Near Miss of the Day 325: 'Bullshit' and prevarication from the Met

hirsute wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

As both car and bike were converging at similar speeds,

They weren't though.

Video said 15 for bike, OP claimed it was 8 (lag time??), car 20-30 mph

Similar enough for this to be a possibility. 

Sriracha wrote:

Not me, vonhelmet, I agree totally. But it is the OP who has chosen to stand on the legal position -read his posts. He bats away any appeal to common sense, reason, self-preservation, etc, and makes his stand on "doing absolutely nothing wrong" and being "100% in the right". So I thought we ought to know what the legislation actually says. Others can work out for themselves if the OP is "100% in the right", according to that legislation. The OP brooks no other argument.

This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

And as a counter argument to cycle.london, there is case law, specifically the case law relating to contributory negligence as explored in "Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949)" where the judge summed up using the phrase 'When a man steps into the road he owes a duty to himself to take care for his own safety'.

And more recently explored in the case of "Brushett v Hazeldean" (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time.  50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)

If this had been an actual accident, and had proceeded to court I would full well expect a 50:50 verdict in relation to this incident, as on the balance of the evidence both parties have some responsibility in relation to what happened.  Yes the cyclist was established on the crossing at the time but did they give the approaching driver time to slow down in a safe and controlled manner? - No.

craigstitt wrote:

 

Not at any point have I said the car is blameless here.... and might want to check the definition of hyperbole.... because the Usain Bolt statement was exactly that.  Also last time I checked 27mph divided by 4 doesn't equal 15mph.  Cycle.London only reduced his speed at the very last minute on the entry onto the tiger crossing, when he realised that the BMW wasn't slowing down.  So maybe by that point they had dropped to about 10mph.

But I can see from your various responses that you are basically trying to absolve the cyclist of 100% of the blame here.

If you read cycle.londons posts he says there is a large difference between the way the camera and the Garmin record speed and he is going significantly slower than the speeds posted in the video. My maths was fine.

Hmm what would I have done. Yep generally speaking I'd slow more. There's a few bike lanes near me that have a give way to the cars a few yards after they turn into the junction, they rarely stop and probably don't even know they're there. I do occassionally roll a wheel out and usually get beeped at, then the argument begins and I point at the lines on the road, when the driver realises they are wrong they'll usually bring up road tax and call me a wanker (harsh as most mornings I don't have the energy).

craigstitt wrote:

And even the best of drivers can have a lapse in concentration.

If this is the best driver then we are in trouble. But again, if we are to so readily accept these lapses then we shouldn't allow them to travel unhindered at the speeds they do. Their laziness costs lives!

HoarseMann wrote:

hirsute wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

As both car and bike were converging at similar speeds,

They weren't though.

Video said 15 for bike, OP claimed it was 8 (lag time??), car 20-30 mph

Similar enough for this to be a possibility. 

If you are alluding to constant speed, constant bearing, then no, not similar.

craigstitt wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Not me, vonhelmet, I agree totally. But it is the OP who has chosen to stand on the legal position -read his posts. He bats away any appeal to common sense, reason, self-preservation, etc, and makes his stand on "doing absolutely nothing wrong" and being "100% in the right". So I thought we ought to know what the legislation actually says. Others can work out for themselves if the OP is "100% in the right", according to that legislation. The OP brooks no other argument.

This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

And as a counter argument to cycle.london, there is case law, specifically the case law relating to contributory negligence as explored in "Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949)" where the judge summed up using the phrase 'When a man steps into the road he owes a duty to himself to take care for his own safety'.

And more recently explored in the case of "Brushett v Hazeldean" (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time.  50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)

If this had been an actual accident, and had proceeded to court I would full well expect a 50:50 verdict in relation to this incident, as on the balance of the evidence both parties have some responsibility in relation to what happened.  Yes the cyclist was established on the crossing at the time but did they give the approaching driver time to slow down in a safe and controlled manner? - No.

No, the cyclist was not established on the [cycle] crossing. He was cycling across the pedestrian zebra section.

If he wished to establish himself on the pedestrian section of the crossing, however, he would have had to dismount and proceed as a pedestrian wheeling his cycle. Had he done so I doubt the incident would have occurred.

The cycle section is offset from the 'desire line'. He would need to slow down to negotiate the change of line required in order to establish himself on the cycle section. I wonder whether this is not by design, but that is just my conjecture. Had he done so, again, I doubt the incident would have occurred.

He had choice available.

[quote=alansmurphy}

If you read cycle.londons posts he says there is a large difference between the way the camera and the Garmin record speed and he is going significantly slower than the speeds posted in the video. My maths was fine.

[/quote]

How about your maths isn't fine.

Assuming braking force was applied equally from the point that cycle london entered the road to the point where he stopped some 10ft later (approximate width of the road - using the width of the mercedes sprinter van as a reference point).  Just over 1 second elapsed, therefore that puts his average speed for crossing the lane at around 6mph.

Using the assumption of even braking from point of entry to point of stopping this equates to an entry speed of around 12mph.

That speed is also borne out by using a similar calculation of distance and time based on the time it took cycle london to cross the path.

So please explain your maths?

hirsute wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

hirsute wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

As both car and bike were converging at similar speeds,

They weren't though.

Video said 15 for bike, OP claimed it was 8 (lag time??), car 20-30 mph

Similar enough for this to be a possibility. 

If you are alluding to constant speed, constant bearing, then no, not similar.

I wasn't alluding to it, I included a link to an article on it.

Crikey, what's with all the radgieness on this thread?!

craigstitt wrote:

[quote=alansmurphy}

If you read cycle.londons posts he says there is a large difference between the way the camera and the Garmin record speed and he is going significantly slower than the speeds posted in the video. My maths was fine.

How about your maths isn't fine.

Assuming braking force was applied equally from the point that cycle london entered the road to the point where he stopped some 10ft later (approximate width of the road - using the width of the mercedes sprinter van as a reference point).  Just over 1 second elapsed, therefore that puts his average speed for crossing the lane at around 6mph.

Using the assumption of even braking from point of entry to point of stopping this equates to an entry speed of around 12mph.

That speed is also borne out by using a similar calculation of distance and time based on the time it took cycle london to cross the path.

So please explain your maths?

[/quote]

london.cyclist stated he was travelling at around 8mph (from memory, can't be arsed to look back thru 130 posts to clarify), so Usain Bolt is 4 to 5 times quicker. Simple really.

Just admit your comparison to Bolt was a ridiculous exageration as 12mph is less than half!

Also, you've really just confirmed the points being made by showing how quickly the cyclist managed to stop, he was bang on the money. The driver on the other hand looks like they didn't even lift as they passed through the crossing like Lewis Hamilton...

HoarseMann wrote:

hirsute wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

hirsute wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

As both car and bike were converging at similar speeds,

They weren't though.

Video said 15 for bike, OP claimed it was 8 (lag time??), car 20-30 mph

Similar enough for this to be a possibility. 

If you are alluding to constant speed, constant bearing, then no, not similar.

I wasn't alluding to it, I included a link to an article on it.

Crikey, what's with all the radgieness on this thread?!

Simply restating what was in the video - we see the cyclist changing speed and the motorist chaging direction. None of my posts have been 'radgieness' orientated.

My first post agreed with someone who said the infrastructure was poor and the OP would be better focusing on the council to make some changes.

alansmurphy wrote:

 

Just admit your comparison to Bolt was a ridiculous exageration as 12mph is less than half!

I believe I answered that question when I asked you to check the definition of hyperbole many comments ago.

but seeing as using google is too complex for you I will spoon feed you the definition.....

Hyperbole - noun - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

craigstitt wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

 

Just admit your comparison to Bolt was a ridiculous exageration as 12mph is less than half!

I believe I answered that question when I asked you to check the definition of hyperbole many comments ago.

but seeing as using google is too complex for you I will spoon feed you the definition.....

Hyperbole - noun - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

So you're saying you were talking hyperbole? Why post it then as it takes away from the point of the discussion?

craigstitt wrote:

 

This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

 

And more recently explored in the case of "Brushett v Hazeldean" (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time they were on a bike not in a car; 50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)

Fixed that for you

craigstitt wrote:

 

but did they give the approaching driver time to slow down in a safe and controlled manner?

 

I don't think the rider would have got 50% because well car innit. But again I refer you to the point of slowing down for a crossing and the fact that at no point did the driver slow or prepare to slow...

alansmurphy wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

 

This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

 

And more recently explored in the case of "Brushett v Hazeldean" (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time they were on a bike not in a car; 50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)

Fixed that for you

And there in bold is your problem right there.  You are so blinded by hatred of cars that you cannot see anything other than your opinion that the cyclist could not be wrong.

If you knew anything about the Brushett Case, you would know that the cyclist did not allow the pedestrians who were on the road to clear the road before they tried to barge their way through but your complete bais trumps the actual facts in the case.

And believe me, having been involved in an accident with a car, where I had priority, resulting in 3 months of physiotherapy and a carbon fibre bike being written off as a result of the impact, I personally am not going to take risks with my own life as a result of priority, percieved or otherwise.

Enjoy the view from your hospital bed when your sense of priority and "I'm doing nothing wrong" puts you there.

craigstitt wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

 

This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

 

And more recently explored in the case of "Brushett v Hazeldean" (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time they were on a bike not in a car; 50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)

Fixed that for you

And there in bold is your problem right there.  You are so blinded by hatred of cars that you cannot see anything other than your opinion that the cyclist could not be wrong.

If you knew anything about the Brushett Case, you would know that the cyclist did not allow the pedestrians who were on the road to clear the road before they tried to barge their way through but your complete bais trumps the actual facts in the case.

And believe me, having been involved in an accident with a car, where I had priority, resulting in 3 months of physiotherapy and a carbon fibre bike being written off as a result of the impact, I personally am not going to take risks with my own life as a result of priority, percieved or otherwise.

Enjoy the view from your hospital bed when your sense of priority and "I'm doing nothing wrong" puts you there.

I had thought that what made the Brushett case interesting was that there *wasn't* a crossing (zebra, tiger, or unicorn). The pedestrians were just Crossing The Road, although admittedly beyond a junction controlled by traffic lights. Not sure if that changes any of your argument.

brooksby wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

 

This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.

 

And more recently explored in the case of "Brushett v Hazeldean" (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time they were on a bike not in a car; 50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)

Fixed that for you

And there in bold is your problem right there.  You are so blinded by hatred of cars that you cannot see anything other than your opinion that the cyclist could not be wrong.

If you knew anything about the Brushett Case, you would know that the cyclist did not allow the pedestrians who were on the road to clear the road before they tried to barge their way through but your complete bais trumps the actual facts in the case.

And believe me, having been involved in an accident with a car, where I had priority, resulting in 3 months of physiotherapy and a carbon fibre bike being written off as a result of the impact, I personally am not going to take risks with my own life as a result of priority, percieved or otherwise.

Enjoy the view from your hospital bed when your sense of priority and "I'm doing nothing wrong" puts you there.

I had thought that what made the Brushett case interesting was that there *wasn't* a crossing (zebra, tiger, or unicorn). The pedestrians were just Crossing The Road, although admittedly beyond a junction controlled by traffic lights. Not sure if that changes any of your argument.

Not really,  as my point was merely that despite one party having right of way/priority they were still held to be 50% liable for the causation of the accident because they were deemed to be partly at fault for causing it.

I would be virtually certain that the police are applying a similar methodolgy in rejecting cycle.londons allegation against the driver. i.e. that there was contributory negligence from his entry into the road without allowing the driver sufficient time to slow down in a controlled manner.

Lets take cyclists out of the equation for a moment and imagine the scenario - driver 1 approaches a traffic calming measure, and they have priority over oncoming vehicles (As dictated by road signage and road markings).  And as they approach the pinch point a queue of oncoming vehicles are passing the traffic calming measure coming towards them..... If driver 1 simply goes I have right of way I am going to crash into the cars coming the opposite way..... what do you think the outcome would be?

craigstitt wrote:

Not really,  as my point was merely that despite one party having right of way/priority they were still held to be 50% liable for the causation of the accident because they were deemed to be partly at fault for causing it.

I would be virtually certain that the police are applying a similar methodolgy in rejecting cycle.londons allegation against the driver. i.e. that there was contributory negligence from his entry into the road without allowing the driver sufficient time to slow down in a controlled manner.

Lets take cyclists out of the equation for a moment and imagine the scenario - driver 1 approaches a traffic calming measure, and they have priority over oncoming vehicles (As dictated by road signage and road markings).  And as they approach the pinch point a queue of oncoming vehicles are passing the traffic calming measure coming towards them..... If driver 1 simply goes I have right of way I am going to crash into the cars coming the opposite way..... what do you think the outcome would be?

Not a very good analogy in my opinion.

How about a scenario of a pedestrian walking normally along a pavement and a driver decides that they want to park on the pavement ahead of the pedestrian. Now assume that the driver mounts the pavement and the pedestrian doesn't stop walking and bumps into the car, breaking the wing mirror. Is the pedestrian 50% to blame for damaging the wing mirror because they didn't stop walking when they could have?

Or better yet, a 7-year old on a push-along scooter goes barrelling across the zebra/tiger (not using the cyclist/wheeled section and not dismounting) and doesn't give the poor motorist advance warning that they may have to slow down or heaven forbid, stop. Assume then that a horrible accident ensues - is the 7-year old 50% responsible for it?

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

Lets take cyclists out of the equation for a moment and imagine the scenario - driver 1 approaches a traffic calming measure, and they have priority over oncoming vehicles (As dictated by road signage and road markings).  And as they approach the pinch point a queue of oncoming vehicles are passing the traffic calming measure coming towards them..... If driver 1 simply goes I have right of way I am going to crash into the cars coming the opposite way..... what do you think the outcome would be?

Not a very good analogy in my opinion.

How about a scenario of a pedestrian walking normally along a pavement and a driver decides that they want to park on the pavement ahead of the pedestrian. Now assume that the driver mounts the pavement and the pedestrian doesn't stop walking and bumps into the car, breaking the wing mirror. Is the pedestrian 50% to blame for damaging the wing mirror because they didn't stop walking when they could have?

In that case I would put it at 100% the pedestrians fault.  Why?  Because irrespective of the legality of the vehicles parking, for a pedestrian to damage a stationary vehicle is 100% their fault.  Just in the same way as a car running into an illegally parked car.... the moving vehicle would always be deemed to be at fault.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Or better yet, a 7-year old on a push-along scooter goes barrelling across the zebra/tiger (not using the cyclist/wheeled section and not dismounting) and doesn't give the poor motorist advance warning that they may have to slow down or heaven forbid, stop. Assume then that a horrible accident ensues - is the 7-year old 50% responsible for it?

In that example it is the parents fault for allowing their child to play on a scooter near to a live road without adequate supervision.

I like this game 

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

Lets take cyclists out of the equation for a moment and imagine the scenario - driver 1 approaches a traffic calming measure, and they have priority over oncoming vehicles (As dictated by road signage and road markings).  And as they approach the pinch point a queue of oncoming vehicles are passing the traffic calming measure coming towards them..... If driver 1 simply goes I have right of way I am going to crash into the cars coming the opposite way..... what do you think the outcome would be?

Not a very good analogy in my opinion.

How about a scenario of a pedestrian walking normally along a pavement and a driver decides that they want to park on the pavement ahead of the pedestrian. Now assume that the driver mounts the pavement and the pedestrian doesn't stop walking and bumps into the car, breaking the wing mirror. Is the pedestrian 50% to blame for damaging the wing mirror because they didn't stop walking when they could have?

In that case I would put it at 100% the pedestrians fault.  Why?  Because irrespective of the legality of the vehicles parking, for a pedestrian to damage a stationary vehicle is 100% their fault.  Just in the same way as a car running into an illegally parked car.... the moving vehicle would always be deemed to be at fault.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Or better yet, a 7-year old on a push-along scooter goes barrelling across the zebra/tiger (not using the cyclist/wheeled section and not dismounting) and doesn't give the poor motorist advance warning that they may have to slow down or heaven forbid, stop. Assume then that a horrible accident ensues - is the 7-year old 50% responsible for it?

In that example it is the parents fault for allowing their child to play on a scooter near to a live road without adequate supervision.

I like this game 

First example - both the car and pedestrian are moving.

Second example - what? So the parents would be found to have contributed to the collision due to their negligence? Sorry that's just wrong.

hawkinspeter wrote:

First example - both the car and pedestrian are moving.

Second example - what? So the parents would be found to have contributed to the collision due to their negligence? Sorry that's just wrong.

First example - You are fundamentally flawed in your understanding of physics if you think there is any possibility that a car manuvering at parking speeds and a pedestrian walking for there to be enough momentum to break a wing mirror.

But to humour you..... of course if a pedestrian is struck by a moving vehicle while they are walking along a pavement they are going to be entirely at fault.

Second example - I'm guessing you are taking a leaf from my book and employing hyperbole because again for the purposes of the real world a child on a scooter would be going significantly slower than the cyclist entering the crossing so the child would be at fault in the event of an accident.

.

.

p.s.  once you have read the above statments and typed your reply in anger.... read my replies above in the sarcastic tone that they are meant to be read......

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

First example - both the car and pedestrian are moving.

Second example - what? So the parents would be found to have contributed to the collision due to their negligence? Sorry that's just wrong.

First example - You are fundamentally flawed in your understanding of physics if you think there is any possibility that a car manuvering at parking speeds and a pedestrian walking for there to be enough momentum to break a wing mirror.

But to humour you..... of course if a pedestrian is struck by a moving vehicle while they are walking along a pavement they are going to be entirely at fault.

Second example - I'm guessing you are taking a leaf from my book and employing hyperbole because again for the purposes of the real world a child on a scooter would be going significantly slower than the cyclist entering the crossing so the child would be at fault in the event of an accident.

.

.

p.s.  once you have read the above statments and typed your reply in anger.... read my replies above in the sarcastic tone that they are meant to be read......

No worries, I'm not angry about this, and to be honest, all of our analogies are crap.

I disagree with your interpretation of the second one, but then we disagree about the actual incident, so that's no surprise.

I remember a real world example that is very sad that was covered here (sorry, haven't time to find it) - a young girl was wobbling along a pavement on her bike and ended up going into the road (I think it was a semi-busy A-road) and was hit and killed by a car/driver who couldn't stop in time. There was some disagreement in the comments about whether the driver should have been able to stop or not as they should have anticipated a possible hazard, but there was very little talk of blaming the girl (it would have been in poor taste).

craigstitt wrote:

 

You are so blinded by hatred of cars that you cannot see anything other than your opinion that the cyclist could not be wrong.

 

Enjoy the view from your hospital bed when your sense of priority and "I'm doing nothing wrong" puts you there.

I love cars, an amazing feat of engineering, often aesthetically amazing, give some people amazing freedom. My hatred is of the general driving standard, the need to get in front, constant risk taking with other people's lives, law breaking by the majority, the arrogance to think it's always someone elses fault and the lack of enforcement or punishment when their luck runs out and they kill someone.

And thanks for the bullshit advice, total arrogance on your part. You speak of your incident, well I'm sorry but for all of oyur subserviant self-preservation you'll not be able to prevent that one wanker that doesn't value your life. In fact, attitudes that are victim blaming or at least not holding others to account for their actions increase the problems...

alansmurphy wrote:

 

craigstitt wrote:

 

You are so blinded by hatred of cars that you cannot see anything other than your opinion that the cyclist could not be wrong.

 

Enjoy the view from your hospital bed when your sense of priority and "I'm doing nothing wrong" puts you there.

I love cars, an amazing feat of engineering, often aesthetically amazing, give some people amazing freedom. My hatred is of the general driving standard, the need to get in front, constant risk taking with other people's lives, law breaking by the majority, the arrogance to think it's always someone elses fault and the lack of enforcement or punishment when their luck runs out and they kill someone.

And thanks for the bullshit advice, total arrogance on your part. You speak of your incident, well I'm sorry but for all of oyur subserviant self-preservation you'll not be able to prevent that one wanker that doesn't value your life. In fact, attitudes that are victim blaming or at least not holding others to account for their actions increase the problems...

I am very well aware of the people on the road that don't value the life of a cyclist all for the sake of a few seconds, and I have a mountain of video evidence to prove it. 

Does it irritate me that these people drive like that?  Yes of course it does.  Does it get under my skin that there is such a lack of enforcement, and even when enforcement action is taken the punishments dished out to motorists is utterly laughable.  Yes it definitely does.  Of which 0 out of the clips which I have sent to the police have been actioned.  And that annoys the hell out of me because those road users are a danger to themselves and others.

Am I in the habit of victim blaming?  No.  Am I in favour of using common sense to mitigate problems?  Yes.  If that had been me in cycle.london's position, would I have made a complaint to the police?  No, I would have looked at that footage and thought maybe I should have slowed down a bit more on approach to the crossing.

I have attempted to explain why I think that Cycle.London was in part to blame for the incident, in terms of speed (including my views and calculations on his speed), not taking into account weather conditions and stopping distances.  In drier weather and better light, I most likely would have sided with Cycle.London, but it was wet and dark therefore I chose a different view to you.

You call it victim blaming...... I call it looking at it objectively. 

Your standpoint has come from the...... he has priority in law as soon as he is on the crossing therefore he must be right

alansmurphy wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

so @brooksby and @alansmurphy - you both slow down for every crossing that you come to regardless of whether there is anyone is there?

Just out of question do you stop at the line at each one just so you can be doubly sure that Usain Bolt is going to fly across the crossing in front of you? 

 

 

Yes, 100%. Foot off the pedal and cover the brakes looking for anyone that may be using the crossing. That's what everyone does and should do isn't it?

 

As for using Usain Bolt as an example, you are aware he runs at 27mph, 4 to 5 times quicker than the cyclist was travelling in this video?

 

craigstitt wrote:

 

If you are travelling at 10mph, as you are right at the stop line of the zebra crossing and a pedestrian sprints out of nowhere into the path of your car.... you wouldn't be able to safely stop at that point therefore you are going too fast.... No? 

 

People can't sprint out of nowhere, 10mph would give you appropriate time to react if you were looking around you as you should.

 

Finally, you realise that the car in the clip didn't react at any point in this video, didn't see the bike when it was a couple of inches away. What does this tell you?

It tells me it's not a good idea to ride out in front of it.

alansmurphy wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

so @brooksby and @alansmurphy - you both slow down for every crossing that you come to regardless of whether there is anyone is there?

Just out of question do you stop at the line at each one just so you can be doubly sure that Usain Bolt is going to fly across the crossing in front of you? 

Yes, 100%. Foot off the pedal and cover the brakes looking for anyone that may be using the crossing. That's what everyone does and should do isn't it?

Seconded.  Is there any particular reason that you don't, craig? 

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

so @brooksby and @alansmurphy - you both slow down for every crossing that you come to regardless of whether there is anyone is there?

Just out of question do you stop at the line at each one just so you can be doubly sure that Usain Bolt is going to fly across the crossing in front of you? 

Yes, 100%. Foot off the pedal and cover the brakes looking for anyone that may be using the crossing. That's what everyone does and should do isn't it?

Seconded.  Is there any particular reason that you don't, craig? 

This is where we are going to disagree, I have no issues for slowing down and looking for people that may be using a crossing..... just less inclined to slow down where there is no one within a reasonable distance of the crossing.

And I call hipocrisy on both you and alansmurphy....... because you expect cars to slow down on the approach but are happy fory cyclists to barrel up to the crossing.

And i am well aware of the lag between the speed shown on the garmin displays in terms of video because I use a garmin camera for my commutes.  I would reckon that cycle.london entered the crossing still above 10pmh only braking when he saw the car wasn't stopping.

craigstitt wrote:

This is where we are going to disagree, I have no issues for slowing down and looking for people that may be using a crossing..... just less inclined to slow down where there is no one within a reasonable distance of the crossing.

And I call hipocrisy on both you and alansmurphy....... because you expect cars to slow down on the approach but are happy fory cyclists to barrel up to the crossing.

And i am well aware of the lag between the speed shown on the garmin displays in terms of video because I use a garmin camera for my commutes.  I would reckon that cycle.london entered the crossing still above 10pmh only braking when he saw the car wasn't stopping.

Cars should slow down on approach to avoid yet another collision whereas the cyclist barrelling across was vigilant and able to stop within the distance he could see to be clear.

It's also telling that the cyclist could see that the car wasn't stopping whereas the motorist seemed utterly clueless. Somewhat concerning when one of those two was operating heavy machinery.

Argus Tuft wrote:

 It's safer to expect the unexpected.

Completely meaningless.

srchar wrote:

Crap cycling, looking for trouble.

 

Do any of us really look for trouble when on 2 wheels, seems like it'd be pretty easy to lose that fight!

hawkinspeter wrote:

I can't believe this thread is still going.

It is quite impressive for a non helmet related thread 

Quote:

 

• There is a difference of opinion on whether crossings should be used batantly (i.e. step onto them and insist that the traffic obeys) or whether they should be used like any other section of road (i.e. use the Green Cross Code)

If you have to use them like any other section of road, then they are utterly pointless.

Argus Tuft wrote:

Is it too late to change sides on this one?

It was for the cyclist.