It was in cambridge, one of the best cities to cater for cyclists
Walking out from a foot path into another one where a building obscured the view to the right.
It was a narrow footpath not a cycle path and there's a bollard at the start of it to discourage cyclists.
Ended up covered in cuts and bruises. So no it wasn't because I couldn't be arsed.
Still it was probably my fault for not shouting out "PEDESTRIAN!" before exiting.
Seeing as you raised it, why shouldn't cyclists pay a reduced road tax? Ok they may not damage the roads like cars but you still use road signs and traffic lights.... oh wait.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 11:05,
Share,
Reply)
Well I think no-one's disputing you had right of way.
If a pedestrian has already started crossing, the vehicle/cycle should give way. He's clearly a twat.
This argument is more a sign of human condition than anything else. People are just arrogant behind the wheel/in the saddle, and generally only view things from their own perspective.
I should probably load this statement with various disclaimers, as someone's bound to be upset by what I've said ("I'm not arrogant, blah blah, rant rant", etc).
(, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 11:08, Share, Reply)
Hmm that domain is available to buy....
I'm going to start up a big flouncy campaign to raise awareness.
We, can have stickers and shirts with funny but yet thoughtful slogans.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 11:54,
Share,
Reply)
im slowly coming round to your idea
of strict liability hows this:
lorrys strictly liable for accidents with cars.
cars strictly liable for accidents with bikes.
bikes stricytly liable for pedestrians...
that way we are all looking out for each other?
and no one gets a free card to cause accidents.
(, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 11:36, Share, Reply)
....and this is 'not being drawn in'?
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Thu 9 Jun 2011, 12:05,
Share,
Reply)
