by SouthLondonDaddy » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:30 pm
We need to distinguish between what is or should be legal or illegal, and what is wise. Let’s start with the latter. I am a motorcyclist, so I know a thing or two about being vulnerable on the road. Many motorcyclists learn to ride defensively; this means riding assuming there are only 3 categories of road users (note I say “road users”, i.e. every category, including motorcyslists):
- the idiots who’ll kill you
- the idiots who’ll kill themselves, and
- the idiots who’ll kill themselves and you.
This isn’t always true, of course – it just means hope for the best, but plan for the worst.For example, I make sure I stay the hell back from large vehicles at bends, because of their wide turning angles. Or I make sure I am never riding on the inside of another vehicle, regardless of size, when a junction is approaching. None of this is required by law – it is simply common sense. It wouldn’t help my orphan much to know that her father died in full compliance with the highway code! I do this on a large and powerful motorcycle, which can accelerate away from danger way more easily than a pushbike, and is much more visible and audible than a pushbike. Not to mention all the protective gear I wear, and which cyclists don’t.
When I see cyclists than don’t behave like this, despite all the additional dangers of a pushbike, I am really lost for words.
One big problem I have with cycling lobbies is that they are often more interested in promoting a sense of entitlement than in making sure cyclists understand the risks they are exposed to and behave accordingly. For example, there was a – successful – campaign to remove the stickers “cyclists and motorcyclists, stay back” from lorries and replace the wording with something less “offensive” to the snowflake sensitivity of cyclists (AFAIK motorcyclists never objected). This is stupid and wrong, because it is imperative that cyclists be fully aware of the risks of undertaking larger vehicles – and I say this as someone to whom the stickers were addressed (a motorcyclist) and who has never been the least offended.
As for what should be legal, inverting the burden of proof would be a total catastrophe. It would mean that the minority of aggressive cyclists who ignore the rules would feel even more entitled to behave even worse on the road. It is also fake news that the drivers are always assumed to be at fault in the Netherlands – e.g. see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013 ... therlands/ I appreciate that, in the era of Brexit Trump Bolsonaro The 5-star-movement etc it is asking much, but I really wish people spent a few seconds of their lives doing minimal research before writing something which is factually wrong.
[size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]We need to distinguish between what is or should be legal or illegal, and what is wise.[/font][/font][/size] [size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]Let’s start with the latter. I am a motorcyclist, so I know a thing or two about being vulnerable on the road. Many motorcyclists learn to ride defensively; this means riding assuming there are only 3 categories of road users (note I say “road users”, i.e. every category, including motorcyslists):[/font][/font][/size]
[list=1]
[*][size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]the idiots who’ll kill you[/font][/font][/size]
[*][size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]the idiots who’ll kill themselves, and[/font][/font][/size]
[*][size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]the idiots who’ll kill themselves and you.[/font][/font][/size]
[/list]
[size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]This isn’t always true, of course – it just means hope for the best, but plan for the worst.[/font][/font][/size][size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]For example, I make sure I stay the hell back from large vehicles at bends, because of their wide turning angles. Or I make sure I am never riding on the inside of another vehicle, regardless of size, when a junction is approaching. None of this is required by law – it is simply common sense. It wouldn’t help my orphan much to know that her father died in full compliance with the highway code![/font][/font][/size] [size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]I do this on a large and powerful motorcycle, which can accelerate away from danger way more easily than a pushbike, and is much more visible and audible than a pushbike. Not to mention all the protective gear I wear, and which cyclists don’t.
When I see cyclists than don’t behave like this, despite all the additional dangers of a pushbike, I am really lost for words.[/font][/font][/size]
[size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]One big problem I have with cycling lobbies is that they are often more interested in promoting a sense of entitlement than in making sure cyclists understand the risks they are exposed to and behave accordingly. For example, there was a – successful – campaign to remove the stickers “cyclists and motorcyclists, stay back” from lorries and replace the wording with something less “offensive” to the snowflake sensitivity of cyclists (AFAIK motorcyclists never objected). This is stupid and wrong, because it is imperative that cyclists be fully aware of the risks of undertaking larger vehicles – and I say this as someone to whom the stickers were addressed (a motorcyclist) and who has never been the least offended.[/font][/font][/size]
[size=100][font=Calibri,sans-serif][font=Garamond,serif]As for what should be legal, inverting the burden of proof would be a total catastrophe. It would mean that the minority of aggressive cyclists who ignore the rules would feel even more entitled to behave even worse on the road. It is also fake news that the drivers are always assumed to be at fault in the Netherlands – e.g. see [url]https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/[/url] I appreciate that, in the era of Brexit Trump Bolsonaro The 5-star-movement etc it is asking much, but I really wish people spent a few seconds of their lives doing minimal research before writing something which is factually wrong.[/font][/font][/size]