Cyclist hurt after 'hit and run' near Darlington (From Darlington and Stockton Times)

Another cyclist hurt. I wonder who will be the first to post a hateful comment suggesting it was his fault in some way?

johnny_p wrote:
Another cyclist hurt. I wonder who will be the first to post a hateful comment suggesting it was his fault in some way?

It'll be the usual bunch of haters.

It involved a possible vehicle? What else do the police think "possibly" wiped this man out?

You couldn't make it up!

johnny_p wrote:
Another cyclist hurt. I wonder who will be the first to post a hateful comment suggesting it was his fault in some way?

This morning at 6am it was VERY foggy towards Yarm on the A67 where the police had the road closed. So there are many questions which need to be answered around this to apportion blame (I hate this blame culture we've cultivated, but that's another issue).

Was the cyclist appropriately visible for the conditions?
What kind of vehicle hit him?

It's entirely possible that in the conditions that a large vehicle (HGV) may have been involved and had simply not seen the cyclist, and certainly wouldn't have noticed hitting him!

huychy wrote:

johnny_p wrote:
Another cyclist hurt. I wonder who will be the first to post a hateful comment suggesting it was his fault in some way?

This morning at 6am it was VERY foggy towards Yarm on the A67 where the police had the road closed. So there are many questions which need to be answered around this to apportion blame (I hate this blame culture we've cultivated, but that's another issue).

Was the cyclist appropriately visible for the conditions?
What kind of vehicle hit him?

It's entirely possible that in the conditions that a large vehicle (HGV) may have been involved and had simply not seen the cyclist, and certainly wouldn't have noticed hitting him!

There's the first one.... cyclist haters of the World unite.

Best Wishes to the injured cyclist, hope he makes a full and quick recovery

As Rog says, I hope the cyclist makes a full recovery, and the cause of the collision is discovered.

Everyone that knows the cyclist will be thinking of him and only him at this time and will not be making any speculation about what happened. If someone didn't stop then they need to be found and punished. Leave the investigation to the police. I really hope that the cyclist makes a quick and full recovery.

Just like to say he is recovering well, he was on his way to work, and had lots of lights on his bike to ensure visability. Police are doing a great job, amazing officers helping out, they could not have been better

lben11 wrote:
Just like to say he is recovering well, he was on his way to work, and had lots of lights on his bike to ensure visability. Police are doing a great job, amazing officers helping out, they could not have been better

Also big thanks to the man who stopped and found him x

johnny_p wrote:

huychy wrote:

johnny_p wrote:
Another cyclist hurt. I wonder who will be the first to post a hateful comment suggesting it was his fault in some way?

This morning at 6am it was VERY foggy towards Yarm on the A67 where the police had the road closed. So there are many questions which need to be answered around this to apportion blame (I hate this blame culture we've cultivated, but that's another issue).

Was the cyclist appropriately visible for the conditions?
What kind of vehicle hit him?

It's entirely possible that in the conditions that a large vehicle (HGV) may have been involved and had simply not seen the cyclist, and certainly wouldn't have noticed hitting him!

There's the first one.... cyclist haters of the World unite.

Really!!!He is only making a comment and asking a question surely! To be honest quite a fair point. Ur reaction to the comment Jonny P creates an issue out of something that is not an issue in the first place! Anyway while I'm on why when I pass cyclists on a weekend on the back road to Sedgefield they ride next to each other and not in single file? Just a question, however I struggle to understand the reason why they ride like this. This cause potential risks as the drivers have to wait behind them until they can overtake.

lben11, glad to hear he's recovering well.

Liamsm, not the time or the place but drivers are meant to wait behind until they can overtake and cyclists do not have to ride in single file.

Like the continent we need it such that the driver of the vehicle is automatically guilty if they hit a cyclist. That will help ensure vehicle drivers are a lot more careful around cyclists.

A good start would be if vehicle drivers applied the highway code and gave cyclists a 'vehicles width' of clearance on ALL occasions.
Not many bother because they know they will come out of a collision OK, whilst crushing the cyclist.

That they also stopped the dangerous practice of 'head ons, where they overtake a cyclist when there is a vehicle adjacent on the approaching carriageway.
They would not do it for a motorbike, so why with a cycle?

So many serious injuries inflicted by vehicles on cyclists has to stop. We are the only european country who does not get it ..

Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

MSG wrote:
Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

Complete nonsense:

1. Why do cyclists "need to be insured"? Pedestrians don't need to be (another road user).

2. What difference do helmets make? Especially to the car driver who hits a cyclist.

3. Why a "hi-viz" vest? Can't you see something unless it is reflective? Cars can be any colour, light or dark.

4. Lights- how do you assume this cyclist didn't have lights?

5. Cycle training? I thought most cyclists did get "cycle training". Even I did when I went to school 25 years ago.

6. Registration plates so they can be "found if they cause an incident?". I'm interested ago know what kind of "incident" you refer to.

7. And you are allowed to "undertake at junctions". It's in the Highway Code. You may resent it, but if I took my car instead I'd be filling even more road space.

Sorry but your another cyclist-hater. At least you try and tone your feelings down with I "hope he gates better" note at the end.

spragger wrote:
Like the continent we need it such that the driver of the vehicle is automatically guilty if they hit a cyclist. That will help ensure vehicle drivers are a lot more careful around cyclists.

A good start would be if vehicle drivers applied the highway code and gave cyclists a 'vehicles width' of clearance on ALL occasions.
Not many bother because they know they will come out of a collision OK, whilst crushing the cyclist.

That they also stopped the dangerous practice of 'head ons, where they overtake a cyclist when there is a vehicle adjacent on the approaching carriageway.
They would not do it for a motorbike, so why with a cycle?

So many serious injuries inflicted by vehicles on cyclists has to stop. We are the only european country who does not get it ..

I agree fully Spragger, but we've got a long way to go in Britain where it seems to be assumed to be fair game to abuse cyclists on the road here. MSG's comments above being typical of drivers who assume they are higher up in the "road users food chain".

I nearly hit a cyclist today side in when he decided to pull out right in front of me on the Larchfield Street/Coniscliffe Road area.

Car drivers at the same junction were waiting patiently for me and others to drive past so they could safely turn out, but this canary yellow lycra-clad idiot hadn't even looked to his right to bother to check.

If I had hit this cyclist, I'd love to have heard spragger's justification of it being my fault.

"If I had hit this cyclist, I'd love to have heard spragger's justification of it being my fault."

In your case, it would be the cyclist's fault, assuming there were's nothing you're not telling us.

On the continent, there's something called strict liability, which changes the balance of evidence in favour of more vulnerable road users. It doesn't, despite what spragger said above, make the motorist automatically at fault.

At the moment, in a collision between a cyclist and a motorist all of the evidence has to be considered before blame can be apportioned. Under strict liability, the driver would be assumed to be at fault unless evidence to the contrary was obtained.

Under strict liability, a cyclist would be presumed at fault in any cyclist-pedestrian accident.

Note that this is only for civil/financial fault, not criminal, where the usual balance of evidence and presumption of innocence applies.

I'd just like to add, I have no issue with cyclists per se, but, a bit like car drivers and football referees, only the bad ones really stand out.

"I'd just like to add, I have no issue with cyclists per se, but, a bit like car drivers and football referees, only the bad ones really stand out."

Indeed, there's an awful lot of confirmation bias going on.

If someone believes all cyclists to be no-helmet, no-high-viz, no-lights, pavement-riding lunatics, they'll only notice those who confirm this.

johnny_p wrote:

MSG wrote:
Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

Complete nonsense:

1. Why do cyclists "need to be insured"? Pedestrians don't need to be (another road user).

2. What difference do helmets make? Especially to the car driver who hits a cyclist.

3. Why a "hi-viz" vest? Can't you see something unless it is reflective? Cars can be any colour, light or dark.

4. Lights- how do you assume this cyclist didn't have lights?

5. Cycle training? I thought most cyclists did get "cycle training". Even I did when I went to school 25 years ago.

6. Registration plates so they can be "found if they cause an incident?". I'm interested ago know what kind of "incident" you refer to.

7. And you are allowed to "undertake at junctions". It's in the Highway Code. You may resent it, but if I took my car instead I'd be filling even more road space.

Sorry but your another cyclist-hater. At least you try and tone your feelings down with I "hope he gates better" note at the end.

you sound like a very irresponsible cyclist, sorry, bike rider.. MSG made some interesting and valid points for responsible cycling on modern roads..

There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?

the usual car haters and cyclist haters out at each other, accidents like this can be helped by everyone both drivers paying more atention and cyclists too, i dnt care if the vehicle can cause more damage etc, sometimes its cyclists being idiots often usually more its a driver however by drawing big dividng lines it doesnt help we need to work together to stop cyclist being hit etc

tomtopper: "There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?"

funksoul201181: "sometimes its cyclists being idiots often usually more its a driver"

95% of serious incidents involving a cyclist and a car are the fault of the driver of the car.

Funksoul is right on haters too. Doesn't help anyone.

tomtopper wrote:

johnny_p wrote:

MSG wrote:
Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

Complete nonsense:

1. Why do cyclists "need to be insured"? Pedestrians don't need to be (another road user).

2. What difference do helmets make? Especially to the car driver who hits a cyclist.

3. Why a "hi-viz" vest? Can't you see something unless it is reflective? Cars can be any colour, light or dark.

4. Lights- how do you assume this cyclist didn't have lights?

5. Cycle training? I thought most cyclists did get "cycle training". Even I did when I went to school 25 years ago.

6. Registration plates so they can be "found if they cause an incident?". I'm interested ago know what kind of "incident" you refer to.

7. And you are allowed to "undertake at junctions". It's in the Highway Code. You may resent it, but if I took my car instead I'd be filling even more road space.

Sorry but your another cyclist-hater. At least you try and tone your feelings down with I "hope he gates better" note at the end.

you sound like a very irresponsible cyclist, sorry, bike rider.. MSG made some interesting and valid points for responsible cycling on modern roads..

There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?

Aaaaah! Tom Topper the writer of "Very Advanced Driving" (google the reviews of this his book if you want to judge). His previous cyclist-hating comments can be found elsewhere on the Northern Echo website.

A man who despite being a "VERY advanced driver" still can't avoid having accidents involving cyclists. Of course though, you're from another age- driving arrogantly in your Rover, your string back gloves firmly grasping the wheel at ten-to-two, and tutting at pedestrians who are forced to scurry out of your way.

Good luck. I hope you don't manage to kill anyone before the DVLA take your licence off you.

The roads in Darlington seem more and more congested and many vehicle drivers seem to be in a mad rush. Only today, crossing the traffic lights near the Police Station, a car set off right at me just because I hadn't made it to the pavement before the light turned green! ...You'd of thought it was the start of a race or something.

We have a strange, almost neolithic approach to cyclists, as witnessed on this site.
The strange thing is many unfit people on here would benefit from the exercise cycling can provide. Then we might see some different opinions, from enlightenment

johnny_p wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

johnny_p wrote:

MSG wrote:
Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

Complete nonsense:

1. Why do cyclists "need to be insured"? Pedestrians don't need to be (another road user).

2. What difference do helmets make? Especially to the car driver who hits a cyclist.

3. Why a "hi-viz" vest? Can't you see something unless it is reflective? Cars can be any colour, light or dark.

4. Lights- how do you assume this cyclist didn't have lights?

5. Cycle training? I thought most cyclists did get "cycle training". Even I did when I went to school 25 years ago.

6. Registration plates so they can be "found if they cause an incident?". I'm interested ago know what kind of "incident" you refer to.

7. And you are allowed to "undertake at junctions". It's in the Highway Code. You may resent it, but if I took my car instead I'd be filling even more road space.

Sorry but your another cyclist-hater. At least you try and tone your feelings down with I "hope he gates better" note at the end.

you sound like a very irresponsible cyclist, sorry, bike rider.. MSG made some interesting and valid points for responsible cycling on modern roads..

There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?

Aaaaah! Tom Topper the writer of "Very Advanced Driving" (google the reviews of this his book if you want to judge). His previous cyclist-hating comments can be found elsewhere on the Northern Echo website.

A man who despite being a "VERY advanced driver" still can't avoid having accidents involving cyclists. Of course though, you're from another age- driving arrogantly in your Rover, your string back gloves firmly grasping the wheel at ten-to-two, and tutting at pedestrians who are forced to scurry out of your way.

Good luck. I hope you don't manage to kill anyone before the DVLA take your licence off you.

I'd love to know what cyclists I've had accidents with..? Still, when one consistently destroys your arguments, I suppose a bit of BS & cheap, inaccurate shots are to be expected...

Actually, I'm thinking of writing a new book, based on yourself and entitled "VERY Advanced Jealousy"

miketually wrote:
tomtopper: "There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?"

funksoul201181: "sometimes its cyclists being idiots often usually more its a driver"

95% of serious incidents involving a cyclist and a car are the fault of the driver of the car.

Funksoul is right on haters too. Doesn't help anyone.

Not sure about that.. According to the well respected ROSPA...

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions."

tomtopper wrote:

johnny_p wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

johnny_p wrote:

MSG wrote:
Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

Complete nonsense:

1. Why do cyclists "need to be insured"? Pedestrians don't need to be (another road user).

2. What difference do helmets make? Especially to the car driver who hits a cyclist.

3. Why a "hi-viz" vest? Can't you see something unless it is reflective? Cars can be any colour, light or dark.

4. Lights- how do you assume this cyclist didn't have lights?

5. Cycle training? I thought most cyclists did get "cycle training". Even I did when I went to school 25 years ago.

6. Registration plates so they can be "found if they cause an incident?". I'm interested ago know what kind of "incident" you refer to.

7. And you are allowed to "undertake at junctions". It's in the Highway Code. You may resent it, but if I took my car instead I'd be filling even more road space.

Sorry but your another cyclist-hater. At least you try and tone your feelings down with I "hope he gates better" note at the end.

you sound like a very irresponsible cyclist, sorry, bike rider.. MSG made some interesting and valid points for responsible cycling on modern roads..

There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?

Aaaaah! Tom Topper the writer of "Very Advanced Driving" (google the reviews of this his book if you want to judge). His previous cyclist-hating comments can be found elsewhere on the Northern Echo website.

A man who despite being a "VERY advanced driver" still can't avoid having accidents involving cyclists. Of course though, you're from another age- driving arrogantly in your Rover, your string back gloves firmly grasping the wheel at ten-to-two, and tutting at pedestrians who are forced to scurry out of your way.

Good luck. I hope you don't manage to kill anyone before the DVLA take your licence off you.

I'd love to know what cyclists I've had accidents with..? Still, when one consistently destroys your arguments, I suppose a bit of BS & cheap, inaccurate shots are to be expected...

Actually, I'm thinking of writing a new book, based on yourself and entitled "VERY Advanced Jealousy"

You've used the word "jealousy" before on previous posts. Still, often when people use such descriptive words they are explaining emotions they themselves are wrestling with. Some of the negative comments about your book refer to your constant name-callling, and anger towards other road users. Is this an appropriate way to behave on the road?

The word "jealousy" tells me that you feel that their is some form of hierarchy amongst road users. That perhaps the person with the biggest, most powerful or expensive car is somehow superior. Can you explain what you mean?

johnny_p wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

johnny_p wrote:

tomtopper wrote:

johnny_p wrote:

MSG wrote:
Spragger, no way should the vehiclle driver be deemed guilty straight away. not until bike riders are - insured, compulsory wearing of helmets, mandatory wearing of high-viz clothing, have a front and back working light, all bikes have a registration number so they can be found if they cause an incident, all riders have had cycle training. They must also learn not undertake at junctions and should give clear hand signals to other road users!

I hope the man makes a good recovery.

Complete nonsense:

1. Why do cyclists "need to be insured"? Pedestrians don't need to be (another road user).

2. What difference do helmets make? Especially to the car driver who hits a cyclist.

3. Why a "hi-viz" vest? Can't you see something unless it is reflective? Cars can be any colour, light or dark.

4. Lights- how do you assume this cyclist didn't have lights?

5. Cycle training? I thought most cyclists did get "cycle training". Even I did when I went to school 25 years ago.

6. Registration plates so they can be "found if they cause an incident?". I'm interested ago know what kind of "incident" you refer to.

7. And you are allowed to "undertake at junctions". It's in the Highway Code. You may resent it, but if I took my car instead I'd be filling even more road space.

Sorry but your another cyclist-hater. At least you try and tone your feelings down with I "hope he gates better" note at the end.

you sound like a very irresponsible cyclist, sorry, bike rider.. MSG made some interesting and valid points for responsible cycling on modern roads..

There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?

Aaaaah! Tom Topper the writer of "Very Advanced Driving" (google the reviews of this his book if you want to judge). His previous cyclist-hating comments can be found elsewhere on the Northern Echo website.

A man who despite being a "VERY advanced driver" still can't avoid having accidents involving cyclists. Of course though, you're from another age- driving arrogantly in your Rover, your string back gloves firmly grasping the wheel at ten-to-two, and tutting at pedestrians who are forced to scurry out of your way.

Good luck. I hope you don't manage to kill anyone before the DVLA take your licence off you.

I'd love to know what cyclists I've had accidents with..? Still, when one consistently destroys your arguments, I suppose a bit of BS & cheap, inaccurate shots are to be expected...

Actually, I'm thinking of writing a new book, based on yourself and entitled "VERY Advanced Jealousy"

You've used the word "jealousy" before on previous posts. Still, often when people use such descriptive words they are explaining emotions they themselves are wrestling with. Some of the negative comments about your book refer to your constant name-callling, and anger towards other road users. Is this an appropriate way to behave on the road?

The word "jealousy" tells me that you feel that their is some form of hierarchy amongst road users. That perhaps the person with the biggest, most powerful or expensive car is somehow superior. Can you explain what you mean?

"You've used the word "jealousy" before on previous posts. Still, often when people use such descriptive words they are explaining emotions they themselves are wrestling with."

Considering you've used the word 'cyclist-hater' numerous times must indicate that you're wrestling with the hatred emotion yourself? (to use your own pseudo-science, that is)

"Some of the negative comments about your book refer to your constant name-callling, and anger towards other road users. Is this an appropriate way to behave on the road? "

Lets clarify the above.. In the interests of balance for anyone reading this thread, my book (now out of print), on amazon, which jonnyp refers to, has 14 reviews, of which six are 5 star, three are 4 star, one is 3 star and four at 1 star... So there is a broad range of comments, from good to bad.. The bad one's are usually from bolt rigid ADI's simply because there's a distinct lack of officialism and the advice is realistic advice, and designed to provoke thought about driving.. a lot of the new breed driving instructors who think everyone should drive as if they're on their test all the time, generally don't like the book.. The book contains humour, a few personal insights, but no anger.. comments in a book and behaviour on the road are two different things..

"The word "jealousy" tells me that you feel that their is some form of hierarchy amongst road users. That perhaps the person with the biggest, most powerful or expensive car is somehow superior. Can you explain what you mean?"

Of course there's hierarchy on the road... You might as well throw the highway code away otherwise... Bigger, more powerful vehicles demand respect on the road, for example, at a roundabout where I would be going straight over and a juggernaut in lane 2 turning right, I'm going to sit back from the truck and allow it to complete its manouvre, similarly, If I have a frustrated motorist behind me in a faster vehicle, I'll either let him pass or increase speed... Having a rigid and immature mindset on the road, is wat leads to a lot of serious accidents...

I am pleased the cyclist has made a good recovery it was me who found him haven't had any contact from police or the cyclist I know they have my mobile number could of been passed on I believe he is a policeman at Darlington police station so would have been able to get my number ? Quite a traumatic experience for myself finding what I thought at first was a dead body at 5.35 ish on the way to work still can't believe how other motorists acted at the scene when they wouldn't stop and help me when I phoned 999 the call centre was in Newcastle operator didn't have a clue where I was,just glad he was ok caused over £ 350 damage to my car and the police even tried to charge me for recovering my vehicle so much for the Good Samaritan act it has put off cycling for life too dangerous !!!

tomtopper wrote:

miketually wrote:
tomtopper: "There are some terrible bike riders out there, just as there are motorists.. why can't you see that?"

funksoul201181: "sometimes its cyclists being idiots often usually more its a driver"

95% of serious incidents involving a cyclist and a car are the fault of the driver of the car.

Funksoul is right on haters too. Doesn't help anyone.

Not sure about that.. According to the well respected ROSPA...

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions."

A bit late, but here's the source of my 95%:

http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/12065-report
-dft-casualty-stats-
says-cyclists-not-bl
ame-93-cent-cases

It's actually 93%. Sorry.