OV9

Incorrect content for this thread, but much correctness displayed;

where does the fault lie there? obviously the cyclist shouldn’t be on the pavement, but presumably the car should be watching for stuff on a pavement before driving onto one?

I’d normally say it’s the car driver’s fault, but the speed of the cyclist.. there’s no way for the car to manoeuvre any slower and the cyclist shouldn’t be cycling on the pavement that fast! If a child had stepped out, the cyclist couldn’t have stopped in a reasonable distance and so deserves some metre of punishment

Yeah the cyclist earned that one, presumably a faceful of tarmac is punishment enough.

And paying for the damage to the car.

Utter bellendery on their part.

Excellent choice and timing of music I thought.
It'd be nice to know more but all I have is that clip

I had a rasta bloke lose his shit with me a few days back because I didn't overtake a cyclist on a Z railway bridge, nor immediately afterwards where it would have meant overtaking on a pedestrian crossing. Intense incensed sense- and sensiless incessant nonsense.
Which made me think; imagine Austen partook of the pot, had a reefer and a rewrite.

That car wasn't proceeding with caution given they couldn't see the pavement behind the van, it looks like they drove onto the driveway with the assumption it was clear. If that pavement is shared use then I'd put the blame on the driver, because even if the cyclist was travelling at a slower speed they still could have been hit by the car

Both dafties but the bike was going way too fast so I’m going to say that he suffered consequences for his actions.

Gavster wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:05 am That car wasn't proceeding with caution given they couldn't see the pavement behind the van, it looks like they drove onto the driveway with the assumption it was clear. If that pavement is shared use then I'd put the blame on the driver, because even if the cyclist was travelling at a slower speed they still could have been hit by the car

Utter twaddle.

If the the pathway user had been proceeding at an acceptable speed, then the car would have seen them or indeed, would have had time to stop themselves.

Sometimes, it really is just the cyclist fault

I think that one above - for me - would qualify as "reckless speed" from the cyclist.

I remember that crash when it happened. Lucky, lucky bastards;

Ftao those of you who aren't young anymore; https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/ ... hi-313909/

Winter cyclists, looking for a bit of advice on chain maintenance.

I usually use muc off spray lube and dry chain oil but I noticed rust on my chain after about a week.

The muc off wet lube is the obvious move but just wanted to double check what others use.

Thoughts?

Any normal wet lube should do, or oil as it used to be known

I use this though but it's very sticky and good for off road mountain biking with lots of mud.

Gavster wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2024 10:05 am That car wasn't proceeding with caution given they couldn't see the pavement behind the van, it looks like they drove onto the driveway with the assumption it was clear. If that pavement is shared use then I'd put the blame on the driver, because even if the cyclist was travelling at a slower speed they still could have been hit by the car

I’ve only just noticed that one. The car is at fault for not giving way to someone on the pavement, but the cyclist is heavily contributorily negligent for being there in the first place when he shouldn’t and going so quickly. Hard to guess what a court would say (and I suspect it’s one which would get to court as a result if the cyclist has any injuries at all) but maybe 75/80% the cyclist’s fault? I’d argue for 100% if I was solicitor for the driver.

jamcg wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 6:45 am

Those cyclists definitely reported that. Hope the fine was worth it

I thought the cycle one was just cvnty and didn't crack a smile, but that one made me chuckle heartily

Same.