Sort-of memes that are cracking you up at the moment

Don't stab birds in the face either pls

1 Attachment

5 Attachments

The rains have come and the meme reservoirs are filling again. Praise be

Love the muppets...but like, not that much.

The Highway Code

1 Attachment

Ha, already seen a few Facebook rants about this.

As a vulnarable road user, I would love to hear more context plz.

Mainly just entitled drivers crying salty tears about not the chance of being held to account for their distain towards cyclists and pedestrians.

Is this about the Dutch reach becoming law?

There's no changes to the law.

It's already illegal to endanger a cyclist or pedestrian when opening a door. Dutch reach will now simply be recommended as a means of reducing the danger.

Headlines such as "Drivers will be fined £1000 for opening a door with the wrong hand" are just bullshit.

That, and about the clarification of priority for vulnerable road users.

Waaah hi-viz, waaah pavements.

What makes me laugh is 85% of adult cyclists in the UK also hold a driving licence, so people are really telling on themselves.

I've thought about this every day for a year

1 Attachment

There's no changes to the law.

Headlines such as "Drivers will be fined £1000 for opening a door with the wrong hand" are just bullshit.

Tks

I saw a video some time in the last month or so of a middle aged lady lining up a bunch of coke (or similar) on a tray and the proceeding to do all the lines in one go. Can't seem to find it again. Can anyone help?

Sue Gray probably has a hard drive full of those

Wel I have never heard of the Dutch Reach. Must be because I'm Dutch so here's it's just the reach. But in all seriousness, this seems kind of ridicoulous, as Brun already stated. A £1.000 fine for something that is dificult to prove seems easy to evade.

What really helped to protect the vulnarable road users over here, is that in the 70s (following a multitude of traffic casualties, mostly minors) a new law stated that a motor vehicle will always be liable in case of collision with a bike or pedestrian, no matter who's fault the accident was. Of course exceptions exist (force majeur, is that the correct term?), but in essence a motor vehicle better keep their eyes open or they're fucked (liability wise).

1 Attachment

The actual guidance is just suggesting you do that. The main focus is "don't open the door without looking". It's no different from before, just reinforcing it a bit.

A £1.000 fine for something that is dificult to prove seems easy to evade.

There is no fine for opening your door with a method other than a Dutch reach.
The fine is for "opening, or to cause or permit to be opened, [a door] so as to cause injury", which has been in place for years, hasn't changed and would apply regardless of how you opened your door if you caused injury.

The Highway Code changes are only recommendations to changes in behaviour, all within the existing legal framework.

There's a thread here.

What really helped to protect the vulnerable road users over here, is that in the 70s (following a multitude of traffic casualties, mostly minors) a new law stated that a motor vehicle will always be liable in case of collision with a bike or pedestrian, no matter who's fault the accident was.

baby steps, hopefully we will move towards that

What really helped to protect the vulnerable road users over here, is that in the 70s (following a multitude of traffic casualties, mostly minors) a new law stated that a motor vehicle will always be liable in case of collision with a bike or pedestrian, no matter who's fault the accident was.

I’ve not read the actual wording in the Highway Code (can’t even find it…!) but isn’t this what the much discussed hierarchy of vulnerability/responsibility is supposed to nudge towards?

Ah, but shouldn't you look at it the other way?

If we consider what percentage of drivers are cyclists, the cyclists are far fewer than 85%.

the Dutch Reach

I assumed it was a euphemism for tromboning.

The obligation on Lucky Pierre?

a motor vehicle will always be liable in case of collision with a bike or pedestrian, no matter who's fault

That kind of thing is the end of civilisation, and I can't see its being viable in a common law country. Mind you, all sorts of really horrible things are happening in common law countries these days, so all bets are off.