Speed hump nearly kills Boris

[altis]

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has had what was described as a "near-miss" with a lorry while riding his bicycle in east London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8066461.stm

Unfortunately, the BBC's analysis completely ignores the initial cause of the incident - a road hump - supposedly a traffic calming measure! Clearly, this causes the catch on the lorry's door to become disengaged allowing it to swing open.

IMHO, speed humps are abominable, dangerous things and should be banned.

I would say a faulty or incorrectly closed locking mechanism on the door that swung open was to blame

[punky]

The cyclists are saying they need special roads and paths (presumably paid out of road tax), but with an accident like that pedestrians or even people in cars are vunerable. The catch is obviously suspect, the lorry seemed to have been going a bit fast and the group of cyclists were all over the road.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by punky

The cyclists are saying they need special roads and paths (presumably paid out of road tax), but with an accident like that pedestrians or even people in cars are vunerable. The catch is obviously suspect, the lorry seemed to have been going a bit fast and the group of cyclists were all over the road.

I'm thinking it is well past time that cyclists were licensed,had compulsory insurance and have to paid for a DVLA licence.

Round here they have more than enough special lanes and off road cycle ways but there are still the 'macho' guys who would rather flog along on the main road instead of using the amenities provided by the local councils so in that case perhaps they should be treated like every other road user.

As for Boris well he is the Mayor of London so maybe the solutions for safer cycling and safer roads are in his hands?

yeah lets all penilise the cyclist those nasty none polluting peeps who dont have a place in society with those on the paths hating them and all the lovely giving kind polluting often in a hurry or on a phone picking their nose or listening to thumping music dont like em on the road either.

Whats next a license to cross the road?

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by zing

yeah lets all penilise the cyclist those nasty none polluting peeps who dont have a place in society with those on the paths hating them and all the lovely giving kind polluting often in a hurry or on a phone picking their nose or listening to thumping music dont like em on the road either.

Whats next a license to cross the road?

You sure you never lose your cool zing?

What's wrong with someone be legally required to be insured zing?Whose penalising anyone?Just putting them on a legal footing with everyone else.I'm also wanting to make sure that everyone with any form of motorised/electrical vehicle transport like say a mobility scooter are also legally covered(especially those who ride them on the roads).

Why should the legit motorist have to bear the burden of being the only road users who are licensed and legally required to have insurance?

positive maggy I am sat here quite calm. Just because I speak my mind does not mean I lose my temper I am up front . I admit speaking my mind gets me into trouble as I do not care if people do not like my view point.

The why is a simple question to answer. The motor vehicle driver is in charge of a tonne+ of metal that is propelled at speed and therefore is highly dangerous to the driver and general public that is why a driver needs a license. Insurance is the same thing that great big lump of metal can do a lot of damage thats why

[Russ]

A cyclist is in control of a device which if used carelessly can lead to damage, injury and even loss of life. This is why I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea.

The downside is how it would be policed - what about kids going our for a ride with their friends, would they need to be covered too? Just too hard to administer IMO.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Russ B

A cyclist is in control of a device which if used carelessly can lead to damage, injury and even loss of life. This is why I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea.

The downside is how it would be policed - what about kids going our for a ride with their friends, would they need to be covered too? Just too hard to administer IMO.

Maybe we shouldn't let kids out into traffic on bikes?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Maybe we shouldn't let kids out into traffic on bikes?

Again, how would that be policed? We don't have enough cops to catch speeders, never mind kids on pushbikes.

Oh we have to stop the kids going out for bike rides they can not possibly be allowed to earn a license till they are adults. So children cycling has to be banned. All those doing what the government asked them to do and cut down on driving they have to be made to get a license and insurance if they are not prepared to they will have to use public transport or return to driving afterall there are not enough cars on the road lets take measures to see if we can increase them figures a bit

[Peter_]

Its the maniacs on the pavements who swear at pedestrians and the nutters who ignore traffic lights and swear at cars coming through on green that make a valid case for anyone over the age of say 14 having to be licensed, taxed and insured.just like any other road user.

Originally Posted by Russ B

Again, how would that be policed? We don't have enough cops to catch speeders, never mind kids on pushbikes.

we dont have enough coppers to make an impact on organised crime either

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Moldova

Its the maniacs on the pavements who swear at pedestrians and the nutters who ignore traffic lights and swear at cars coming through on green that make a valid case for anyone over the age of say 14 having to be licensed, taxed and insured.just like any other road user.

why should a cyclist pay tax? what impact on the road do they have? if you want to tax cyclists you have to give them free access and that means cycle lanes on every strip of road in the country. How much do you think road tax will need to increase to pay for that then

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ B

A cyclist is in control of a device which if used carelessly can lead to damage, injury and even loss of life. This is why I think insurance for cyclists is a good idea.

So can a pram, but admittedly this is somewhat less likely.

The downside is how it would be policed - what about kids going our for a ride with their friends, would they need to be covered too? Just too hard to administer IMO.

I'm thinking that a cycling incident would be covered by a general public liability insurance? I'd have to check the policy on mine, but I'd be surprised if it was excluded.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

So can a pram, but admittedly this is somewhat less likely.

A pram is closer to being a necessity and isn't supposed to be used on the road alongside traffic.