Jeremy Vine says near miss was “closest I've come to dying on my bicycle”; Tour of Antalya calamity; Cav chalks up first victory of 2022; Why not walk or cycle? Because you ripped out the bike lane!; What’s a ‘carsplainer’? + more on the live blog

Nothing that a little training 'accident' knocking into Jakobsen's handlebars couldn't fix. 

mdavidford wrote:

Nothing that a little training 'accident' knocking into Jakobsen's handlebars couldn't fix. 

Given that this is Jakobsen who nearly died in a crash two years, this is in slightly poor taste, no?

vthejk wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Nothing that a little training 'accident' knocking into Jakobsen's handlebars couldn't fix. 

Given that this is Jakobsen who nearly died in a crash two years, this is in slightly poor taste, no?

I had forgotten that that had happened to him. To be fair, though, I wasn't implying anything worse than causing him a niggling knee problem. If I had been, then surely it would be in bad taste whoever the subject of it was?

mdavidford wrote:

I had forgotten that that had happened to him. To be fair, though, I wasn't implying anything worse than causing him a niggling knee problem. If I had been, then surely it would be in bad taste whoever the subject of it was?

No, I'm sure the actual intention behind that comment wasn't malicious, but reading it and thinking "Hmm, Jakobsen? Make him crash, again? By pushing him by the handlebars?" It just Seemed a little extreme is all. 

Fair enough - I can see how it might have been misinterpreted to mean that.

eburtthebike wrote:

The Vine vid is truly terrifying from the back, and I'm hoping that this driver has been reported for multiple offences.

Are we sure that Vine didn't deliberately antagonise that driver into doing that just so that he'd have something to post?

Knowing the area and looking at the timings on the video, at a back-of-an-envelope calculation I reckon s/he's doing 41 mp/h in a 20 zone, add in the use of the bus lane to make an undertake and it should be a Band F, punishable by a fine of up to 7x weekly wage for starters. If they drive like that they're unlikely to have a clean licence either, so hopefully the points will get them a ban too.

Yet another reason why I don't run cameras.

On the road, you'd go 'arsehole' & forget about it.

But when you came home & put together the video to show how close you'd been to being hit, it'd bring it all back & you'd be reluctant to go out for a ride on that route again. Which would be a pain if it was your commute.

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Yet another reason why I don't run cameras.

On the road, you'd go 'arsehole' & forget about it.

But when you came home & put together the video to show how close you'd been to being hit, it'd bring it all back & you'd be reluctant to go out for a ride on that route again. Which would be a pain if it was your commute.

I get what you're saying, but the other aspect is that without a camera, you could be unknowingly riding a route that has bad drivers/junctions etc.

It's similar to arguing that if you don't go to the doctor then you can continue living as you wish rather than e.g. taking blood pressure medication or changing your diet.

However, sometimes it's better to not focus on the possible dangers - cycling is mainly a safe activity.

eburtthebike wrote:

The Vine vid is truly terrifying from the back, and I'm hoping that this driver has been reported for multiple offences.

The comments on his twitter feed are also terrifying - All these are from one person

• The driver was probably late for an important meeting or personal issue. These things happen. Sometimes we have to step on the accelerator to pick up the pace a bit.
• Let’s just relax. I’m just saying who knows the reasons why the driver was going so quickly. They seemed to handle the situation pretty well though.
• That’s why I said sometimes we have to bend the rules from time to time
• Nipping in and out of a bus lane. Creeping over the speed limit now and again
• Who knows? Sometimes a good tune or beat makes me go a bit faster so it could be that?
• Was a sneaky move I have to say. It paid off though.

Well done on missing the point.  It was clear from his description of the incident that he was not wearing one.

The friend should have been wearing a helmet. If it prevents only one . . .

Garage at Large wrote:

You should have been wearing a helmet, the wisdom of crowds was correct. People assume that if you're in a car you're wearing a seatbelt, as it is against the law not to wear one and has very high compliance - was it stated anywhere that your friend wasn't wearing one?

Wisdom of the crowds when woefuly overestimating the eficacy of cycle helmets.

groupthink - when no one agrees with the total bollocks you write here about just aout any subject.

Taxi drivers don't have to wear seat belts:

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-need-to-wear-a-seat-belt

But their passengers do, and the cabbie shares responsibility for ensuring they do.

Tom_77 wrote:

Taxi drivers don't have to wear seat belts:

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-need-to-wear-a-seat-belt

I did not know that. It seems like an odd exemption.

It also misses the point of Steve's annocdote - whether or not there was a legal requirement to wear one, the point was that the driver chose not to wear it, received (presumably) more serious injuries as a result, and yet no-one felt it necessary or appropriate to comment on how the driver's personal safety choices may or may not have contributed to the injuries. 

OnYerBike wrote:

I did not know that. It seems like an odd exemption.

It also misses the point of Steve's annocdote - whether or not there was a legal requirement to wear one, the point was that the driver chose not to wear it, received (presumably) more serious injuries as a result, and yet no-one felt it necessary or appropriate to comment on how the driver's personal safety choices may or may not have contributed to the injuries. 

I think it actually proves the point of Steve's annecdote precisely.... something our resident troll has completely missed.

If a cyclist is involved in an accident and they are not wearing a helmet, motorist friends and trolls will criticise the cyclist for not wearing a helmet which they are not required to do.... because it might have stopped an injury, emphasis on the word might.

Yet a motorist who is involved in an accident where they are not wearing a seabelt, even if they were not legally obliged to wear one, their motorist friends will not say "well if you had been wearing your seatbelt....."

This despite evidence that a significant number of road deaths are down to drivers still failing to wear their seatbelt.....  for example "Figures show 13 per cent of those killed on Scotland’s roads over the last five years were not wearing a seatbelt. Despite this, new research reveals that almost one in ten drivers always drive a car without wearing a seatbelt.  A survey found that drivers think drink-driving, drug-driving, using a phone while driving, driving while fatigued and driving aggressively are all ‘riskier’ than not wearing a seatbelt while driving."

TriTaxMan wrote:

This despite evidence that a significant number of road deaths are down to drivers still failing to wear their seatbelt.....  for example "Figures show 13 per cent of those killed on Scotland’s roads over the last five years were not wearing a seatbelt. Despite this, new research reveals that almost one in ten drivers always drive a car without wearing a seatbelt.  A survey found that drivers think drink-driving, drug-driving, using a phone while driving, driving while fatigued and driving aggressively are all ‘riskier’ than not wearing a seatbelt while driving."

They would probably be right then, as not wearing a seatbelt seems to increase chance of death in an collision by about a third (from your figures), while those other things will increase the chance of collision by more than a third, collisions which could affect not just the seatbelt user, but others around them.

wycombewheeler wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

"Figures show 13 per cent of those killed on Scotland’s roads over the last five years were not wearing a seatbelt. Despite this, new research reveals that almost one in ten drivers always drive a car without wearing a seatbelt."

They would probably be right then, as not wearing a seatbelt seems to increase chance of death in an collision by about a third (from your figures)

Not exactly, because we don't know how many of those dead were drivers and how many passengers. At a pure guess I would assume more passengers die in crashes as drivers tend to have more airbag protection, but that is just a guess.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Not exactly, because we don't know how many of those dead were drivers and how many passengers. At a pure guess I would assume more passengers die in accidents as drivers tend to have more airbag protection, but that is just a guess.

The thing being it has been shown that without a seatbelt serious and fatal injuries can still occur, and can sometimes be made worse by the airbags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLCWGcNpY94 this video (at 2:35) shows the effects of a crash at 64 kmh with and without seatbelts.... and the results are shocking.

Rendel Harris wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

"Figures show 13 per cent of those killed on Scotland’s roads over the last five years were not wearing a seatbelt. Despite this, new research reveals that almost one in ten drivers always drive a car without wearing a seatbelt."

They would probably be right then, as not wearing a seatbelt seems to increase chance of death in an collision by about a third (from your figures)

Not exactly, because we don't know how many of those dead were drivers and how many passengers. At a pure guess I would assume more passengers die in crashes as drivers tend to have more airbag protection, but that is just a guess.

every car ina  colission has a driver, but not all have passengers. I'd be surprised if more deaths were from passengers than drivers.

Also their reluctance to wear a seatbelt would be the same if the were a driver or a passenger. I wonder if car in crashes are more likely to be single ossupant, or multiple occupant.

OnYerBike wrote:

Tom_77 wrote:

Taxi drivers don't have to wear seat belts:

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-need-to-wear-a-seat-belt

I did not know that. It seems like an odd exemption.

It comes from the days before screens became the norm, when the taxi trade complained that if drivers had to wear a seatbelt passengers could use it to pin them down and demand their money. It's now an anachronism, given the prevalence of safety screens and the cashless society, but it's never been changed.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's now an anachronism, given [...] the cashless society

They could still pin them down and demand a 5 star rating.

Rendel Harris wrote:

OnYerBike wrote:

Tom_77 wrote:

Taxi drivers don't have to wear seat belts:

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-need-to-wear-a-seat-belt

I did not know that. It seems like an odd exemption.

It comes from the days before screens became the norm, when the taxi trade complained that if drivers had to wear a seatbelt passengers could use it to pin them down and demand their money. It's now an anachronism, given the prevalence of safety screens and the cashless society, but it's never been changed.

Or that or because the standard of driving is higher so they don't need seat belts.

yeah, probably not the second one.