Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

buffalo

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

The basics of safety can be discussed, but not in the context of an incident where a van driver cuts across a cyclist's path while he has right of way and causes an accident.

Discussing cyclist safety in the aftermath of that is a rather loaded discussion, feel free to start a new thread discussing an aspect of safety you think worthy and it can be discussed on its own merits.

lawrencesummers

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

The van is 100% wrong.

I’ve said that a few times.

So park the incident in the video.
Pretend you have never seen it.


Is cycling a PF in an urban area a good idea? Or are there safer bikes to cycle? I’m not asking if it’s legal, I’m asking is it a good idea?

Is there an onus on cyclists to take as many precautions as possible every time they go cycling?

Presumably most people answer No to the first and Yes to the second.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The van is 100% wrong.

I’ve said that a few times.

So park the incident in the video.
Pretend you have never seen it.


Is cycling a PF in an urban area a good idea? Or are there safer bikes to cycle? I’m not asking if it’s legal, I’m asking is it a good idea?

Is there an onus on cyclists to take as many precautions as possible every time they go cycling?

Presumably most people answer No to the first and Yes to the second.

1:Is driving an old car that has crap drum brakes, no ABS, no airbags etc. a good idea?
2:Are their safer cars you could drive instead?
3:Is their an onus on car drivers to take as many precautions as possible every time they go out on the road?
4:Have you fitted a roll cage to your car Yet?
5:What other safety modifications have you made to your vintage car?

magicbastarder

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Is cycling a PF in an urban area a good idea? Or are there safer bikes to cycle? I’m not asking if it’s legal, I’m asking is it a good idea?

Is there an onus on cyclists to take as many precautions as possible every time they go cycling?

Presumably most people answer No to the first and Yes to the second.

i would be hella reluctant to get into a debate about a hierarchy of bikes which are 'safe'. because that way madness lies. but there's an argument to be made that if you saw someone on a PF, they're possibly going to be 'safer' than your average cyclist, as it's really only someone passionate about cycling you'll see on one.

regarding whether there is an onus on cyclists to 'take as many precautions as possible', this is also a slippery slope. again, it's shifting responsibility in an insidious way. cyclists don't create the danger, cyclists suffer from it; cyclists taking precautions is a reaction to danger, it's not reducing the danger.
i guess you could say it's about risk reduction, not danger reduction. but too often these debates come back to those on which the danger is visited. and you could argue that cyclists should take all reasonable precautions, but then you're into a debate about what is reasonable, and the issue is many people conflate lack of precaution taking with culpability.

i've often said it here, but i usually wear bright tops, and to a large extent, it's because i don't want to be blamed for coming a cropper in a situation where the brightness of my top is moot. because, no matter what the situation, if things got legal, what i was wearing would definitely become an issue.

lawrencesummers

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would be hella reluctant to get into a debate about a hierarchy of bikes which are 'safe'. because that way madness lies. but there's an argument to be made that if you saw someone on a PF, they're possibly going to be 'safer' than your average cyclist, as it's really only someone passionate about cycling you'll see on one.

regarding whether there is an onus on cyclists to 'take as many precautions as possible', this is also a slippery slope. again, it's shifting responsibility in an insidious way. cyclists don't create the danger, cyclists suffer from it; cyclists taking precautions is a reaction to danger, it's not reducing the danger.
i guess you could say it's about risk reduction, not danger reduction. but too often these debates come back to those on which the danger is visited. and you could argue that cyclists should take all reasonable precautions, but then you're into a debate about what is reasonable, and the issue is many people conflate lack of precaution taking with culpability.

i've often said it here, but i usually wear bright tops, and to a large extent, it's because i don't want to be blamed for coming a cropper in a situation where the brightness of my top is moot. because, no matter what the situation, if things got legal, what i was wearing would definitely become an issue.

Thats a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

I’ve seen plenty of cyclists doing things they shouldn’t.

That’s the problem around here a lot of the time. People seem to think cyclists can’t do anything wrong ever.

I get that motorists are often horrific drivers, I was hit by a car recently enough, and centimetres from another, both completely at fault but to me right and wrong are not important, staying safe and upright are more important.

magicbastarder

sure, i'm happy to agree that specific statement is a sweeping generalisation. but a cyclist doing something they shouldn't, is a *hell* of a lot less dangerous than a motorist doing something similar, which is what i was getting at. a couple of orders of magnitude in the difference, if you were to use a crude metric of 'how many other people killed by this category of road user'.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Thats a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

I’ve seen plenty of cyclists doing things they shouldn’t.

That’s the problem around here a lot of the time. People seem to think cyclists can’t do anything wrong ever.

I get that motorists are often horrific drivers, I was hit by a car recently enough, and centimetres from another, both completely at fault but to me right and wrong are not important, staying safe and upright are more important.

Cyclists do lots of things wrong. But they don't injure or kill 100's of people every year. There's a big difference between doing something wrong and doing something dangerous.

When cycling...staying safe and upright is mostly beyond a cyclists control..it depends a lot on the behaviour of motorists.

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I must have missed your promotion to moderator.

Congratulations.

Apologies for attempting to explain why you're meeting such a frosty reception. I'll leave you to your crusade so.

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s not about luck, it’s about taking the maximum amount of precautions to keep yourself safe in an area you know people in vehicles do stupid things


I would be confident that a bike with disk brakes and that amount of time would have stopped, it doesn’t excuse the driver, but it’s sure safer than being up that high with ****e/ no brakes.

Better brakes might have stopped. I think it's unlikely though, even then the bike might then have slid or the rider thrown. Is a PF unsuitable for riding in traffic. I'd have day yes it's unsuitable. That said the majority of bikes don't have disk brakes. So you could buy a new bike with rim brakes or a fixie that is only required by law to have one rim brake. That's the legal requirement. Most bicycles ( or vehicles) can't stop instantly.

The main point from that clip is dangerous driving of the Van.

magicbastarder

i remember there was a clip posted here of someone who faced an almost identical situation in donnybrook a couple of years ago. and no matter what you think you'll do, there's going to be a second or two of 'is that guy doing what i think he's doing?' before you reach for the brakes.

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Thats a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

I’ve seen plenty of cyclists doing things they shouldn’t.

That’s the problem around here a lot of the time. People seem to think cyclists can’t do anything wrong ever.

I get that motorists are often horrific drivers, I was hit by a car recently enough, and centimetres from another, both completely at fault but to me right and wrong are not important, staying safe and upright are more important.

Cars are at fault in the vast majority of cyclists vs cars accidents. Maybe that's why people think it's the bigger issue to highlight.

Is there value in starting a new thread about promoting better cycling habits? Why not start one and find out?

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

i remember there was a clip posted here of someone who faced an almost identical situation in donnybrook a couple of years ago. and no matter what you think you'll do, there's going to be a second or two of 'is that guy doing what i think he's doing?' before you reach for the brakes.

The one time I thought I wanted better brakes was coming down a long hill and some one pulled into my path at the bottom. Bike loaded with panniers and I'm not light, even though I was a good bit away, in the wet, with debris on the road I took a long time to get slowed down.

breezy1985

07Lapierre wrote: »

1:Is driving an old car that has crap drum brakes, no ABS, no airbags etc. a good idea?
2:Are their safer cars you could drive instead?
3:Is their an onus on car drivers to take as many precautions as possible every time they go out on the road?
4:Have you fitted a roll cage to your car Yet?
5:What other safety modifications have you made to your vintage car?

I think real vintage cars as Model Ts and stuff have no place on the road if they are using original parts and brakes etc.

But one big difference between an older car and a newer one with better safety features is many people can't afford a new car and driving should not be just for the rich.
As I have pointed out already no one is cycling a PF or unicycle because it's all they can afford

As for helmets and roll bars or whatever I don't care that's up to the individual

lawrencesummers

beauf wrote: »

Cars are at fault in the vast majority of cyclists vs cars accidents. Maybe that's why people think it's the bigger issue to highlight.

Is there value in starting a new thread about promoting better cycling habits? Why not start one and find out?

The only reason i come back to this thread is as a cyclist I can learn from incidents that are highlighted here, the videos are educational to me and give an insight into the experiences of other cyclists. The hope is that I see something that will help me.

What I find to be a common occurrence in some videos is cyclists not taking the many easy to adapt precautions. That’s not victim blaming, it’s controlling the controllable aspects of being a vulnerable road user. Some people are more interested in being on the right side of the law, I’m more interested in being on the right side of the ground.

In the last few days I’ve seen a two people out cycling (who judging by their gear and bikes are experience or at least regular cyclists) wearing dark clothing and no lights with the blinding low sun of the afternoon car drivers will have points of blindness and to me that’s a recipe for disaster. These cyclists are doing nothing wrong, but to me that’s careless.

07Lapierre

breezy1985 wrote: »

I think real vintage cars as Model Ts and stuff have no place on the road if they are using original parts and brakes etc.
l

I totally disagree... these old cars are part of history and I think it's great to see them out on the road and not stuck in a museum.

I'm sure these guys would disagree also.

https://www.veterancarrun.com/


I mentioned roll cages as we are constantly told that us cyclists must take every "possible " safety precaution to protect ourselves. This is rubbish of course and pure "victim blaming".

beauf

breezy1985 wrote: »

I think real vintage cars as Model Ts and stuff have no place on the road if they are using original parts and brakes etc.

But one big difference between an older car and a newer one with better safety features is many people can't afford a new car and driving should not be just for the rich.
As I have pointed out already no one is cycling a PF or unicycle because it's all they can afford

As for helmets and roll bars or whatever I don't care that's up to the individual

Bicycle rim brakes haven't changed much in 40yrs which is what most bikes have.

Is dangerous cycling on unicycles a big issues or something?

Weepsie

lawrencesummers wrote: »

In the last few days I’ve seen a two people out cycling (who judging by their gear and bikes are experience or at least regular cyclists) wearing dark clothing and no lights with the blinding low sun of the afternoon car drivers will have points of blindness and to me that’s a recipe for disaster. These cyclists are doing nothing wrong, but to me that’s careless.

Yet you saw them?

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

Bicycle rim brakes haven't changed much in 40yrs which is what most bikes have.

Is dangerous cycling on unicycles a big issues or something?

Way back at the start of this argument I was talking about having a few unicycles and PFs on my commute and they were an unnecessary issue

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

cyclists don't create the danger, cyclists suffer from it; cyclists taking precautions is a reaction to danger, it's not reducing the danger.
i guess you could say it's about risk reduction, not danger reduction.

an aside, i've occasionally wondered if this is the correct terminology to use; how to distinguish between an activity which might result in personal harm because the activity is inherently one which on its own creates that possibility, and one which might result in said harm because it exposes you to a secondary factor, not inherent to the activity, which creates that possibility.

i'd usually use the formulation 'cycling is not dangerous, it's risky'* but i'm not sure if that's correct.

*used for illustrative purposes rather than a statement of fact

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

In the last few days I’ve seen a two people out cycling (who judging by their gear and bikes are experience or at least regular cyclists) wearing dark clothing and no lights with the blinding low sun of the afternoon car drivers will have points of blindness and to me that’s a recipe for disaster. These cyclists are doing nothing wrong, but to me that’s careless.

Like I said earlier...staying upright is easy enough, staying safe has a lot to do with motorists. by that I mean motorists not driving with due care and attention.

If the sun is blinding...it doesn't matter what you wear or what lights you have. If the sun is blinding, then a motorist needs to slow down and drive carefully.

beauf

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The only reason i come back to this thread is as a cyclist I can learn from incidents that are highlighted here, the videos are educational to me and give an insight into the experiences of other cyclists. The hope is that I see something that will help me.

What I find to be a common occurrence in some videos is cyclists not taking the many easy to adapt precautions. That’s not victim blaming, it’s controlling the controllable aspects of being a vulnerable road user. Some people are more interested in being on the right side of the law, I’m more interested in being on the right side of the ground.

In this case you basically suggested retro fitting ABS and computer controlled braking common in new cars, on a classic car. Where it most probably wouldn't have made any difference. In this specific instance.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

In the last few days I’ve seen a two people out cycling (who judging by their gear and bikes are experience or at least regular cyclists) wearing dark clothing and no lights with the blinding low sun of the afternoon car drivers will have points of blindness and to me that’s a recipe for disaster. These cyclists are doing nothing wrong, but to me that’s careless.

The solution to blinding sun is sun visors and sunglasses. Not a change of clothing. If the driver is blinded he can't see anything no matter what colour it is.

beauf

breezy1985 wrote: »

Way back at the start of this argument I was talking about having a few unicycles and PFs on my commute and they were an unnecessary issue

"unnecessary issue" what does that mean?

Afaik they are road legal in the UK and subject to same rules and laws as bicycles. Anyone know if it's different here?

lawrencesummers

Weepsie wrote: »

Yet you saw them?

I did.

There must be no need for it to be considered so because one car user noticed them.

lawrencesummers

beauf wrote: »

In this case you basically suggested retro fitting ABS and computer controlled braking common in new cars, on a classic car. Where it most probably wouldn't have made any difference. In this specific instance.



The solution to blinding sun is sun visors and sunglasses. Not a change of clothing. If the driver is blinded he can't see anything no matter what colour it is.

That’s it again, the cyclist deciding nothing they do matters because other road users have to take responsibility because the blame will lie with them.

Best of luck with that.
ER’s are full of people saying “I should have...”

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

Like I said earlier...staying upright is easy enough, staying safe has a lot to do with motorists. by that I mean motorists not driving with due care and attention.

If the sun is blinding...it doesn't matter what you wear or what lights you have. If the sun is blinding, then a motorist needs to slow down and drive carefully.

Yes it does.

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

"unnecessary issue" what does that mean?

Afaik they are road legal in the UK and subject to same rules and laws as bicycles. Anyone know if it's different here?

They are not road legal in the UK. We have covered this already too

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Yes it does.

No it doesn't...A blinding sun is a blinding sun.

beauf

breezy1985 wrote: »

They are not road legal in the UK. We have covered this already too

Can you link to it...

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s it again, the cyclist deciding nothing they do matters because other road users have to take responsibility because the blame will lie with them.

Best of luck with that.
ER’s are full of people saying “I should have...”

What cyclists do does matter.
Were they cycling legally ? Im assuming they were, as I've no doubt you would have told us if they weren't
Were they Visible? Yes.. you saw them.

breezy1985

beauf wrote: »

Can you link to it...

No cause I'm on my phone and lazy.

Bikes in the UK need a front and rear break to be legal which although not impossible on a farthing is not normal.

In a non legal sense having a fixie break on a front wheel is probably a bad idea too