| Topic: | Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Raymond Havelock | |
| Date/Time: | 20/11/24 10:27:00 |
| What none of the stats show and is not published is whom was at fault. Policy at TfL and Aped by local London Councils deem or assume that the larger vehicle is to be at fault: HGV v Car Car v Bike Motor Bike & Car V Bicycle Bicycle v Pedestrian It's very obvious that when a car has to have a driver that has to be tested ( at least that's the law ) But the vehicle has to be fully roadworthy at all times when used on a public highway. Lights Horn wipers indicators, yes and brakes should always be checked. But how often does one see Riders of Mopeds with out lights? Cyclists wearing dark clothing, no lights, no bell, no defective anything? Riders on pavements, on the wrong side of the cycleways with none of the above, undertaking near left turn junctions and ignoring signalling vehicles. E bikes overtaking and undertaking at way over 20 mph often well over 30 mph. Delivery riders with boxes on the back that are non reflective and obscure lighting and my biggest bugbear as a cyclist myself, No mudguards. Absolutely fed up with getting soaked from other cyclists who ride way too fast and those Uber Cyclist who are always spitting without realising where that saliva goes. It does not matter what authorities do to enhance cycling, unless there is a serious effort to bring rules and etiquette to riding it is a complete folly. And the stats need to honestly reflect fault. Sad that it is I lost a great friend to a truck in the City. But she would keep riding up the sides of long vehicles, Buses and Artics. To the point that we fell out over this and I would not ride with her. Her spacial awareness was awful, but she just would not understand the danger she was placing herself in. It's no different to those who jumped of the backs of buses. It was a risk and yet it was often the driver or the conductor who took the wrap. But if someone won't listen or be aware, then rules need to be enforced. I might have lost a long time friend but at least she might still be alive. |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| TfLs random dismissal of wise concerns | 14/11/24 18:03:00 | Raymond Havelock |
| Re:TfLs random dismissal of wise concerns | 15/11/24 17:12:00 | Elizabeth Price |
| Re:Re:TfLs random dismissal of wise concerns | 15/11/24 17:31:00 | Tim Barnes |
| Re:Re:Re:TfLs random dismissal of wise concerns | 15/11/24 21:54:00 | Simon Hayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:TfLs random dismissal of wise concerns | 16/11/24 14:08:00 | David Cook |
| Reply | 19/11/24 12:07:00 | Michael Robinson |
| Re:Reply | 19/11/24 14:53:00 | Simon Hayes |
| Reply | 19/11/24 17:04:00 | Michael Robinson |
| Re:Reply | 19/11/24 18:41:00 | David Cook |
| Re:Re:Reply | 20/11/24 10:27:00 | Raymond Havelock |
| Reply | 20/11/24 21:48:00 | Michael Robinson |
| Re:Reply | 20/11/24 23:36:00 | Simon Hayes |
| Re:Re:Reply | 21/11/24 16:55:00 | Kenneth Seally |
| Re:Re:Re:Reply | 22/11/24 12:00:00 | Michael Robinson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 22/11/24 15:42:00 | Simon Hayes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 22/11/24 22:44:00 | Raymond Havelock |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 23/11/24 09:42:00 | Michael Robinson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 23/11/24 13:49:00 | Jim Lawes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 23/11/24 19:18:00 | Jim Lawes |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 23/11/24 20:32:00 | N V Brooks |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 24/11/24 21:11:00 | Raymond Havelock |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 27/11/24 19:26:00 | Simon Hayes |