Live blog: Jeremy Vine criticised for claiming taxi driver was at fault in near miss with cyclist; Westminster attacker who drove at cyclists guilty of attempted murder; Lachlan Morton's GBDuro film + more

burtthebike wrote:

Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I'm afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don't approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it's clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren't going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

Should we not pose the question as to why can't we do this without fear of death or serious injury? Should there not be priority for the vulnerable at all quarters, isn't this how we sway the masses to change to active transport as opposed to allowing fear and having to beg in some cases to cross being a massive factor in why they don't?

Seems to me that we have a blanket system of might is right/has priority and anyone else getting in the way and/or need heeding to that is likely to get hurt, isn't that heinous and massively uncivilised and inequitable, should we not reverse that completely?

burtthebike wrote:

Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I'm afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don't approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it's clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren't going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

Just saying - this is the kind of carnage that the judge in the case of Gemma Brushett has opened the world up to.

If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

I would have personally liked to see a case like that go to court, and for the solicitor acting the defense of the cylist to rely on the judgement from the Brushett Case to pass on at least 50% of the blame to the taxi driver..... 

However, the insurance for the driver would bully that case out of going to court.

craigstitt wrote:

If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

No, no, no!  Because, "Cars"!

(Its different).

(Apparently).

craigstitt wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I'm afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don't approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it's clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren't going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

Just saying - this is the kind of carnage that the judge in the case of Gemma Brushett has opened the world up to.

If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

I would have personally liked to see a case like that go to court, and for the solicitor acting the defense of the cylist to rely on the judgement from the Brushett Case to pass on at least 50% of the blame to the taxi driver..... 

However, the insurance for the driver would bully that case out of going to court.

You are ignoring the fact that they are two different sets of circumstances. In the Gemma Brushett case there was a number of pedestrians already established on the crossing, the cycles decided to carry on and she panicked and stepped back.

In this case the cyclist crossed an empty crossing when there was a car coming.

The cases are totally different and in this case the cyclist has far more culpability than Gemma Brushett.

craigstitt wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Having had plenty of near misses, and having been knocked off by a pedestrian crossing against the lights, I'm afraid this time JV is wrong.  You don't approach any kind of crossing, as a pedestrian or cyclist, assuming that it's clear and just go across.  As someone said a few weeks ago, drivers are driving as if they aren't going to stop, not as if they might have to.  Do we really want to emulate that approach?

Just saying - this is the kind of carnage that the judge in the case of Gemma Brushett has opened the world up to.

If cyclists have to expect pedestrians to do unexpected things at pedestrian crossings, then car drivers must expect cyclists to do unexpected things a toucan crossings.  And following on the judgement in the Brushett case the cyclist should have let the taxi run into her and claim compensation as she is the more vulnerable road user and due to the fact she had both wheels on the road she was clearly established in the road and had right of way.  No?

I would have personally liked to see a case like that go to court, and for the solicitor acting the defense of the cylist to rely on the judgement from the Brushett Case to pass on at least 50% of the blame to the taxi driver..... 

However, the insurance for the driver would bully that case out of going to court.

You are ignoring the fact that they are two different sets of circumstances. In the Gemma Brushett case there was a number of pedestrians already established on the crossing, the cycles decided to carry on and she panicked and stepped back.

In this case the cyclist crossed an empty crossing when there was a car coming.

The cases are totally different and in this case the cyclist has far more culpability than Gemma Brushett.