[Closed] hypothetical dilemma: if you had to work with someone who'd killed a cyclist....

Get changed out of my kit before starting work?

As I'm not 2 faced, I'd not communicate with them unless it was for a work related/professional reason. Just because they'd killed another human. TBH I do this with most people I don't like at work 😀

I`m friends with a cyclist who did time for causing death by dangerous driving

Start every day with a cheery "So, killed anyone else on your way to work this morning?"

I'm sure they didn't kill them deliberately just because they were a cyclist.

You mean hit them with a car, presumably ?
Original circumstances, and whether or not showing any contrition would make a big difference

If the above was bad (like, say that cow who works for the clinical trials organisation):

In what capacity - permanent colleague or briefly dealing with them ?

former, wouldn't quit but would make my views clear to the person and any managers from the start and repeatedly refer to bike safety, shit drivers and lenient judges
latter, refuse point blank and explain why to my colleagues

One day im going to have to face this as a mates g/f killed a car driver when she was drunk in a head on crash, she went to prison but is now realeased,havent seen her since.

I want to say to her, you did your time, you got punished, but then i think of the drivers family and what if it was one of my family members she had killed while drunk.

If it waas a pure accident then i could be a bit sympathetic, but being drunk, No.

Buy them a bike ?

depends on
1. how why they did it accident or murder
2. have they repented?
3, was it someone i loved
I believe in rehabilitation and have worked with a number of folk who were convicted of murder
One a driving offence the other was not but it was a fight with an unlucky punch/head interface

Both were still unable to discuss it without getting very upset.

Run him over in the carpark and tell his wife you didnt see him.

.... what would you do?

Get on with it. What good is going to come from shunning them?

I used to work with a bloke who killed a pedestrian whilst driving a 27t truck. Does that count?
He didn't mean to do it. The police must have agreed because he didn't get in trouble for it.
It was sad, it happened, it wasn't an issue.

Unless they kept pointing at me whispering "you're next sunshine" then it really wouldn't affect me.

invite them round to see the foundations for your new patio..

people who kill other people in a accident are just like you, me, everyone.
it can happen to anyone, so get on with life as normal.

I have. I didn't think it was his fault (nor did the police) and it didn't affect my relationship with him. He though, was enormously cut up by it (kept running over in his mind what he could have done different) which eventually caused his early retirement through mental illness.

I don't think anyone is unaffected by killing someone.

One of ny most treasured conversations is with a man who had a fight which concluded in murder.

Your colleague killed a person, not a "cyclist", and will share their life with that fact.

Context covers all.

My Dad killed a cyclist; an elderly man. It was a very shocking accident. The Police and the Coroner agreed that it was not my Dad's fault and because his car was in perfect condition there was no reason to suggest manslaughter, so no action was taken. However my Dad had to live with it for the rest of his life; I used to see him flinch when cyclists appeared and he never spoke about it.

As it says in the title - entirely hypothetical. It's not me.

all depends whether it was some horrible accident (e.g. if there had been a car coming the other way when the rider in front of me decided to pull out from behind a bus onto the other side of the road with no visibility) or one of the "he doesn't pay road tax so it's OK to run him down" types. if it's the first, it could have been any one of us, if it's the second he/she is a murderer, never mind what happened legally

or one of the "he doesn't pay road tax so it's OK to run him down" types.

Does any such person exist as a lot of people on here claim most drivers to be like this but I've never witnessed such people.

One of my wife's relatives was an hgv driver and killed a cyclist, in fact such a SMIDSY that he would not have realised there [i]was[/i] a cyclist except that someone flagged him down to stop/tell him what he'd done. 🙁 iirc he was turning left or leaving a roundabout but had been going faster than/past the cyclist prior to the collision rather than there being ill-advised filtering by the cyclist. He is not an hgv driver any more (or any type of driver actually) and am not sure he would want to be even if he was allowed.

I have not disowned him and neither has my (more cyclist than me) wife.

Unless he was bragging about killing a cyclist I would imagine they would be punishing themselves enough. I would just treat them like any one else.

Depends on the circumstances. There is a Fatal Accident Enquiry ongoing in Glasgow just now. A driver failed to declare a history of blackouts to the DVLA or when renewing his HGV licence. He then had a blackout and killed two students.

Talk to him? Wouldn't phone 999 if he was on fire.

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/263892-driver-william-payne-failed-to-disclose-he-suffered-from-blackouts/

Does any such person exist as a lot of people on here claim most drivers to be like this but I've never witnessed such people.

Absolutely not "most drivers". Most are good people,a few are simply careless. Only a very very very small minority are culpable but it only takes one. I've had enough incidents to know they exist.

I got run into from behind while stood waiting at a red traffic light. The driver then drove parallel-ish to me swerving around the road shouting abuse out of the window. Or the guy who did half an overtake, cut in on me, then skidded to a halt and wanted a fight in the middle of the road because I'd touched his car. His missus had to do the whole "he's not worth it" thing before he'd back off. There are nutters out there and some of them think me being on a bike (or god forbid, wearing lycra) justifies their actions.

Why would you not work with him?

Does any such person exist as a lot of people on here claim most drivers to be like this but I've never witnessed such people.

[quote=craigxxl ]

or one of the "he doesn't pay road tax so it's OK to run him down" types.

Well the woman who overtook on a bend didn't mention road tax that I saw, but I suspect that was only because she had a good lawyer. She certainly showed very little sign of contrition or considering that she did anything wrong.

She overtook you on a bend or intentionally tried to run you over? There is a big difference between the two.

Not me - I assumed it was recent and high enough publicity for people to know who I was referring to. Obviously not. Overtook cyclists on a bend. Didn't see cyclists coming the other way. Hit and killed one of them who "wobbled into her path" (according to the only available witness).

Not deliberate, but she appeared to care very little for the life of the cyclist - little enough not to back off the overtake when she saw cyclists coming the other way.

No not heard about it but again I doubt the women thought it would be ok to run the cyclist over.

Yup I struggle with that woman - her story sounded made up.

[quote=craigxxl ]No not heard about it

I suspect that doesn't make you best qualified to comment - or indeed to make the other comments you have on this thread.

Why? I couldn't see a qualifying criteria to the question.

remember every time you see them they probably have an inner smeagol going 'muuuurddeerrrerrrr' (murderer) every day. 🙁

or one of the "he doesn't pay road tax so it's OK to run him down" types.

Does any such person exist as a lot of people on here claim most drivers to be like this but I've never witnessed such people.

Yep, met plenty in my time.

You shouldn't pass judgement unless you know all circumstances.

Could have been an accident with no clear blame attributable.

TBH I find this current trend of "us vs them" thing from the "cycling community" (I [b]hate [/b]that concept - in fact I feel no allegiance to "cyclists" as a group) is massively divisive. It just makes people who ride bikes appear to be bellends with a superiority complex.

Do you know if he did it on purpose or was it an unfortunate accident?

If he had been in a head on car crash and the other driver died, would you be passing judgement the same? If not, then you should not even be contemplating this thread.

I agree with andyrm. I'm a bloke, I cycle. I also drive and get the train and tube sometimes too 🙂

If you commute into a busy town, you share the rods with hundreds or thousands of drivers every day. The vast majority will be perfectly fine, some may be a bit careless, but the 2 or 3 angry worthless road warriors really escalate the risk factor.

Back to the op, I knew a guy who had killed a child that ran out in front of him from behind a parked car, he was never able to drive again, and was even an awful passenger in the car.

He was driving like pretty much everyone does at 30mph, like most of us will. But I do wonder about the way we have prioritised our environment for cars. You see much more in Holland and Germany, many residential streets are effectively pedestrian zones where cars have secondary priority.

...not feel the need to ask the question on a forum.

Did the person do it on purpose? Highly unlikely. Shit happens, move on.

You shouldn't pass judgement unless you know all circumstances.

Now where is the fun in that?

There are some pompous arseholes on here.

Accidents happen. People get hurt and killed. All involve human error at some level. The vast majority are just that - "accidents", it isn't always appropriate to blame. Some are "genuine" mistakes.

Not all cyclist deaths are down to a drivers carelessness.

There are some pompous arseholes on here.

Accidents happen. People get hurt and killed. All involve human error at some level. The vast majority are just that - "accidents", it isn't always appropriate to blame. Some are "genuine" mistakes.

Not all cyclist deaths are down to a drivers carelessness.

^^This.

A friend of mine worked in an office where one of the other cycle commuters had a near-death experience at the hands of some idiot driver. It turned out the idiot driver worked at the same place and they nearly had a fight in the office. Apparently they still have heated arguments about it and they refuse to work together.

I had a close miss the other week with a cyclist, It really freaked me out. I know from someone who killed someone on the motorway and did time I think I wouldn't drive again. At least not for a very very long time.

This sounds particularly tragic.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-26184164 ]2 cyclists killed in Berkshire[/url]

Now it seems pretty straight forward that the driver of the BMW is to blame.

However, if he was being chased by the police at the time are they to blame as well?

Never straight forward.

However, if he was being chased by the police at the time are they to blame as well?

Not in law, not morally - unless you suggest they dontbother going after criminals.

[i]Accidents happen. People get hurt and killed. All involve human error at some level. The vast majority are just that - "accidents", it isn't always appropriate to blame. Some are "genuine" mistakes.[/i]

I await these reponses in the next "Cyclist killed. Driver gets off with a fine" thread.

There are some pompous arseholes on here.

Exactly what is that in reaction too? It is almost as if you haven't read the tread and just assumed what others had posted. Ironically rather pompous of you.

I await these reponses in the next "Cyclist killed. Driver gets off with a fine" thread.

It's easy to get sucked into the outrage without knowing all facts.

Unless you are an expert accident investigator, you are completely unqualified to apportion blame and comment, hence why I stay out of those kind of things.

I actually had a "cyclist" (ok a man on a bike - does that make him a "cyclist" or a "member of the cycling community"?) cut in front of me the other night, in dark clothes, in poor light and rain with only a poor quality LED rear light that was barely visible. I so nearly took him out with the car despite me being correctly positioned, with lights on, being alert and not tired, not drunk and not on the phone.

Going on some of the rantings from these "cyclist" types on local news media comment pages, and sometimes on here, if I [i]had[/i] hit him, I would be an evil capitalist car owning murderer, despite it being the other guy's fault.

Way I see it - if you're on a bike, you are vulnerable, so don't ride like a dick, be visible and be aware that a motorist has a lot of potential distractions.

Just because someone [i]does[/i] take a bike out in an accident, doesn't mean they are at all to blame.

[quote=winston_dog ]Not all cyclist deaths are down to a drivers carelessness.

Those which don't involve the cyclist doing something wrong - what are they down to?

[quote=andyrm ]Just because someone does take a bike out in an accident, doesn't mean they are at all to blame.

Of course, and I'm not about to start condemning motorists in cases where the cyclist is obviously at fault. I would however suggest that those are a tiny minority of the cases.

Those which don't involve the cyclist doing something wrong - what are they down to?

Define "doing something wrong"?

Now I used to have very 3 very bright rear lights when doing a short commute, 2 on the bike and 1 on my bag. However, if I had just 1 which was to the appropriate spec I wouldn't have "felt safe". Personally, I think anyone who ventures on the roads with just basic lights is foolish.

The other night, in foul weather, I was driving along a very busy B road at about 5.30pm. The road has numerous potholes that have appeared recently on the side of the road. I was behind a bike waiting for one of the few overtaking places, now he was jumping all over the place, obviously avoiding the holes. He wasn't doing anything "wrong" but from a risk assessment point of view, I wouldn't have been on that stretch of a road, on a bike, in that weather and at that time.

[quote=winston_dog ]Define "doing something wrong"?

I was thinking along the lines of breaking the law or the HC, not simply doing something idiot car drivers don't expect as in your examples. I'd also not include riding towards a low sun as doing something wrong.

Are you suggesting that drivers running down and killing cyclists because they only have a legal standard of lighting or are avoiding potholes at the side of the road aren't down to driver's carelessness? 😯

The other night, in foul weather, I was driving along a very busy B road at about 5.30pm. The road has numerous potholes that have appeared recently on the side of the road. I was behind a bike waiting for one of the few overtaking places, now he was jumping all over the place, obviously avoiding the holes. He wasn't doing anything "wrong" but from a risk assessment point of view, I wouldn't have been on that stretch of a road, on a bike, in that weather and at that time

That's hardly fair, what's he supposed to do instead?

I've ridden into work on glorious sunshine before only to then be confronted with wind and hail and driving rain on the way home, sometimes starting mid ride, what's the alternative, jump into the hedges and wait hoping the weather improves?

The danger to him was not really the weather or the potholes, he's perfectly capable of riding around them, the danger was from car drivers not giving him enough room to safely negotiate the hazards on the road.

The potholes thing really winds me up, there are loads at this time of year and it's not like people don't know they are there, so why do they act all surprised when you have to avoid them? it's simple lack of attention or consideration for other road users.

[quote=amedias ]The danger to him was not really the weather or the potholes, he's perfectly capable of riding around them, the danger was from car drivers not giving him enough room to safely negotiate the hazards on the road.

This, this and this. Being run down in such circumstances is not an "accident" or a "genuine mistake", it's a driver placing insufficient value on a cyclist's life compared to their need to get to work (or the back of the next traffic queue) 20s earlier. Unfortunately it seems that to most members of a jury, a competent and careful driver also deems that 20s to be more important. This is [b]WHAT MUST CHANGE[/b]

PeterPoddy do you live in Dorset by any chance ?

Shit happens, move on.

If someone has done time for doing something really really stupid/dangerous (nowadays you only seem to get jail if you've gone on a 3 day drink and drug binge and subsequently done 200mph down pall mall, even then if you get Helen "I can't help it if a cyclist falls over" Measure's lawyer you may still get off with it) then it's probably not entirely unreasonable to hold a grudge against them.

If they killed someone carelessly and walked away from court, as is common, I'm not sure us blaming our crap legal system on the driver and considering them as having gotten away with "murder" is a good stance to take.

Depends on the circumstances of the incident and their attitude to it and behaviour since I guess. ie if they aren't bothered about it and still drive like a tool I probably wouldn't be very friendly with them.

Are you suggesting that drivers running down and killing cyclists because they only have a legal standard of lighting or are avoiding potholes at the side of the road aren't down to driver's carelessness?

No. Not at all.

I was giving 2 examples of a higher risk environments. Personally I wouldn't of ridden that stretch of road at that time.

Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't make them idiots or incompetent. Have you ever made a mistake in your job? Why did you make that mistake?

Even the most highly trained people make mistakes, for a wide variety of reasons. There has been a lot of time and money spent trying to improve accident investigation. Before you get the pitchforks out, I suggest you take sometime to read up. A couple of good places to start.

[url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/types.pdf ]Types of error[/url]

[url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg245.pdf ]Accident investigation[/url]

We could reduce road fatalities by 99% by restricting all vehicles to a top speed of 15mph. That is nonsensical and will never happen. So, as a society we accept a level of risk when we travel.

Unfortunately, as a cyclist, due to the nature of your vehicle, you are much more vulnerable than a car driver. So you must accept a higher level of risk. This level of risk can be reduced by the way you ride, what you wear etc. etc. It can also be reduced by educating car drivers and separating bikes from cars.

At the end of the day, people will always make mistakes and some of these will be "genuine mistakes". Unfortunately for us, if it involves a car driver and a bike then the chance of a serious injury or death is high.

Personally, I would love to see the cycle paths running alongside the A roads just like they have in Holland and Belgian.

Even if the driver was driving drunk and causes an accident, should he be imprisoned? What if the driver has had a history of child abuse, neglect, has been failed by Social Services and is an alcoholic through no real fault of their own? Would you still insist on sending him to prison?

The point I'm trying to make, is that it is impossible to lay blame on someone from a few lines on the BBC website.

If the guy has gone through any legal process and doesn't break any misconduct rules bragging about it, you have to work with him, same as any other convicted criminal.

Very few drivers kill us deliberately. The Tesco lorry driver who pulled out in front of me this morning looked horrified as I slammed on the brakes to avoid his 38 ton truck. He gave a very apologetic wave and said "sorry". Every little helps, eh?

[quote=winston_dog ]I was giving 2 examples of a higher risk environments.

You were giving 2 examples of situations where motorists (and law courts) tend to excuse their lack of consideration to vulnerable road users as "unavoidable". The issue I have is with drivers not following the HC guidelines on the required distance to pass a cyclist and then thinking it isn't their fault that they hit the cyclist. The even bigger issue I have is with our legal system agreeing with the motorist on this issue. The vast majority of deaths of cyclists on our roads do involve some level of culpability on the part of the driver. Yes I do make mistakes when driving, but I tend to be careful around cyclists and give them enough space that I have plenty of margin for error - if everybody drove like that then there would be far fewer deaths on our roads, and it is perfectly reasonable IMHO for somebody to be prosecuted for not giving sufficient margin for error.

If making mistakes in my job resulted in me killing somebody I suspect the HSE would be on the case pretty quickly if I wasn't allowing sufficient margin for error in the way which is normalised on our roads. Looking at your HSE docs, the issue is that an awful lot of "accidents" on the road involve "routine non-compliance", in a way which the HSE would crack down hard on if they occurred in the workplace.

or one of the "he doesn't pay road tax so it's OK to run him down" types.

Does any such person exist as a lot of people on here claim most drivers to be like this but I've never witnessed such people.

The driver of a white transit towing a caravan (make your own assumptions), saw me, made eye contact with me, ranted to the closed window of his van, went through a width restriction on the other side of the road to me, then tried to side swipe me and 2 other cyclists because we were on 'his' road at the end of the Cambridge 50 last year. They do exist, they are dangerous and in this case he also had friends in a Vauxhall Insignia behind who made the comments about 'road tax'.

After reading the BMW vs 2 cyclists story on the BBC today I don't think my road bike is any closer to seeing the light of day!

Would you still insist on sending him to prison?

The point I'm trying to make, is that it is impossible to lay blame on someone from a few lines on the BBC website.

quick summary for those who don't know HM was on wrong side of road overtaking on a corner and hit a cyclist who was on the correct side of the road, she was charged with careless (not dangerous) driving.

*this may get repetitive but I don't care

I was giving 2 examples of a higher risk environments. Personally I wouldn't of ridden that stretch of road at that time.

but the question is [b]why[/b] wouldn't you have ridden there?

I very strongly suspect that the reason you wouldn't have ridden there was not because of the danger of the potholes but because of the danger the [b]car drivers[/b] would put you in by not giving you enough room.

The higher risk you speak of is not from the environment it's from the other users not taking appropriate action for the environment.

And it leaves a slightly bitter taste in my mouth that you think the appropriate action is that the cyclist shouldn't have been there (because of how dangerous other people behave around him), rather than addressing the behaviour of those people.

Unfortunately, as a cyclist, due to the nature of your vehicle, you are much more vulnerable than a car driver. So you must accept a higher level of risk.

Why [b]must[/b] we accept a higher level of risk?

This is the crux of the matter, the higher level of risk is due to the actions of others. No road user should have to accept a higher level of risk due to the actions and attitudes of others when that risk can be mitigated most easily by the people creating that risk.

Do you also apply the same logic to people in smaller cars, or on mobility scooters? that if they get bashed about by someone in a bigger wagon that it was partially their own fault for choosing a smaller vehicle?

Hows about we spin this the other way?

Unfortunately, as a motorist, due to the nature of your vehicle, you pose a much greater risk to other road users. So you must accept a higher level of responsibility.

It's simply a matter of perspective...

The solution is really quite simple - give other* road users the appropriate room and consideration and [b]most[/b] of the risk is reduced or removed, implementing that solution is less simple.

*ALL other road users whether they be bicycle, tricycle, moped, motorbike, mobility scooter, horse, small car, milkfloat, medium car, large car, bus, lorry...

The higher risk you speak of is not from the environment

I would consider all the traffic as part of the environment.

Why must we accept a higher level of risk?

You obviously don't understand risk.

Risk = Probability x Impact

If we assume the likelihood of a car or a bike being involved in an accident is the same. Then the impact of an identical accident on a cyclist is going to be greater than that on a car driver. I drive my car into the back of another at 20mpg and probably no serious injuries for anyone, I get struck from behind by a car at 20mph while on my bike, I would most likely be pretty badly hurt.

you think the appropriate action is that the cyclist shouldn't have been there

At the time I thought "I wouldn't be on this road if I was you mate". The main reason being the conditions made the probability of an "undesirable event" quite high and the impact for the cyclist would probably be severe.

Do you also apply the same logic to people in smaller cars, or on mobility scooters? that if they get bashed about by someone in a bigger wagon that it was partially their own fault for choosing a smaller vehicle?

To a certain extent yes, but I am not talking about fault or blame. Someone in a 1970's Mini is at greater risk of injury than someone in a brand new Range Rover. Or do you disagree?

It's a shit state of affairs but in my opinion the only way you will significantly reduce accidents is to separate the cars and the cyclists. People will always take short cuts, take chances and make mistakes, it's human nature, unfortunately for us the outcome for cyclists is normally pretty dire.

I think the question is a bit flawed. However...

I don't place cyclists in any higher esteem than anyone else. Being a cyclist doesn't make me (or anyone else) part of a homogenous group. A cursory look through the arguments on here demonstrate that well.

That all being said - Would I work with someone who killed someone else? It's a complex question... WOuld I work with a cold hearted murderer? I'd find that difficult. Would I work with someone that made a mistake? Without hesitation.

People make mistakes. Some are worse than others and are life changing. I genuinely think that it could happen to any of us. And I'm not sure that any of us are well placed to stand in judgement, although we all have to be true to our own values and instincts.

You obviously don't understand risk.

I understand risk as in the dictionary definition of the English word:

risk

noun - (a) situation involving exposure to danger.

Risk = Probability x Impact

If this is to do with risk assesment or health and safety style definitions then perhaps I'm not as well versed in the very specific definitions in that field.

My point is that the danger in this situation comes not from the weather or potholes but from the other road users.

The increased probability of an "undesirable event" as you put it is from other road users not behaving appropriately for the conditions.
If they behave appropriately, slow down, leave room etc. then there is no more* probability of an impact than normal, and if they behaved appropriately in normal conditions as well then there would be little extra danger from choosing a smaller vehicle.

*at least vastly less

At the time I thought "I wouldn't be on this road if I was you mate". The main reason being the conditions made the probability of an "undesirable event" quite high and the impact for the cyclist would probably be severe.

The point I'm trying to make which you do not seem to be grasping is that I do not believe the correct solution to this situation is to remove the cyclist from the danger, but to remove the danger from the situation, ie: if other road users behaved appropriately then there is very little danger from potholes or bad weather.

Someone in a 1970's Mini is at greater risk of injury than someone in a brand new Range Rover. Or do you disagree?

I agree with the physical principle that in a collision the smaller vehicle is more vulnerable and therefore the chance of occupant injury higher, but I do not agree with the principle that this is a choice to accept greater risk on the part of the cyclist or smaller car driver, the greater risk is forced upon us by the actions of others hence my comments about perspective and reversing the way you look at it.

People operating vehicles that pose a greater risk of injury have an increased level of responsibility.

Cyclists do not [i]expose[/i] themselves to greater danger, cycling is not a dangerous activity, but motor vehicle operators [i]introduce[/i] an greater level of danger when they do not act with consideration and attention.

In the same way we do not say that pedestrians using shared use paths accept a greater level of risk by walking there, we place the responsibility on the bigger faster moving vehicles, in this case bicycles, to not hit the smaller more vulnerable ones.

It's a shit state of affairs

on this I agree

but in my opinion the only way you will significantly reduce accidents is to separate the cars and the cyclists.

That will ultimately reduce collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles yes, and segregation where appropriate is a good thing, but it won't address the problem in places where separate infrastructure is not possible or appropriate, and does nothing to change the attitude that the car is king of the road and somehow has priority.

[quote=winston_dog ]

Why must we accept a higher level of risk?

You obviously don't understand risk.

No - you don't understand the point. The emphasis is on "must accept". Not a must as there are alternatives.

I'd disagree with this point:

People operating vehicles that pose a greater risk of injury have an increased level of responsibility.

Cyclists do not expose themselves to greater danger, cycling is not a dangerous activity, but motor vehicle operators introduce an greater level of danger when they do not act with consideration and attention.

A cyclist DOES expose himself to greater danger.

Statistical odds of collision between road vehicles = X%

If one road user is more likely to have a worse outcome than another (eg a bike vs a lorry), then the exposure risk is far greater based on statistical probability of an accident happening.

But that's an aside - I know there are routes I could [i]legally[/i] ride but don't because they are too dangerous for whatever reason (lighting/road conditions/visibility/speed of other traffic). I don't give a flying f*ck about the morals of whether I should or shouldn't be able to go on it. What I care about is staying alive and uninjured - if that means taking a different, safer route to achieve this aim, so be it.

Control the things you can.

People make mistakes.

Seems to me a lot of road deaths are caused by selfishness, someone considers their journey/punctuality/phonecall/convenience of driving home from the pub as more important than their fellow road users safety. Unfortunately this is deemed acceptable by jurors (aswell as other people) as [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sad-letter-in-the-local-anti-cycling-rag/page/2#post-5772250 ]Bails pointed out on't other thread[/url]

I don't give a flying f*ck about the morals of whether I should or shouldn't be able to go on it. What I care about is staying alive and uninjured - if that means taking a different, safer route to achieve this aim, so be it.

cycling is not a dangerous activity,

Very subjective. Compared to what? Nearly every injury I have sustained in my life that involved A&E was connected to cycling. May just be a reflection on my skill level though. 🙂

but to remove the danger from the situation

Good luck with that.
The vast majority of road users have no idea what it feels like when a vehicle passes you too close when on a bike.
They are completely ignorant. They also act like ****s when I'm in a car.
I don't think you will ever change attitudes to cyclists until we get proper infrastructure. The main reason that the Flemish have such a good relationship with cycling is that they have separation in most places.

The terrible stretch of B road I used as an example, is busy, undulating and twisting for about 3 miles. When I get behind a cyclist, I wait until it is appropriate to overtake safely, this frequently means a long queue of traffic at an average of 10mph until it widens. I have witnessed several near misses when people have overtaken a cyclist an an unsuitable point when they have obviously got frustrated. It's a similar problem to the caravan problem up in Scotland, where the Caravan Club have recommended that towing vehicles should pull over from time to time to allow traffic to pass.

I am not saying he should not be there and that a slow stretch of 3 miles is nothing compared to someone getting hurt or killed but the vast majority of people do not think like that.

The problem is a lot of our infrastructure cannot support the mix and density of traffic. This causes a lot of tension and the aggression towards people cycling.

The only way things will get better is more separation.

I await my flaming from many!

Good luck with that.
The vast majority of road users have no idea what it feels like when a vehicle passes you too close when on a bike.
They are completely ignorant. They also act like **** when I'm in a car.
I don't think you will ever change attitudes to cyclists until we get proper infrastructure. The main reason that the Flemish have such a good relationship with cycling is that they have separation in most places.

The terrible stretch of B road I used as an example, is busy, undulating and twisting for about 3 miles. When I get behind a cyclist, I wait until it is appropriate to overtake safely, this frequently means a long queue of traffic at an average of 10mph until it widens. I have witnessed several near misses when people have overtaken a cyclist an an unsuitable point when they have obviously got frustrated. It's a similar problem to the caravan problem up in Scotland, where the Caravan Club have recommended that towing vehicles should pull over from time to time to allow traffic to pass.

I am not saying he should not be there and that a slow stretch of 3 miles is nothing compared to someone getting hurt or killed but the vast majority of people do not think like that.

The problem is a lot of our infrastructure cannot support the mix and density of traffic. This causes a lot of tension and the aggression towards people cycling.

The only way things will get better is more separation.

I await my flaming from many!

I fully agree with you. Remove the number of external factors wherever possible - don't rely on human nature.

I used to work with a guy who had had a very serious one-vehicle crash. He broke a lot of bones, spent a long time in hospital and subsequently got done for dangerous driving. Massive fine and a year's ban.

He was known for being a **** on the roads; on this occasion he was doing about 70 in a 50 zone up a hill in horrendous weather, tried to overtake another car, lost control of his car, spun it, went through a dry stone wall, rolled his car into a field. Pure luck that he didn't take out anyone else. Cut free from the wreckage, he'd said something about not thinking it would happen cos he had 4 wheel drive... 🙄

Showed no remorse - to him it was the fault of everything else. The other drivers, the rain, the road surface... So not the fact he'd been driving like a dickhead as every witness said. In fact, another work colleague wasn't far behind and she testified that he'd overtaken her dangerously fast. Funniest thing was he bought a top end Lexus as soon as he was out of hospital. Then he got banned. 🙂

I was just rude and sarcastic to him after that. I'd seen enough of his driving to know that he deserved it and, had he done it 10 minutes earlier, he'd probably have been on the road at the same time as me on my bike.

People took the piss put of him for a good few months afterwards.