument last night with a cyclist who at a crossroads went when his traffic was stationary, the consequence being we were turning right and he was in our path, we didn't hit him, we stopped and let him past but still got a mouthful of abuse. Citygirl83

3:50pm Thu 9 Jan 14

the wall says...

Biffo. wrote:
I have to agree with you on that point Wall. I own up to having my eyes glued at times to some young lady in Lycra bicycle shorts rear end as she is peddling away. Very distracting even for an experienced driver.
Agreed, or in summer with a low cut top on.
[quote][p][bold]Biffo.[/bold] wrote: I have to agree with you on that point Wall. I own up to having my eyes glued at times to some young lady in Lycra bicycle shorts rear end as she is peddling away. Very distracting even for an experienced driver.[/p][/quote]Agreed, or in summer with a low cut top on. the wall

8:19pm Thu 9 Jan 14

toomush2drink says...

The problem is all roadusers general attitudes. I ride a bike,scooter and have a car.I had bad experiences on the road with all of them. On two wheels its worst though as a lot of car drivers use them as weapons.

Cameras are the biggest detterent but its often too late after the event.It stops the agressivness so many seem to posses on the roads these days, in its tracks when you say you are filming.
The problem is all roadusers general attitudes. I ride a bike,scooter and have a car.I had bad experiences on the road with all of them. On two wheels its worst though as a lot of car drivers use them as weapons. Cameras are the biggest detterent but its often too late after the event.It stops the agressivness so many seem to posses on the roads these days, in its tracks when you say you are filming. toomush2drink

10:45pm Thu 9 Jan 14

minimouse11 says...

was it his own fault though??
did he go through a red light?
cut through traffic?
did he have lights on and fitted?
was he wearing reflective clothing?
use arm signals?

i think cyclists have themselves to blane they are the ones that dont follow VERY simple recommendations from the high way code, or have they even looked at a high way code?
do they realise a car or hgv is bigger so give way, ignorance gets you no where
was it his own fault though?? did he go through a red light? cut through traffic? did he have lights on and fitted? was he wearing reflective clothing? use arm signals? i think cyclists have themselves to blane they are the ones that dont follow VERY simple recommendations from the high way code, or have they even looked at a high way code? do they realise a car or hgv is bigger so give way, ignorance gets you no where minimouse11

1:07am Fri 10 Jan 14

Aliburns says...

Some awful victim blaming here. If this happened to one of your family would you be equally full of hatred? Disgusting comments from people with no humanity, bigotry is bigotry despite the current climate apparently considering it acceptable towards cyclists. Read what you have written and ask yourselves are you happy to show this to your family, friends and colleagues?
Some awful victim blaming here. If this happened to one of your family would you be equally full of hatred? Disgusting comments from people with no humanity, bigotry is bigotry despite the current climate apparently considering it acceptable towards cyclists. Read what you have written and ask yourselves are you happy to show this to your family, friends and colleagues? Aliburns

6:21am Fri 10 Jan 14

CuppaTeaSE says...

I was behind the car involved in the collision and it was horrific to watch. I can honestly say neither the driver or cyclist were at fault. It was an unfortunate accident. The cyclist was thrown about 10 feet into the air so to hear he only sustained an arm injury is a miracle. I'm so glad he's okay!

I hear everyone's comments about cyclists being "idiots" etc but drivers are no better. We all need to share the road and be mindful of others. Everyone has a right to use whatever mode of transport they choose.

Air your views to your local MPs or filter them in a positive nature in order to achieve a result. Commenting on a news article about a man who was injured in a terrible way is unnecessary and inconsiderate.

My thoughts go to him, the drive and witnesses.

It was one of the worst accidents I've ever seen.

Just my views ;)
I was behind the car involved in the collision and it was horrific to watch. I can honestly say neither the driver or cyclist were at fault. It was an unfortunate accident. The cyclist was thrown about 10 feet into the air so to hear he only sustained an arm injury is a miracle. I'm so glad he's okay! I hear everyone's comments about cyclists being "idiots" etc but drivers are no better. We all need to share the road and be mindful of others. Everyone has a right to use whatever mode of transport they choose. Air your views to your local MPs or filter them in a positive nature in order to achieve a result. Commenting on a news article about a man who was injured in a terrible way is unnecessary and inconsiderate. My thoughts go to him, the drive and witnesses. It was one of the worst accidents I've ever seen. Just my views ;) CuppaTeaSE

6:25am Fri 10 Jan 14

CuppaTeaSE says...

& yes he was wearing protective clothing, a hi vi jacket and helmet.

No he didn't cut through traffic.

Shooters Hill, near the police station where it occurred its very dark so I honestly believe that it was an unfortunate accident.

I have to defend him. It happened in front of my eyes.

Again, I'll say, poor guy, poor driver and poor witnesses.

It was awful for everyone regardless of the details!
& yes he was wearing protective clothing, a hi vi jacket and helmet. No he didn't cut through traffic. Shooters Hill, near the police station where it occurred its very dark so I honestly believe that it was an unfortunate accident. I have to defend him. It happened in front of my eyes. Again, I'll say, poor guy, poor driver and poor witnesses. It was awful for everyone regardless of the details! CuppaTeaSE

8:52am Fri 10 Jan 14

Citygirl83 says...

Love how my comment has got so many negative votes, why I don't know.
The cyclist went when it was a red line and cut across our lane of traffic and then gave us abuse but we are some how wrong?
Love how my comment has got so many negative votes, why I don't know. The cyclist went when it was a red line and cut across our lane of traffic and then gave us abuse but we are some how wrong? Citygirl83

4:23pm Fri 10 Jan 14

tellmethisdoesn'twork says...

I'm going toblame everybody...that way I'll get the right person!!

Yes, car, bus, truck, motorcyclists, police, ambulance fire brigade all use the road and I have no doubt for one minute any of them has gone thru a red light or narrowly missed a pedestrian or cyclist irrespective whose fault it was ...BUT...

we ALL have seen cyclists deliberately jump lights, ride on paths, have no lights (a requirement of the Road Traffic Act I believe).

And whilst I have sympathy for any person who gets hurt thru no fault of theirs, I do get fed up with a minority (and I honestly believe it is a minority) of cyclists who really don't care about anyone else and for themselves.

So...if the cyclist is the innocent party in the accident and it is proven beyond doubt that this is the casde, my sincere wishes for a speedy recovery is offered BUT, if it is shown with clear evidence that the cuclist was the cause of the accident by either not wearing hi vis garments, or not having lights fitted AND turned on, or disregarding traffic control signals etc then. and I don't apologise for this, I have NO sympathy and I hope the Law is applied as it should be because you are a road user as we all are and follow the 'rules of the road' (well...most of us).

I have had enough of conducting investigations in to these types of accidents and in many cases fatalities because the cyclist wasn't doing what he is expected under law to do.

So, a message to ALL cyclists that knowingly flout the law..DON'T COME MOANING AND **** TO US< THE LAW ABIDING ROAD USERS FOR YOUR OWN INADEQUANCIES AND INABILITY TO FOLLOW THE LAW!!
Whinge over and 'Nuff Said!!!
I'm going toblame everybody...that way I'll get the right person!! Yes, car, bus, truck, motorcyclists, police, ambulance fire brigade all use the road and I have no doubt for one minute any of them has gone thru a red light or narrowly missed a pedestrian or cyclist irrespective whose fault it was ...BUT... we ALL have seen cyclists deliberately jump lights, ride on paths, have no lights (a requirement of the Road Traffic Act I believe). And whilst I have sympathy for any person who gets hurt thru no fault of theirs, I do get fed up with a minority (and I honestly believe it is a minority) of cyclists who really don't care about anyone else and for themselves. So...if the cyclist is the innocent party in the accident and it is proven beyond doubt that this is the casde, my sincere wishes for a speedy recovery is offered BUT, if it is shown with clear evidence that the cuclist was the cause of the accident by either not wearing hi vis garments, or not having lights fitted AND turned on, or disregarding traffic control signals etc then. and I don't apologise for this, I have NO sympathy and I hope the Law is applied as it should be because you are a road user as we all are and follow the 'rules of the road' (well...most of us). I have had enough of conducting investigations in to these types of accidents and in many cases fatalities because the cyclist wasn't doing what he is expected under law to do. So, a message to ALL cyclists that knowingly flout the law..DON'T COME MOANING AND **** TO US< THE LAW ABIDING ROAD USERS FOR YOUR OWN INADEQUANCIES AND INABILITY TO FOLLOW THE LAW!! Whinge over and 'Nuff Said!!! tellmethisdoesn'twork

4:25pm Fri 10 Jan 14

tellmethisdoesn'twork says...

ast comment...
Why go to Camberwell with a busted arm (if what NS is reporting is correct) when the QE was no more than 1/2 mile away?
Another cost to the innocent person via tax!!
ast comment... Why go to Camberwell with a busted arm (if what NS is reporting is correct) when the QE was no more than 1/2 mile away? Another cost to the innocent person via tax!! tellmethisdoesn'twork

4:50pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ferdy54 says...

tellmethisdoesn'twor
k
wrote:
ast comment...
Why go to Camberwell with a busted arm (if what NS is reporting is correct) when the QE was no more than 1/2 mile away?
Another cost to the innocent person via tax!!
That's what I was wondering!!

Trouble is if he was taken to the QEH he would have ended up with something worse then just a broken arm!!!! :-/ Dreadful place!!!
[quote][p][bold]tellmethisdoesn'twor k[/bold] wrote: ast comment... Why go to Camberwell with a busted arm (if what NS is reporting is correct) when the QE was no more than 1/2 mile away? Another cost to the innocent person via tax!![/p][/quote]That's what I was wondering!! Trouble is if he was taken to the QEH he would have ended up with something worse then just a broken arm!!!! :-/ Dreadful place!!! Ferdy54

1:24pm Sat 11 Jan 14

CuppaTeaSE says...

The reason he was taken to Kings College Hospital is because they have an amazing Neurology department.

After an accident wherein you flew and crashed, they wanted to be sure he didn't incur brain damage, etc.

All these ignorant comments are so inconsiderate and incorrect!

Give the poor guy a rest!

Here's hoping he's feeling better!
The reason he was taken to Kings College Hospital is because they have an amazing Neurology department. After an accident wherein you flew and crashed, they wanted to be sure he didn't incur brain damage, etc. All these ignorant comments are so inconsiderate and incorrect! Give the poor guy a rest! Here's hoping he's feeling better! CuppaTeaSE

9:37pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Marty1979 says...

CuppaTeaSE wrote:
I was behind the car involved in the collision and it was horrific to watch. I can honestly say neither the driver or cyclist were at fault. It was an unfortunate accident. The cyclist was thrown about 10 feet into the air so to hear he only sustained an arm injury is a miracle. I'm so glad he's okay!

I hear everyone's comments about cyclists being &quot;idiots" etc but drivers are no better. We all need to share the road and be mindful of others. Everyone has a right to use whatever mode of transport they choose.

Air your views to your local MPs or filter them in a positive nature in order to achieve a result. Commenting on a news article about a man who was injured in a terrible way is unnecessary and inconsiderate.

My thoughts go to him, the drive and witnesses.

It was one of the worst accidents I've ever seen.

Just my views ;)
There are many who would say there is no such thing as an accident - there is always someone at fault

And for this type of incident the car driver is usually blamed
[quote][p][bold]CuppaTeaSE[/bold] wrote: I was behind the car involved in the collision and it was horrific to watch. I can honestly say neither the driver or cyclist were at fault. It was an unfortunate accident. The cyclist was thrown about 10 feet into the air so to hear he only sustained an arm injury is a miracle. I'm so glad he's okay! I hear everyone's comments about cyclists being "idiots" etc but drivers are no better. We all need to share the road and be mindful of others. Everyone has a right to use whatever mode of transport they choose. Air your views to your local MPs or filter them in a positive nature in order to achieve a result. Commenting on a news article about a man who was injured in a terrible way is unnecessary and inconsiderate. My thoughts go to him, the drive and witnesses. It was one of the worst accidents I've ever seen. Just my views ;)[/p][/quote]There are many who would say there is no such thing as an accident - there is always someone at fault And for this type of incident the car driver is usually blamed Marty1979

8:12am Sun 12 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

Marty1979 wrote:
CuppaTeaSE wrote:
I was behind the car involved in the collision and it was horrific to watch. I can honestly say neither the driver or cyclist were at fault. It was an unfortunate accident. The cyclist was thrown about 10 feet into the air so to hear he only sustained an arm injury is a miracle. I'm so glad he's okay!

I hear everyone's comments about cyclists being &quot;idiots" etc but drivers are no better. We all need to share the road and be mindful of others. Everyone has a right to use whatever mode of transport they choose.

Air your views to your local MPs or filter them in a positive nature in order to achieve a result. Commenting on a news article about a man who was injured in a terrible way is unnecessary and inconsiderate.

My thoughts go to him, the drive and witnesses.

It was one of the worst accidents I've ever seen.

Just my views ;)
There are many who would say there is no such thing as an accident - there is always someone at fault

And for this type of incident the car driver is usually blamed
It is agreed that there are no actual 'accidents' on our roads - hence these incidents are classed as RTC (Road Traffic Collisions) now by all the major services involved and not, as was once considered, RTAs.

Without knowing the full facts of this incident it is near impossible to apportion true blame, so logical systems have been put in place to cover this. There is also a huge difference between "to blame" and "blamed"; the former suggests reason has been applied, where the latter suggests automatic responsibility.

I would agree that it should be the responsibility of the driver of the biggest and most dangerous vehicle to maintain the greater level of safety as they will pose there greater level of danger (think large articulated truck verses small mini for a moment). If a large truck collides with a small car it is natural to have questions regarding the truck drivers awareness and attention. However, nothing in life can ever be black and white; the grey areas in-between are where investigation occurs. Therefore, it is natural to apportion the most blame (see 'blamed' above) toward the biggest and most dangerous vehicle whilst investigations occur and in this case 'blame' will automatically lie with the car not the bicycle. Following investigation of the grey area this may change and that is where 'to blame' is applied.

I sincerely hope the cyclist recovers well and the injury to his arm is not life changing; as so often can be the case with such injuries. My thoughts are also with the driver, as they will surely have suffered some degree of shock during and after this collision. I trust both are back on the road very soon leading their normal lives. The grey areas? Well they will be investigated...
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CuppaTeaSE[/bold] wrote: I was behind the car involved in the collision and it was horrific to watch. I can honestly say neither the driver or cyclist were at fault. It was an unfortunate accident. The cyclist was thrown about 10 feet into the air so to hear he only sustained an arm injury is a miracle. I'm so glad he's okay! I hear everyone's comments about cyclists being "idiots" etc but drivers are no better. We all need to share the road and be mindful of others. Everyone has a right to use whatever mode of transport they choose. Air your views to your local MPs or filter them in a positive nature in order to achieve a result. Commenting on a news article about a man who was injured in a terrible way is unnecessary and inconsiderate. My thoughts go to him, the drive and witnesses. It was one of the worst accidents I've ever seen. Just my views ;)[/p][/quote]There are many who would say there is no such thing as an accident - there is always someone at fault And for this type of incident the car driver is usually blamed[/p][/quote]It is agreed that there are no actual 'accidents' on our roads - hence these incidents are classed as RTC (Road Traffic Collisions) now by all the major services involved and not, as was once considered, RTAs. Without knowing the full facts of this incident it is near impossible to apportion true blame, so logical systems have been put in place to cover this. There is also a huge difference between "to blame" and "blamed"; the former suggests reason has been applied, where the latter suggests automatic responsibility. I would agree that it should be the responsibility of the driver of the biggest and most dangerous vehicle to maintain the greater level of safety as they will pose there greater level of danger (think large articulated truck verses small mini for a moment). If a large truck collides with a small car it is natural to have questions regarding the truck drivers awareness and attention. However, nothing in life can ever be black and white; the grey areas in-between are where investigation occurs. Therefore, it is natural to apportion the most blame (see 'blamed' above) toward the biggest and most dangerous vehicle whilst investigations occur and in this case 'blame' will automatically lie with the car not the bicycle. Following investigation of the grey area this may change and that is where 'to blame' is applied. I sincerely hope the cyclist recovers well and the injury to his arm is not life changing; as so often can be the case with such injuries. My thoughts are also with the driver, as they will surely have suffered some degree of shock during and after this collision. I trust both are back on the road very soon leading their normal lives. The grey areas? Well they will be investigated... Dr. Nick

4:28pm Sun 12 Jan 14

flea_in_ear says...

Dr. Nick wrote:
Here we go again...

1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say &quot;I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid.

2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty.

3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that.

Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads.

HTH.
Perhaps the point is that many cyclists do not have a car at home. Has anyone actually done a survey to find out how many cyclists have a car as well? It isn't enough to do it on the basis of an opinion poll, it needs to be accurate. Anyone wishing to take their car on the road has to pay tax (regardless of whether that tax funds roads or not) and insurance. Otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. If no one paid road tax for cars, I think you might soon find that everyone including cyclists would pay excessive tax. You don't think it is in government's interests to actually remove motorists, do you?
[quote][p][bold]Dr. Nick[/bold] wrote: Here we go again... 1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid. 2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty. 3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that. Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads. HTH.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the point is that many cyclists do not have a car at home. Has anyone actually done a survey to find out how many cyclists have a car as well? It isn't enough to do it on the basis of an opinion poll, it needs to be accurate. Anyone wishing to take their car on the road has to pay tax (regardless of whether that tax funds roads or not) and insurance. Otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. If no one paid road tax for cars, I think you might soon find that everyone including cyclists would pay excessive tax. You don't think it is in government's interests to actually remove motorists, do you? flea_in_ear

7:04pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

flea_in_ear wrote:
Dr. Nick wrote:
Here we go again...

1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say &quot;I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid.

2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty.

3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that.

Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads.

HTH.
Perhaps the point is that many cyclists do not have a car at home. Has anyone actually done a survey to find out how many cyclists have a car as well? It isn't enough to do it on the basis of an opinion poll, it needs to be accurate. Anyone wishing to take their car on the road has to pay tax (regardless of whether that tax funds roads or not) and insurance. Otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. If no one paid road tax for cars, I think you might soon find that everyone including cyclists would pay excessive tax. You don't think it is in government's interests to actually remove motorists, do you?
I would like to see the data from which you interpret "many cyclists do not have a car at home" - or is this just a generalisation? How many cyclists do you personally know and what percentage of them do not own a car? I am sure if you asked a lot of car drivers if they had a bike in the shed they would say 'yes' - I don't think owning a car or a bike are mutually exclusive.

However I the point that is really being missed is summed up nicely by this website: http://ipayroadtax.c
om

With regard to cyclists owning cars; from my own personal experience, -all- of the cyclist I know have at least one car at home (excluding child cyclist of course) and I know a lot of cyclists through the work that I do. True they mostly belong to clubs (including university clubs) or are commuters and are not just 'bloke-on-a-bike' types (1), which could be the real issue here. Even the huge number of cyclist I know who commute every day all have a car or two at home; they cycle due to the cost of public transport and petrol being so high in the main. Given the current economic climate I know a lot more people are starting to see cycling as a viable alternative. The only thing that holds a lot of people back from cycling is the perceived danger therein. So events such as this do need to be discussed in the wider arena. I will have a look through the O.N.S. database and on some university databases for figures and articles pertaining to actual numbers - will be an interesting side project.

(1)Maybe we need a clearer distinction between 'cyclists' and the 'bloke-on-a-bike' (BoaB)? Could it be said that it is BoaB who jumps red lights, rides on the pavement rather than 'cyclists' per se?
[quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr. Nick[/bold] wrote: Here we go again... 1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid. 2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty. 3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that. Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads. HTH.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the point is that many cyclists do not have a car at home. Has anyone actually done a survey to find out how many cyclists have a car as well? It isn't enough to do it on the basis of an opinion poll, it needs to be accurate. Anyone wishing to take their car on the road has to pay tax (regardless of whether that tax funds roads or not) and insurance. Otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. If no one paid road tax for cars, I think you might soon find that everyone including cyclists would pay excessive tax. You don't think it is in government's interests to actually remove motorists, do you?[/p][/quote]I would like to see the data from which you interpret "many cyclists do not have a car at home" - or is this just a generalisation? How many cyclists do you personally know and what percentage of them do not own a car? I am sure if you asked a lot of car drivers if they had a bike in the shed they would say 'yes' - I don't think owning a car or a bike are mutually exclusive. However I the point that is really being missed is summed up nicely by this website: http://ipayroadtax.c om With regard to cyclists owning cars; from my own personal experience, -all- of the cyclist I know have at least one car at home (excluding child cyclist of course) and I know a lot of cyclists through the work that I do. True they mostly belong to clubs (including university clubs) or are commuters and are not just 'bloke-on-a-bike' types (1), which could be the real issue here. Even the huge number of cyclist I know who commute every day all have a car or two at home; they cycle due to the cost of public transport and petrol being so high in the main. Given the current economic climate I know a lot more people are starting to see cycling as a viable alternative. The only thing that holds a lot of people back from cycling is the perceived danger therein. So events such as this do need to be discussed in the wider arena. I will have a look through the O.N.S. database and on some university databases for figures and articles pertaining to actual numbers - will be an interesting side project. (1)Maybe we need a clearer distinction between 'cyclists' and the 'bloke-on-a-bike' (BoaB)? Could it be said that it is BoaB who jumps red lights, rides on the pavement rather than 'cyclists' per se? Dr. Nick

10:12pm Sun 12 Jan 14

flea_in_ear says...

Dr. Nick wrote:
flea_in_ear wrote:
Dr. Nick wrote:
Here we go again...

1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say &quot;I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid.

2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty.

3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that.

Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads.

HTH.
Perhaps the point is that many cyclists do not have a car at home. Has anyone actually done a survey to find out how many cyclists have a car as well? It isn't enough to do it on the basis of an opinion poll, it needs to be accurate. Anyone wishing to take their car on the road has to pay tax (regardless of whether that tax funds roads or not) and insurance. Otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. If no one paid road tax for cars, I think you might soon find that everyone including cyclists would pay excessive tax. You don't think it is in government's interests to actually remove motorists, do you?
I would like to see the data from which you interpret "many cyclists do not have a car at home" - or is this just a generalisation? How many cyclists do you personally know and what percentage of them do not own a car? I am sure if you asked a lot of car drivers if they had a bike in the shed they would say 'yes' - I don't think owning a car or a bike are mutually exclusive.

However I the point that is really being missed is summed up nicely by this website: http://ipayroadtax.c

om

With regard to cyclists owning cars; from my own personal experience, -all- of the cyclist I know have at least one car at home (excluding child cyclist of course) and I know a lot of cyclists through the work that I do. True they mostly belong to clubs (including university clubs) or are commuters and are not just 'bloke-on-a-bike' types (1), which could be the real issue here. Even the huge number of cyclist I know who commute every day all have a car or two at home; they cycle due to the cost of public transport and petrol being so high in the main. Given the current economic climate I know a lot more people are starting to see cycling as a viable alternative. The only thing that holds a lot of people back from cycling is the perceived danger therein. So events such as this do need to be discussed in the wider arena. I will have a look through the O.N.S. database and on some university databases for figures and articles pertaining to actual numbers - will be an interesting side project.

(1)Maybe we need a clearer distinction between 'cyclists' and the 'bloke-on-a-bike' (BoaB)? Could it be said that it is BoaB who jumps red lights, rides on the pavement rather than 'cyclists' per se?
People who cycle who are not car-owners - many couriers in London. Several of my neighbours. It is irrelevant. You cannot know every cyclist in the country. Nor can I. The person who is generalising is you. As for the perceived dangers of riding a bicycle. They are not perceived. They can be minimised, but on some roads there is a clear risk, and motorways are not an option (so me going to work on a bike would be an impossible task). Cyclists can minimise risks (unfortunately there are some who maximise them instead). But at the end of the day, the three or four wheel vehicle is bigger than a bike, regardless of who is at fault.

However I think this debate, however much needed, is out-of-place on a forum where the topic concerns a cyclist who has been taken to a specialist hospital.
[quote][p][bold]Dr. Nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr. Nick[/bold] wrote: Here we go again... 1. -Everyone- pays for the roads through General Taxation - Buster1, you may as well say "I can't see why children are allowed out of their houses onto the streets, they don't pay for the roads" - so you comment is stupid. 2. -Road Tax- as Potts77 has said does not actually exist anymore. It was abolished in the 1930s after Churchill realised the misunderstanding it would cause. Car drivers (and other vehicles) pay V.E.D. and -not- 'Road Tax' - VED is Vehicle Emissions Duty and as such is a duty placed on the level of emissions of that vehicle - a bicycles have no emissions, they pay ZERO Duty. 3. if we are talking -Insurance- as a means of paying (i.e. the comment about taking a wing mirror off), I agree all cyclist should have insurance. Most do have it but don't realise it as they are covered my their house hold insurance if they pay it - other than that, cyclists who join the CTC or a local club get insurance automatically through that. Lastly, most cyclist -also- have a car at home, therefore they are paying a years worth of VED even though they are not using their vehicle - comments such as Buster1s are both ill-informed and inflammatory and in no way help the idea of keeping peace on our roads. HTH.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the point is that many cyclists do not have a car at home. Has anyone actually done a survey to find out how many cyclists have a car as well? It isn't enough to do it on the basis of an opinion poll, it needs to be accurate. Anyone wishing to take their car on the road has to pay tax (regardless of whether that tax funds roads or not) and insurance. Otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. If no one paid road tax for cars, I think you might soon find that everyone including cyclists would pay excessive tax. You don't think it is in government's interests to actually remove motorists, do you?[/p][/quote]I would like to see the data from which you interpret "many cyclists do not have a car at home" - or is this just a generalisation? How many cyclists do you personally know and what percentage of them do not own a car? I am sure if you asked a lot of car drivers if they had a bike in the shed they would say 'yes' - I don't think owning a car or a bike are mutually exclusive. However I the point that is really being missed is summed up nicely by this website: http://ipayroadtax.c om With regard to cyclists owning cars; from my own personal experience, -all- of the cyclist I know have at least one car at home (excluding child cyclist of course) and I know a lot of cyclists through the work that I do. True they mostly belong to clubs (including university clubs) or are commuters and are not just 'bloke-on-a-bike' types (1), which could be the real issue here. Even the huge number of cyclist I know who commute every day all have a car or two at home; they cycle due to the cost of public transport and petrol being so high in the main. Given the current economic climate I know a lot more people are starting to see cycling as a viable alternative. The only thing that holds a lot of people back from cycling is the perceived danger therein. So events such as this do need to be discussed in the wider arena. I will have a look through the O.N.S. database and on some university databases for figures and articles pertaining to actual numbers - will be an interesting side project. (1)Maybe we need a clearer distinction between 'cyclists' and the 'bloke-on-a-bike' (BoaB)? Could it be said that it is BoaB who jumps red lights, rides on the pavement rather than 'cyclists' per se?[/p][/quote]People who cycle who are not car-owners - many couriers in London. Several of my neighbours. It is irrelevant. You cannot know every cyclist in the country. Nor can I. The person who is generalising is you. As for the perceived dangers of riding a bicycle. They are not perceived. They can be minimised, but on some roads there is a clear risk, and motorways are not an option (so me going to work on a bike would be an impossible task). Cyclists can minimise risks (unfortunately there are some who maximise them instead). But at the end of the day, the three or four wheel vehicle is bigger than a bike, regardless of who is at fault. However I think this debate, however much needed, is out-of-place on a forum where the topic concerns a cyclist who has been taken to a specialist hospital. flea_in_ear

12:51pm Mon 13 Jan 14

tellmethisdoesn'twork says...

CuppaTeaSE - please read the opening to the story. For your ease, I have copied it below for you.

"The cyclist, a 30-year-old man, was fully conscious and breathing after the accident and was sent to King's College Hospital with an arm injury."

Where in that statement does it say or hint at anything neurological?

Also copied is a statement from the LAS.

"A London Ambulance Service spokeswoman said: "We got the call at 5.55pm to Well Hall Road at the junction with Shooter's Hill Road to reports of a road traffic collision involving a car and a cyclist.

"We sent one of our ambulance crews and a single responder in a car.
"We treated one patient that was a 30-year-old man and took him to King's College Hospital with an arm injury."

Again, where does it say he recieved a neurological injury?
Or is it a case of NS fabricating events??
CuppaTeaSE - please read the opening to the story. For your ease, I have copied it below for you. "The cyclist, a 30-year-old man, was fully conscious and breathing after the accident and was sent to King's College Hospital with an arm injury." Where in that statement does it say or hint at anything neurological? Also copied is a statement from the LAS. "A London Ambulance Service spokeswoman said: "We got the call at 5.55pm to Well Hall Road at the junction with Shooter's Hill Road to reports of a road traffic collision involving a car and a cyclist. "We sent one of our ambulance crews and a single responder in a car. "We treated one patient that was a 30-year-old man and took him to King's College Hospital with an arm injury." Again, where does it say he recieved a neurological injury? Or is it a case of NS fabricating events?? tellmethisdoesn'twork

9:23am Tue 14 Jan 14

dontpannic says...

Glad the guy is OK (or as much as can be expected).

The cyclists being on the roads debate is one that will run and run until a solution is brought up that everyone is happy with.

My personal view is that no, cyclists are not asked to pay VED (as they don't produce emissions). However, there has to be some accountability for poor standards in whatever vehicle you choose to use. Car drivers must be licensed, insured, and the vehicle has to be tested yearly to ensure it is roadworthy. This should be the same for anyone who uses the roads, in my view. If you cause an accident no matter what you are in/on, you need to be held accountable for that. Bicycles are more than capable of causing many hundreds of pounds of damage to cars, and are more than capable of seriously injuring a pedestrian should something happen. The current situation means that the cyclist can just ride off into the sunset and never be seen again.

At the moment, someone can walk into Halfords, buy a bike for £100 and instantly be allowed straight out on the roads without training or experience, and this is wrong.
Glad the guy is OK (or as much as can be expected). The cyclists being on the roads debate is one that will run and run until a solution is brought up that everyone is happy with. My personal view is that no, cyclists are not asked to pay VED (as they don't produce emissions). However, there has to be some accountability for poor standards in whatever vehicle you choose to use. Car drivers must be licensed, insured, and the vehicle has to be tested yearly to ensure it is roadworthy. This should be the same for anyone who uses the roads, in my view. If you cause an accident no matter what you are in/on, you need to be held accountable for that. Bicycles are more than capable of causing many hundreds of pounds of damage to cars, and are more than capable of seriously injuring a pedestrian should something happen. The current situation means that the cyclist can just ride off into the sunset and never be seen again. At the moment, someone can walk into Halfords, buy a bike for £100 and instantly be allowed straight out on the roads without training or experience, and this is wrong. dontpannic

2:08pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Stevo98 says...

This is why I think the police banging on about hi vis is annoying:

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile.

The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.

The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.

The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

Two thirds of the lorries stopped by the police under Operation Safeway were breaking the law. Fourteen were considered so dangerous they were immediately taken off the road.
This is why I think the police banging on about hi vis is annoying: The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile. The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.) The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path. The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing. The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind. The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him. The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned. Two thirds of the lorries stopped by the police under Operation Safeway were breaking the law. Fourteen were considered so dangerous they were immediately taken off the road. Stevo98

6:26pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Rich41 says...

All cyclists should be removed from the road at once and only allowed back when they have passed a cycle and Highway Code test so that they know what a red light means,then we should deploy army snipers at every main junction and as soon as a cyclist jumps a red light then they are to be shot I think once the first few die then the rest will obey the laws of the road.
All cyclists should be removed from the road at once and only allowed back when they have passed a cycle and Highway Code test so that they know what a red light means,then we should deploy army snipers at every main junction and as soon as a cyclist jumps a red light then they are to be shot I think once the first few die then the rest will obey the laws of the road. Rich41

10:59pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Aliburns says...

Rich41 wrote:
All cyclists should be removed from the road at once and only allowed back when they have passed a cycle and Highway Code test so that they know what a red light means,then we should deploy army snipers at every main junction and as soon as a cyclist jumps a red light then they are to be shot I think once the first few die then the rest will obey the laws of the road.
Should the same regime be applied to other road users @Rich41? There are so many drivers that jump red lights the uncontrolled vehicles would lead to a large number of innocents killed in collateral damage. The uncontrolled bicycles might result in the odd damaged shin but I am sure you have thought your bigotry through and have a solution.
[quote][p][bold]Rich41[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be removed from the road at once and only allowed back when they have passed a cycle and Highway Code test so that they know what a red light means,then we should deploy army snipers at every main junction and as soon as a cyclist jumps a red light then they are to be shot I think once the first few die then the rest will obey the laws of the road.[/p][/quote]Should the same regime be applied to other road users @Rich41? There are so many drivers that jump red lights the uncontrolled vehicles would lead to a large number of innocents killed in collateral damage. The uncontrolled bicycles might result in the odd damaged shin but I am sure you have thought your bigotry through and have a solution. Aliburns

2:23pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

Rich41 wrote:
All cyclists should be removed from the road at once and only allowed back when they have passed a cycle and Highway Code test so that they know what a red light means,then we should deploy army snipers at every main junction and as soon as a cyclist jumps a red light then they are to be shot I think once the first few die then the rest will obey the laws of the road.
The winner of the most stupid comment has been found, well done Rich41, I see what you did there :) I doubt you could be employed as the sniper though, as you missed the point completely.

Do I take it you are assuming that other road users both know and understand the Highway Code? I would bet money on it that, when asked, most drivers would not be able to answer these questions on the spot:

a) What is the Minimum Safe Distance to leave when passing a cyclist?
b) What exactly does someone flashing their lights mean?
c) When is it not legal to use a horn?
d) What is a painted Cycle Path considered when turning a vehicle right?
e) Where are the legal and recommended riding positions on the road for a cyclist?

All of these are expected to be known by all road users including car drivers, however the last time most read the Highway Code was when they were revising for a test some 'xx-years' ago. All road users should be tested on a regular basis just to see they understand their responsibilities when using the road.

Last time I checked, shooting people was illegal in this country and so is inciting violence toward others online; therefore 'Rich41' (I hope that's not an IQ indicator you have there) you win the most stupid comment prize *lol*
[quote][p][bold]Rich41[/bold] wrote: All cyclists should be removed from the road at once and only allowed back when they have passed a cycle and Highway Code test so that they know what a red light means,then we should deploy army snipers at every main junction and as soon as a cyclist jumps a red light then they are to be shot I think once the first few die then the rest will obey the laws of the road.[/p][/quote]The winner of the most stupid comment has been found, well done Rich41, I see what you did there :) I doubt you could be employed as the sniper though, as you missed the point completely. Do I take it you are assuming that other road users both know and understand the Highway Code? I would bet money on it that, when asked, most drivers would not be able to answer these questions on the spot: a) What is the Minimum Safe Distance to leave when passing a cyclist? b) What exactly does someone flashing their lights mean? c) When is it not legal to use a horn? d) What is a painted Cycle Path considered when turning a vehicle right? e) Where are the legal and recommended riding positions on the road for a cyclist? All of these are expected to be known by all road users including car drivers, however the last time most read the Highway Code was when they were revising for a test some 'xx-years' ago. All road users should be tested on a regular basis just to see they understand their responsibilities when using the road. Last time I checked, shooting people was illegal in this country and so is inciting violence toward others online; therefore 'Rich41' (I hope that's not an IQ indicator you have there) you win the most stupid comment prize *lol* Dr. Nick

4:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Rich41 says...

If all cyclists got off the road then none of then would be killed or injured, pretty simple really
If all cyclists got off the road then none of then would be killed or injured, pretty simple really Rich41

5:35pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

Rich41 wrote:
If all cyclists got off the road then none of then would be killed or injured, pretty simple really
lol, very good, very -simple- ;) Now, stop stirring, put down that wooden spoon and think for a moment...

We could equally say the same if we took all motor vehicles off the road instead. Equally as stupid. Try again. Try harder next time ;) I am pretty sure you can come up with something sensible and not so 'simple'.

Remember -all- road users have the right to use the road, nobody owns it no matter how misguided their thinking. We need a way for all users to share (that's the important word here) the road and nobody get killed - shot or otherwise. For example, if we reduced all road speeds to 20mph, it would reduce deaths but would not irradiate them.
[quote][p][bold]Rich41[/bold] wrote: If all cyclists got off the road then none of then would be killed or injured, pretty simple really[/p][/quote]lol, very good, very -simple- ;) Now, stop stirring, put down that wooden spoon and think for a moment... We could equally say the same if we took all motor vehicles off the road instead. Equally as stupid. Try again. Try harder next time ;) I am pretty sure you can come up with something sensible and not so 'simple'. Remember -all- road users have the right to use the road, nobody owns it no matter how misguided their thinking. We need a way for all users to share (that's the important word here) the road and nobody get killed - shot or otherwise. For example, if we reduced all road speeds to 20mph, it would reduce deaths but would not irradiate them. Dr. Nick

6:15pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Rich41 says...

This is not Beijing or Amsterdam we do not have wide roads where everyone can share,this is London with tight narrow roads which are full with buses lorries and cars,if people are silly enough to get on a bike and try to mix it on these roads with all this traffic then they can't really complain when the inevitable happens,if you swim with sharks then don't moan when one bites you.
This is not Beijing or Amsterdam we do not have wide roads where everyone can share,this is London with tight narrow roads which are full with buses lorries and cars,if people are silly enough to get on a bike and try to mix it on these roads with all this traffic then they can't really complain when the inevitable happens,if you swim with sharks then don't moan when one bites you. Rich41

6:25pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Dr. Nick says...

Rich41 wrote:
This is not Beijing or Amsterdam we do not have wide roads where everyone can share,this is London with tight narrow roads which are full with buses lorries and cars,if people are silly enough to get on a bike and try to mix it on these roads with all this traffic then they can't really complain when the inevitable happens,if you swim with sharks then don't moan when one bites you.
So, do you think of yourself as a 'shark' then? How interesting...

Have to admit your narrow view of the world will eventually come back and bite you - there are always bigger sharks out there you know. Not a very tolerant person I notice either. Guess you might also see pedestrians as an equal problem too.

Basically anyone who is not -you- is a problem and should get off your road. I got it didn't I? I find really narrow viewpoints an interesting topic, but then I would wouldn't I.

Hope you get your private road one day, just hope a bigger shark does not cause you or your kin damage along the way. Drive safely now ;)
[quote][p][bold]Rich41[/bold] wrote: This is not Beijing or Amsterdam we do not have wide roads where everyone can share,this is London with tight narrow roads which are full with buses lorries and cars,if people are silly enough to get on a bike and try to mix it on these roads with all this traffic then they can't really complain when the inevitable happens,if you swim with sharks then don't moan when one bites you.[/p][/quote]So, do you think of yourself as a 'shark' then? How interesting... Have to admit your narrow view of the world will eventually come back and bite you - there are always bigger sharks out there you know. Not a very tolerant person I notice either. Guess you might also see pedestrians as an equal problem too. Basically anyone who is not -you- is a problem and should get off your road. I got it didn't I? I find really narrow viewpoints an interesting topic, but then I would wouldn't I. Hope you get your private road one day, just hope a bigger shark does not cause you or your kin damage along the way. Drive safely now ;) Dr. Nick

8:21pm Thu 16 Jan 14

CuppaTeaSE says...

I am not saying he had a neurological injury.

I am saying Kings is known for its Neurology department and regardless of the injuries he physically sustained, I am almost sure he was still in need of a check up for any underlying injuries.

Can't believe people are still droning on about this and trying to score points!

Wow!
I am not saying he had a neurological injury. I am saying Kings is known for its Neurology department and regardless of the injuries he physically sustained, I am almost sure he was still in need of a check up for any underlying injuries. Can't believe people are still droning on about this and trying to score points! Wow! CuppaTeaSE

9:15pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Rich41 says...

What is wrong with all these middle class do gooders? Cyclists are a menace they hold the traffic up they are discourteous and they don't obey the Highway Code so when one of em get knocked off and end up in hospital we are all supposed to start crying for em,I say shoot the lot of em they are no good to society
What is wrong with all these middle class do gooders? Cyclists are a menace they hold the traffic up they are discourteous and they don't obey the Highway Code so when one of em get knocked off and end up in hospital we are all supposed to start crying for em,I say shoot the lot of em they are no good to society Rich41

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