[Travel] Teacher who was staring at her phone and hit by a cyclist win compensation.

[drew]

As I suspected with an earlier post of mine, offensive cyclist was going quicker than he said. This is typical and happens very often that both cyclist and motorists act within the law but cycle or motor too quick to stop in time.

Going out on my bike now. If I cycle at 20 mph I'm going to fast to stop in time for lights, and if I am being tailgated in traffic and slow down I get bashed in the rear by a car.

I usually cycle at 14 mph and get overtaken by the lycra brigade.

Not entirely sure where you have got that from? The only person that said he was travelling at 20mph was Mr H, the other cyclist. The defendant said that he saw the people at about 20 metres, sounded his airhorn and they moved out of the way and he accelerated upto 10/15mph. She stepped out without looking. So, at the point she stepped out, presumably he was closer than the original 20 metres! The speed is not referenced in the 'undisputed facts'?

Some of the comments are a little one sided, for example, 'So why did the Judge order that the cyclist must pay the pedestrian damages and legal costs, yet the cyclist gets nothing?' That implies it was all the cyclists fault yet wasn't the judgement that it was 50/50. Isn't more a case that the cyclist didn't originally make a claim for damages. Barrister perhaps being economical with the facts. Secondly, he says the highway code refers to the requirement for a bell but makes no reference to an airhorn. What he doesn't say is whether there was a bell on the bike which wasn't used?

What seems clear is the the cyclist originally thought he could deal with this himself but belatedly got legal representation.

EDIT: Having read the second blog re the note of judgement, it seems clear the judge ignored the the testimony of the other cyclist!!!!

 

[perseus]

I haven't read all 236 odd posts, but one thing is mentioned a few times is insurance for cyclists. British Cycling has a membership scheme , starting from around £25. Included is insurance and legal cover for cases in which the cyclist is held to blame. It seems a sensible thing for anyone who cycles regularly to have. I have had it for years, and thankfully never needed it. It comes with discounts for various businesses as well, 10% off halfords cycle stuff for example, so the cost can be recovered from purchases anyway.

Become a member of British Cycling today
Liability insurance and legal support (Race Gold, Silver, Ride & Commute) for daily cycling
Get 10% off purchases at Halfords and £10 off at Chain Reaction Cycles
Exclusive rates on bike insurance
Priority access to tickets for major cycling events
Personalised membership pack
Save 10% with Direct Debit

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/null

British Cycling seems to be for sport cyclists who have different needs compared to destination cyclists. e.g. lycra brigade will object to new cyclepaths.

 

[strings]

British Cycling seems to be for sport cyclists who have different needs compared to destination cyclists. e.g. lycra brigade will object to new cyclepaths.

British Cycling is definitely for all cyclists. When I bought a bike with the aim of commuting a few years ago, the first thing I did was join British Cycling. Absolutely worth it for the peace of mind.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[Bold Seagull]

British Cycling seems to be for sport cyclists who have different needs compared to destination cyclists. e.g. lycra brigade will object to new cyclepaths.

Don't you have a record with objecting to proposals?

 

[nickbrighton]

British Cycling seems to be for sport cyclists who have different needs compared to destination cyclists. e.g. lycra brigade will object to new cyclepaths.

British Cycling represents all cyclists,they have different schemes for different types of rider, from town riding, commuting, road riding to full on racing. The reason a lot of cycle paths are objected to are simply because they aren't fit for purpose! Take the new one running by St Peters Church , part of the great Valley Gardens scheme, specifically designed to encourage walking and cycling. It rund adjacent to the church, all the way along, with the pavement between it and the road, so its Road, pavement, cycle lane, church. Any one wanting to cross from pavement to church or pavement to other side of the church to the shops on London road has to cross the path. Thus putting them selves and cyclist in danger. All the council had to do was ask cyclists where it should be, they would have responded, next to but separate from the road. As it is, the very cyclists they are supposedly encouraging will use the road simply because in all likelihood the cycle path will be full of people wanting to cross, or avoid being right next to the traffic, or are looking at the church etc. If the council want commuters to use bikes, they need to provide a path that is fit for the job, and enables cyclists to ride without constantly stopping, or cycling at walking speed- no use when you are trying to get to work 10 miles away!

 

[Bold Seagull]

British Cycling represents all cyclists,they have different schemes for different types of rider, from town riding, commuting, road riding to full on racing. The reason a lot of cycle paths are objected to are simply because they aren't fit for purpose! Take the new one running by St Peters Church , part of the great Valley Gardens scheme, specifically designed to encourage walking and cycling. It rund adjacent to the church, all the way along, with the pavement between it and the road, so its Road, pavement, cycle lane, church. Any one wanting to cross from pavement to church or pavement to other side of the church to the shops on London road has to cross the path. Thus putting them selves and cyclist in danger. All the council had to do was ask cyclists where it should be, they would have responded, next to but separate from the road. As it is, the very cyclists they are supposedly encouraging will use the road simply because in all likelihood the cycle path will be full of people wanting to cross, or avoid being right next to the traffic, or are looking at the church etc. If the council want commuters to use bikes, they need to provide a path that is fit for the job, and enables cyclists to ride without constantly stopping, or cycling at walking speed- no use when you are trying to get to work 10 miles away!

Its because most are done on the cheap. You only have to cycle from the Old Steine to The Level to the Lewes Road on the cycle paths to wonder if the person that drew them up did it for a laugh!?

Even the ones at Hove Lawns have a supposed give-way marking at every single pedestrian access point, like it's harder for a pedestrian to stop and cross than for a cyclist. Common sense mostly prevails and pedestrians do give way to cyclists generally.

The ridiculous nature of this whole debate is that it would actually help drivers and reduce congestion if more people cycled. We have the statistical evidence that any city or large town investing in its infrastructure increases the journeys of 10 mile or less by bicycle, reduces their overall congestion, and increases their economic output. More people are more healthy, less traffic on the road, businesses and trade get more done spending less time in traffic.

 

[Stat Brother]

Cameras to warn bus drivers when cyclists ride into their blind spots

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...sts-ride-into-their-blind-spots-a4175111.html

A camera system that uses artificial intelligence could help bus drivers avoid hitting cyclists and pedestrians in their blind spot.

“Intent prediction” technology is being readied for public bus routes that can spot hazards “two seconds faster” than the human brain.
The predictive technology, simultaneously being developed for driverless cars, will also help bus drivers avoid pedestrians who are distracted by their phones as they step into the road.

 

[Stat Brother]

The ridiculous nature of this whole debate is that it would actually help drivers and reduce congestion if more people cycled. We have the statistical evidence that any city or large town investing in its infrastructure increases the journeys of 10 mile or less by bicycle, reduces their overall congestion, and increases their economic output. More people are more healthy, less traffic on the road, businesses and trade get more done spending less time in traffic.

Which shows the levels of selfish stupidity any change to transportation is up against.

 

[nickbrighton]

Its because most are done on the cheap. You only have to cycle from the Old Steine to The Level to the Lewes Road on the cycle paths to wonder if the person that drew them up did it for a laugh!?

Even the ones at Hove Lawns have a supposed give-way marking at every single pedestrian access point, like it's harder for a pedestrian to stop and cross than for a cyclist. Common sense mostly prevails and pedestrians do give way to cyclists generally.

The ridiculous nature of this whole debate is that it would actually help drivers and reduce congestion if more people cycled. We have the statistical evidence that any city or large town investing in its infrastructure increases the journeys of 10 mile or less by bicycle, reduces their overall congestion, and increases their economic output. More people are more healthy, less traffic on the road, businesses and trade get more done spending less time in traffic.

Exactly, its not rocket science, but seems beyond the councils ability to understand. The plans for VG 3 show the main seafront cycle path diagonally meandering crossing the area in front of the pier- arguably the busiest place for pedestrians in the city.It will be impossible to cycle through that area, hence cyclists who have somewhere to go, will still use the road. The hugely expensive cycle lane by BASVIC actually has bus stops, trees, and zebra crossing beacon post IN THE MIDDLE of the cycle lane! The seafront path has lamp posts and traffic signs in the lane itself. The london road lane goes onto the pavement at the narrowest stretch of pavement Northbound,Dyke road paths narrow to a few inches wide in some spots, or have car park spaces IN THEM, the list is endless. The conclusion has to be that the planners aren't in the least interested in the effectiveness of cycle paths and lanes, but its just a cosmetic approach to be ale to say "we've put in x miles of cycle path" The only segments that are well planned and executed are the stretch from Coldean lane to Lewes Rd Bus station, (after which they just stop or appear sporadically as there isn't the room for them!

 

[Stat Brother]

Exactly, its not rocket science, but seems beyond the councils ability to understand. The plans for VG 3 show the main seafront cycle path diagonally meandering crossing the area in front of the pier- arguably the busiest place for pedestrians in the city.It will be impossible to cycle through that area, hence cyclists who have somewhere to go, will still use the road. The hugely expensive cycle lane by BASVIC actually has bus stops, trees, and zebra crossing beacon post IN THE MIDDLE of the cycle lane! The seafront path has lamp posts and traffic signs in the lane itself. The london road lane goes onto the pavement at the narrowest stretch of pavement Northbound,Dyke road paths narrow to a few inches wide in some spots, or have car park spaces IN THEM, the list is endless. The conclusion has to be that the planners aren't in the least interested in the effectiveness of cycle paths and lanes, but its just a cosmetic approach to be ale to say "we've put in x miles of cycle path" The only segments that are well planned and executed are the stretch from Coldean lane to Lewes Rd Bus station, (after which they just stop or appear sporadically as there isn't the room for them!

Probably the most infuriating stretch of cycle path in Sussex!

The ultimate 'see we do understand - we just refuse to do it again'.

The last anti cycling thread on here concerns the new multi million pound cycle path to/from Climping.
A path that has 2 bus stops, both new and both set back from the path.
So if there was anybody at the bus stops the cyclist have to cycle through them, so feckin annoying.