cyclist killed - opinions on helmets,blame and education

rick_chasey

The last 4 times I found myself on the inside/left hand side of an articulated lorry, each time they lorry had overtaken me to get to that spot.

I even got abuse today for one who kept trying to pass me on chelsea embankment when there wasn't enough room - so I took primary since he was driving ridiculously close to me.

Articulated lorries driving on roads with heavy cyclist use during rush hours can f*ck off.

SteppenHerring

bails87 wrote:

Cyclelanes down the left hand side of left turn lanes are so dangerous. I fail to see the point of about 95% of on road cyclelanes to be honest. They seem to make drivers give less space: "as long as I'm over the line I'm far enough away", but when the lane is a couple of feet wide I'm riding at the edge of it just to avoid the drains. Then they reach a junction and direct cyclists who don't know any better into the 'tunnel of death' down the left hand side.

Could we have the beginnings of a movement? "Cyclists against spending on cycling infrastructure"?

Looking at the massive cost (£2m per mile) of the special blue paint for the "superhighways", how many TV ads and posters would that money have bought?

bails87

SteppenHerring wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Cyclelanes down the left hand side of left turn lanes are so dangerous. I fail to see the point of about 95% of on road cyclelanes to be honest. They seem to make drivers give less space: "as long as I'm over the line I'm far enough away", but when the lane is a couple of feet wide I'm riding at the edge of it just to avoid the drains. Then they reach a junction and direct cyclists who don't know any better into the 'tunnel of death' down the left hand side.

Could we have the beginnings of a movement? "Cyclists against spending on cycling infrastructure"?

Looking at the massive cost (£2m per mile) of the special blue paint for the "superhighways", how many TV ads and posters would that money have bought?

I'm not against it, just against it being done in a way that puts me in more danger than if it wasn't there at all. No one would stand for a motorway with three lanes in each direction, each one 5 feet wide. So why make cyclelanes that are narrower than a bike?!

okgo

Terrible shame.

But if you will put yourself in danger like that, sadly there's only a few outcomes, none of which are good.

As I said the other day, the blind spot in a lorry or huge bus (although London Bus drivers are very aware of their surroundings on the whole) is vast. In Hammermisth the other day a white van alsmost got run over by an artic as it turned left, if you can't see a 3 ton white van, then as a cyclist you've got no hope. Don't do it.

Gussio

RIP fellow cyclist.

bigmat

Look, all we've got is one guy claiming to be an eye witness saying the deceased cycled down the left of a bus. That account is unverified, we don't know the full details, so can we just back off with the victim blaming?

okgo

Yes, because you'd certainly make that account up to protect a bus driver wouldn't you! I agree when the details really aren't known, but in this case there was more detail than you could ever imagine.

Lets get real shall we! Why we continue to protect cyclists that are playing with fire I don't know.

petemadoc

BigMat wrote:

Look, all we've got is one guy claiming to be an eye witness saying the deceased cycled down the left of a bus. That account is unverified, we don't know the full details, so can we just back off with the victim blaming?

If the account is correct then I still don't think people are blaming the victim here. If the guy was aware that cycling down the inside of a bus was so dangerous I doubt he would have done it. The problem is that people just don't know! They don't know that buses and lorries can't see them and they don't know that a large proportion of deaths are occur in the exact same circumstances. It happens way too often and if people just knew ....

spasypaddy

PeteMadoc wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Look, all we've got is one guy claiming to be an eye witness saying the deceased cycled down the left of a bus. That account is unverified, we don't know the full details, so can we just back off with the victim blaming?

If the account is correct then I still don't think people are blaming the victim here. If the guy was aware that cycling down the inside of a bus was so dangerous I doubt he would have done it. The problem is that people just don't know! They don't know that buses and lorries can't see them and they don't know that a large proportion of deaths are occur in the exact same circumstances. It happens way too often and if people just knew ....

which is the point ive been making...

HebdenBiker

But if you will put yourself in danger like that

Charming. It amazes me how quickly even cyclists and their supporters roll over and accept the standard line: "Motorised vehicles are going to go wherever they want, and if you're in their way they will crush you. And it will be your fault."

Look - of course it is foolish to filter to the left of traffic which might turn left. But only because vehicle drivers cannot be relied upon to observe whether the space into which they are moving is clear. This may be due to vehicle blind spots or it may be due to driver carelessness, but either way, it ain't good enough.

What if the victim in this case had not been an inexperienced cyclist, but instead a child that that wandered away from its mother? Would you still be saying "but if you will put yourself in danger like that" or would you be saying that the driver should have carried out effective observation before manoeuvring?

And don't give me this crap about blind spots. For obvious reasons, the left side of a bus is fully covered by mirrors, from kerb level upwards. Had the driver looked, he would have seen the cyclist. HOWEVER even if the cyclist had been in a blind spot, this is no defence. I sometimes drive a van. I will never move into a space unless I can see it is clear. This is because, to my shame, I once caused an accident in my car by changing lanes without observing properly. No-one was hurt, but believe me, "he was in my blind spot" cut no ice with the police or with the victim's solicitor. And quite right too.

The idea that there are drivers zooming round the streets of our cities, manoeuvring blind, is terrifying and unjust.

So to return to the original quote:

But if you will put yourself in danger like that

What this suggests is that cyclists' cycling must be absolutely perfect at all times, because standards of driving, and vehicle safety, are so low that drivers simply cannot be expected to look out for you, so if you are crushed under their vehicle, it will be your fault for making a mistake.

HebdenBiker

okgo wrote:

Lets get real shall we! Why we continue to protect cyclists that are playing with fire I don't know.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

bigmat

I don't doubt the eye-witness' account, but its not clear cut to me what happened so I think to automatically assume that the cyclist put himself in danger is unfair. The bus driver is being questioned by the police apparently so there may be more to it. Anyway, I agree with the general sentiment that there should be more publicity about the dangers of cycling down the left of large vehicles just not sure its right to be linking that to this incident just yet.

okgo

"What this suggests is that cyclists' cycling must be absolutely perfect at all times, because standards of driving, and vehicle safety, are so low that drivers simply cannot be expected to look out for you, so if you are crushed under their vehicle, it will be your fault for making a mistake"

It may or may not be your fault on the day, but if you are the one who will come off worse every single time, why would you leave it down to someones elses judgement to decide if you're going to be alive at the end of that day or not? I certainly wouldn't, and don't.

bigmat

HebdenBiker wrote:

But if you will put yourself in danger like that

Charming. It amazes me how quickly even cyclists and their supporters roll over and accept the standard line: "Motorised vehicles are going to go wherever they want, and if you're in their way they will crush you. And it will be your fault."

Look - of course it is foolish to filter to the left of traffic which might turn left. But only because vehicle drivers cannot be relied upon to observe whether the space into which they are moving is clear. This may be due to vehicle blind spots or it may be due to driver carelessness, but either way, it ain't good enough.

What if the victim in this case had not been an inexperienced cyclist, but instead a child that that wandered away from its mother? Would you still be saying "but if you will put yourself in danger like that" or would you be saying that the driver should have carried out effective observation before manoeuvring?

And don't give me this crap about blind spots. For obvious reasons, the left side of a bus is fully covered by mirrors, from kerb level upwards. Had the driver looked, he would have seen the cyclist. HOWEVER even if the cyclist had been in a blind spot, this is no defence. I sometimes drive a van. I will never move into a space unless I can see it is clear. This is because, to my shame, I once caused an accident in my car by changing lanes without observing properly. No-one was hurt, but believe me, "he was in my blind spot" cut no ice with the police or with the victim's solicitor. And quite right too.

The idea that there are drivers zooming round the streets of our cities, manoeuvring blind, is terrifying and unjust.

So to return to the original quote:

But if you will put yourself in danger like that

What this suggests is that cyclists' cycling must be absolutely perfect at all times, because standards of driving, and vehicle safety, are so low that drivers simply cannot be expected to look out for you, so if you are crushed under their vehicle, it will be your fault for making a mistake.

well said

bails87

IF that reddit account is genuine it doesn't (or didn't when I last looked) mention if the bus was indicating. As said above, if the driver used his mirrors and looked over his shoulder he'd see the cyclist.

airbag

BigMat wrote:

As for his comments, well I don't think helmets should be compulsory but then I always wear one so it wouldn't affect me if they were. Maybe it wasn't the best time to make such a comment, but its a damn sight better saying that than saying "cyclists shouldn't go down the left of large vehicles" when we don't know the full details of the incident. At least by focusing on an issue that appears to be completely irrelevant to the poor guy's death it avoided victim blaming.

RIP

Respectfully disagree. I'm not a PR expert, so can't suggest the right way of saying it, but I'm sure it's possible to get the message out that riding down the left of HGVs is a bad idea without blaming this victim.

The tragedy here is that someone died for (what appears to be) want of a simple bit of advice. Good advice costs nothing and would almost definitely save lives, even if not this unfortunate man's. Laws cost our freedom - something I value even if others apparently don't - have side effects, and this particular one is of questionable use anyway. So prioritising lawmaking seems to be a spectacularly poor decision.

okgo

HebdenBiker wrote:

okgo wrote:

Lets get real shall we! Why we continue to protect cyclists that are playing with fire I don't know.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Thanks for your advice.

I think you're being totally un-realistic, and actually unfair on drivers. There is a lot of bad driving, but I'll happily film my commute for you and you'll see that the bad driving is outweighed VASTLY by the amount of blatant disregard from people on bikes. Fine, jump a ped crossing when nobody is there, you're a tw@ for doing it, but you won't kill anyone, but the amount of people that will put themselves in the line of fire is gobsmacking. In this case it sounds (if the account is accurate etc) like he didn't actually realise the position he was about to find himself in, but there are plenty of people each day I see on bikes that are doing the cycling equivilant of trying to cross the m25 on foot.

vermin

airbag wrote:

I'm sure it's possible to get the message out that riding down the left of HGVs is a bad idea without blaming this victim.

Blame or otherwise is not the point. The whole issue of cycle safety rarely hits the headlines. The fact that someone has lost their life is desperately tragic, but it provides a rare opportunity to educate people. Is it so wrong to try to make something positive happen so that another life is not lost in vain?

airbag wrote:

The tragedy here is that someone died for (what appears to be) want of a simple bit of advice. Good advice costs nothing and would almost definitely save lives, even if not this unfortunate man's.

Totally agree

airbag wrote:

Laws cost our freedom - something I value even if others apparently don't - have side effects, and this particular one is of questionable use anyway. So prioritising lawmaking seems to be a spectacularly poor decision.

This is an exceptionally ignorant comment, with which I could not disagree more. Were we living under and oppressive dictatorship, I would agree. However, as a lawyer, my view is that laws in the UK, where properly enacted, bolster our freedom. People have focussed today on Wiggo's comments regarding helmets. Most of his comments centred on simply obeying the laws of the road and using common sense.

cyclingprop

1) There are plenty of examples on both sides of the argument (about examples of bad roadmanship whether motorised or cycles), let's be realistic.

2) There is no vision clearer than hindsight, but none of us were there so we're all speculating.

Road traffic deaths are sad events at any time, but an aspiration of a 'perfect world' is unrealistic. We have to work within the realms of possibility, so education, protection and experience are all viable options to be deployed to either side.

Ultimately someone will be at fault, but it's not going to bring the cyclist back. The sooner we stop trying to blame individuals and concentrate that energy on making real progress in safety and awareness the better.

phy2sll2

BBC article on the matter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898

Interesting that the highest rated comments are mostly those arguing against compulsion.

HebdenBiker

okgo wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

okgo wrote:

Lets get real shall we! Why we continue to protect cyclists that are playing with fire I don't know.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Thanks for your advice.

I think you're being totally un-realistic, and actually unfair on drivers. There is a lot of bad driving, but I'll happily film my commute for you and you'll see that the bad driving is outweighed VASTLY by the amount of blatant disregard from people on bikes. Fine, jump a ped crossing when nobody is there, you're a tw@ for doing it, but you won't kill anyone, but the amount of people that will put themselves in the line of fire is gobsmacking. In this case it sounds (if the account is accurate etc) like he didn't actually realise the position he was about to find himself in, but there are plenty of people each day I see on bikes that are doing the cycling equivilant of trying to cross the m25 on foot.

Your mental score-board of who are the worst road-users is completely irrelevant.
Your M25 analogy is meaningless hyperbole.

As for your point about "putting themselves in the line of fire", I refer you to the long answer I wrote to your original comment.

SimonAH

The 'Think Bike' campaign aimed at making motorists more aware of motorcyclists has worked pretty well I believe?

Next campaign should be aimed at lorry / bus drivers AND cyclists.

The filtering down the left and then the lorry turns left is the number one single cause of cyclist deaths at the moment - yes, everyone on this forum knows about it in detail, but MOST cyclists and MOST large vehicle drivers don't know about it. Especially most large vehicle drivers who don't normally work in built-up cycle-dense environments (equally applicable to newbie or country cyclists of course)

Public education rather than wringing of hands is what is required.

And huge sympathy to the family of course.

jds_1981

FYI, scene picture http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/0 ... c-park-bus

bails87

Whoever said "good advice costs nothing" was right.

British Cycling's 'effective traffic riding' series is useful for commuters who've had no other training.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/travel ... ding-home0

Share it with people. Put it on your comapny intranets. Help people realise what's dangerous and what's safe.

And share this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8 on the dangers of large vehicles.

Not wanting to link any of the above to the poor rider who died yesterday. But let's try to keep more people alive through education.

vermin

HebdenBiker wrote:

okgo wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

okgo wrote:

Lets get real shall we! Why we continue to protect cyclists that are playing with fire I don't know.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Thanks for your advice.

I think you're being totally un-realistic, and actually unfair on drivers. There is a lot of bad driving, but I'll happily film my commute for you and you'll see that the bad driving is outweighed VASTLY by the amount of blatant disregard from people on bikes. Fine, jump a ped crossing when nobody is there, you're a tw@ for doing it, but you won't kill anyone, but the amount of people that will put themselves in the line of fire is gobsmacking. In this case it sounds (if the account is accurate etc) like he didn't actually realise the position he was about to find himself in, but there are plenty of people each day I see on bikes that are doing the cycling equivilant of trying to cross the m25 on foot.

Your mental score-board of who are the worst road-users is completely irrelevant.
Your M25 analogy is meaningless hyperbole.

As for your point about "putting themselves in the line of fire", I refer you to the long answer I wrote to your original comment.

okgo is blunt but, IMO, correct. His mental score-board, as you put it is relevant - he cycles through London, where most of these issues arise, every day. His observations are more relevant than anyone who cycles through London fewer than 10 times per week. The M25 analogy may well be hyperbole, but it is far from meaningless. It is very hard to put into words just how dangerous many cyclists are, both to themselves and to others. Their actions are deeply irresponsible and do untold damage to the relationship between cyclists and motorists in the city. Biggest problem is, they don't even know they are doing it.

McNulty

Unfortunately I feel people are taking the interview with Wiggo a bit out of context. Yes of course this should not distract from making London (and elsewhere in Britain) a safer place to be a cyclist bt what he was saying is that cyclists should go the extra mile to ensure they are not in any way at fault - namely:

- wearing helmets
- not listening to ipods
- not jumping lights

The corollary of this would be that if cuclists did this, there should be very tough action on vehicle drivers responsible for cycling deaths. I wondered if he was hinting that the UK should introduce the same assumed fault laws that exist in the Netherlands whereby a car driver is assumed to be at fault for a cycling collision unless evidence says otherwise.

Unfortunately this nuanced argument looks like being drowned out over whether or not there should be a law about cycling helmets.

+1

CiB

On R4 now, World At One. Quite good...

Cleat Eastwood

Just out interest what's the response on local radio phone ins in London - up here the poor mans passing has been the topic on a local call in all morning.

Drfabulous0

I would have thought Wiggo should know better than to comment on the helmet debate, it was a bit silly but his comments have been quoted out of context all over the place. I'm sure I've foolishly posted my own opinions on here before, pro helmet/anti compulsion, but I reckon it would do more good to make it compulsory for large vehicles to display a warning sticker of some description on the left hand side of the rear, then even the inexperienced would have some warning of the danger before undertaking these vehicles. And get rid of these stupid bike lanes.

airbag

vermin wrote:

airbag wrote:

Laws cost our freedom - something I value even if others apparently don't - have side effects, and this particular one is of questionable use anyway. So prioritising lawmaking seems to be a spectacularly poor decision.

This is an exceptionally ignorant comment, with which I could not disagree more. Were we living under and oppressive dictatorship, I would agree. However, as a lawyer, my view is that laws in the UK, where properly enacted, bolster our freedom. People have focussed today on Wiggo's comments regarding helmets. Most of his comments centred on simply obeying the laws of the road and using common sense.

Hmm I would agree with you, so I would suggest I've communicated badly instead. Perhaps - all laws remove some freedom by definition, but properly enacted ones result bolster our freedom overall (e.g. theft: my freedom from theft outweighs your loss of freedom to steal), but badly enacted, reactionary ones cost freedom overall (e.g. forced wearing of hijabs/banning short skirts on the excuse of protection from rape)