Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

07Lapierre

Gerry T wrote: »

I'm not blaming the cyclist. It's totally the van drivers fault.

Everyone who has said this always start the next sentence with “But”. Their is no but. The van driver was stupid. Everyone seems to agree but want to try and mitigate the severity of his stupidity.

07Lapierre

Gerry T wrote: »

Yes, but a normal bike would turn much sharper and the brakes would stop you far quicker. But I do ack that some would just panic in that situation. No matter how calm or quick to react on that PF I can't see anyway he wouldn't have come off. Maybe turning right would have him under the bus.

So what? If the van had been a Transit connect SWB, it would have made ithe turn and the cyclists would have stayed upright.

If the cyclists had taken the bus that day this event would not have happened at all!

“If” “But” .... just deal with what actually happened.

07Lapierre

SmartinMartin wrote: »

If the dickhead on the PF just flicked right instead of heading for the van, all would have been good.

Yep and we’d all be commenting on the Dashcam footage from the Bus that captured the whole incident. The video title would be “cyclists all over the road causes bus to crash!” Or some other victim blaming bull****.

tomasrojo

As I understand it, "safety bicycles" are, as the old name suggests, a lot safer than p-fars, as bikesnobnyc used to call them, but it's mostly because of the tendency to be thrown headfirst over the front wheel when you meet an obstacle or brake hard, the height you fall from when you do fall, and the proximity of the rider's feet to the spokes of the front wheel. Nobody mentions their manoeuvrability as an issue (maybe because the other issues were more pressing, I suppose).

They're not a very practical bike, to say the least, in comparison to any normal modern bike, but I admire the contrariness of someone who uses one.

beauf

AutoTuning wrote: »

It's also quite possible he didn't recognise it as it.
...

This make no sense.

The reason drivers don't see cyclists and other cars for that matter is not because of the visibility of the other vehicle. But because of the poor driving habits of the driver. Especially with regard to visual scan and checking mirrors and such. Also taking risks and bullying other road users.

They don't care to improve this, as due to a lack of enforcement of poor and/or dangerous driving they do not fear they will be punished for it.

This is especially true of poor/dangerous driving near cyclists. This video was posted in a thread full of near misses.

tomasrojo

As someone who uses a cargo bike and various trailers, I can vouch for people driving cars noticing bikes that are a bit out of the ordinary quite well.

The way the van turned, the "body language" of the turn, if you will, totally suggests he saw the p-far approaching.

beauf

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd like to think the van driver is a down on their luck family man/woman who is under pressure by their evil moustache twirling boss to deliver parcels over the busy december period and they were just under so much pressure...

*shakes fist at corporations while ordering that vat free item off amazon*

Prefer to think he just didn't see him. Rather than made a deliberate bad decision.

But this thread is an extract of a bigger thread listing near misses with cyclists. Usually side swipes where drivers go too close to cyclists, often intentionally.

beauf

breezy1985 wrote: »

You see what you want to see.
The only time I mentioned the video was to blame the van.
I still havnt seen a plausible reason on here for riding penny farthings though other than people defending them for the sake of it because they are bikes

There doesn't need to be reason. It's legal vehicle.

There's no reason to have a car able to do 150+ in a country with a speed limit of 120.

A new 911, will out brake most normal cars and certainly old cars. Should all those cars with inferior brakes be made illegal? How about inexpensive tires. The list is endless.

whisky_galore

John_Rambo wrote: »

Plenty of vintage vehicle owners or all sorts on boards.ie (including my family) with substandard brakes, suspension & safety arrangements compared to your modern Ford Focus!!! Lets not go crazy, last thing we need is a clamp down on anything old and cool.

There are sound reasons people who own Ford Model Ts don't use them as daily drivers and there's good reason that the "safety bike" superseded the PF because of the increased risk of going arse over tit on an unwieldy PF.

Use them and play dress up on managed vintage runs or whatever. Fine. Or join a circus troupe.

Anyone who uses a PF everyday on busy streets needs their head examined before it's opened up for them.

magicbastarder

it'd be nice and neat if this video was one of an idiot on a PF not adjusting to the conditions and the fact he's on a PF, coming a cropper.
but this is a video of someone on a PF in a collision with a van where the van driver is at fault.

if it had been someone on an old secondhand rim brake bike in the wet, with poor stopping power, it'd still be the van driver's fault.

beauf

whisky_galore wrote: »

There are sound reasons people who own Ford Model Ts don't use them as daily drivers and there's good reason that the "safety bike" superseded the PF because of the increased risk of going arse over tit on an unwieldy PF.

Use them and play dress up on managed vintage runs or whatever. Fine. Or join a circus troupe.

Anyone who uses a PF everyday on busy streets needs their head examined before it's opened up for them.

Vintage runs aren't done on closed roads they are done on roads with regular traffic. The cars are still road legal.

We still make new cars with drum brakes. Most cars before 2000 had no abs. Many countries insist on winter tires being a legal requirement, since summer tires do so badly in low temps and poor conditions.

tomasrojo

This is pretty sweet: a stationary penny farthing for home exercise:


https://www.bicycling.com/news/a34660216/hendricks-high-wheel-stationary-bike/

whisky_galore

beauf wrote: »

Vintage runs aren't done on closed roads they are done on roads with regular traffic. The cars are still road legal.

We still make new cars with drum brakes. Most cars before 2000 had no abs. Many countries insist on winter tires being a legal requirement, since summer tires do so badly in low temps and poor conditions.

Of course they have their runs on public roads, but they have start and finish points, stewards etc.
They are driven for pleasure, nobody is commuting in them and driving them everyday as their only car for God sakes!

Did I say they weren't road legal anywhere?

cletus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Of course they have their runs on public roads, but they have start and finish points, stewards etc.
They are driven for pleasure, nobody is commuting in them and driving them everyday as their only car for God sakes!

Did I say they weren't road legal anywhere?

A friend of mine has a '65 Mustang. He takes it out at weekends, no stewards, no start point, no finish point. Yes, he drives it for pleasure, buy mostly because the cost of fueling the 5l V8 engine in it would break him if he ran it every day.

He does not require specially organised events to drive it, and has no problems being in normal traffic with other, normal, cars.

stoneill

07Lapierre wrote: »

Everyone who has said this always start the next sentence with “But”. Their is no but. The van driver was stupid. Everyone seems to agree but want to try and mitigate the severity of his stupidity.

Looked like 2 stupid people involved.

whisky_galore

cletus wrote: »

A friend of mine has a '65 Mustang. He takes it out at weekends, no stewards, no start point, no finish point. Yes, he drives it for pleasure, buy mostly because the cost of fueling the 5l V8 engine in it would break him if he ran it every day.

He does not require specially organised events to drive it, and has no problems being in normal traffic with other, normal, cars.

Good for him.
To be fair that's closer to a modern car than something from say the early 1900s.

A PF and a "modern" bicycle are two very different animals.
I don't know why people can't accept that some things can be legal to do but at the same time not very clever to do in all circumstances.

beauf

cletus wrote: »

A friend of mine has a '65 Mustang. He takes it out at weekends, no stewards, no start point, no finish point. Yes, he drives it for pleasure, buy mostly because the cost of fueling the 5l V8 engine in it would break him if he ran it every day.

He does not require specially organised events to drive it, and has no problems being in normal traffic with other, normal, cars.

If someone drive into him it will be his fault. Even if its isn't.

beauf

whisky_galore wrote: »

Of course they have their runs on public roads, but they have start and finish points, stewards etc.
They are driven for pleasure, nobody is commuting in them and driving them everyday as their only car for God sakes!

Did I say they weren't road legal anywhere?

The point is. They are on public roads. Nothing to stop someone in a van driving into them. Since they are sharing the road.

Which is the argument, you're making. If some else causes an accident, by driving dangerously in a modern vehicle, the vintage car is a fault for using it normally.

Victim blaming.

magicbastarder

if i say to you 'i will swing a punch at you if you are still standing there in 30s' and you don't move, and i punch you; you can draw two conclusions:
1) people will accuse you of being stupid for standing in the same place knowing i have threatened to punch you
2) it's my fault *entirely* for my fist connecting with your face, despite conclusion 1.

the difference with the collision above is that the cyclist didn't get a warning, so point 1 doesn't even really apply.

cletus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Good for him.

That's like the internet version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

You made a specific comment about how older, or classic, cars are driven on our roads. I refuted your point by giving one (of many, mind) examples where this is not true.

Do you not have a response to my point? If you don't, you could at least try a little harder that "Good for him", so I can at least come back here and claim the moral high ground by pointing out your ad hominem attack

beauf

whisky_galore wrote: »

Good for him.
To be fair that's closer to a modern car than something from say the early 1900s.

A PF and a "modern" bicycle are two very different animals.
I don't know why people can't accept that some things can be legal to do but at the same time not very clever to do in all circumstances.

What you're saying is people shouldn't be allowed use things normally, because other people choose to drive dangerously.

That driver who has a near miss with a PF will have a near miss or accident with a normal bicycle or car or pedestrian at some point. Because its their habit to drive dangerously.

cletus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Good for him.
To be fair that's closer to a modern car than something from say the early 1900s.

A PF and a "modern" bicycle are two very different animals.
I don't know why people can't accept that some things can be legal to do but at the same time not very clever to do in all circumstances.

Nice ninja edit there.

He's currently working on a '47 Cadillac. He won't need a fella walking ahead of him with a red flag to drive that either

whisky_galore

beauf wrote: »

Victim blaming.

The modern catch call to excuse bad judgement and stupidity.

tomasrojo

P-far in the wild in Ireland just crossed my timeline, coincidentally:
https://twitter.com/PhotosOfDublin/status/1346777179905019904

tomasrojo

whisky_galore wrote: »

The modern catch call to excuse bad judgement and stupidity.

I don't really want to go all out in support of the penny farthing community, but victim blaming is a more complicated phenomenon than that.

beauf

whisky_galore wrote: »

The modern catch call to excuse bad judgement and stupidity.

Certainly is. No idea why your focus is on the victim not the driver with bad judgement and stupidly dangerous driving.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

if i say to you 'i will swing a punch at you if you are still standing there in 30s' and you don't move, and i punch you; you can draw two conclusions:
1) people will accuse you of being stupid for standing in the same place knowing i have threatened to punch you
2) it's my fault *entirely* for my fist connecting with your face, despite conclusion 1.

the difference with the collision above is that the cyclist didn't get a warning, so point 1 doesn't even really apply.

Well it is and it isn't, take the 30s out of the statement. Imagine I said "I am going to punch you" and then swung within 1 second. Is it your fault or mine, I gave you warning, I gave you a second to get out of the way. In the same way the PF seen the van going for it with about 1 second to get out of the way. The way some people here go on, it's the PFs fault partially for not getting out of the way quicker.

Now, just to clarify, if the van had 5 or 10 seconds, didn't hammer it and the bicycle could see it happening with 10 seconds and didn't slow down or adjust his speed, and the van cut out or stopped for some other reason, then the PF would be at fault. No different than when I drive and someone turns in front of me, even though they will be clear before I get to them, I still take my foot off the gas just in case.

beauf

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't really want to go all out in support of the penny farthing community, but victim blaming is a more complicated phenomenon than that.

It's not even about that. They can't define what constitutes too old since we still use old technologies like rim brakes on new bicycles and drum brakes on new car.

Even then none of makes any difference if someone's dangerous behaviour gives no time to react to something, regardless of what you use.

There is a wide range of ability in cars drivers cyclists and bicycles. You have to use the road and factor the lowest common denominator. That's how society and systems work. Its not viable to expect everything to be perfect with no margin of error.

beauf

CramCycle wrote: »

. .it's the PFs fault partially for not getting out of the way quicker.
..

The majority of people would have been going faster and/or reacted slower than that PF rider. So the difference being on a PF was very little in real terms.

It's because the PF is different is making people focus on it. If the rider had been on regular bike or kitted out in lycra the victim blaming would be the cyclist is going too fast.

tomasrojo

Yeah, as a user of a heavy bike with roller brakes, I don't hold with every bike needing to have high-performance brakes or all modern appurtenances.

The penny farthing aspect of this is *extremely* marginal though. I just mean I'm not going to engage very deeply with that aspect of it.