Cyclist taken to hospital after crash with car in Sandbanks

Picture by Lisa Barry

Picture by Lisa Barry

First published in News
Last updated
by

A CYCLIST has been taken to hospital after being involved in a collision with a car in Poole this afternoon.

The incident, involving a bicycle and a red Lexus RX registered to a local man, was reported to South Western Ambulance Service at 4.20pm, following the crash on Banks Road in Sandbanks.

A man who was riding the bike has been taken to Poole Hospital for treatment, although it is not know the extent of his injuries, but it is not thought to be life-threatening.

The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:25pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

"The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries"

-----------

Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle.

I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up.



On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road.
It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.
"The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries" ----------- Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle. I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up. On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road. It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 7

6:29pm Thu 10 Apr 14

bourne free says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
"The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries"

-----------

Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle.

I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up.



On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road.
It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.
So your more concerned about the state of the road and the safety features of the toyota than the well being of the cyclist !!!!!!!!!!!!
Best wishes to the cyclist and hope you recover quickly and get back biking asap .
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: "The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries" ----------- Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle. I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up. On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road. It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.[/p][/quote]So your more concerned about the state of the road and the safety features of the toyota than the well being of the cyclist !!!!!!!!!!!! Best wishes to the cyclist and hope you recover quickly and get back biking asap . bourne free
  • Score: 5

9:34pm Thu 10 Apr 14

hooplaa says...

'The incident, involving a bicycle and a red Lexus RX registered to a local man, was reported to South Western Ambulance Service at 4.20pm'

It isnt going to be reported to the London ambulance service is it!
'The incident, involving a bicycle and a red Lexus RX registered to a local man, was reported to South Western Ambulance Service at 4.20pm' It isnt going to be reported to the London ambulance service is it! hooplaa
  • Score: -3

10:11pm Thu 10 Apr 14

carrrob says...

Not going to comment on cyclists its all been said many times hope the chap makes a speedy recovery
Not going to comment on cyclists its all been said many times hope the chap makes a speedy recovery carrrob
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Thu 10 Apr 14

bigd70 says...

Speedy recovery to the cyclist . But can somebody tell me why the cyclists dont use the cycle path from Bakers Arms to warham ? They all ride on the road causing dangerous Manoeuvring for vehicles to pass. A great exspence
as gone on the cycle path.
Speedy recovery to the cyclist . But can somebody tell me why the cyclists dont use the cycle path from Bakers Arms to warham ? They all ride on the road causing dangerous Manoeuvring for vehicles to pass. A great exspence as gone on the cycle path. bigd70
  • Score: -4

7:57am Fri 11 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

I don't use that cycle path as it just encourages motorists to go as fast as possible without slowing down or steering away from me on my bike.

When I stay on the road, they ease off a bit,and steer away a bit.


Hope this helps.

The "expence" is just more wasted money,and the dangerous "Manoeuvring" is caused by the dangerous drivers,not the cyclers.
I don't use that cycle path as it just encourages motorists to go as fast as possible without slowing down or steering away from me on my bike. When I stay on the road, they ease off a bit,and steer away a bit. Hope this helps. The "expence" is just more wasted money,and the dangerous "Manoeuvring" is caused by the dangerous drivers,not the cyclers. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 4

8:30am Fri 11 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
I don't use that cycle path as it just encourages motorists to go as fast as possible without slowing down or steering away from me on my bike.

When I stay on the road, they ease off a bit,and steer away a bit.


Hope this helps.

The "expence" is just more wasted money,and the dangerous "Manoeuvring" is caused by the dangerous drivers,not the cyclers.
If you use your bike to slow down vehicles just for the hell of it then you're asking for trouble, what a stupid attitude to have.
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: I don't use that cycle path as it just encourages motorists to go as fast as possible without slowing down or steering away from me on my bike. When I stay on the road, they ease off a bit,and steer away a bit. Hope this helps. The "expence" is just more wasted money,and the dangerous "Manoeuvring" is caused by the dangerous drivers,not the cyclers.[/p][/quote]If you use your bike to slow down vehicles just for the hell of it then you're asking for trouble, what a stupid attitude to have. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

8:46am Fri 11 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 4

8:54am Fri 11 Apr 14

Cordite says...

bigd70 wrote:
Speedy recovery to the cyclist . But can somebody tell me why the cyclists dont use the cycle path from Bakers Arms to warham ? They all ride on the road causing dangerous Manoeuvring for vehicles to pass. A great exspence
as gone on the cycle path.
Because it has not been maintained since laying and.......

You need to carry hedge trimmers, secateurs or a machete to get from the Romany Centre to the Bakers Arms roundabout.
Regularly blocked by people tending their horses by the Bakers Arms and ripping up the verge with their 4x4's, covering the path in mud.
Covered in debris and the remains from car crashes, glass, and the remains of 'McDonalds'.
Oh, and the occasional deer that has been run over.

On top off that there is no 'safe' crossing places to get one side to the other at peak times.
Undulating surface outside the Romany Centre that's like a cobbled street.
Vehicles emerging from the Romany Centre and Holton Lee that have no where to go due to traffic flow blocking the path.
Very little indicator usage, especially when trying to negotiate the crossings around Blackhill and the Bakers Arms roundabouts.

The Bakers Arms crossing is more dangerous than going with the traffic flow -you need to cross 8 lanes of either fast moving or queuing traffic blocking the crossing points to get from the A351 to Lytchett Minster.

The crossing point or so called 'refuge' on a bend outside the Bakers Arms is about 2 feet wide, so you are sandwiched between two cars, one normally travelling at speed and cutting the corner.

A waste of money, including the works through Sandford...

And before the 'anti-cycling' warriors start, I am also a motorist, have a car, accident insurance for car and bike, lights on my bike, and I choose to cycle from Wareham to Poole because it is quicker than driving!
[quote][p][bold]bigd70[/bold] wrote: Speedy recovery to the cyclist . But can somebody tell me why the cyclists dont use the cycle path from Bakers Arms to warham ? They all ride on the road causing dangerous Manoeuvring for vehicles to pass. A great exspence as gone on the cycle path.[/p][/quote]Because it has not been maintained since laying and....... You need to carry hedge trimmers, secateurs or a machete to get from the Romany Centre to the Bakers Arms roundabout. Regularly blocked by people tending their horses by the Bakers Arms and ripping up the verge with their 4x4's, covering the path in mud. Covered in debris and the remains from car crashes, glass, and the remains of 'McDonalds'. Oh, and the occasional deer that has been run over. On top off that there is no 'safe' crossing places to get one side to the other at peak times. Undulating surface outside the Romany Centre that's like a cobbled street. Vehicles emerging from the Romany Centre and Holton Lee that have no where to go due to traffic flow blocking the path. Very little indicator usage, especially when trying to negotiate the crossings around Blackhill and the Bakers Arms roundabouts. The Bakers Arms crossing is more dangerous than going with the traffic flow -you need to cross 8 lanes of either fast moving or queuing traffic blocking the crossing points to get from the A351 to Lytchett Minster. The crossing point or so called 'refuge' on a bend outside the Bakers Arms is about 2 feet wide, so you are sandwiched between two cars, one normally travelling at speed and cutting the corner. A waste of money, including the works through Sandford... And before the 'anti-cycling' warriors start, I am also a motorist, have a car, accident insurance for car and bike, lights on my bike, and I choose to cycle from Wareham to Poole because it is quicker than driving! Cordite
  • Score: 5

9:01am Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!?

Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!? Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least. Stereotyped
  • Score: -4

9:10am Fri 11 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

Is it like the arrogant surfers not using the surf reef provided for them?

Or is that somehow different?
Is it like the arrogant surfers not using the surf reef provided for them? Or is that somehow different? anotherfatslob
  • Score: 3

9:32am Fri 11 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Keep off them then and do us a favor..
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]Keep off them then and do us a favor.. Hessenford
  • Score: -4

10:24am Fri 11 Apr 14

joeinpoole says...

Stereotyped wrote:
anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!?

Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.
Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed.

As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption
by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879.

If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!? Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.[/p][/quote]Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed. As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879. If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed. joeinpoole
  • Score: 8

11:21am Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

joeinpoole wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!?

Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.
Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed.

As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption
by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879.

If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.
But not using a path, built specifically for you, just to make drivers have to slow down, impeding on the flow of traffic...which is an offence by the way...is arrogant.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!? Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.[/p][/quote]Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed. As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879. If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.[/p][/quote]But not using a path, built specifically for you, just to make drivers have to slow down, impeding on the flow of traffic...which is an offence by the way...is arrogant. Stereotyped
  • Score: -3

1:41pm Fri 11 Apr 14

joeinpoole says...

Stereotyped wrote:
joeinpoole wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!?

Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.
Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed.

As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption
by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879.

If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.
But not using a path, built specifically for you, just to make drivers have to slow down, impeding on the flow of traffic...which is an offence by the way...is arrogant.
I think what 'anotherfatslob' is referring to is called riding in the primary position or 'taking the lane'. It is safe practice to do so.

Cyclists do it a) when passing parked cars whose doors may suddenly open; b) to prevent traffic overtaking dangerously in narrow roads and c) when manoeuvring or turning.

Section 163 of the Highway Code states road users should: "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

If you are complying with the Highway Code then a cyclist riding in the primary position should not make any difference to you. You should only be overtaking the cyclist, when safe to do so, by using the oncoming lane (just as you would when overtaking a car). Using the primary position prevents impatient drivers (like you) from trying to squeeze through small gaps and putting the cyclist at risk.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!? Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.[/p][/quote]Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed. As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879. If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.[/p][/quote]But not using a path, built specifically for you, just to make drivers have to slow down, impeding on the flow of traffic...which is an offence by the way...is arrogant.[/p][/quote]I think what 'anotherfatslob' is referring to is called riding in the primary position or 'taking the lane'. It is safe practice to do so. Cyclists do it a) when passing parked cars whose doors may suddenly open; b) to prevent traffic overtaking dangerously in narrow roads and c) when manoeuvring or turning. Section 163 of the Highway Code states road users should: "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car." If you are complying with the Highway Code then a cyclist riding in the primary position should not make any difference to you. You should only be overtaking the cyclist, when safe to do so, by using the oncoming lane (just as you would when overtaking a car). Using the primary position prevents impatient drivers (like you) from trying to squeeze through small gaps and putting the cyclist at risk. joeinpoole
  • Score: 5

3:21pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

joeinpoole wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
joeinpoole wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!?

Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.
Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed.

As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption
by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879.

If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.
But not using a path, built specifically for you, just to make drivers have to slow down, impeding on the flow of traffic...which is an offence by the way...is arrogant.
I think what 'anotherfatslob' is referring to is called riding in the primary position or 'taking the lane'. It is safe practice to do so.

Cyclists do it a) when passing parked cars whose doors may suddenly open; b) to prevent traffic overtaking dangerously in narrow roads and c) when manoeuvring or turning.

Section 163 of the Highway Code states road users should: "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

If you are complying with the Highway Code then a cyclist riding in the primary position should not make any difference to you. You should only be overtaking the cyclist, when safe to do so, by using the oncoming lane (just as you would when overtaking a car). Using the primary position prevents impatient drivers (like you) from trying to squeeze through small gaps and putting the cyclist at risk.
I overtake cars all the time on dual carriageways, when they are in the lane next to me...sometime this means they are less than "6 feet away" is it still safe to do so.

I'm not saying that it is illegal for cyclists to do this, I am saying it is arrogant. When there is a cycle lane there for you, which means you are farther away from the faster moving traffic...you choose to ride farther out in the road to 'force' cars to get held up and only pass you when the other direction is free.

Arrogance, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't drive my car mm's away from the pavement/kerb in order to prevent cyclists from passing me in town when I am stuck in traffic, I let them go past...even if they do so without looking ahead for the car turning left in front of them...or stop for the red traffic light.
[quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joeinpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]Use the path which was made for you! We (car drivers) don't drive half on the pavement to make pedestrians more aware of us and look out before they walk across the road, do we!? Riding on a road when there is a purpose built path for you, as a cyclist, is arrogant to say the least.[/p][/quote]Actually I find your attitude to be "arrogant to say the least" and also misinformed. As it happens, under the law, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists all have the right of way on the roads. Motorists do not. Motorists are granted an exemption by means of licensing both the driver and the vehicle, either of which can be removed by the authorities at any time. In contrast pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists cannot be banned from using the roads. Cyclists have had the right of way to use the roads since 1879. If the 'cycle path' was genuinely purpose-built and dedicated for the use of cyclists then using it would be mandatory. However these 'shared use' paths, which are basically just the pavement, are optional for cyclists and are often poorly maintained, strewn with debris and invaded by overgrown vegetation. It's not much fun being ripped to pieces by brambles and branches which are difficult to spot in time when cycling at a decent speed.[/p][/quote]But not using a path, built specifically for you, just to make drivers have to slow down, impeding on the flow of traffic...which is an offence by the way...is arrogant.[/p][/quote]I think what 'anotherfatslob' is referring to is called riding in the primary position or 'taking the lane'. It is safe practice to do so. Cyclists do it a) when passing parked cars whose doors may suddenly open; b) to prevent traffic overtaking dangerously in narrow roads and c) when manoeuvring or turning. Section 163 of the Highway Code states road users should: "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car." If you are complying with the Highway Code then a cyclist riding in the primary position should not make any difference to you. You should only be overtaking the cyclist, when safe to do so, by using the oncoming lane (just as you would when overtaking a car). Using the primary position prevents impatient drivers (like you) from trying to squeeze through small gaps and putting the cyclist at risk.[/p][/quote]I overtake cars all the time on dual carriageways, when they are in the lane next to me...sometime this means they are less than "6 feet away" is it still safe to do so. I'm not saying that it is illegal for cyclists to do this, I am saying it is arrogant. When there is a cycle lane there for you, which means you are farther away from the faster moving traffic...you choose to ride farther out in the road to 'force' cars to get held up and only pass you when the other direction is free. Arrogance, nothing more, nothing less. I don't drive my car mm's away from the pavement/kerb in order to prevent cyclists from passing me in town when I am stuck in traffic, I let them go past...even if they do so without looking ahead for the car turning left in front of them...or stop for the red traffic light. Stereotyped
  • Score: 1

7:18pm Fri 11 Apr 14

tim m says...

bourne free wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
"The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries"

-----------

Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle.

I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up.



On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road.
It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.
So your more concerned about the state of the road and the safety features of the toyota than the well being of the cyclist !!!!!!!!!!!!
Best wishes to the cyclist and hope you recover quickly and get back biking asap .
I think it's called irony.
[quote][p][bold]bourne free[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: "The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries" ----------- Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle. I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up. On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road. It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.[/p][/quote]So your more concerned about the state of the road and the safety features of the toyota than the well being of the cyclist !!!!!!!!!!!! Best wishes to the cyclist and hope you recover quickly and get back biking asap .[/p][/quote]I think it's called irony. tim m
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Fri 11 Apr 14

bigd70 says...

Basically what im reading is that cyclists ride on the road cos they CAN . Well please stop lobbying goverments and councils for paths then!!!
Basically what im reading is that cyclists ride on the road cos they CAN . Well please stop lobbying goverments and councils for paths then!!! bigd70
  • Score: -2

10:46pm Fri 11 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
"The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries"

-----------

Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle.

I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up.



On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road.
It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.
And your point is ... ?

Whoever causes an incident involving a car and a bicycle it's fairly certain that the cyclist is going to come off worse than the motorist. The design/build of the car is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: "The driver of the Lexus RX was checked over by ambulance staff, but did not sustain any injuries" ----------- Yes, not surprising really. Lexus spend a huge amount of money on development and testing their vehicles strength and safety for such incidents as being whalloped by a Bicycle. I think its fair to say that if you have a Lexus you are pretty much safe from such risks once you are seated inside and belted up. On a different note, I'd like to say that I am very dissapointed by the terrible state of the undulating and patched-up surface all along Panorama Road. It's no wonder the residents there all have to drive Range Rovers.[/p][/quote]And your point is ... ? Whoever causes an incident involving a car and a bicycle it's fairly certain that the cyclist is going to come off worse than the motorist. The design/build of the car is irrelevant. JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Fri 11 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

bigd70 wrote:
Speedy recovery to the cyclist . But can somebody tell me why the cyclists dont use the cycle path from Bakers Arms to warham ? They all ride on the road causing dangerous Manoeuvring for vehicles to pass. A great exspence
as gone on the cycle path.
Why the cyclists don't use the cycle path?

Don't you mean "Why aren't cyclists compelled to use the cycle path?"
[quote][p][bold]bigd70[/bold] wrote: Speedy recovery to the cyclist . But can somebody tell me why the cyclists dont use the cycle path from Bakers Arms to warham ? They all ride on the road causing dangerous Manoeuvring for vehicles to pass. A great exspence as gone on the cycle path.[/p][/quote]Why the cyclists don't use the cycle path? Don't you mean "Why aren't cyclists compelled to use the cycle path?" JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

10:51pm Fri 11 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.
If you used the cycle path, which has been provided for your safety you would not make yourself a hazard on the piece of road the cycle path serves.
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: Not just for the hell of it,to make using the roads safer for me.[/p][/quote]If you used the cycle path, which has been provided for your safety you would not make yourself a hazard on the piece of road the cycle path serves. JackJohnson
  • Score: -1

6:45pm Sat 12 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

The cyclepath is more dangeroust though you fuckintg retard,

why do **** who never ride bikes think they know how to do it better than people who go ride ?
The cyclepath is more dangeroust though you fuckintg retard, why do **** who never ride bikes think they know how to do it better than people who go ride ? anotherfatslob
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Sat 12 Apr 14

bigd70 says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
The cyclepath is more dangeroust though you fuckintg retard, why do **** who never ride bikes think they know how to do it better than people who go ride ?
Dangerous ?????????? Why what you gona get a puncture whooopie doo. Or hit a Dead DEER !!! Pathetic exscuses
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: The cyclepath is more dangeroust though you fuckintg retard, why do **** who never ride bikes think they know how to do it better than people who go ride ?[/p][/quote]Dangerous ?????????? Why what you gona get a puncture whooopie doo. Or hit a Dead DEER !!! Pathetic exscuses bigd70
  • Score: 0

8:49am Mon 14 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

anotherfatslob wrote:
The cyclepath is more dangeroust though you fuckintg retard,

why do **** who never ride bikes think they know how to do it better than people who go ride ?
Why do people who ride bikes, assume that people making comments from a drivers perspective, do not ride a bike?

I ride a bike...I use cycle paths where they are provided.

I don't get on my high horse and think "right, I am going to be a complete bell end right now and get in the way of all these cars because I am a jumped up ****."
[quote][p][bold]anotherfatslob[/bold] wrote: The cyclepath is more dangeroust though you fuckintg retard, why do **** who never ride bikes think they know how to do it better than people who go ride ?[/p][/quote]Why do people who ride bikes, assume that people making comments from a drivers perspective, do not ride a bike? I ride a bike...I use cycle paths where they are provided. I don't get on my high horse and think "right, I am going to be a complete bell end right now and get in the way of all these cars because I am a jumped up ****." Stereotyped
  • Score: 0

9:30am Mon 14 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

Well you ride a bike your way,I'll do it mine.

Call me a jumped up **** all you like,but when you're driving do it safely,especially near cyclists..
Well you ride a bike your way,I'll do it mine. Call me a jumped up **** all you like,but when you're driving do it safely,especially near cyclists.. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

We had to avoid a dead deer on a road yesterday on the motorbike - should we have mounted the pavement/cycle lane?
We had to avoid a dead deer on a road yesterday on the motorbike - should we have mounted the pavement/cycle lane? suzigirl
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree