cyclist killed - opinions on helmets,blame and education
Comments
-
McNulty wrote:
+1Unfortunately 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.
Hit the nail on the head there, McNulty. And he's correct; the more we (cyclists) do all to protect ourselves, the greater the duty of care balance will swing towards motorists. The ever-so-fashionable Dutch 'assumption of liability' law is horribly draconian and encourages irresponsible cycling.0 -
RIP the fellow cyclist who got killed.Misguided Idealist0
-
No he is not.vermin wrote:okgo is blunt but, IMO, correct.
No it is not relevant. Such unscientific, anecdotal "evidence" is completely useless. Okgo will not have observed drunk drivers, stoned drivers, uninsured drivers, disqualified drivers, texting drivers, drivers with bald tyres, drivers will dodgy brakes, etc etc etc, because these things are not usually visible. Cyclists jumping red lights (or whatever) is highly visible. Furthermore, such anecdotal evidence is extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias; in which we tend to remember only the incidents which confirm our preconceptions and/or prejudices.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.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...
You are blaming the victims. OK, now try this:It is very hard to put into words just how dangerous many drivers are, both to themselves and to others. Their actions are deeply irresponsible and do untold damage...
Bad cycling hardly ever kills or seriously injures anyone. Bad driving kills or seriously injures thousands per year.
If there are drivers, fleet operators and vehicle designers who feel that drivers are entitled to manoeuvre blindly, because of a belief that more vulnerable road users should get out of the way, then the way we think about and govern our transportation system needs to change.0 -
HebdenBiker wrote:
No he is not.vermin wrote:okgo is blunt but, IMO, correct.
No it is not relevant. Such unscientific, anecdotal "evidence" is completely useless. Okgo will not have observed drunk drivers, stoned drivers, uninsured drivers, disqualified drivers, texting drivers, drivers with bald tyres, drivers will dodgy brakes, etc etc etc, because these things are not usually visible. Cyclists jumping red lights (or whatever) is highly visible. Furthermore, such anecdotal evidence is extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias; in which we tend to remember only the incidents which confirm our preconceptions and/or prejudices.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.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...
You are blaming the victims. OK, now try this:It is very hard to put into words just how dangerous many drivers are, both to themselves and to others. Their actions are deeply irresponsible and do untold damage...
Bad cycling hardly ever kills or seriously injures anyone. Bad driving kills or seriously injures thousands per year.
If there are drivers, fleet operators and vehicle designers who feel that drivers are entitled to manoeuvre blindly, because of a belief that more vulnerable road users should get out of the way, then the way we think about and govern our transportation system needs to change.
You spout fact not opinion, eh? I doubt you've ever been wrong, nor has anything ever been your fault. Unbalanced statements make handy petards.0 -
HebdenBiker - It is obvious that your bread is buttered, heart-attack inducingly thick, on only one side.
You are a bigot.0 -
I would be very surprised if Robert Elms doesn't discuss this on BBC London as he is a very keen cyclist. You should be able to listen to it from your pc later. I can't listen to it now as I'm on the phone a lot of the time so don't know what is being said.Cleat Eastwood wrote: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.0 -
*title changed to reflect content.
I'll be honest, not happy with the direction and think some new threads should have been started. (DDD, your new thread noted. Thankyou.)0 -
Hebden Biker,
The reason many of us get frustrated as well as saddened by these incidences and tend to ask why cyclists put themselves in such danger is because we are out and about in London on bikes all the time and have been for a long time. We have found out that if you are alert to risks and adjust speed, road position, shoulder check, negotiate, etc it's actually pretty safe.
A lot of us feel that while you are right that too many drivers don't take their responsibilities seriously, focusing on that is not likely to help us or our fellow cyclists. As a cyclist you need to look after yourself. No one else on the road can be trusted to do it for you. So we despair when cyclists play Russian roulette in front of us.
I totally take your point that drivers could and should do more to protect cyclists from their own bad decisions. Absolutely. But for crying out loud lets not make the mistake of assuming that they will...0 -
HebdenBiker wrote: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.
In that situation, the space into which the vehicle is moving *is* clear. It is the space at the entrance of the left turn. If, during a left turn by a vehicle, a cyclist starts an undertake of the vehicle, I really don't see how the vehicle is at fault.
It is foolish to filter on the left of a large vehicle turning left because the rear wheels will take a tighter line around the apex of the corner (also a space that was clear when the move was started) than the fronts, and usually will leave little or no space.
Look at it from this angle: you're cycling towards a junction and start to turn left. Another cyclist comes up between you and the kerb and clatters into you. You think that's your fault?
For the avoidance of doubt, this is all intended as an abstracted example, and not a commentary or a view on the incident that took place yesterday.0 -
HebdenBiker wrote:Bad cycling hardly ever kills or seriously injures anyone.
Bad cycling can kill bad cyclists.0 -
Greg66 wrote:HebdenBiker wrote: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.
In that situation, the space into which the vehicle is moving *is* clear. It is the space at the entrance of the left turn. If, during a left turn by a vehicle, a cyclist starts an undertake of the vehicle, I really don't see how the vehicle is at fault.
It is foolish to filter on the left of a large vehicle turning left because the rear wheels will take a tighter line around the apex of the corner (also a space that was clear when the move was started) than the fronts, and usually will leave little or no space.
Interestingly, I do remember this being covered as part of the driving theory test; for sufficiently large vehicles, it becomes important even for car drivers to be aware of how a lorry moves out before making a turn.
If this is really a question of cyclist education, how do we achieve it? Maybe it's similar to the public education campaigns run on TV to encourage seatbelt use and make drink-driving socially unacceptable.
I'm thinking of this sort of thing:
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23xr3JF-tz0
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3x7K3EOTk0 -
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Dan commuted in from Ilford, that's quite a ride. He was an experienced and sensible cyclist:
http://twitter.com/gecko84/status/229945524189536256
http://twitter.com/gecko84/status/227665244007313408
There was an awful inevitability about this death. Boris scrapped the Highway 2012, Robin "Bstard" Wales won't allow the CSH into Newham, cycling was made more dangerous around the Olympic Park by planners, the LCC have been complaining for ages about Ruckholt, my commute for eight years. RIP Dan.0 -
Was he hit near the Olympic Park or near Hackney?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Dan commuted in from Ilford, that's quite a ride. He was an experienced and sensible cyclist:
http://twitter.com/gecko84/status/229945524189536256
http://twitter.com/gecko84/status/227665244007313408
There was an awful inevitability about this death. Boris scrapped the Highway 2012, Robin "Bstard" Wales won't allow the CSH into Newham, cycling was made more dangerous around the Olympic Park by planners, the LCC have been complaining for ages about Ruckholt, my commute for eight years. RIP Dan.
To be fair, he only appears to have started commuting by bike on 23rd July. Not that it makes your other points any less valid. It's a tragedy that this has happened. RIP Dan Harris.Ribble Audax - FCN 5
Dedacciai Pista - FCN 30 -
Just had a bit of a weird evening. I picked a friend up from the train station as she was coming over for dinner. She was crying. When i enquired to the cause, she said 'I just found out that someone i know got run over by a bus yesterday'. It turns out it was Dan Harris. It also transpires that i met him at a house party (not that i recall) earlier this year....
She showed me his facebook page and the tributes from his friends.
Some of the posts from his friends do indeed suggest that he had only recently taken up cycle-commuting, but has been leisure riding for some time.
I didn't tell her about the reddit link here. Infact, having been shown picture after picture of the guy this evening, that account of his final moments makes me feel rather ill.
R.I.P Dan.0 -
Blimey, BoJo made a sensible comment. Said that making helmet wearing compulsory wasn't necessarily good for cycling.DonDaddyD wrote:
RIP Dan, my thoughts are with you and yours. Be careful out there folks.0 -
whitebait01 wrote:To be fair, he only appears to have started commuting by bike on 23rd July. Not that it makes your other points any less valid. It's a tragedy that this has happened. RIP Dan Harris.
From his web page it seems longer. Sad
FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
Greg66 wrote:HebdenBiker wrote: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.
In that situation, the space into which the vehicle is moving *is* clear. It is the space at the entrance of the left turn. If, during a left turn by a vehicle, a cyclist starts an undertake of the vehicle, I really don't see how the vehicle is at fault.
It is foolish to filter on the left of a large vehicle turning left because the rear wheels will take a tighter line around the apex of the corner (also a space that was clear when the move was started) than the fronts, and usually will leave little or no space.
Look at it from this angle: you're cycling towards a junction and start to turn left. Another cyclist comes up between you and the kerb and clatters into you. You think that's your fault?
For the avoidance of doubt, this is all intended as an abstracted example, and not a commentary or a view on the incident that took place yesterday.
What bout if the left turning vehicle wasn't indicating? What if it was in the straight ahead / right turn lane and swung across to make the left turn?0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Dan commuted in from Ilford, that's quite a ride.
Wanstead to Shoreditch0 -
Peat wrote:Just had a bit of a weird evening. I picked a friend up from the train station as she was coming over for dinner. She was crying. When i enquired to the cause, she said 'I just found out that someone i know got run over by a bus yesterday'. It turns out it was Dan Harris. It also transpires that i met him at a house party (not that i recall) earlier this year....
She showed me his facebook page and the tributes from his friends.
Some of the posts from his friends do indeed suggest that he had only recently taken up cycle-commuting, but has been leisure riding for some time.
I didn't tell her about the reddit link here. Infact, having been shown picture after picture of the guy this evening, that account of his final moments makes me feel rather ill.
R.I.P Dan.
Sorry to hear that this horrible incident was so close to home. When we debate the rights and wrongs of an accident, it is all to easy for us to forget that those involved are people just like us and that those around them are left devastated. If this thread was simply an outpouring of respect for the dead cyclist, without the discussions around blame, it would be a lovely thing to share with your friend.0 -
Gussio wrote:
Sorry to hear that this horrible incident was so close to home. When we debate the rights and wrongs of an accident, it is all to easy for us to forget that those involved are people just like us and that those around them are left devastated. If this thread was simply an outpouring of respect for the dead cyclist, without the discussions around blame, it would be a lovely thing to share with your friend.
+1. LFGSS have a more considered and sensitive approach to rider down threads and BR would do well to adopt a similar approach.0 -
Absolutely tragic, condolences to Dan's family and friends.
Without wanting to get into the debate too deeply, I'd just say that Chris Boardman's comments on Newsnight last night were absolutely spot on. A brief excerpt (roughly transcribed by me)
"I think really the question is why do we need helmets now and we didn't ten years ago. I think they can distract from, for me, what is the real argument: why don't we make an environment that lets this activity take place? It solves so many problems with pollution, with health, with congestion, why don't we invest in it?"
Good work Chris. Let's hope that such sensible, measured comments in the context of so much publicity for cycling can bring something positive after such a heart-wrenching incident.0 -
Exactly, look at why we feel the need for helmets, it's the fact that the road system is skewed to the needs of car and lorry traffic and bicyles are an after thought and have to fit in where we can. This creates an environment where people who want to cycle feel it's too dangerous and so drive creating more traffic that puts more people off and it goes into a loop.
It needs investment to break that loop and create a road/transport network that encourages non "cyclists" do to the kind of short just pop out to the shops type journeys that are so bad at clogging up the roads and where cars are not efficient at doing fuel wise.
At the moment most people see cycling as running the gauntlet after news reports of people being killed however few is still tragic but hopefully the publicity this time will be more positive and help change things.0 -
Wise words indeed.flimflam_machine wrote:Absolutely tragic, condolences to Dan's family and friends.
Without wanting to get into the debate too deeply, I'd just say that Chris Boardman's comments on Newsnight last night were absolutely spot on. A brief excerpt (roughly transcribed by me)
"I think really the question is why do we need helmets now and we didn't ten years ago. I think they can distract from, for me, what is the real argument: why don't we make an environment that lets this activity take place? It solves so many problems with pollution, with health, with congestion, why don't we invest in it?"
Good work Chris. Let's hope that such sensible, measured comments in the context of so much publicity for cycling can bring something positive after such a heart-wrenching incident.0
