doog442

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

That's odd I recall quoting this a few posts ago :

There were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (where no other vehicle was involved) that resulted in a pedestrian casualty between 2011-2016, of which 20 were fatal and 546 resulted in serious injury.

I am unable at the moment to find more current reliable evidence

Apologies a bit of a ramble : My post was in response to a scenario on vehicles and cyclists .The Highway code states that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others - the dreaded ' hierarchy '.  I'm not sure how many motorists have been killed by cyclists for example. 

Your quote is indeed correct in relation to cyclists and pedestrians where the onus is on cyclists  (the thread has wondered all over the place). As pedestrians we've all seen some idiot cycling as well. Clearly the hierarchy doesn't dissolve responsibility on cyclists in relation to all road users (including vehicles) and the HC specifically says that (backed up by several laws). 

We should all respect each other and I can honestly say that 99% of the time this happens. I often thank drivers for their patience, I let them pass on narrow roads when its safe for me to pull in, I acknowledge them, I make eye contact if I can and this is almost always reciprocated.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Its the 1% that can mean the difference between life and death for a cyclist, the suicidal close pass, the door opening, the car pulling out without seeing you , the motorist distracted, on the phone, misted / iced up side windows, the speeding van, the school run mum who's late.                                                                                                                                                     

That said we're all perhaps coming from different angles and experience. I don't live in a city centre, although I've cycled through many UK and European cities.  I've seen the morning and evening cycling commutes in Strasbourg, Bonn, Munster, Lyon, Dusseldorf etc and its absolutely staggering in numbers. As a motorist I'm not dealing with that on a daily basis so yes I can understand the frustration of those who do when the infrastructure isn't quite up there .

ps I've no idea what's happening with the layout of my post.

31 minutes ago, Ala Larj said:

Have been following this ‘debate’ for a while now and have kept quiet. Many interesting and poignant issues have been covered. However it appears to have become a dichotomy between those that agree with linas and those that don’t! He/she does sometimes make some valid points but I also fear that he/she likes to argue for the sake of arguing and always seems to want the ‘last word’. Have always found this to be a friendly site but from experience when folk engage with him it often descends into personal slanging matches. Once that happens ‘the argument’ is lost. I am seeing this more often and it saddens me. I am not woke or unhappy to see justified criticism of our cars but did not join to see rudeness from anyone. 

I wouldn't worry about it. We've been locking horns since Linas decided he could turn an IS220d into an ISF  and probably long before that. My guess its one (of many) of those debates best avoided for the neutral...oh yeah and the ES.   

25 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

so it seems fine to continue in the lane which would be very close to cyclist. I honestly would put this on the road design here, more than on the lorry.

 

Its a 14 miles stretch of road and you've made an assumption on a particular section of road based based on what exactly ?  Notwithstanding the onus is always on the lorry driver to drive to the road conditions, so if the design is bad he drives accordingly.

There is no excuse for a close pass with a lorry. If he had a camera I'd expect the driver to get a 'visit'.  

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I drivers does not need to care what cyclists thinks, overtaking the slow moving cyclist is default option, unless for some reason it is unsafe to do so. It is on the driver to decide when it is safe, all the rest of the rules being applicable - ultimately driver bares responsibility for overtaking cyclists safely and thus the driver devices when it is safe to do so and when it is not.

You've twisted things from your earlier post . No cyclist wants a vehicle up its arse, especially one like you. However I ain't moving over unless its safe for me to do so, so you can wait until I decide when its safe for me to move over and the Highway code backs me up.

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No it is you saying that 17 years old neighbour isn't as safe and that is not valid comparison. To begin with she is safer than 17 years old neighbour who cycles and doesn't have license... that would be more valid way of comparing.

You assume that cyclists don't drive, many do. Yet again another assumption. 

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am sure there are expectational cyclists, who are as well drivers and who are experts when it comes to rules an best practices, but your statement almost implies all the cyclists are like that, but all the drivers are just lazy and never learns anything past the driving test when they are 17... 

Not all but I'd wager the majority of regular commuting cyclists and leisure cyclists have passed their test. This is based on years of posting on cycling forums and just reading stuff.

The issue is that kids cycle to school, kids cycle around the estate, however as you suggest anyone could jump on a bicycle and many do....these aren't the majority cycling from A to B or 'lycrad up' for work or leisure yet you appear to have some kind of problem in differentiating between them. 

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes cars have capacity to kill the people, questions is how much of that is fault of the driver and how much it is fault of those killed. I know it is not politically correct to blame the "victims", but likewise we don't blame the pavement when somebody hits it head first after jumping from 15th floor.

If you kill a cyclist you will get arrested, tested for drugs, alcohol, fingerprints, photograph and DNA taken. You might be put in a cell. The investigation will decide who was in the wrong. I think of this every time I approach a junction, encounter a cyclist, pedestrian crossing the street or a child playing football on the street corner where the ball might run into road. 

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

At very least what we should not be doing - is asking those so called "vulnerable" to put themselves into more harms way and teaching them their "right", that time would be better spent teaching them the risks... but you see that is not "popular" nowadays, because why take responsibility for your own safety when other can be responsible?

Most cyclists don't want to get run over by you or a 40 ton HGV. Why you have this 'thing' that cyclists or pedestrians are putting themselves more at risk is beyond me. If you can accept that you may well have to take extra care when encountering both, the world really would be a better place. Likewise cyclists.  

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So don't conflate generally paying taxes and paying additional road tax as all the same. 

Its exactly the same.

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

If you ever stuck behind the cyclist for more than a minute, this is not because there was no space to let you pass, but because cyclist don't want you passing, or could not care to be inconvenienced (which in theory should be good practice) to let you pass.

You as a driver are not in a position to decide if a cyclist thinks its safe for you to overtake.

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I have never seen the road where it would be genuinely impossible to let the driver pass for miles... and if there is then I would likely try to avoid cycling on such road at all costs.

Good because it rarely happens. 

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Hierarchies must be made on the basis competence, because such hierarchies are the only ones that could be beneficial i.e. making people who are most able/qualified to make decisions most important.

Are you saying that my 17 year old neighbour who passed her test last week is more qualified than experienced cyclists  most of whom drive? Its nonsensical. There are guys on here who passed their driving test on a runway. 

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And indeed the whole point may be to reduce the injuries, but because they are trying to achieve it in fundamentally flawed way and putting responsibility on somebody who inherently poorly placed to be responsible for others who are not qualified to be responsible even for themselves I don't think it will succeed. 

You need to wake up and smell the roses. People read the highway code, pass their test and have no further qualifications for decades. They are in control of a machine that routinely kills and maims people. The duty of care is rightly on them. 

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

There are basically only two possible outcomes - either drivers will have to drive at walking pace, stop before junction in advance just in case and drive behind cyclists for miles

When were you ever stuck behind a cyclist for miles - complete hyperbole as usual. Very little has changed, accept it and move on.

41 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I don't know what "genius" though of this idea - let's encourage vulnerable to take more risk to make themselves more visible, because that "is going to reduce deaths and injuries"!

The onus is being put on you, vulnerable folk on foot or bicycles don't kill people 

38 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

In such case we should as well disregard all the rules and laws, which don't allow for most efficient "practical" use i.e. cars mounting kerb to make left turn, speeding, driving on bus lanes "because they empty" and basically anything that would allow the drivers to be at their destination quicker.

 

This is where you often lack perspective. A bicycle isn't a motor vehicle, it doesn't have the same mass, they very rarely kill people, they simply shouldn't be compared. Driver speed is a major factor in many UK road deaths yet you draw a comparison with cyclists running red lights?  

I agree that cyclists should obey red lights, however I also believe discretion should be built in as is happening elsewhere if its suitable and safe. For example the dispensation for allowing cyclists to go through no entry signs (when marked ) was a sensible step forward.

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

the cyclist is typical lycra nut, shows the middle finger to everyone watching and cycles through

Just popped back to see how the thread was going ..no change.

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

and somebody extremely blatantly disregarding rules (like majority of cyclists)

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest the majority of cyclists disregard the rules Linas, behave now.

53 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

do annoy and irritate the drivers making overall driving conditions more hostile for everyone.

You need to stop reading the Daily Mail. Look at the OP's petition to Parliament. The public are so enraged 112 people have signed it. 

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Saying that because cyclists had not killed anyone is poor excuse for them disregarding traffic lights as well.

Again you completely ignore the post I was responding to. The previous poster was using deaths as  justification for GMP's initiative yet I politely pointed out that there aren't any. We can all be very selective in what we post to back up a point but it would help if it was accurate or indeed valid.

I still fail to see any link between cyclists jumping red lights in Manchester city centre and some folk cycling around the country lanes of Kent other than the usual cyclist bashing exercise. Its like me making an analogy of drivers committing red light offences in Manchester and rural drivers in Kent doing nothing but driving from A to B. The latter has absolutely nothing to do with the former. 

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So basically you are saying - it is ok for cyclists to ignore red signals, because they haven't killed anyone yet? IS that really your argument? 

 

It's not an argument despite your desperation to get into one. I made a joke about Malc and I guess we thought the thread would die a death. Someone spots our little joke and escalates it into cyclists jumping red lights in a city centre 200 miles away and provide some scant evidence to prove their 'point'. 

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

maybe drivers get infuriated and are more likely to drive more recklessly?

I'm not sure that is ever a defence to dangerous / reckless driving. 

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And you know what irritates people a lot? When they have to follow arbitrary rules, but others don't bother and nothing is done about it.

GMP are doing something about it - you should be happy. 

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

There were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (where no other vehicle was involved) that resulted in a pedestrian casualty between 2011-2016, of which 20 were fatal and 546 resulted in serious injury.

 

Were these due to cyclists going through red lights or the myriad of other reasons why a cyclist may come into contact with a pedestrian (lawfully or not)

Unless you can find more updated statistics than this?

From the same article as yours

Proportionally very few pedestrian casualties involve bicycles. From 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car. In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle—three of these deaths involved a bike, and 289 involved a car.

As I said its all about proportionality. 

8 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Maybe this latest news has more effect ; "In recent days, police forces across England have posted on social media about stopping cyclists for not obeying the rules of the road. Greater Manchester Police said that in a 90-minute window, officers stopped 30 cyclists who had “ridden straight through red traffic lights”. Apparently cycling groups think it's unfair 🤔

Very naughty and yes I can see the obvious link between red light jumping in Manchester City centre and the rural lanes of Kent ....no, I really can.

Closer to home perhaps it was the news that 419 drivers were arrested in Kents recent road safety campaign - all drunk or drugged ? 

https://www.kent.police.uk/news/kent/latest/policing-news/more-than-400-arrests-during-december-road-safety-campaign/

As long as any operation is proportionate I've no issue with it, GMP are under special measures for failing to record 1 in 5 crimes and failing vulnerable victims so clearly they know their priorities. 

9 hours ago, Malc said:

yesterday out and about noticed the cyclists seemed to have an unusually sense of " fear " and ultra awareness down our country lanes in this part of Kent 

 

Fear of a lunatic in a 95 LS400 more likely  

2 hours ago, agent_dess said:

I called Lexus Edinburgh and they basically said condensation is not covered under warranty cause it was not like that when it left the factory, therefore either it has a crack or damages caused by something like a bump which has caused it.

There was an LC500 on here that had the same problem. It was replaced under warranty . I'm not sure they're correct saying it must be cracked or bumped as these things can fail in normal use or in my case straight from the factory.

Anyone with any substantial cash savings really should look at investing. Interest rates are also stupidly low compared to what some of us were used to. There are 10 year fixed mortgage rates available for 1.9% for example. 

These gas prices will come down eventually.

30 minutes ago, Moleman said:

I cycle and take long country walks as well as drive, unlike you I can see both sides. Sometimes there is no point continuing. Best wishes.

Please continue your cycling and country walks. (emoji thing)

1 minute ago, Phil xxkr said:

 Even you must concur that pantomime like costumes deserve ribald comments various 😎

 

Very good

21 minutes ago, Moleman said:

I think we all understand that, and that is not a bad thing, it shows this important to you. However, sometimes it is easy to be blinded and fail to see all of the argument. 🙂

I'm pretty sure I already stated on another thread the issues I saw with pedestrian guidance. I have absolutely no issue with the new cycling guidance in the Highway code. 

With all due respect unless you can make a judgement as a cyclist and motorist then you're hardly in a position to accuse me of being blinded.   

12 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

I have to admit Doog I, for one, am intrigued by your constant use of emotive adjectives to embellish your position🤔. As in "massive just now. An erudite fellow, such as you, should clearly see Dr Sowel's comment was to highlight a societal malaise and not limited to motorists or cyclists for that matter. Although it sometimes appears the latter feel a peacocks need to preen more than most 

Perhaps I'm quite emotional about the issue - how about that . If you didn't highlight the word entitles in the anti cyling post you were quoting I may well have drawn a  different conclusion on Sowell.

Peacocks tend to preen to attract attention which seems quite apt to the subject in question no ?

Just now, Moleman said:

May I suggest a sense of perception failure. 😉

You may suggest it but like everything on this thread I'll continue to refute it 

59 signatures now and only 2 from Wales, clearly they're an empathetic lot in the valleys.  

I must admit I'm struggling to see a link between Mr Sowells quote and vulnerable road users ( which we all are as pedestrians for example).  Perhaps I'm having a sense of humour failure

When did this massive sense of entitlement become entrenched into one specific section of society (motorists) and why are some so embittered and reluctant to hand a small part back ?  

45 minutes ago, mdj8 said:

Really, you don't understand do you. Linas and others have explained, very carefully and with examples that the new wording entitles cyclists and pedestrians. When you do that you create problems, problems that did not exist before. This change entitles cyclists or pedestrians to be right whilst inconveniencing drivers and putting the cyclists and pedestrians at risk of being hurt. Linas even provided a video. I don't care for cyclecraft, it's clearly been influenced by lycra wearers and did not accord with the highway code pre last weekend. You keep arguing semantics, adding items that are not in contention and just being obtuse. Whilst doing this may be entertaining for you it's just a reminder to everyone else of the reasons behind the sad state this country has found itself in. As both Linus and Phil say why not look at ways to make things better or more efficient rather than seeking resentment and friction.

You don't think the friction is helped by your derogatory words in your Initial post and also above? 

Now do I listen to an accredited cycling organisation or some youtube video Linas found on the Internet from a guy no one's heard of.  

If telling you the facts is being obtuse then so be it. There are also no semantics in my posts only those facts backed up with a whole load of personal knowledge and experience. You waxed lyrical about taking the cycling proficiency test yet now refuse to acknowledge the same.

The advice is clear and only relates to certain situations. So why you have this in your mind that cyclists will be willy nilly clogging up the centre of lanes on roads is about as misinformed as your ill advised poll.

2 hours ago, mdj8 said:

Well argued posts Linus with supporting opinion no less. From your comments I feel you speak for the majority of considerate road users. There really is no need for cyclists to cycle in the middle of the lane "to make yourself as clearly visible as possible" it's a spurious argument and for no gain to anyone just causes problems. Far better to stay on the left and let cars pass by default, unless the road is narrow or you're turning right of course..

Clearly he doesn't speak for the majority of considerate road users as your national poll sits on 53 signatures. Only 9947 short of even getting a response.

The above is from Cyclecraft. A nationally accredited and universally accepted publication linked with Bikability who replaced the cycling proficiency test and are the UK standard for cycle training . Note Primary position - riding in the centre of the lane improves visibility. It's the best option to deter unsafe passes, particularly in urban areas.

This has been accepted practice for years and this is what cyclists are  taught - where was your petition then ? The new HC adopts this advice as standard with specific emphasis on cyclists moving to secondary (the left) when a faster vehicle approaches or surrounding traffic increases in speed.

3 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Absolutely. Any time I hear somebody say they’re ‘entitled’ to something it rings alarm bells. People should do something because it’s sensible or right, not just because they can.

From my perspective, and as I’ve said before, these debates don’t really represent the situation ‘on the ground.’ Bad behaviour from either side is pretty limited (in my experience anyway). Reading some threads and media opinion pieces you’d think that the roads had ground to a halt because of cyclists, and that isn’t the case at all.

Government bears some responsibility for the furore over these new requirements as there hasn’t been much of an awareness campaign and there should have been. One is planned for February, but the stable door is open and banging In the wind! The lack of a clear advertising campaign has left a vacuum for scaremongering.

I’d hope that no car driver would ever want to cause injury to another human being through their actions. Is waiting for a couple of minutes in order to overtake safely really such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? I’m reminded of a Post Office survey completed back in the day, asking people how long they’d been queuing for. Most estimated 8-10 minutes at busy times, but the reality was actually 2-3 minutes (from memory). I think waiting to pass a cyclist, or any slow moving vehicle, is likely to fall into the same situation - perception vs reality.

Equally, I’d like to think (and we know) that 90% of cyclists don’t want to cause inconvenience to anybody. I can’t ride a bicycle because of my disability so I have no first hand knowledge, but I’d wager none of them want to put themselves in danger because of the way they ride. Why would they? 

Militancy and entitlement from a minority generally makes a lot of noise but doesn’t imho represent the majority view or approach.

Great post. 

45 minutes ago, ironrose said:

It's definitely been dealers market for the last two years. Private sellers struggle to shift at this price levels 

This gs450h one below has been in the market since early November at £31990.. I don't know what the dealer had for breakfast, but upped the price to £34990 this morning. 

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202111059255436?atmobcid=soc3

That (used to be) GSF money..

Lexus dealers generally take the mick, classic example there. Perhaps we're seeing some movement as expected this time of year(a few RCF's have suddenly shifted in the last week), in my experience cost to change hasn't really changed over the last 24 months if you have something decent to chop in. 

The dealer in question usually price their cars quite high (they're not that far from me). I've no idea if they have an in built margin for discount or if they a offer more than generous part ex thus reducing cost to change. They recently had a 2015 white RCF up for daft money but it's gone so perhaps it wasn't daft money in todays daft market.