In the news

Misquotation is your strong point isn't it?

Sure you don't work for the Daily Fail or are you just a basic troll who got bored with grooming children and wanted to change things up a bit?

My 2c

I think common sense is what's needed by everyone, whether you're walking, riding, driving or using any mode of transport. I fail to believe that he didn't know riding without a brake was illegal - I get asked constantly by friends, family and even randoms if my bike (which has a front brake) is legal, let alone without one. 3 minutes of Googling after being questioned, or even questioning it yourself would give you your answer.

Cyclists should ride defensively and cautiously. Random driving behaviour and/or peds stepping out are something we all complain about every day. I wouldn't ride in a peloton with cyclists I don't know because they are unpredictable, and I wouldn't put my trust in a driver or ped I don't know.

Pedestrians, having right of way or priority or not should still always look both ways before they cross a road - that was drilled in to every kid growing up and it still applies when you're older. Who knows what's coming or whats going through peoples minds and being. We all see stupid and idiotic behaviour every day so a bit of common sense would tell you to look both ways, even up wrong way streets.

Drivers, well they're just a pain in the ass... however when I drive, I get annoyed by cyclists and peds... when I ride, I get annoyed by drivers and peds... when I ped, I get annoyed by drivers and cyclists.

tldr, don't be a dick

(but failed to stop)

The rider was a 60 year old and was taken to hospital with injuries. Not sure where you read they didn't stop

I don't know if Alliston's defence made the case that shouting at pedestrians is often more effective and quicker than using a bell or horn. Also swerving on a bike can be an alternative to braking, if you are not going too fast. These points don't seem to have got through to the judge who referred to Alliston's shouting as proof of culpability.

IMO, trying to make others modify their behaviour (by shouting, ringing a bell or blasting a horn) is very rarely an effective way to avoid a collision. I base that on my own experiences on bicycles, motorbikes and in cars, on the road, on off road trails/pathways and on the velodrome.

If someone has put themself in your path either by not seeing you or by deciding they have more right to be there than you (and this has happened in all the vehicles and locations I listed above) I think it is much safer to leave them to their stupidity/arrogance and go about avoiding them.

I fully believe that if Alliston had kept his mouth shut on that day, Briggs would be alive and he'd still be skidding around London.

Sounds about right

Definitely, bells/horns etc should be used to notify other road users of your presence, not "get out of my way".
I noticed this when driving in Italy last week. At junctions, tight bends, pulling out of parking spaces, other passing cars would give a little toot to just let you know they were there. I always thought Italians were terrible drivers (a lot are) but it was actually very helpful and I wish we used it in the same way over here instead of "get out my fucking way"

Forgive me skim read the judge's report but was there any mention that the victim of the CA case, was partially responsible for the incident for crossing where she did or was it not mentioned?

Mentioned but judge makes it clear that it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

I.e you have to be prepared for somebody to do something unexpected when driving a vehicle.

It kind of reminds me of that poor sod who died on London Bridge a few years ago. He was incredibly drunk, lost control of his bike, hit the central reservation and went flying into the path of an oncoming car. Driver of car was jailed for causing the accident by speeding and the inebriation of the cyclist was irrelevant...he would have stopped in time if he wasn't speeding.

I'm sure any cyclist that does a fair number of miles in London like this has encountered thousands of pedestrians walking out in front of them without looking.

However, it's their attitude to this that affects what happens next.

For some, where they are not forced to slow down by the situation they may just rely on shouting, hoping the ped freezes or moves back, and swerving round them.

Out of 1000 instances they might get away with this 999 times, reinforcing this behaviour as acceptable and appropriate.

But it's the 1 in a 1000 that results in them hitting the pedestrian where it all goes wrong.

Now, in the majority of those cases the ped/cyclist might have minor injuries but both will get up, argue about who was at fault but continue on with their day.

In a few cases one may sustain a more serious injury (broken collarbone, arm, leg, etc).

In a very rare case one of them may sustain an injury as the pedestrian did in this case, and dies as a result. In an equally rare case it could have been CA who died whilst Mrs Briggs survived.

My point is the individual's attitude to risk is key here. Yes, slowing down just in case can seem annoying when you have to do it plenty of times a day, but it's a minor inconvenience compared to the consequences of the worst outcome.

I know I've modified my behaviour (long before the CA incident) around pedestrians given the interaction at several points on my commute (Upper Ground at the back of the RFH, Belvedere Road at the back of the London Eye, Parliament Square and various spots near Putney Bridge). At one point I used to enjoy spooking the phone zombies with an AirZound but I now realise that all it would have taken is for one of them to be looking at the phone (having already walked out into the road without looking), getting to the bit in their text or email that reminds them they are late for something and lurching forward into a run and my supposedly safe enough pass could have ended very differently, including possibly an outcome like the CA case.

Indeed, and in the interests of balance, all of the above applies just the same to those in motor vehicles. It's the same for drivers who use their phone whilst driving; if they text whilst driving hundreds of times without causing any kind of accident it reinforces their belief that it is safe to do so. It's fine to pass cyclists close because they've done it hundreds of times before, only this time the cyclist wobbles because of a gust of wind/pothole avoidance/etc and *bang*.

The problem is the attitude of the person (whether driving/cycling/walking at the time), not their chosen mode of transport at that time, although you can't argue with the figures (or physics) that show that incidents involving motor vehicles are responsible for hundreds (if not thousands) of times as many deaths as those involving bicycles, so there needs to be an appropriate sense of proportionality when it comes to these types of discussions.

Asephx

My 2c

I think common sense is what's needed by everyone, whether you're walking, riding, driving or using any mode of transport.

Surely by now we're not so naive and all know this is a pipe dream? This is a Neo liberal country. Folk are out for self- look at the like of commentary from anonymous people... The only way you change behaviour is in the pocket. You need proper enforcement. But there's no chance of such change being implemented here- certainly not without right wing media losing it's absolute shit.

I don't know if Alliston's defence made the case that shouting at pedestrians is often more effective and quicker than using a bell or horn. Also swerving on a bike can be an alternative to braking, if you are not going too fast. These points don't seem to have got through to the judge who referred to Alliston's shouting as proof of culpability.

I couldn't stop thinking about this and how this played out in court...Its worrying...I thought this would have been basic knowledge.

Are you talking about this ?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-in-london-bridge-collision-after-clipping-central-reservation-in-tragic-accident-9644761.html

I can't find anything to suggest the motorist was jailed

Thanks, irrelevant slight strange wording.

I have common sense, which allows me to ride, walk and drive for the conditions I'm in. That helps me and also helps the people around me. Perhaps my word choice of 'everyone' was a bad one... it just needs one person in a situation to change things I guess.

It would appear in the CA case that there was not enough common sense by either party. Perhaps "just enough" would have helped.

In what way do you mean "proper enforcement". Are you referring to policing and punishment? to me that means you're passing the buck and putting your safety in the hands of others. In the back of your mind thinking that it's someone elses problem to make sure I'm safe from stupidity.

other passing cars would give a little toot to just let you know they were there. I always thought Italians were terrible drivers (a lot are) but it was actually very helpful and I wish we used it in the same way over here instead of "get out my fucking way"

Absolutely agree with this. Imagine if horns weren't used as an act of aggression, but instead just to say 'hi mr/miss cyclist, I need to come past you'. It could do away with so much shit between drivers and cyclists imo.

edit - I dunno, maybe if horns had two levels, like wipers do. So you can have soft setting that says 'excuse me' and a harder setting for whatever.

You're spot on. I must be conflating two incidents. I was certain that the driver was sentenced to prison but I'm clearly wrong.

"The driver of the car that hit Mr Tandy was not arrested and witnesses told the Standard it had been a “tragic accident.” Mr Tandy is the ninth cyclist to die on London’s roads this year."

I don't see what the big deal is. Guy broke the law by riding a bike not fit for being on the road, killed someone and went to prison. His attitude didn't help matters either.

I did notice, when driving in Portugal this year, that even big cars have very soft horns. I tended to use mine for "hello I'm coming round this blind corner" purposes. And I didn't notice any aggressive beeping in Lisbon but that was only a day's driving in the city.

Horns can definitely have a friendly toot rather than the more aggressive barp

My grandfarther's old Rover had two horns as you describe. He only used the loud one though because he was a bit like that.

I'm not sure what channel4 is trying to prove here. Internet is bad?

When we were driving about in Oz we kept getting tooted at but could never understand why, spoke with someone in the garage we stopped at and ask why and he said it was to say thanks, horns aren't used to be aggressive. Not sure its strictly true for all parts of oz but up North it was.

This thread needs more of your cuckold stories

They're trying to say that Amazon's algorithms help aspirant terrorists find the tools they need. "People who bombed this also bought...". They're probably sensationalising something they've misunderstood. Lots of people in the U.S. buy gunpowder ingredients and (lead) ball bearings and use the ball bearings to grind the gunpowder to a fine consistency, not to make IEDs.

I was trying to be helpful ;-)