Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Michael R
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Jul 2008, 10:40pm

Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by Michael R »

mike_dowler
Posts: 102
Joined: 21 Aug 2013, 1:39pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by mike_dowler »

I see little there to joke about. A little humility might not go amiss.
fluffybunnyuk
Posts: 450
Joined: 1 Sep 2013, 10:58pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by fluffybunnyuk »

There but for the grace of god go I. The writer of that blog is clearly more experienced at "cycling" than me. They clearly have an ability to sit in judgement of others.

Who would I nominate for a "darwin award"? Myself.

6 months ago I battled through strong headwinds (20+mph)with 4 panniers+tent from boston across the fens past cambridge, and down to london. Not realising how exhausted I was I got to somewhere near Aldgate, and rode straight across a busy junction(multiple lane signals) through a red light (i thought it was green). Only to be woken up half way across by a black cab crossing the junction under a green calling me a b***** idiot. Marginal Fail. :mrgreen:

2 points to this story. 1 I learnt to always rest for a long snack before entering cities. 2 Im human, I make mistakes, my risk management got away from me inevitably.

Does this make me a bad cyclist? Ive no idea. What I do know is using the term "darwin award" is usually insulting, and too simplistic. I wish I had the skill, and abilities of that blogger at all times so I never made mistakes. Actually no I dont,how would I learn, and improve?
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by Bicycler »

mike_dowler wrote:I see little there to joke about. A little humility might not go amiss.

+1
mrjemm
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by mrjemm »

Maybe worth noting that I consider Garstang home of some of the worst driving in existance, this junction being one of the worst spots for it- A6; busy road. Garstang; full of elderly with money (which appears to result in a huge self belief of entitlement and big cars); DIY/Trade store facing photographer (right of pic= trucks and white vans), and worst of all, a big Booths (Waitrose of the North) up the lane the blogger's snapping from; many folk I suspect shouldn't be driving any more in powerful cars, distracted by the purchase of some wonderfully firm comte and £2 off a bottle of that Prossecco recommended by Jilly Goulding... Go check the parking at that supermarket; it has to be the world's worst.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by Vorpal »

Posts about the religion of the blogger and ensuing discussion have been removed.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
eileithyia
Posts: 8399
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by eileithyia »

In future many of us will not be able to hear traffic, simply because of loss of hearing as we age or due to the increase in electric cars. I was nearly run over by a car which suddenly started reversing out of a parking spot recently. I knew the lady was sat in it, but had never heard the engine start up (thus alerting me to her moving) and nor did I hear an engine ...... So it is pointless to rely on hearing alone to alert us to traffic.... so the use of ear phones is a complete Red Herring as far as I am concerned.

As for the rest, well yes she probably was being a numpty but if you are never taught to use gears then you will never know it is easier to start off in a lower gear, we all started somewhere.....
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by reohn2 »

eileithyia wrote:In future many of us will not be able to hear traffic, simply because of loss of hearing as we age or due to the increase in electric cars. I was nearly run over by a car which suddenly started reversing out of a parking spot recently. I knew the lady was sat in it, but had never heard the engine start up (thus alerting me to her moving) and nor did I hear an engine ...... So it is pointless to rely on hearing alone to alert us to traffic.... so the use of ear phones is a complete Red Herring as far as I am concerned.

But if she didn't look behind her before turning across a fast road and didn't look in front of her either as seems to have been the case,should she have even been there?
Let alone been there wearing headphones.

As for the rest, well yes she probably was being a numpty

If the blogger's description of the incident is to be believed she most certainly is a numpty.
but if you are never taught to use gears then you will never know it is easier to start off in a lower gear, we all started somewhere.....

If she's so incompetent/unlearned/ignorant of the machine she's in charge of,then she should have dismounted and walked rather than do what she did.
We all started somewhere,but on that particular road at that particular junction(which I know all too well)most definitely isn't a good place for anyone to start learning.
Assuming the lady in question was an adult of sound body and mind,she lacked any shred of common sense,let alone road sense.

Meanwhile on a driving forum two more drivers post their side of the story concluding ''bloody cyclists'' :twisted:
And we all suffer some of that :? .
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
mrjemm
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by mrjemm »

Was thinking about this thread when I went through this junction 2 days ago (driving), and turned off to the Booths I refer to... Where I witnessed an outburst from a ped who nearly got run over by one of the standardly unaware drivers of expensive cars.

Later on the bike, I avoided it in one direction by taking the canal (Lanc- Preston, I think I still have some aches), and the lanes in the other. Far nicer to avoid that road. Besides, it's largely covered in new stretches of dressing. Oh joy.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by reohn2 »

mrjemm wrote:Later on the bike, I avoided it in one direction by taking the canal (Lanc- Preston, I think I still have some aches), and the lanes in the other. Far nicer to avoid that road. Besides, it's largely covered in new stretches of dressing. Oh joy.


I make a point of only using it if I have to ie;linking me from and to the lanes either side,which are much preferable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Shootist
Posts: 537
Joined: 20 Sep 2012, 8:50pm
Location: Derby

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by Shootist »

Michael R wrote:So close to qualifying :)

http://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com ... -garstang/


You clearly need to understand the rules of the road for cyclists.

1. It is never the cyclist's fault.

2. If it is the cyclist's fault, Rule 1 applies.
Pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."
[George Orwell]
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by Bicycler »

Nonsense. Poor cycling can can be the cause of collisions. Cyclists do have a responsibility for the safety of other road users. They do not, however, have the same responsibility as those driving tons of metal at high speed. Poor cyclists are largely a danger unto themselves rather than those around them.

Nobody on this thread has said that the cyclist didn't do a very silly thing. A few of us did find the OP's language a touch insensitive
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by reohn2 »

Bicycler wrote:........... A few of us did find the OP's language a touch insensitive


OK the humour was a little dark but I think only because no one was injured.
However,stupid is the only way to describe the cyclist's actions if the OP's observations are correct and I've no reason to believe they weren't.
If the cyclist had been hit and KSI'd then yes the OP's post would have been in extremely bad taste.

Poor cycling can can be the cause of collisions. Cyclists do have a responsibility for the safety of other road users. They do not, however, have the same responsibility as those driving tons of metal at high speed. Poor cyclists are largely a danger unto themselves rather than those around them.

What if the motorist who had to stop for the stupid cyclist as a result had a heart attack?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by Bicycler »

reohn2 wrote:However, stupid is the only way to describe the cyclist's actions if the OP's observations are correct and I've no reason to believe they weren't.

I think we can all agree it was stupid and that we have no reason to doubt the OP's version of events.

reohn2 wrote:
Poor cycling can can be the cause of collisions. Cyclists do have a responsibility for the safety of other road users. They do not, however, have the same responsibility as those driving tons of metal at high speed. Poor cyclists are largely a danger unto themselves rather than those around them.

What if the motorist who had to stop for the stupid cyclist as a result had a heart attack?

The key word there is "largely". Certainly they pose much less of a threat to others than drivers of motor vehicles and I believe that this should be reflected in how we judge their actions. Let's be very clear. pedestrians don't die because they "jaywalk", cyclists don't die because they wobble and fall, turn when they shouldn't or ignore a light, they are killed because they are hit by motor vehicles. Their mass and speed raise the stakes of mistakes in such intrinsically safe activities as going for a walk or riding a bike. Because of this greater danger, drivers are licensed and tested with the intent of ensuring a minimum standard not required of other road users who do not pose such a danger. It is only right that they shoulder the greater burden of responsibility.

In truth I find the concepts of 'fault' and 'blame' a bit unhelpful where people are killed or injured. No doubt there's some small comfort in holding somebody responsible after the event but it is better that such events do not happen at all. Motor vehicle safety has increased to the extent that crashes can be had and blame discussed angrily at the roadside and through insurance companies. Priority can be taken knowing that the other party will be held to be 'at fault' if they don't give way. When vulnerable road users are involved we cannot afford ourselves such luxuries. As cyclists we need to account for inadequate driving, as drivers we need to allow for the actions of inadequate cyclists. I'm sure that it comes as little comfort to say the cyclist or pedestrian that you hit and killed was 'at fault'. Certainly I would need to know that I could not have foreseen and prevented the collision. Priority would simply not be sufficient. I believe these values would be best codified in law by a strict or presumed liability system (as adopted in many countries): http://road.cc/content/news/89960-lib-d ... y%E2%80%99

Apologies for going off on a tangent there.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclsit just fails to get Darwin award

Post by reohn2 »

Bicycler wrote:The key word there is "largely". Certainly they pose much less of a threat to others than drivers of motor vehicles and I believe that this should be reflected in how we judge their actions. Let's be very clear. pedestrians don't die because they "jaywalk", cyclists don't die because they wobble and fall, turn when they shouldn't or ignore a light, they are killed because they are hit by motor vehicles. Their mass and speed raise the stakes of mistakes in such intrinsically safe activities as going for a walk or riding a bike. Because of this greater danger, drivers are licensed and tested with the intent of ensuring a minimum standard not required of other road users who do not pose such a danger. It is only right that they shoulder the greater burden of responsibility.

Whilst I agree total with your point,do pedestrians,cyclists and other adult vulnerable road users have no responsibilities?

In truth I find the concepts of 'fault' and 'blame' a bit unhelpful where people are killed or injured. No doubt there's some small comfort in holding somebody responsible after the event but it is better that such events do not happen at all.

As someone who two years ago next month lost my 19year old granddaughter,one of identical twins,to a maniac illegal young driver.
I'm acutely aware the effects of bad driving and the fallout both emotionally and financially.Not to mention the police investigation being woefully inadequate,and who's lack of action prior to her death didn't remove this lunatic,who also killed himself in the crash,from our roads.

As cyclists we need to account for inadequate driving, as drivers we need to allow for the actions of inadequate cyclists. I'm sure that it comes as little comfort to say the cyclist or pedestrian that you hit and killed was 'at fault'. Certainly I would need to know that I could not have foreseen and prevented the collision. Priority would simply not be sufficient. I believe these values would be best codified in law by a strict or presumed liability system (as adopted in many countries): http://road.cc/content/news/89960-lib-d ... y%E2%80%99

Apologies for going off on a tangent there.

I've long been a believer in strict/presumed liability where the driver of the bigger vehicle should carry the greater responsibility and should also be held responsible when his/her driving can't be proven to be faultless.
Unfortunately in the UK we find ourselves in the current dire situation where victim blaming seems to be the default position and attitude,but nevertheless when someone's wrong they're wrong,if they're partly to blame likewise,and in this case there can be no doubt the cyclist was wholly to blame.
In the case of Shootist's post IMO he was,albeit sarcastically,illustrating that some on here think cyclists can do no wrong which is clearly a wrong attitude and riding with that kind of outlook can get a cyclist in world of trouble.
I'm no shrinking violet when cycling on the road and almost daily witness extremely bad driving some of which is deliberate,most thoughtless idiocy.
But I do see some incredibly stupid cycling too and as the vulnerable party in the current climate find some of their antics unbelievably stupid in the extreme,so if some cyclists will treat their own safety with scant regard,one has to ask how they'd behave with a presumed liability law in place,and as such it's no wonder there's resistance to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply