No, they're just showing off to others of their ilk.
The metal things (don't know what they were called) I had on my bike pedals as a kid were something you could push the toe of your footwear into, which constrained the foot to the optimum place on the pedal, while not preventing easily removing to put a foot to the ground. Didn't need special footwear either.
She looked far from an experienced cyclist, shiny new fluoro clothing, stopped and fell off instead of unclipping ...
In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater snipped-for-privacy@greenbee.net writes
Toeclips in my day. Allowed you to *pull* the pedal up. Dangerous if ridden wearing *basketball shoes* remember them? The sole cleats would lodge in metal *rat trap* pedals and caused me a couple of stationary fall off incidents.
The vehicle was undoubtedly travelling too fast for the road width. I would query if that unmetalled track is actually public highway and whether the cyclists had a right to be there?
>
If I was the Land Rover driver I would have the video examined by an expert, and based on that consider an appeal against the verdict.
The video was taken by the helmet cam of the third rider. Using the slider in the video frame to analyse the movements it is clear that the third rider is travelling faster than the second rider - the video starts with an estimated gap of about a cycle length, but as the cam swings round in order for the second rider to make the offensive gesture at the now-departing Land Rover, the rear axle of the second rider has disappeared below the bottom of the frame. When the helmet returns to looking forward, the second rider in in the ditch, not having been in contact with the Land Rover. Did the third rider collide with the second rider, knocking her into the ditch?
Can you appeal against pleading guilty?
But that contravenes the First Rule of Cycling: "Cyclists must not be made to stop for anything".
If it makes the inexperienced cyclist fall off their bike and then complain about her injury then they should be limited in use to those proficient in using them. Anything to stop a third party such as a car driver being blamed for them injuring themselves.
The only time my foot has fallen of a pedal is through poor maintenance and a slipping chain.
I agree than an experienced cyclist may be able to think to unclip themselves. As someone who has fallen over using toes-clips the idea of this in traffic causes me concern. And yes I am an experiences cyclist but not with toe clips. In this video clip, she wasn't your experienced cyclist.
From some of the Usenet postings I've seen (and occasionally from personal experience) it seems that there is a certain type of cyclist who believes they have an absolute right to make continuous progress regardless of what traffic conditions they might encounter. This philosophy entitles them to use the road in a manner which even the craziest and most aggressive of drivers would never dream of doing. Unfortunately, the new regulations about 'safety' can only serve to embolden this sort of behaviour.
As someone who has tried clipless toe-clips I can assure you the last thought going through your mind in an emergency when the road is travelling fast towards you is to think how to unclip yourself.
In an emergency the natural reflex reaction is to simply take your foot of the pedal.
Instinct is difficult to retrain. As anyone skiing will know, if things are going wrong instinct is to sit back whereas we're tutored to lean forward to gain control.
Tricky, difficult and expensive.
I also doubt the video was even entered into the court.
Courts are very daunting, and most people I know want the issue to go away and plead guilty. A charge of due care and attention with 5 points is at the lower end o the scale. He could have got 9.
But that implies that the cyclists were stationary at the red light. I've seen many occurrences when cyclists have ridden through red lights whenever there is a brief gap in traffic at right angles that has the green light - including one where a cyclist very narrowly escaped being hit by a car which was forced to do an emergency stop to avoid him.
I've also seen two occurrences of cyclists riding at people on zebra crossings. The first was being used by a woman with a pram. The cyclist overtook the two or three cars which had stopped at the zebra, weaved between the lead car and the keep-left central bollard and then swerved around the front of the pram and came off, sliding across the road towards an oncoming lorry. He picked himself up, started ranting and raving at the woman, and looked as if he was about to hit her. My mate, a big burly guy, restrained him and held him until the police arrived. I hope the police threw the book at him - dangerous driving aka furious cycling or some such phrase, threatening behaviour.
On the other occasion, I was cycling towards a zebra crossing and I saw a large group of tourists crossing, so I slowed down to stop. Another cyclist came storming past me, yelling "out of my f*ing way" and rode fast towards them, causing them to scatter left and right.
It is for those very rare occasions that numberplates by which cyclists can be identified and prosecuted would be useful.
Your point being ?
New evidence came to light?
It's my view that I wouldn't trust a police analysis of a video.
As it turns out, there is *more than one design* of clipless system. There is a Shimano design for klutzes. It releases by pulling up, as well as twisting (rotating) to the side.
A good shop, would tell you of the merits of both types.
There aren't a lot of good, full service shops.
And there are some features on bicycles, nobody explains them to you, and dammit, they are important. Let's see how many people recognize this (no, not the rust).
Sometimes a car driver just can't win. I was driving on a fairly narrow country lane, with a cyclist behind me, and I saw several more cyclists coming towards me, visible over the wall alongside the road, and from their position, they were around a bend. I slowed down and stopped just before the bend because I judged that I would meet the oncoming cyclists at or just beyond the bend. The cyclist behind me skidded, nearly rear-ended me, and swerved round me, narrowly missing crashing head-on into one of the oncoming cyclists. Both sets of cyclists ranted that it was *my* fault, but had I continued, I would have passed too close the oncoming cyclists. And stopping before the bend meant the cyclist behind me could see what I was doing.
We exchanged names and addresses but I never heard any more, so their threats to report me to the police never came to anything. Neither sat of cyclists could answer a simple question "what would you have wanted me to do differently?", so I think my only "offence" was that I was there at all ;-)
I've seen an instance of this in Cambridge, at the crossing outside the Botanical gardens, which has traffic lights. Plus uncountable cases of them riding through other red lights
What am I supposed to be recognising. I see a pedal with serrated edges, presumably as a precaution against the sole of a shoe sliding off the pedal. And I see reflectors (presumably orange) in the pedals, which provide an additional way of seeing the cyclist in the dark, either from in front of behind.
A bicycle pedal with probably reflectors. Nothing needs to be explained about that.
People moan about cars and lorries disobeying red traffic lights. And some do. But there is a big difference: almost invariably they go through a light which has just turned red or else set off just before it has turned green, so at either end of the other traffic's green light phase.
Cyclists seem to go through at any time, when there is a high chance that there will be conflicting traffic. Likewise they go through crossings that have people in the middle of them, whereas usually when cars illegally cross a zebra, it's as they are about to step onto it.
In both cases, it's still illegal, but powered vehicles tend to so it as a "boundary condition", when pedestrians / other traffic are *about* to start or have just finished, whereas cyclists do it at any time. OK, so being hit by a bike is less severe than being hit by a car or truck, but I'd rather not be hit at all.
I've seen police stopping cyclists who have ridden through red lights or zebras (eg as I have been walking past) and the common complaint is either "that's so unfair" or "I was in a hurry". I bet cyclists wouldn't accept those excuses from a car driver.
We need to get back to the situation where *all* road users, bicycles as well as car/lorries/buses, have to obey the same laws, and are prosecuted in the same way. Ideally I'd like to see the driving licence of a cyclist endorsed for the offence as if it had taken place when they were driving.
I think the recent changes to the Highway Code are fundamentally wrong. In particular, a cyclist who wants to overtake a car that is indicating to turn left is given priority, even though they are behind the turning car. That is wrong in so many ways. No-one, on any vehicle, should ever overtake a vehicle ahead of them on the side which it is indicating to turn. But our Lords and Masters have spoken, and we can only obey their idiotic rules.
What is the law about pushing a bike on a pavement? I was once told off by a pedestrian who was coming towards me because I shouldn't be on the pavement, even when wheeling my bike. And I'd even stopped to let her pass me, because it was a narrow pavement. I was walking because I wanted to go the wrong way up a one-way street, and it was easier and much shorter to bypass a lengthy one-way system by wheeling along a short one-way street, and rejoin the traffic that had come the long way round. What else would she have wanted me to do? Cycle the wrong way along the road? You just can't win.
All of which is quite irrelevant to whether his passing the cyclists at speed on a narrow road was driving without due care and consideration for other road users. The consequences of an action may affect any penalties that a Court imposes, they do not determine whether an offence was committed in the first place.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required