Sensible !

[SueEllen]

If I undertake a lorry on the motorway and they crash into me, its my fault.

Why is it not the same if you are on a bike

Actually your first point isn't true.

I regularly "undertake" vehicles including lorries on A roads and motorways around London due to congestion.

Cyclists, pedestrians and horses are seen as vulnerable road users so it's the faster vehicle drivers fault until proven otherwise.

[NickFitz]

If I undertake a lorry on the motorway and they crash into me, its my fault.

Why is it not the same if you are on a bike

If you're driving down the road and a lorry in the adjacent lane suddenly turns while half-way past you, thereby scooping your car on to the pavement or the other side of the road or maybe even crushing the car beneath its trailer, is that your fault?

[xoggoth]

Just legalise squashing them. Much simpler.

[vetran]

Just legalise squashing them. Much simpler.

costs a blooming fortune to police & send ambulances.

[malvolio]

Did anyone see the clip on BC News website where they put a cyclist in the driving seat of a big tipper truck and challenged her to see the policeman in full hi viz cycling around the truck? She was more than shocked about how little she could actually see, especially when the bike was in front of the truck where it would be using those stupid cycle boxes at the lights.

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it. Some lives may be saved if the cyclist worked under the assumption that (a) they haven't been seen and (b) the truck will turn into them...

[original PM]

Did anyone see the clip on BC News website where they put a cyclist in the driving seat of a big tipper truck and challenged her to see the policeman in full hi viz cycling around the truck? She was more than shocked about how little she could actually see, especially when the bike was in front of the truck where it would be using those stupid cycle boxes at the lights.

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it. Some lives may be saved if the cyclist worked under the assumption that (a) they haven't been seen and (b) the truck will turn into them...

Well seeing as when you drive you work on the assumption that everyone else is going to do something completely unexpected and prepare for that it seems like as a cyclist you should do to.

Mainly because in a car you may get a dent in your door but on a bike you may get a dent in your head.

I think at times some cyclists work on the assumption that they are special and fragile so everyone should take extra care to avoid them. But when you consider no one crashes their car on purpose then that is a pretty stupid view to take.

[BrilloPad]

Did anyone see the clip on BC News website where they put a cyclist in the driving seat of a big tipper truck and challenged her to see the policeman in full hi viz cycling around the truck? She was more than shocked about how little she could actually see, especially when the bike was in front of the truck where it would be using those stupid cycle boxes at the lights.

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it. Some lives may be saved if the cyclist worked under the assumption that (a) they haven't been seen and (b) the truck will turn into them...

+1

Also, most of the victims are women. As they are less aggressive. Cyclists need to be far more aggressive. Lots of red light jumping, use pavements, etcetc.

[d000hg]

There are no such things as accidents; someone's stupidity or misunderstanding caused it.

"stupidity or misunderstanding caused it" sounds rather like the definition of an accident to me.