Penny Farthings, Legality and responsibility.

CramCycle

Thargor wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1344334762333368327

Dear lord the replies, my eyes, they burn`. Taking victim blaming to a new extreme.

lawrencesummers

CramCycle wrote: »

Dear lord the replies, my eyes, they burn`. Taking victim blaming to a new extreme.

I dunno, I reckon having a bike with working brakes is a good idea when your cycling around busy streets.

Of course the vans driving was wrong and dangerous, but there is No point being in the right if the right has you in a hospital bed.

breezy1985

There is a certain onus on the cyclist to ride a safe vehicle and I'm sorry but a penny farthing is not one.

My commute is London sometimes involved a penny farthing rider and a unicyclist and they were a pain and caused havoc on what was a busy cycle superhighway

CramCycle

Those weren't the replies I was referring too. One blamed the cyclist for not indicating as a reason he hit the van (he turns when he sees the van but can't make it) That if he wore hi Vis he would have been seen ( he's over 8 foot tall in the middle of the day) and the van clearly seen him as he tried to beat him to the corner. He also does use his brakes (you can see his legs stop turning a second before he hits the van). And that somehow him not wearing a helmet absolves the driver of guilt. I'm sorry, comment on the suitability of the bike all you want but any bike would have been lucky to avoid that.

lawrencesummers

CramCycle wrote: »

Those weren't the replies I was referring too. One blamed the cyclist for not indicating as a reason he hit the van (he turns when he sees the van but can't make it) That if he wore hi Vis he would have been seen ( he's over 8 foot tall in the middle of the day) and the van clearly seen him as he tried to beat him to the corner. He also does use his brakes (you can see his legs stop turning a second before he hits the van). And that somehow him not wearing a helmet absolves the driver of guilt. I'm sorry, comment on the suitability of the bike all you want but any bike would have been lucky to avoid that.

It’s not about luck, it’s about taking the maximum amount of precautions to keep yourself safe in an area you know people in vehicles do stupid things


I would be confident that a bike with disk brakes and that amount of time would have stopped, it doesn’t excuse the driver, but it’s sure safer than being up that high with ****e/ no brakes.

CramCycle

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s not about luck, it’s about taking the maximum amount of precautions to keep yourself safe in an area you know people in vehicles do stupid things

They certainly do, if you look at the video the cyclist is looking around and sees the van about to do something stupid at 2 seconds, sees him go for it at 3 seconds and hits at 4 seconds. In this time the cyclist had swerved to avoid the crash, realised he wouldn't make it and hits the brakes and slows quite substantially (even though he wasn't going fast in the first place).

I would be confident that a bike with disk brakes and that amount of time would have stopped, it doesn’t excuse the driver, but it’s sure safer than being up that high with ****e/ no brakes.

Many would be going faster on the disc braked bike, I certainly have seen similar accidents (involved in one or two) where the bike and the motor vehicle still hit. The only two things that would have been different for me are where I would go as my brakes locked up, you would have had 1 second to react, grip brakes/steer etc. Also remember that most road bikes regardless of brakes would be going faster. Do you swerve for the front and hope you either stop in time, go under the bonnet or hammer it and get through the gap. Do you simply slam on and hope you don't fish tail or go over the bars, and hopefully do it quick enough not to hit the van side on. Or do you go right, swerve out into traffic to your right or potentially oncoming traffic. The only real danger of the PF is that its turning circle wouldn't be great I think at anything faster. For anyone who goes down the road of he should have expected the unexpected, he was cycling slow enough that the only person in any incident he was likely to harm was himself. In fact if you look at the video slowly, you will see how slow he was going when they collided as he only covered the width of half the laneway in the time it took the van to get almost completely through it.

Great thing about video like this is they don't give you enough to go on. Was the van sitting there waiting to turn, was it clear they were going to go for it and so on.

Long story short, the bike was going quite slow, in the 2 seconds it had to respond, it both tried to avoid and braked, and by the time he hit the ground was going quite slowly. Does his style of bike or perceived lack of safety devices change the fact that the van was 100% in the wrong. No, not at all.

Should the cyclist have been on a PF, or without brakes (he has brakes by the way as far as I can tell). IMO its like blaming someone for an accident because their car was a classic when they collided with an 8 wheeler that ran through a red light. Yes their car isn't as safe as a modern family car but that doesn't make the accident their fault.

So ignoring the lack of helmet, hi vis, even quality of brakes, was the accident the van drivers fault for cutting across the cyclist or the cyclists for some other reason?

For those who are really bored:
Van starts turn as the rear wheel of the PF hits the small white line (you can't see its shadow before this).
In the next metre, the van had completely blocked the junction (that the PF was only a metre away from when he started to turn). In that split second the PF has turned to try and avoid the collision. The PF continues to slow to the point that he almost misses the van by less than 0.5m (point of collision is after the rear wheel arch). Realising he is hitting it regardless he jumps as they collide. He actually slows enough to the point he gets his arm under him as he hits the ground. As collisions and reactions go, the cyclist nailed it in protecting himself.

lawrencesummers

I’ve already acknowledged that the van was in the wrong.


But let’s be clear, cycling a PF in an urban area is a dumb idea for a lot of reasons. There is no law against it, but it’s a dumb idea.

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s not about luck, it’s about taking the maximum amount of precautions to keep yourself safe in an area you know people in vehicles do stupid things


I would be confident that a bike with disk brakes and that amount of time would have stopped, it doesn’t excuse the driver, but it’s sure safer than being up that high with ****e/ no brakes.

So anybody without disc brakes is not taking the maximum amount of precautions and therefore are partly to blame for any accident they're in?

lawrencesummers

buffalo wrote: »

So anybody without disc brakes is not taking the maximum amount of precautions and therefore are partly to blame for any accident they're in?

So you couldn’t understand what I said?

John_Rambo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

But let’s be clear, cycling a PF in an urban area is a dumb idea for a lot of reasons. There is no law against it, but it’s a dumb idea.

Plenty of vintage vehicle owners or all sorts on boards.ie (including my family) with substandard brakes, suspension & safety arrangements compared to your modern Ford Focus!!! Lets not go crazy, last thing we need is a clamp down on anything old and cool.

breezy1985

John_Rambo wrote: »

Plenty of vintage vehicle owners or all sorts on boards.ie (including my family) with substandard brakes, suspension & safety arrangements compared to your modern Ford Focus!!! Lets not go crazy, last thing we need is a clamp down on anything old and cool.

I don't see why my safety should be compromised just because some hipster ejit is so desperate for attention that he need to ride a penny farthing around London. It's the cycling equivalent of a motorist who feels the need to drive a mazzerati or Humvee around London

Edit: before anyone kicks off about speeds or size the only mMazzeratis and Humvees I ever saw in London were doing 5kph around Leicester Square every Saturday night

TheChizler

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't see why my safety should be compromised just because some hipster ejit is so desperate for attention that he need to ride a penny farthing around London. It's the cycling equivalent of a motorist who feels the need to drive a mazzerati or Humvee around London

Edit: before anyone kicks off about speeds or size the only mMazzeratis and Humvees I ever saw in London were doing 5kph around Leicester Square every Saturday night

Why bring it up as a safety issue so? Air pollution?

breezy1985

TheChizler wrote: »

Why bring it up as a safety issue so? Air pollution?

have you ever had to cycle down a busy road next to a unicycle or penny regularly?


I have and they should be illegal

magicbastarder

Just how dangerous is a unicycle? They don't seem to get up to any great speed at all.

07Lapierre

breezy1985 wrote: »

have you ever had to cycle down a busy road next to a unicycle or penny regularly?


I have and they should be illegal

100's of People are killed every year in/by cars and you think bikes should be illegal?

breezy1985

07Lapierre wrote: »

100's of People are killed every year in/by cars and you think bikes should be illegal?

I think an unsafe one should be same as fixies with no brakes are.


I think there should be changes to the law around cars too. Its not a one or the other situation

Seth Brundle

breezy1985 wrote: »

have you ever had to cycle down a busy road next to a unicycle or penny regularly?


I have and they should be illegal

What happened?
Did you not see them until someone told you about them afterwards?

breezy1985 wrote: »

I think an unsafe one should be same as fixies with no brakes are.

How exactly was the PF unsafe?
The guy could have been doing cartwheels down the road but the responsibility for the incident in the video lies fully with the driver.

lawrencesummers

John_Rambo wrote: »

Plenty of vintage vehicle owners or all sorts on boards.ie (including my family) with substandard brakes, suspension & safety arrangements compared to your modern Ford Focus!!! Lets not go crazy, last thing we need is a clamp down on anything old and cool.

I own a vintage car as well, and I know the differences between it and my modern car with braking, handling, airbags etc. I know there is a level of impact I will walk away from in my modern car that I won’t in my vintage one so I drive accordingly, and importantly less frequently in it. I’ve also made safety upgrades to it over the years

What happened in F1 recently is the perfect example.

lawrencesummers

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What happened?
Did you not see them until someone told you about them afterwards?


How exactly was the PF unsafe?
The guy could have been doing cartwheels down the road but the responsibility for the incident in the video lies fully with the driver.

It’s unsafe because clearly they brakes are crap, the center of gravity is terribly high affecting the ability to turn sharply and avoid obstacles, and the risk of falling from a height causes more damage.


The van is obviously wrong, but the cyclist isn’t taking any personal measures to reduce his risk, he doesn’t have to wear high visibility clothing but it helps, or have lights in the daytime, but it helps, it’s unclear if he is wearing a helmet, personally I would prefer to be alive than in the right and injured or worse, a fall from that height can do a lot of damage.

breezy1985

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What happened?
Did you not see them until someone told you about them afterwards?


How exactly was the PF unsafe?
The guy could have been doing cartwheels down the road but the responsibility for the incident in the video lies fully with the driver.

What do you mean "Did you not see them"? hard to miss when they were all over the place in front of me in the bike lane


Fault in that video is definitely with the driver

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So you couldn’t understand what I said?

I guess not. You said "it’s about taking the maximum amount of precautions".

Then you said that a bike with disc brakes would have stopped in time. I have concluded that you mean that disc brakes are therefore included in what you consider the maximum amount of precautions. Have I misread something?

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

Just how dangerous is a unicycle? They don't seem to get up to any great speed at all.

What I said unicycle I may have been mistaken. I didnt mean the little thing clowns use I used have to contend with one of these

lawrencesummers

buffalo wrote: »

I guess not. You said "it’s about taking the maximum amount of precautions".

Then you said that a bike with disc brakes would have stopped in time. I have concluded that you mean that disc brakes are therefore included in what you consider the maximum amount of precautions. Have I misread something?

Clearly.

Play silly games win silly prizes.


If you want to be as safe as possible cycling your bike then use the best helmet, the best lights, the best clothing, the best brakes, the best technique etc etc. That’s not always possible because they often cost a lot of money, but it’s about doing the most you can. Clearly this fella isn’t, abs presumably he knows that now

It doesn’t stop van drivers doing stupid things, it doesn’t make you 100% safe but reduces your risk and maybe to a level that is safe.

AndrewJRenko

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The van is obviously wrong, but the cyclist isn’t taking any personal measures to reduce his risk, he doesn’t have to wear high visibility clothing but it helps, or have lights in the daytime, but it helps, it’s unclear if he is wearing a helmet, personally I would prefer to be alive than in the right and injured or worse, a fall from that height can do a lot of damage.

House!

lawrencesummers

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

House!

I didn’t say any of those things.


Your pitiful attempt at making fun of a potentially deadly situation is childish.

AndrewJRenko

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I didn’t say any of those things.


Your pitiful attempt at making fun of a potentially deadly situation is childish.

You were well on the way to a prize.

Seth Brundle

breezy1985 wrote: »

What do you mean "Did you not see them"? hard to miss when they were all over the place in front of me in the bike lane


Fault in that video is definitely with the driver

But them being all over the place does not mean that you cannot safely overtake. Im assuming the cycle lane is one of the usual painted crap which is the width of one bike and if you want to overtake you need to leave the cycle lane regardless of whether they are cycling normally or all over the place. They were possibly being dicks but they still had priority ahead of you and he onus would be on you to overtake carefully. Them being all over the place shouldn't mean they all PFs or Unicycles should be illegal.
However there is an onus for them to use the road with consideration for other users and if they weren't then report them.

John_Rambo

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't see why my safety should be compromised just because some hipster ejit is so desperate for attention that he need to ride a penny farthing around London. It's the cycling equivalent of a motorist who feels the need to drive a mazzerati or Humvee around London

Edit: before anyone kicks off about speeds or size the only mMazzeratis and Humvees I ever saw in London were doing 5kph around Leicester Square every Saturday night

Tough sheet Breezy. People will cycle and drive what they want as long as it's within the law, be it and old bike or a new Laferrari.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s unsafe because clearly they brakes are crap, the center of gravity is terribly high affecting the ability to turn sharply and avoid obstacles, and the risk of falling from a height causes more damage.


The van is obviously wrong, but the cyclist isn’t taking any personal measures to reduce his risk, he doesn’t have to wear high visibility clothing but it helps, or have lights in the daytime, but it helps, it’s unclear if he is wearing a helmet, personally I would prefer to be alive than in the right and injured or worse, a fall from that height can do a lot of damage.

I disagree. It was unsafe because the van driver was too impatient and turned right. The type of bike, his speed etc are irrelevant.

breezy1985

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But them being all over the place does not mean that you cannot safely overtake. Im assuming the cycle lane is one of the usual painted crap which is the width of one bike and if you want to overtake you need to leave the cycle lane regardless of whether they are cycling normally or all over the place. They were possibly being dicks but they still had priority ahead of you and he onus would be on you to overtake carefully. Them being all over the place shouldn't mean they all PFs or Unicycles should be illegal.
However there is an onus for them to use the road with consideration for other users and if they weren't then report them.

No it was Blackfriars Road London. 2 way segregated lane that they were weaving all over.


If bikes were really expensive and unicycles in penny farthings were all some people can afford I would excuse it but there is no reason to be on a road on one of those things.

On the legal issue most of the PFs are illegal because the law in the UK requires front and back brakes

breezy1985

John_Rambo wrote: »

Tough sheet Breezy. People will cycle and drive what they want as long as it's within the law, be it and old bike or a new Laferrari.

Penny Farthings are not within the law

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Clearly.

Play silly games win silly prizes.


If you want to be as safe as possible cycling your bike then use the best helmet, the best lights, the best clothing, the best brakes, the best technique etc etc. That’s not always possible because they often cost a lot of money, but it’s about doing the most you can. Clearly this fella isn’t, abs presumably he knows that now

It doesn’t stop van drivers doing stupid things, it doesn’t make you 100% safe but reduces your risk and maybe to a level that is safe.

Who's playing games? I'm trying to work out what your level of 'safe' is, so that I can make sure I'm compliant. I wouldn't want you to blame me for not wearing a helmet when a driver knocks me down because he's in a hurry while I'm cycling down the road.

CramCycle

breezy1985 wrote: »

On the legal issue most of the PFs are illegal because the law in the UK requires front and back brakes

breezy1985 wrote: »

Penny Farthings are not within the law

Point of interest, in the UK they are, over here, they require an additional break to the bike as we don't have exemptions for direct transmission that I am aware of but I could be wrong.

cletus

Do fixies also require a brake lever, then?

breezy1985

cletus wrote: »

Do fixies also require a brake lever, then?

For the front ya.
A lot of fixie cyclist were unaware until it came out in the high profile case in London where the woman was hit and killed by one

CramCycle

cletus wrote: »

Do fixies also require a brake lever, then?

breezy1985 wrote: »

For the front ya.
A lot of fixie cyclist were unaware until it came out in the high profile case in London where the woman was hit and killed by one

In the Uk 100% they do AFAIK, over here they do in spirit, but the law is written weirdly in that it states any direct drive requires only one brake and you get some people arguing their ability to lock up the rear wheel is that brake.

Personally, I wouldn't like to try that defence in court as I think it is pretty clear that the law means, in addition, not one brake only. I had a front brake I popped on and off for getting to the track but I never used it.

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

I disagree. It was unsafe because the van driver was too impatient and turned right. The type of bike, his speed etc are irrelevant.

Yep, the van was wrong.

Out of interest why do we wear seatbelts in cars?

lawrencesummers

buffalo wrote: »

Who's playing games? I'm trying to work out what your level of 'safe' is, so that I can make sure I'm compliant. I wouldn't want you to blame me for not wearing a helmet when a driver knocks me down because he's in a hurry while I'm cycling down the road.

I don’t give a fiddlers what level of precaution you take if your out cycling, or anyone else for that matter, that’s your own responsibility.

If you think its ok to not wear a helmet because accidents shouldn’t happen then that’s your call.


The attitude amongst many here ignores the unfortunate vulnerability of being out cycling because they would sooner be in the right than be safe.

lawrencesummers

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You were well on the way to a prize.

I didnt say cyclists should wear high viz, I said it they do it might help, that’s it’s best practice but up to the individual. I said it’s unclear from the video if he was wearing a helmet or not.

buffalo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I don’t give a fiddlers what level of precaution you take if your out cycling, or anyone else for that matter, that’s your own responsibility.

If you think its ok to not wear a helmet because accidents shouldn’t happen then that’s your call.


The attitude amongst many here ignores the unfortunate vulnerability of being out cycling because they would sooner be in the right than be safe.

If you don't give a fiddler's about what other people do, why are you posting in the thread? :pac:

magicbastarder

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The attitude amongst many here ignores the unfortunate vulnerability of being out cycling because they would sooner be in the right than be safe.

i don't think it's that.
i think cyclists are tired of discussions about cyclist safety always coming back to helmets and hi-vis, reactive measures which are minor when it comes to cyclist safety.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Lets just nip the helmet and Hi Vis talk in the bud here. We have mega threads for both those topics, well worth a read if you haven't, and have a few days off, and nothing better to do but if you have anything new to add, do it in those threads, not here.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Yep, the van was wrong.

Out of interest why do we wear seatbelts in cars?

Out of interest, why don't all motorist wear helmets?
Why don't all motorists install steel roll cages in their cars?
Why don't all cars have 5 point safety harnesses and bucket seats installed?
Why is it not compulsory to wear fire resistant clothing while driving?

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

Out of interest, why don't all motorist wear helmets?
Why don't all motorists install steel roll cages in their cars?
Why don't all cars have 5 point safety harnesses and bucket seats installed?
Why is it not compulsory to wear fire resistant clothing while driving?

Your going to have to get onto they people who determine through testing and data analysis why they make some safety features mandatory, some recommended and some unnecessary in certain settings.


Presumably there is data to back up any of the decisions that are taken.

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I own a vintage. I know there is a level of impact I will walk away from in my modern car that I won’t in my vintage one so I drive accordingly.

But just like the cyclist on the pennyfarthing, you have no control over other roadusers and how and what they drive. The fact is,even if you are driving at a safe speed in your vintage car, you are a vulnerable roaduser and it's up to other road users to drive with due care and attention.

Of course you could install a roll cage, wear a helmet, wear fire resistant clothing etc. You know...take all necessary precautions to ensure your own safety right?

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Your going to have to get onto they people who determine through testing and data analysis why they make some safety features mandatory, some recommended and some unnecessary in certain settings.


Presumably there is data to back up any of the decisions that are taken.

I think you'll find that the majority of safety features on cars are legally required by law. If they were not legally required, manufacturers would not install them.

Eamonnator

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think you'll find that the majority of safety features on cars are legally required by law. If they were not legally required, manufacturers would not install them.

ABS, Lane change warning systems, 10 airbags in a car, seat belt tensioners, head restraints, etc, etc??

07Lapierre

Eamonnator wrote: »

ABS, Lane change warning systems, 10 airbags in a car, seat belt tensioners, head restraints, etc, etc??

Yeah your right..."safety sells" so lots of safety features are added to cars without legal requirement. im wrong on that point.

It wasn't always like that though...

https://www.defensivedriving.com/blog/a-history-of-seat-belts/

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

But just like the cyclist on the pennyfarthing, you have no control over other roadusers and how and what they drive. The fact is,even if you are driving at a safe speed in your vintage car, you are a vulnerable roaduser and it's up to other road users to drive with due care and attention.

Of course you could install a roll cage, wear a helmet, wear fire resistant clothing etc. You know...take all necessary precautions to ensure your own safety right?

Nobody said anything about controlling other road users.

lawrencesummers

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yeah your right..."safety sells" so lots of safety features are added to cars without legal requirement. im wrong on that point.

It wasn't always like that though...

https://www.defensivedriving.com/blog/a-history-of-seat-belts/

So your linking an article about the beneficial evolution of safety features in an effort to prove the safety of a 150 year old bicycle?

Good man yourself

07Lapierre

lawrencesummers wrote: »

So your linking an article about the beneficial evolution of safety features in an effort to prove the safety of a 150 year old bicycle?

Good man yourself

No. Try reading my posts again. Are you having difficulty reading/ understanding them?