One of the dozen

[Imsensible]

somehow, you managed to think that he wasn't taking care while driving when he encounters cyclists. StressedDave doesn't represent all motorists, only himself, yet you took him to task for something you have imagined about him.

Incorrect. That isn't what I said. Re-read his post and then mine. You are extrapolating what you personally know about SD and interpreting what he said accordingly. I on the other just hand read his post. The inference was that cyclists are to blame, not motorists.

[Imsensible]

The attitude seems to be that cyclists are somehow second class citizens.

Whose attitude? Are you sure you're not projecting?

I can only go by what was written. The apparent implication was that cyclists are to blame and should be more careful, not the drivers around them. As somebody who used to commute by bicycle, as well as ride for fun, I have seen this attitude towards cyclists on thousands of occasions, from a diverse range of drivers. I'm not a Lycra clad racer or time trialist, and they can be silly buggers at times, but cyclists ARE treated as second class citizens, and some of the comments, like that of akirk and his racer/eco-warrior rubbish only confirms that.

Akirk, did you actually see that accident happen? It seems you are saying you passed it 5 minutes after it happened.

I think that you are reading something into that which was not what I was posting...
The reality is that some people who are drivers 90% of the time do get on a bike and suddenly become eco-warriors who hate motorists - it is a bizarre attitude as they drive as well... As I was at pains to say, I am a cyclist as well (I even have some lycra padded shorts somewhere!) and I respect all road users without distinction - but that doesn't mean that I like some of the attitudes I see - and around here we have more attitude issues from cyclists than any other road user and it has been a growing issue over the last 10 years... a combination perhaps of Swindon nearby and nice open country roads - on summer days we have packs of cyclists sweeping through the village - and it is not anti-cyclist to say that their attitude is generally antagonistic and arrogant - it is, it is observed on many occasions, they don't slow down for pedestrians or dog walkers, they block drivers (is a group of 20-40 bikes really in accord with the highway code?!) and because they are running timed journeys using Strada etc. to beat personal bests - everything else gives way to the need to beat that time - including common sense - it is not helpful that their technique of being tightly packed in behind the leader who constantly rotates means that giving space to other road users becomes difficult and it does cause issues... I have travelled nearly 5 miles stuck behind a bunch of cyclists doing 15-20 mph, who give no space to other road users - when we got to the t-junction they deliberately spread across the road to block cars from getting past... I could have overtaken a number of times - fast and small car, but I am too considerate to drive that closely to the cyclists... but they should not be using road space in that way...

the accident - no, didn't see it, but a friend did - I passed a few minutes later and saw the bike on the side of the road with a damaged wheel / forks & frame - and a bunch of other cyclists on a 60mph stretch of country road gesticulating at all cars and telling them to slow down... despite the fact that it was the cyclists fault...

sadly we live in a world where people don't wish to take responsibility for their own actions and look for someone else to blame, and for cyclists the motorist is an easy target - yes, some car drives are idiots, but sadly so are many many cyclists around here... Sorry, I am very pro cycling, I am very anti arrogance...

Alasdair

Whilst I'm sure you are pro cycling and anti arrogance, I didn't actually say anything about you or your attitude. I simply asked if YOU saw the accident. If you didn't, then how can you be sure, as you claim, that the accident was 100% the fault of the cyclist? So whilst you post may be interesting, eloquent and honest... it's trying to answer a question that wasn't asked. It simply shows you take hearsay at face value.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I think, Mr Sensible, you need to re-quote Dave's post, which I have just re-read, and highlight exactly which parts of it you find to be disturbing, for whatever reasons you are harbouring. I can't find anything that isn't factual. Yes, I know Dave as well. I know how seriously he takes driving-according-to-the-conditions, but even knowing all that, I can't actually read his words the way you do.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I think you need to buy a new tape measure - your current one's obviously got rather stretched ...

Nothing wrong with the tape measure.

So you, too, believe a cyclist and bicycle only take up a metre's length of road? I think your tape measure, like his (which is the one I was referring to, nothing to do with you) also needs re-calibrating

[StressedDave]

somehow, you managed to think that he wasn't taking care while driving when he encounters cyclists. StressedDave doesn't represent all motorists, only himself, yet you took him to task for something you have imagined about him.

Incorrect. That isn't what I said. Re-read his post and then mine. You are extrapolating what you personally know about SD and interpreting what he said accordingly. I on the other just hand read his post. The inference was that cyclists are to blame, not motorists.

I'm afraid that you've read my post, put your own interpretation on it and are now conflating your belief with what was written.

I don't subscribe to the theory that if a cyclist is involved in an accident then the motorist is to blame. Everyone I know/knew in the accident investigation fraternity considers it without credibility. I leave the definition of blame up to those wearing wigs. My point, which you seem unable too pick up, is that cyclists can, in the absence of all rationality, move themselves into a position to collide with a mechanically propelled vehicle without understanding the need for the conductor of said vehicle to have sufficient time to react and actually deal with the issue not of their making.

If a pedestrian walks into the path of a car, leaving the car driver insufficient time to react and brake, is the car driver to 'blame''? The same rules apply to cyclists - you cannot automatically assign blame to a motorist on the basis that the other party is more vulnerable. All road users owe a duty of care to each other, irrespective of their vulnerability.

Clip-clop...

[Strangely Brown]

somehow, you managed to think that he wasn't taking care while driving when he encounters cyclists. StressedDave doesn't represent all motorists, only himself, yet you took him to task for something you have imagined about him.

Incorrect. That isn't what I said. Re-read his post and then mine. You are extrapolating what you personally know about SD and interpreting what he said accordingly. I on the other just hand read his post. The inference was that cyclists are to blame, not motorists.

Inference is what *you* took from it. Implication would be if SD had intended something unwritten. You read something that wasn't there.

[Imsensible]

I'm afraid that you've read my post, put your own interpretation on it and are now conflating your belief with what was written.

I don't subscribe to the theory that if a cyclist is involved in an accident then the motorist is to blame. Everyone I know/knew in the accident investigation fraternity considers it without credibility. I leave the definition of blame up to those wearing wigs. My point, which you seem unable too pick up, is that cyclists can, in the absence of all rationality, move themselves into a position to collide with a mechanically propelled vehicle without understanding the need for the conductor of said vehicle to have sufficient time to react and actually deal with the issue not of their making.

If a pedestrian walks into the path of a car, leaving the car driver insufficient time to react and brake, is the car driver to 'blame''? The same rules apply to cyclists - you cannot automatically assign blame to a motorist on the basis that the other party is more vulnerable. All road users owe a duty of care to each other, irrespective of their vulnerability.

Clip-clop...

So, please explain how any individual can read somebody else's words and NOT put their own interpretation on it. That is an unavoidable consequence of communication. The fact that your text CAN be interpreted in more than one way seems to have eluded you.

In the post in question, you simply mentioned cyclist presenting a danger to themselves and those who hit them. Now you want to expand on that by specifying something that wasn't in your original post to negate any ambiguity. There was no mention of drivers ever being at fault, and indeed you could transpose drivers and cyclists in the above and make an equally valid point. Considering the amount of pontification on this site about the general standard of driving, and how 'advanced' training makes us so much better, to tar all cyclists with the same brush is astonishing.

Inference is what *you* took from it. Implication would be if SD had intended something unwritten. You read something that wasn't there.

My grasp of English is quite good thanks, and my use of the word "inference" is correct. Please see the first two sentences of my reply to Dave. Your first two sentences do not in any way prove the third.

[Silk]

The attitude seems to be that cyclists are somehow second class citizens.

It's not an attitude, it's a fact. The roads are there primarily for motor vehicles; which makes cyclists secondary users. HTH

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Usual blinkered bollocks. First came pedestrians, then horse riders, then carts, carriages and finally cars and motorcycles. Everyone has the same right to use the road, whatever your personal perception of your own importance may be. The Highway Code makes that very clear. What it makes less clear, despite various paragraphs pointing it out indirectly, is that everyone should exercise courtesy towards everybody else, with appropriate judgement being exercised where one road user is more vulnerable than another.

[fungus]

Thank you Silk for you usual bout of diplomacy.

Nick is correct. Now here's the but. I have had experience of a cyclist riding out from behind a blind wall into the NS of my car. There was no way in which the driver, a learner, or myself could have foreseen this event. See the link below for a street veiw of the incident site. And before anyone says that it's my fault for taking a ton of motorised metal out on the road, it was taxed, insured, and the driver was appropriately licenced. Therefore we had a right to be there. The cyclist rode out from behind the wall on the left just before the road comes in from the left as we were driving past, into the side of my car.

I am, beleive it or not, of sane mind. If I walk out into the path of a motorised vehicle giving the driver no chance to avoid me, does that make the driver guilty. I think not. It's my fault for being so bloody stupid. Now, I accept that the posters on this forum would probably consider that there is the posibility that I might have learning difficulty and not be able to take responsibility for my actions and would adjust their speed and position to accomodate that possibility, something that Mr/Mrs average might not do. Blame can only be apportioned by reason and not just because one road user is more vulnerable than the other. If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the less vulnerable road took allreasonable steps to prevent the accident, then why should it be assumed by certain groups that the more vulnerable is not to blame. That would give them carte blanche the right to do as they like without consequence to their actions. IMHO there are so many grey areas to consider.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.80201 ... 312!8i6656

Nigel.