Banstead cyclist Nigel Barclay left with life-changing injuries calls for harsher penalties for careless drivers

Nigel Barclay, of Banstead, was left with serious injuries after being knocked over on his bicycle by Harry Ledger

Nigel Barclay, of Banstead, was left with serious injuries after being knocked over on his bicycle by Harry Ledger

First published in News Your Local Guardian: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

A man whose life was changed forever after being knocked off his bicycle is calling for harsher penalties for careless drivers.

Nigel Barclay, from Banstead, was left with serious injuries after being knocked over by Harry Ledger, 19, in March, when he was cycling a hundred metres from his home.

Mr Barclay had removed his helmet as he was close to home and was cycling downhill, in Hillside, when Ledger, of Cheam, turned right into his path.

The 45-year-old was admitted to St George’s Hospital in Tooting, where he remained for two months, with a fractured skull, multiple facial fractures, and breaks to his arms, legs and pelvis. He also suffered brain injury, leaving him deaf in one ear and with double vision in one eye.

Mr Barclay, who runs a gate installation business, has not been able to work since, and has been told it is unlikely he will be able to undertake physically demanding activities again.

Ledger pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention and was fined £300 and given four penalty points on his licence at South East Surrey Magistrates’ Court in August.

Mr Barclay believes the sentence was extraordinarily lenient given the injuries he suffered and that the law needs to be reviewed.

He said: "Victims are being let down by the courts and the people who cause the problems seem to get away with it lightly.

"This guy has totally changed my life.

"Because I suffered a brain injury, I had to surrender my licence, but the guy who caused this has not had his licence taken away.

"I was a man in his mid-40s who was perfectly fit and able, enjoyed sports and playing with my kids.

"Now, I’ll have to be very careful not to sustain any more injuries."

Mr Barclay said the court took into account the fact he was not wearing a helmet.

He said: "There’s no legal requirement to wear a helmet, and, even if I was wearing one, it wouldn’t have helped me with the breaks in my arms, legs or pelvis, which are having the biggest effects on my life.

"There’s clear evidence to suggest that a helmet only makes a difference in a low speed collision."

Mr Barclay is now pursuing a claim for damages against Ledger.

His solicitor, Malcolm Underhill of IBB Solicitors, said: "If someone is charged with careless driving, the starting point in the criminal justice system is the court looking at the standard of the person’s driving - it does not particularly take into account the ramifications of the person’s actions.

"Mr Barclay’s issues will affect him for the rest of his life and, conscious of that, there is an imbalance."


Does wearing a helmet make a difference?

According to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation: Cycle helmets act like shock absorbers - protecting the head by reducing the rate at which the skull and brain are accelerated or decelerated by an impact.

In cases of high impact, such as most crashes that involve a motor vehicle, the initial forces absorbed by a cycle helmet before breaking are only a small part of the total force and the protection provided by a helmet is likely to be minimal.

In this context cycle helmets provide best protection in situations involving simple, low-speed falls with no other party involved.

Helmets are unlikely to offer adequate protection in life-threatening situations.


Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:15am Fri 26 Oct 12

Mrcheerful2 says...

It is reasonable to imagine the removed helmet was in the riders hand, this would have seriously reduced the rider's ability to brake or take evasive action.
It is reasonable to imagine the removed helmet was in the riders hand, this would have seriously reduced the rider's ability to brake or take evasive action. Mrcheerful2
  • Score: 0

8:53am Fri 26 Oct 12

Razer73 says...

Far from a helpful comment, did you read the article?

A helmet in this situation would have made no difference at all. Having also been knocked off my bike by a careless driver turning right across my path at a junction and ending up face first in the windscreen i also agree cyclists are being let down. The driver had no MOT and numerous faults with his car but got off completely scott free with no points or financial penalty.

Thankfully my injures were only superficial and nowhere near as horrying as those of this gentlemen
Far from a helpful comment, did you read the article? A helmet in this situation would have made no difference at all. Having also been knocked off my bike by a careless driver turning right across my path at a junction and ending up face first in the windscreen i also agree cyclists are being let down. The driver had no MOT and numerous faults with his car but got off completely scott free with no points or financial penalty. Thankfully my injures were only superficial and nowhere near as horrying as those of this gentlemen Razer73
  • Score: 0

11:01am Fri 26 Oct 12

burtthebike says...

It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing.

There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated.

If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause?

As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public.

Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.
It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing. There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated. If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause? As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda. burtthebike
  • Score: 0

11:21am Fri 26 Oct 12

sbrandwoo says...

"As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public."

This helmet nonsense has gone on long enough. Wearing a helmet will not stop cars hitting you - but it will stop it hurting quite so much when your head hits the concrete. There are loads of reasons you might fall off your bike and the simple answer is - Wear a helmet, avoid a trip to the hospital. (I speak from experience after hitting an oil patch)

"Mr Barclay had removed his helmet as he was close to home and was cycling downhill, in Hillside, when Ledger, of Cheam, turned right into his path."

Close to home - I don't see why that's a good reason not to wear a helmet.
"As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public." This helmet nonsense has gone on long enough. Wearing a helmet will not stop cars hitting you - but it will stop it hurting quite so much when your head hits the concrete. There are loads of reasons you might fall off your bike and the simple answer is - Wear a helmet, avoid a trip to the hospital. (I speak from experience after hitting an oil patch) "Mr Barclay had removed his helmet as he was close to home and was cycling downhill, in Hillside, when Ledger, of Cheam, turned right into his path." Close to home - I don't see why that's a good reason not to wear a helmet. sbrandwoo
  • Score: 0

11:27am Fri 26 Oct 12

GR-London says...

It does highlight the hypocrisy and stupidity of the authorities, that a 'safe' car driver who might drift over the speed limit slightly for a few seconds gets treated so harshly and yet there are much more serious incidents where the guilty party seems to have a relatively light punishment.

I find that car drivers generally get far too close to cyclists and are quite aggressive and impatient.
It does highlight the hypocrisy and stupidity of the authorities, that a 'safe' car driver who might drift over the speed limit slightly for a few seconds gets treated so harshly and yet there are much more serious incidents where the guilty party seems to have a relatively light punishment. I find that car drivers generally get far too close to cyclists and are quite aggressive and impatient. GR-London
  • Score: 0

11:41am Fri 26 Oct 12

Markyjl says...

Mrcheerful2 wrote:
It is reasonable to imagine the removed helmet was in the riders hand, this would have seriously reduced the rider's ability to brake or take evasive action.
It is more reasonable to imagine that the driver, having pleaded guilty, was entirely at fault and that Nigel had safely stowed the cycle helmet as to not affect his riding.
[quote][p][bold]Mrcheerful2[/bold] wrote: It is reasonable to imagine the removed helmet was in the riders hand, this would have seriously reduced the rider's ability to brake or take evasive action.[/p][/quote]It is more reasonable to imagine that the driver, having pleaded guilty, was entirely at fault and that Nigel had safely stowed the cycle helmet as to not affect his riding. Markyjl
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Fri 26 Oct 12

Paul M says...

sbrandwoo wrote:
"As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public." This helmet nonsense has gone on long enough. Wearing a helmet will not stop cars hitting you - but it will stop it hurting quite so much when your head hits the concrete. There are loads of reasons you might fall off your bike and the simple answer is - Wear a helmet, avoid a trip to the hospital. (I speak from experience after hitting an oil patch) "Mr Barclay had removed his helmet as he was close to home and was cycling downhill, in Hillside, when Ledger, of Cheam, turned right into his path." Close to home - I don't see why that's a good reason not to wear a helmet.
You quote an instance of falling off after hitting a slippery patch. Sure, there are some situations where a helmet might mitigate injury in the case of pratfalls like this. Snow or ice would be another, or rough off-road tracks. Here we are talking about low-speed impacts.

The danger though is that this type of homily leads people of influence - judges for example - to misdiret themselves as to the helmet as a contributory factor in situations where their effect is either negligible, or possible even harmful. Cycling in traffic, being hit by a faster moving car or truck, with many many times as much kinetic energy as the cyclist, a helmet will be essentially useless at best, or even, as some academic research has indicated, increasing the danger to the cyclist due to risk-compensation by motorists, but a victim might be treated as having contrubuted to his/her own misfortune and so denied compensation. that is totally wrong, and unjust.
[quote][p][bold]sbrandwoo[/bold] wrote: "As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public." This helmet nonsense has gone on long enough. Wearing a helmet will not stop cars hitting you - but it will stop it hurting quite so much when your head hits the concrete. There are loads of reasons you might fall off your bike and the simple answer is - Wear a helmet, avoid a trip to the hospital. (I speak from experience after hitting an oil patch) "Mr Barclay had removed his helmet as he was close to home and was cycling downhill, in Hillside, when Ledger, of Cheam, turned right into his path." Close to home - I don't see why that's a good reason not to wear a helmet.[/p][/quote]You quote an instance of falling off after hitting a slippery patch. Sure, there are some situations where a helmet might mitigate injury in the case of pratfalls like this. Snow or ice would be another, or rough off-road tracks. Here we are talking about low-speed impacts. The danger though is that this type of homily leads people of influence - judges for example - to misdiret themselves as to the helmet as a contributory factor in situations where their effect is either negligible, or possible even harmful. Cycling in traffic, being hit by a faster moving car or truck, with many many times as much kinetic energy as the cyclist, a helmet will be essentially useless at best, or even, as some academic research has indicated, increasing the danger to the cyclist due to risk-compensation by motorists, but a victim might be treated as having contrubuted to his/her own misfortune and so denied compensation. that is totally wrong, and unjust. Paul M
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Fri 26 Oct 12

ewell says...

It is total rubbish to say that Cycle helmets do not save lives. All the evidence either way is inconclusive and you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected.

http://blogs.channel
4.com/factcheck/fact
check-should-we-make
-cycle-helmets-compu
lsory/11061

The fact this guy was not wearing his helmet despite owning one was a mistake he will regret for the rest of his life.

The driver should be punished and possibly more severely as should the many cyclists I see who commit illegal road maneuvers I pass on the way to work each day. As a cyclist car driver it cheeses me off when both parties blame each other. The issue is safer roads and more cycle lanes are needed as it has been quite obvious for years that cars and bikes do not mix well and during a collision there will be only 1 winner!
It is total rubbish to say that Cycle helmets do not save lives. All the evidence either way is inconclusive and you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected. http://blogs.channel 4.com/factcheck/fact check-should-we-make -cycle-helmets-compu lsory/11061 The fact this guy was not wearing his helmet despite owning one was a mistake he will regret for the rest of his life. The driver should be punished and possibly more severely as should the many cyclists I see who commit illegal road maneuvers I pass on the way to work each day. As a cyclist car driver it cheeses me off when both parties blame each other. The issue is safer roads and more cycle lanes are needed as it has been quite obvious for years that cars and bikes do not mix well and during a collision there will be only 1 winner! ewell
  • Score: 0

6:14am Sun 28 Oct 12

imalaydee says...

Helmets would not protect totally, it might stop you fracturing your skull etc, but the force of hitting the pavement or whatever would likely make your Brain hit the side of the skull giving a much more insidious injury e.g. brain Hamorrhage, my Husband cycles to work for exercise, and has had several narrow escapes when cars have cut right in front of him without indicating, cut him up at traffic lights, reversed into his bike, almost running him down, the car driver Im afraid only takes notice and cares for the opinion and safety of another driver, cyclists and walkers they just dont bother with, I have spent many minutes standing waiting to cross the road when the car Im waiting for has casually indicated to turn about 3 feet from me into a side road, when they could see I was waiting for them and did not bother to let me know they were turning until the last minute, they do this to cyclists too, and it really does not matter if he had the helmet in his hand or not, if the car had bothered to look and register that there was a real live person cycling towards them then no "evasive action" would need to be taken, I hope Mr Barclay sues this man for a fortune and hope for a change in the stupid "dangerous driving" laws, but I wont hold my breath.
Helmets would not protect totally, it might stop you fracturing your skull etc, but the force of hitting the pavement or whatever would likely make your Brain hit the side of the skull giving a much more insidious injury e.g. brain Hamorrhage, my Husband cycles to work for exercise, and has had several narrow escapes when cars have cut right in front of him without indicating, cut him up at traffic lights, reversed into his bike, almost running him down, the car driver Im afraid only takes notice and cares for the opinion and safety of another driver, cyclists and walkers they just dont bother with, I have spent many minutes standing waiting to cross the road when the car Im waiting for has casually indicated to turn about 3 feet from me into a side road, when they could see I was waiting for them and did not bother to let me know they were turning until the last minute, they do this to cyclists too, and it really does not matter if he had the helmet in his hand or not, if the car had bothered to look and register that there was a real live person cycling towards them then no "evasive action" would need to be taken, I hope Mr Barclay sues this man for a fortune and hope for a change in the stupid "dangerous driving" laws, but I wont hold my breath. imalaydee
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Sun 28 Oct 12

burtthebike says...

ewell wrote:
It is total rubbish to say that Cycle helmets do not save lives. All the evidence either way is inconclusive and you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected.

http://blogs.channel

4.com/factcheck/fact

check-should-we-make

-cycle-helmets-compu

lsory/11061

The fact this guy was not wearing his helmet despite owning one was a mistake he will regret for the rest of his life.

The driver should be punished and possibly more severely as should the many cyclists I see who commit illegal road maneuvers I pass on the way to work each day. As a cyclist car driver it cheeses me off when both parties blame each other. The issue is safer roads and more cycle lanes are needed as it has been quite obvious for years that cars and bikes do not mix well and during a collision there will be only 1 winner!
ewell wrote:
"It is total rubbish to say that Cycle helmets do not save lives. All the evidence either way is inconclusive and you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected."

An oxymoron is the term for something which contradicts itself, but I'm not sure if there is a similar term for something which contradicts itself twice.

If it is total rubbish to say that helmets do not save lives, then you must be able to provide evidence that the do save lives, but all you can state is that the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the original statement remains true as you have not disproved it. However, not content with disagreeing with yourself once, you go on to do it again.

You agree that the evidence is, at best, inconclusive, but then claim that "you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected."

To be honest ewell, you might like to try putting more water with it.
[quote][p][bold]ewell[/bold] wrote: It is total rubbish to say that Cycle helmets do not save lives. All the evidence either way is inconclusive and you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected. http://blogs.channel 4.com/factcheck/fact check-should-we-make -cycle-helmets-compu lsory/11061 The fact this guy was not wearing his helmet despite owning one was a mistake he will regret for the rest of his life. The driver should be punished and possibly more severely as should the many cyclists I see who commit illegal road maneuvers I pass on the way to work each day. As a cyclist car driver it cheeses me off when both parties blame each other. The issue is safer roads and more cycle lanes are needed as it has been quite obvious for years that cars and bikes do not mix well and during a collision there will be only 1 winner![/p][/quote]ewell wrote: "It is total rubbish to say that Cycle helmets do not save lives. All the evidence either way is inconclusive and you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected." An oxymoron is the term for something which contradicts itself, but I'm not sure if there is a similar term for something which contradicts itself twice. If it is total rubbish to say that helmets do not save lives, then you must be able to provide evidence that the do save lives, but all you can state is that the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the original statement remains true as you have not disproved it. However, not content with disagreeing with yourself once, you go on to do it again. You agree that the evidence is, at best, inconclusive, but then claim that "you have a far better chance of survival when hitting your head if it is protected." To be honest ewell, you might like to try putting more water with it. burtthebike
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Sun 28 Oct 12

Surreydon says...

burtthebike wrote:
It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing.

There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated.

If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause?

As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public.

Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.
Why just go for the motorist? Have you never seen cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in & out of traffic, riding on the pavement? I do, on a daily basis.
Park up at Box Hill in Surrey & watch the lunatics riding two & three abreast along Boxhill Road. Watch them overtake moving cars rather than stay in line. Watch them emerge from the notorious mist & fog with no lights & no hi-visibility clothing!! Why wouldn't you want to be seen unless, of course, you've got a death wish.
No wonder they're known as the 'latex louts'!
The people that ride responsibly, fit and use lights, and obey the law, are often ridiculed and even bullied by these yobs.
Cyclists should be required by law to fit lights, wear protective clothing, and be fully insured.
Of course there are terrible drivers on the roads, far too many, but they are protected by a wall of steel. If cyclists want to survive they really need to get there act together, now!
By the way, I remember the arguments that ensued when motorcycle helmets were first made compulsory.....
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing. There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated. If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause? As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.[/p][/quote]Why just go for the motorist? Have you never seen cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in & out of traffic, riding on the pavement? I do, on a daily basis. Park up at Box Hill in Surrey & watch the lunatics riding two & three abreast along Boxhill Road. Watch them overtake moving cars rather than stay in line. Watch them emerge from the notorious mist & fog with no lights & no hi-visibility clothing!! Why wouldn't you want to be seen unless, of course, you've got a death wish. No wonder they're known as the 'latex louts'! The people that ride responsibly, fit and use lights, and obey the law, are often ridiculed and even bullied by these yobs. Cyclists should be required by law to fit lights, wear protective clothing, and be fully insured. Of course there are terrible drivers on the roads, far too many, but they are protected by a wall of steel. If cyclists want to survive they really need to get there act together, now! By the way, I remember the arguments that ensued when motorcycle helmets were first made compulsory..... Surreydon
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Toccss says...

So instead of smashing his head on the floor with protection, he decided to do it with out. that's a bit stupid really regardless of how he crashed.
So instead of smashing his head on the floor with protection, he decided to do it with out. that's a bit stupid really regardless of how he crashed. Toccss
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Mon 29 Oct 12

FNS-man says...

Surreydon wrote:
burtthebike wrote: It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing. There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated. If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause? As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.
Why just go for the motorist? Have you never seen cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in & out of traffic, riding on the pavement? I do, on a daily basis. Park up at Box Hill in Surrey & watch the lunatics riding two & three abreast along Boxhill Road. Watch them overtake moving cars rather than stay in line. Watch them emerge from the notorious mist & fog with no lights & no hi-visibility clothing!! Why wouldn't you want to be seen unless, of course, you've got a death wish. No wonder they're known as the 'latex louts'! The people that ride responsibly, fit and use lights, and obey the law, are often ridiculed and even bullied by these yobs. Cyclists should be required by law to fit lights, wear protective clothing, and be fully insured. Of course there are terrible drivers on the roads, far too many, but they are protected by a wall of steel. If cyclists want to survive they really need to get there act together, now! By the way, I remember the arguments that ensued when motorcycle helmets were first made compulsory.....
My friend, nearly everything you have said there is total rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Surreydon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing. There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated. If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause? As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.[/p][/quote]Why just go for the motorist? Have you never seen cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in & out of traffic, riding on the pavement? I do, on a daily basis. Park up at Box Hill in Surrey & watch the lunatics riding two & three abreast along Boxhill Road. Watch them overtake moving cars rather than stay in line. Watch them emerge from the notorious mist & fog with no lights & no hi-visibility clothing!! Why wouldn't you want to be seen unless, of course, you've got a death wish. No wonder they're known as the 'latex louts'! The people that ride responsibly, fit and use lights, and obey the law, are often ridiculed and even bullied by these yobs. Cyclists should be required by law to fit lights, wear protective clothing, and be fully insured. Of course there are terrible drivers on the roads, far too many, but they are protected by a wall of steel. If cyclists want to survive they really need to get there act together, now! By the way, I remember the arguments that ensued when motorcycle helmets were first made compulsory.....[/p][/quote]My friend, nearly everything you have said there is total rubbish. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Surreydon says...

FNS-man wrote:
Surreydon wrote:
burtthebike wrote: It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing. There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated. If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause? As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.
Why just go for the motorist? Have you never seen cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in & out of traffic, riding on the pavement? I do, on a daily basis. Park up at Box Hill in Surrey & watch the lunatics riding two & three abreast along Boxhill Road. Watch them overtake moving cars rather than stay in line. Watch them emerge from the notorious mist & fog with no lights & no hi-visibility clothing!! Why wouldn't you want to be seen unless, of course, you've got a death wish. No wonder they're known as the 'latex louts'! The people that ride responsibly, fit and use lights, and obey the law, are often ridiculed and even bullied by these yobs. Cyclists should be required by law to fit lights, wear protective clothing, and be fully insured. Of course there are terrible drivers on the roads, far too many, but they are protected by a wall of steel. If cyclists want to survive they really need to get there act together, now! By the way, I remember the arguments that ensued when motorcycle helmets were first made compulsory.....
My friend, nearly everything you have said there is total rubbish.
Is that the best you can manage?
Why not at least qualify your response.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Surreydon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: It is indeed a scandal that someone who causes such a collision and damage to another human being is allowed to continue driving, but this is a reflection of the value that society places on cyclists and pedestrians: almost nothing. There is some research to show that penalties for killing and maiming vulnerable road users are pitifully small and despite many claims that the situation will be remedied by many ministers, this remains the case. At the very least, justice demands that a driver who causes injury is not allowed to drive until their victim is fully recovered, and has been financially compensated. If the level of deaths from motor vehicle drivers was from any other source, there would be a public outcry and action would have been taken many years ago. Why do we continue to accept a death toll from driving which would not be acceptable from any other cause? As for the question of whether the helmet would have made any difference, this has been settled for years - cycle helmets do not make you safer, it's just that there has been a thirty year long propaganda campaign to sell them to the public. Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.[/p][/quote]Why just go for the motorist? Have you never seen cyclists jumping red lights, weaving in & out of traffic, riding on the pavement? I do, on a daily basis. Park up at Box Hill in Surrey & watch the lunatics riding two & three abreast along Boxhill Road. Watch them overtake moving cars rather than stay in line. Watch them emerge from the notorious mist & fog with no lights & no hi-visibility clothing!! Why wouldn't you want to be seen unless, of course, you've got a death wish. No wonder they're known as the 'latex louts'! The people that ride responsibly, fit and use lights, and obey the law, are often ridiculed and even bullied by these yobs. Cyclists should be required by law to fit lights, wear protective clothing, and be fully insured. Of course there are terrible drivers on the roads, far too many, but they are protected by a wall of steel. If cyclists want to survive they really need to get there act together, now! By the way, I remember the arguments that ensued when motorcycle helmets were first made compulsory.....[/p][/quote]My friend, nearly everything you have said there is total rubbish.[/p][/quote]Is that the best you can manage? Why not at least qualify your response. Surreydon
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Tue 30 Oct 12

Surreydon says...

While FNS-man is unwilling or unable to back up his comment, here's a case in point:
I left my workshop on Box Hill this evening at about 6.30pm and in darkness. I drove down Boxhill Road and turrned left onto Headley Common Road which is an unlit, tree lined, rural road. Coming towards me were four cyclists, riding in two pairs, and not a light between them!
Well, I have a message for those four nutters.... If they survived their ride!
"Can you really not see any danger in what you do, or are you just lacking basic common sense and self-preservation?"
While FNS-man is unwilling or unable to back up his comment, here's a case in point: I left my workshop on Box Hill this evening at about 6.30pm and in darkness. I drove down Boxhill Road and turrned left onto Headley Common Road which is an unlit, tree lined, rural road. Coming towards me were four cyclists, riding in two pairs, and not a light between them! Well, I have a message for those four nutters.... If they survived their ride! "Can you really not see any danger in what you do, or are you just lacking basic common sense and self-preservation?" Surreydon
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sun 18 Nov 12

DanWeston says...

I must thank the enlightened posters on this page for educating me.

Now I know thatthis poor individual was totally to blame for both teh actions of the other driver and for not getting out of his way when he chose to drive in an illegal and dangerous manner

Then failing to bounce and having the temerity to sustain injuries - unacceptable

Then of course is the point that cyclists riding illegally is worth criticism, yet the irony that this accident was caused by illegal and dangerous driving simply escapes surreydon?
I must thank the enlightened posters on this page for educating me. Now I know thatthis poor individual was totally to blame for both teh actions of the other driver and for not getting out of his way when he chose to drive in an illegal and dangerous manner Then failing to bounce and having the temerity to sustain injuries - unacceptable Then of course is the point that cyclists riding illegally is worth criticism, yet the irony that this accident was caused by illegal and dangerous driving simply escapes surreydon? DanWeston
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Surreydon says...

In the words of the strangely quiet FNS-man: My friend, nearly everything you have said there is absolute rubbish.

If you read my post again you'll see that I acknowledge that there are far too many terrible drivers on the road. BUT, too many cyclists seem to adopt the attitude that they are some kind of super-being who must be allowed to ride recklessly, often illegally and without proper protection.
The recent foggy conditions on Box Hill again saw the latex loonies riding without lights, without high visibility clothing, and without an ounce of common sense between them.
Yet there were people out there with decent lights and sensible clothing, so it can be done!!
Whist I genuinely sympathise with the cyclist from Banstead I would like to ask why, as he obviously believes in the use of helmets, he took his off before he got home.
Seems a shame that the 'them and us' mentality is still dominant amongst motorists and cyclists alike.
In the words of the strangely quiet FNS-man: My friend, nearly everything you have said there is absolute rubbish. If you read my post again you'll see that I acknowledge that there are far too many terrible drivers on the road. BUT, too many cyclists seem to adopt the attitude that they are some kind of super-being who must be allowed to ride recklessly, often illegally and without proper protection. The recent foggy conditions on Box Hill again saw the latex loonies riding without lights, without high visibility clothing, and without an ounce of common sense between them. Yet there were people out there with decent lights and sensible clothing, so it can be done!! Whist I genuinely sympathise with the cyclist from Banstead I would like to ask why, as he obviously believes in the use of helmets, he took his off before he got home. Seems a shame that the 'them and us' mentality is still dominant amongst motorists and cyclists alike. Surreydon
  • 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