Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Clearly.

Play silly games win silly prizes.


If you want to be as safe as possible cycling your bike then use the best helmet, the best lights, the best clothing, the best brakes, the best technique etc etc. That’s not always possible because they often cost a lot of money, but it’s about doing the most you can. Clearly this fella isn’t, abs presumably he knows that now

It doesn’t stop van drivers doing stupid things, it doesn’t make you 100% safe but reduces your risk and maybe to a level that is safe.

Who's playing games? I'm trying to work out what your level of 'safe' is, so that I can make sure I'm compliant. I wouldn't want you to blame me for not wearing a helmet when a driver knocks me down because he's in a hurry while I'm cycling down the road.

CramCycle

breezy1985 wrote: »

On the legal issue most of the PFs are illegal because the law in the UK requires front and back brakes

breezy1985 wrote: »

Penny Farthings are not within the law

Point of interest, in the UK they are, over here, they require an additional break to the bike as we don't have exemptions for direct transmission that I am aware of but I could be wrong.

cletus

Do fixies also require a brake lever, then?

breezy1985

cletus wrote: »

Do fixies also require a brake lever, then?

For the front ya.
A lot of fixie cyclist were unaware until it came out in the high profile case in London where the woman was hit and killed by one

CramCycle

cletus wrote: »

Do fixies also require a brake lever, then?

breezy1985 wrote: »

For the front ya.
A lot of fixie cyclist were unaware until it came out in the high profile case in London where the woman was hit and killed by one

In the Uk 100% they do AFAIK, over here they do in spirit, but the law is written weirdly in that it states any direct drive requires only one brake and you get some people arguing their ability to lock up the rear wheel is that brake.

Personally, I wouldn't like to try that defence in court as I think it is pretty clear that the law means, in addition, not one brake only. I had a front brake I popped on and off for getting to the track but I never used it.

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

I disagree. It was unsafe because the van driver was too impatient and turned right. The type of bike, his speed etc are irrelevant.

Yep, the van was wrong.

Out of interest why do we wear seatbelts in cars?

lawrencesummers

buffalo wrote: »

Who's playing games? I'm trying to work out what your level of 'safe' is, so that I can make sure I'm compliant. I wouldn't want you to blame me for not wearing a helmet when a driver knocks me down because he's in a hurry while I'm cycling down the road.

I don’t give a fiddlers what level of precaution you take if your out cycling, or anyone else for that matter, that’s your own responsibility.

If you think its ok to not wear a helmet because accidents shouldn’t happen then that’s your call.


The attitude amongst many here ignores the unfortunate vulnerability of being out cycling because they would sooner be in the right than be safe.

lawrencesummers

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You were well on the way to a prize.

I didnt say cyclists should wear high viz, I said it they do it might help, that’s it’s best practice but up to the individual. I said it’s unclear from the video if he was wearing a helmet or not.

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I don’t give a fiddlers what level of precaution you take if your out cycling, or anyone else for that matter, that’s your own responsibility.

If you think its ok to not wear a helmet because accidents shouldn’t happen then that’s your call.


The attitude amongst many here ignores the unfortunate vulnerability of being out cycling because they would sooner be in the right than be safe.

If you don't give a fiddler's about what other people do, why are you posting in the thread? :pac:

magicbastarder

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The attitude amongst many here ignores the unfortunate vulnerability of being out cycling because they would sooner be in the right than be safe.

i don't think it's that.
i think cyclists are tired of discussions about cyclist safety always coming back to helmets and hi-vis, reactive measures which are minor when it comes to cyclist safety.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Lets just nip the helmet and Hi Vis talk in the bud here. We have mega threads for both those topics, well worth a read if you haven't, and have a few days off, and nothing better to do but if you have anything new to add, do it in those threads, not here.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Yep, the van was wrong.

Out of interest why do we wear seatbelts in cars?

Out of interest, why don't all motorist wear helmets?
Why don't all motorists install steel roll cages in their cars?
Why don't all cars have 5 point safety harnesses and bucket seats installed?
Why is it not compulsory to wear fire resistant clothing while driving?

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

Out of interest, why don't all motorist wear helmets?
Why don't all motorists install steel roll cages in their cars?
Why don't all cars have 5 point safety harnesses and bucket seats installed?
Why is it not compulsory to wear fire resistant clothing while driving?

Your going to have to get onto they people who determine through testing and data analysis why they make some safety features mandatory, some recommended and some unnecessary in certain settings.


Presumably there is data to back up any of the decisions that are taken.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I own a vintage. I know there is a level of impact I will walk away from in my modern car that I won’t in my vintage one so I drive accordingly.

But just like the cyclist on the pennyfarthing, you have no control over other roadusers and how and what they drive. The fact is,even if you are driving at a safe speed in your vintage car, you are a vulnerable roaduser and it's up to other road users to drive with due care and attention.

Of course you could install a roll cage, wear a helmet, wear fire resistant clothing etc. You know...take all necessary precautions to ensure your own safety right?

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Your going to have to get onto they people who determine through testing and data analysis why they make some safety features mandatory, some recommended and some unnecessary in certain settings.


Presumably there is data to back up any of the decisions that are taken.

I think you'll find that the majority of safety features on cars are legally required by law. If they were not legally required, manufacturers would not install them.

Eamonnator

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think you'll find that the majority of safety features on cars are legally required by law. If they were not legally required, manufacturers would not install them.

ABS, Lane change warning systems, 10 airbags in a car, seat belt tensioners, head restraints, etc, etc??

07Lapierre

Eamonnator wrote: »

ABS, Lane change warning systems, 10 airbags in a car, seat belt tensioners, head restraints, etc, etc??

Yeah your right..."safety sells" so lots of safety features are added to cars without legal requirement. im wrong on that point.

It wasn't always like that though...

https://www.defensivedriving.com/blog/a-history-of-seat-belts/

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

But just like the cyclist on the pennyfarthing, you have no control over other roadusers and how and what they drive. The fact is,even if you are driving at a safe speed in your vintage car, you are a vulnerable roaduser and it's up to other road users to drive with due care and attention.

Of course you could install a roll cage, wear a helmet, wear fire resistant clothing etc. You know...take all necessary precautions to ensure your own safety right?

Nobody said anything about controlling other road users.

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yeah your right..."safety sells" so lots of safety features are added to cars without legal requirement. im wrong on that point.

It wasn't always like that though...

https://www.defensivedriving.com/blog/a-history-of-seat-belts/

So your linking an article about the beneficial evolution of safety features in an effort to prove the safety of a 150 year old bicycle?

Good man yourself

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So your linking an article about the beneficial evolution of safety features in an effort to prove the safety of a 150 year old bicycle?

Good man yourself

No. Try reading my posts again. Are you having difficulty reading/ understanding them?

AndrewJRenko

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Your going to have to get onto they people who determine through testing and data analysis why they make some safety features mandatory, some recommended and some unnecessary in certain settings.


Presumably there is data to back up any of the decisions that are taken.

In the same way that helmets for cyclists and hi-vis for cyclists aren't mandatory in law?

magicbastarder

there's a warning to drop the helmet and hi-vis talk, so drop it

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nobody said anything about controlling other road users.

I know you didn’t ... that’s why I mentioned it. While it may be considered reckless to ride a penny farthing on a busy road, it was the van drivers reckless driving that was the issue. No amount of safety equipment makes a stupid person more intelligent. Also, at no point was the van driver in danger of being injured, which IMO makes drivers more likely to drive recklessly.

dubbrin

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I didn’t say any of those things.


Your pitiful attempt at making fun of a potentially deadly situation is childish.

I wouldn’t bother trying to discuss the various merits of safety on here man. There’s zero chance of an objective discussion on individual or combined elements of making your drive or cycle safer for everyone. The cage has been rattled so many times.... keyboards are cocked and ready for attack. It’s radical

Fighting Tao

dubbrin wrote: »

I wouldn’t bother trying to discuss the various merits of safety on here man. There’s zero chance of an objective discussion on individual or combined elements of making your drive or cycle safer for everyone. The cage has been rattled so many times.... keyboards are cocked and ready for attack. It’s radical

Attempts to victim blame should of course be challenged. The driver was 100% in the wrong, and it doesn’t matter what type of transport the victim was using.

chuck eastwood

dubbrin wrote: »

I wouldn’t bother trying to discuss the various merits of safety on here man. There’s zero chance of an objective discussion on individual or combined elements of making your drive or cycle safer for everyone. The cage has been rattled so many times.... keyboards are cocked and ready for attack. It’s radical

Found the same and it still baffled Mr how some aspects of safety have been banned from mention, others point blankly will be disregarded. In all my years of cycling in cities and country roads I've seen a hefty number of accidents and many weren't pretty. That said I have never see a fellow cyclist out there hand up and take responsibility, drivers rarely have the choice as their faults are more easily proven. The basics or cyclist safety should be discussed regardless of who doesn't like hearing it again as what we wear on the road directly affects our visibility and the behaviour of other road users. Genuinely don't see how near misses can be a valid topic if one of the most common causes is not allowed to be discussed. The joy of boards I suppose

CramCycle

chuck eastwood wrote: »

In all my years of cycling in cities and country roads I've seen a hefty number of accidents and many weren't pretty. That said I have never see a fellow cyclist out there hand up and take responsibility, drivers rarely have the choice as their faults are more easily proven.

I have to 100% disagree, I have admitted fault on here, I have admitted partial responsibility many times as well and have had the same courtesy extended to me by motorists. It's funny how in the majority of cases when either side accept responsibility straight out of the gate, the incident normally ends with a friendly word. In fact loads of posters here have admitted fault on occasion. Don't get me wrong, there are those that don't but these are as likely found in cars as they are on bikes. Christ, the number of stories on here with video evidence where the driver or cyclist can't accept responsibility is mind blowing, but there are just as many times where it doesn't happen. A recent post showed a car hit a bike in a bus lane, deliberately and then try to claim damage to the car from the cyclist, despite video evidence. On the same note there are posters here who have put up videos and they have rightly been pointed out where they were in the wrong, some accepted it, some didn't.

magicbastarder

yeah, was thinking the same thing - there have been a few cases recently where people have shared videos here, expecting a sympathetic reaction and were quickly disabused.

lawrencesummers

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Attempts to victim blame should of course be challenged. The driver was 100% in the wrong, and it doesn’t matter what type of transport the victim was using.

The thing is you won’t find any post blaming the guy on the PF for what happened.

You will find plenty of posts where the cyclists decisions are questioned.

There is a difference.

CramCycle

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The thing is you won’t find any post blaming the guy on the PF for what happened.

You will find plenty of posts where the cyclists decisions are questioned.

There is a difference.

It's not questioning if you are implying anything asked relates to the accident, type of bike, safety gear and so on, whether questioned or stated is victim blaming. You aren't far short of saying he deserves it for riding a PF. Can you tell me what he done wrong? He slowed, was observant, is over 8 foot tall in the middle of the day so what he is wearing is a moot point as if you don't notice that, then he could have been on fire and you'd still not be noticed. He didn't hit his head on the ground as he took the fall as well as you can.
Well the difference is, did him being on a PF contribute towards the accident or would have being on a different type of bike stopped him being in that accident. My opinion is that no, the PF did not contribute to the accident, and the second question is unknowable and deflecting. He was looking around, seen it coming and while hindsight is great, without it, he done as well as he could have, he slowed, swerved and took enough out of it that he walked away with nothing more than a few scratches/bruises. Dare I say it, I think the driver seen him and went for it anyway, most of us will have experienced this at some point on a bike, considering how much he put the foot down to take the turn.

I say this knowing I have hit the side of a van before and it was 100% my fault. I am able to say when a cyclist is in the wrong, it happens all the time.

A really simple answer, what was the cyclists fault? The driver goes for the turn when the cyclist is a little over a metre from the turn, I wouldn't consider doing that if it was a slow jogger let alone a cyclist.