Cyclist killed in lorry collision in West Dulwich

bigmat
bigmat Posts: 5,134
edited September 2013 in Commuting chat
This morning, Thurlow Park Road.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23959657

Woman in her 30's apparently, collision with a lorry (again). RIP. Far too close for comfort. :cry:
«1

Comments

  • Koncordski
    Koncordski Posts: 1,009
    And an very close call for a young man on tower bridge road last night. I cycled past heading for london bridge and it didn't look good, road closed and screened off. He's going to live but the poor bastard has lost a leg thanks to a left turning lorry. Poor woman killed in dulwich was killed by a.....lorry.

    http://www.lfgss.com/thread113202.html

    This is exactly what the protest ride was about on Monday and for this to happen two days later is just crap. :evil:

    #1 Brompton S2L Raw Lacquer, Leather Mudflaps
    #2 Boeris Italia race steel
    #3 Scott CR1 SL
    #4 Trek 1.1 commuter
    #5 Peugeot Grand Tourer (Tandem)
  • rubertoe
    rubertoe Posts: 3,994
    These threads always turn my stomach and they always tend to be the same narative.

    RIP.
    "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."

    PX Kaffenback 2 = Work Horse
    B-Twin Alur 700 = Sundays and Hills
  • Yes, it keeps happening and happening and happening, yet as with most road collisions, the mess is swept up, the road is reopened and that's it.
  • Very sad. RIP.
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,793
    I presume he meant the focus to be on "...and that's it"
    ie The road isn't made any safer
  • t4tomo
    t4tomo Posts: 2,643
    Too many times vehicles turn left without indicating, and too many times cyclists put themselves in risky places when cycling, especially when London in heavy traffic (when is it not heavy?).

    Sadly this will continue unless we either:
    - completley segregate cyclists, which arguably isn't what cyclists want, and also will never happen due to infrstructure costs and space.
    - educate all drivers and cyclists better, which is a bit like painting the forth road bridge with a toothbrush.
    Bianchi Infinito CV
    Bianchi Via Nirone 7 Ultegra
    Brompton S Type
    Carrera Vengeance Ultimate Ltd
    Gary Fisher Aquila '98
    Front half of a Viking Saratoga Tandem
  • t4tomo wrote:
    - completley segregate cyclists, which arguably isn't what cyclists want, and also will never happen due to infrstructure costs and space..

    It's actually what most cyclists want. Or to be more accurate, most people who would potentially want to make journies by bike. In any case, show me a cyclist who actually likes cycling with motor vehicles and prefers that to a situation where there are none.
  • I know that stretch of road pretty well, having walked along it twice a day for a few years, and having more recently driven it a lot en route to my dear Mama.

    It's the South Circular. There are a couple of speed cameras along there. And at least one non-traffic lit junction that can create impatience. There are also a couple of bends in it where the Schmacher-esque driver can squeeze very close to the kerb. Odd that no arrest has been made.

    Very sad news.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,565
    Horrible news on both, really rather depressing. Hope the guy that lost a leg recovers as best he can and condolences to all that knew the woman in Dulwich.
  • How awful! Just down the road from me.

    Obviously I don't know the details, but you do see HGVs bombing it along that road at times. Very sad.
  • There are also a couple of bends in it where the Schmacher-esque driver can squeeze very close to the kerb.

    Yeah, that section beyond West Dulwich station leading towards Tulse Hill where it goes 2 lane and people try to overtake at speed on the inside. I wouldn't want to ride that.
  • More here: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/w ... 97656.html

    Hopefully some positive news alongside it.
  • Not again! I, my family, and many people we know cycle through here several times a week. Is it not the bit on the curve where there is a cycle lane on the road going east and a dual use path on that going west? The cycle lane is very narrow. Like others have said, traffic is often too fast moving as drivers jostle, often quite aggressively, for space.
  • What a truly disgusting time to claim that it's the responsibility of cyclists to change their behaviour and that safety improvements for lorries are not necessary: http://www.fta.co.uk/media_and_campaign ... users.html
    "Mummy Mummy, when will I grow up?"
    "Don't be silly son, you're a bloke, you'll never grow up"
  • It sounds like that's where it is - and it's a horrid bit.

    Traffic was much heavier today with most schools back and I know my ride in from the other side of Dulwich was more stressful than the last few weeks.

    Going to see if I can pick up some flowers en route home for our unnamed rider. One of my closest HGV shaves was slightly along South Circ where driver overtook at a stupid point and pulled back in too quickly to avoid a traffic island. In that case it was only my knowledge that he'd have to do so that allowed me to brake in time. If I hadn't known the road, I'd've been sideswiped by his rear wheels. RIP rider and condolences to friends and family
  • Koncordski
    Koncordski Posts: 1,009
    What a truly disgusting time to claim that it's the responsibility of cyclists to change their behaviour and that safety improvements for lorries are not necessary: http://www.fta.co.uk/media_and_campaign ... users.html

    Victim blaming is always going to be the easy response. What amuses and depresses me in in equal measure is the implication that everyone driving a vehicle is a tolerant law abiding saint and everyone on a bicycle is a rule breaking menace to society. It's baffling because I even get it from family members sometimes when the subject of cycle infrastructure comes up, despite the fact that driving whilst texting, speeding and red-light jumping is considered completely normal when in a car. I just don't understand the thinking, i really don't.

    #1 Brompton S2L Raw Lacquer, Leather Mudflaps
    #2 Boeris Italia race steel
    #3 Scott CR1 SL
    #4 Trek 1.1 commuter
    #5 Peugeot Grand Tourer (Tandem)
  • Koncordski wrote:
    Victim blaming is always going to be the easy response. What amuses and depresses me in in equal measure is the implication that everyone driving a vehicle is a tolerant law abiding saint and everyone on a bicycle is a rule breaking menace to society. It's baffling because I even get it from family members sometimes when the subject of cycle infrastructure comes up, despite the fact that driving whilst texting, speeding and red-light jumping is considered completely normal when in a car. I just don't understand the thinking, i really don't.

    Part of it is a defence mechanism: This person was killed but it's because they didn't to xyz, therefore it can't happen to me.
  • very depressing. Condolences to her family and anyone who knew her who may be on this forum.
    Ridley Fenix SL
  • airbag
    airbag Posts: 201
    Koncordski wrote:
    Victim blaming is always going to be the easy response. What amuses and depresses me in in equal measure is the implication that everyone driving a vehicle is a tolerant law abiding saint and everyone on a bicycle is a rule breaking menace to society. It's baffling because I even get it from family members sometimes when the subject of cycle infrastructure comes up, despite the fact that driving whilst texting, speeding and red-light jumping is considered completely normal when in a car. I just don't understand the thinking, i really don't.

    Part of it is a defence mechanism: This person was killed but it's because they didn't to xyz, therefore it can't happen to me.

    Yup. People will plumb any depth of stupidity to avoid admitting that:

    - sometimes, bad things happen to people who've done nothing to deserve it;
    - frequently, due to the actions of a fairly typical person.

    RIP.
  • sswiss
    sswiss Posts: 354
    this is happening far too often...
    I used to have ride a short section of South Circular years ago and it was a nightmare then an I hated it, I dread to think what it's like now!
    My deepest condolences to all that knew her.
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    t4tomo wrote:
    - completley segregate cyclists, which arguably isn't what cyclists want, and also will never happen due to infrstructure costs and space..

    It's actually what most cyclists want. Or to be more accurate, most people who would potentially want to make journies by bike. In any case, show me a cyclist who actually likes cycling with motor vehicles and prefers that to a situation where there are none.

    Knee jerk reaction to tragic events never produce good policy This is another tragic death, but we need to look sensibly at the bigger picture to find a solution, not to put a sticking plaster over the symptoms

    I for one and all those I cycle with are of the same view that we do NOT want segregated facilities and being limited to ride where the authorities dictate we can.

    To support this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

    It sounds a great idea and in a Utopian society would be great, but in practice and reality it is nothing of the sort.

    There is insufficient money and space to build completely seperate facilities for cyclists.
    Who is going to pay for it?Where is the land going to come from to provide these facilities?
    Who is going to maintain these facilities?
    What do you do at every intersection, junction, driveway etc.

    Either you create facilities that require cyclists to stiop and cede priority to motor traffic or you create facilities where you are creating lots of conflict points.

    What is needed is to enforce the existing legislation regarding careless/ dangerous driving etc and similarily regarding careless/ dangerous cycling etc.

    We need not only to prosecute offenders but have sufficient punishments for those who are guilty of such offence.

    To do otherwise is to excacerbate the underlying problem. For example to remove cyclists from the road will merely encourage motorist to drive badly as there is one less object in their way.

    Road users need to be forced to realise their responsibilities to other road users. Segregation does nothing of the sort

    Deal with the causes of the problem not the symptoms
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • No matter how fierce the punishments, or the training for the drivers or anything else you care to mention. Cycling on busy arterial roads is never going to be pleasant, never mind safe.

    Your absolutely right that we shouldn't be just putting up shared use path signs which give way at every side road and are littered with cyclist dismount signs. Nobody really wants that.

    However we aren't ever going to make cycling on these types of roads pleasant or safe - whatever training or potential penalties or other 'easy fix' solutions are thought up.

    The environment itself *must* change. How that is to be achieved of course is a matter for debate in itself but simply saying "drivers should pay more attention" or other such mantras completely ignores human fallibility and will never work however long you try.
  • bigmat
    bigmat Posts: 5,134
    I'm with Spen on this. I rode CS7 this morning, where there is a segregated lane heading north past Stockwell tube. What the **** is that all about? I got forced right by traffic so missed the first section of the segregated lane (on the left as usual and pretty much single file for bikes so not ideal) then as I exited the roundabout I nearly ran straight into a raised kerb in the middle of the road, supposedly there for my benefit. Do we really want more of this kind of thing? I just want to be allowed to cycle on the roads that are already there without drivers doing idiotic things that might kill me and without vehicles being so poorly designed for an urban environment that they cannot help but kill cyclists on a regular basis.
  • those against segregation are totally missing the point - the type of segregation we are talking about is nothing like the rubbish we have now - think holland, where the paths are wide enough for loads more cyclists than we have now and cycles get priority (or at least are not treated as second class citizens) at junctions/lights and so on.

    If we've got 30 billion to spend on a railway (relatively) few will use and most dont want, then we've got more than enough money to spend on (relatively) cheap cycle infrastucture.

    And on topic - terrible, terrible events again :( , and I'm sure I've read that at least one of the lorry drivers has been arrested
  • daddy0
    daddy0 Posts: 686
    Sad news. I cycled along there this week myself.

    The roads need to be made safe enough for 8 - 80 year olds to be able to cycle them. We need both segregation (but only for slower riders where it is needed) AND tougher punishments for bad drivers.
  • spen666 wrote:

    There is insufficient money and space to build completely seperate facilities for cyclists.
    Who is going to pay for it?Where is the land going to come from to provide these facilities?

    Really?

    There is plenty of space. It is a question of priorities. See this article.

    http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.co ... s-streets/

    spen666 wrote:

    We need not only to prosecute offenders but have sufficient punishments for those who are guilty of such offence.

    To do otherwise is to excacerbate the underlying problem. For example to remove cyclists from the road will merely encourage motorist to drive badly as there is one less object in their way.

    Road users need to be forced to realise their responsibilities to other road users. Segregation does nothing of the sort

    Deal with the causes of the problem not the symptoms

    That is the shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted approach. Wait until a vehicle kills someone, then prosecute them.

    You accuse separate facilities as being utopian, but thinking you can force or prosecute people into not making mistakes is even more utopian.

    People will ALWAYS feck up and do something wrong, it is human nature, whether this is through wilful stupidity, inexperience, inattention, ignorance or any number of other reasons, and that applies to both cyclists and drivers.

    You can't punish people into making less mistakes, but what you can do is design infrastructure that minimises the negative consequences of inevitable mistakes.

    That is the approach used in other modes of transport that have a far better safety record than the roads. They try to design a system so a single human feck-up will not have tragic consequences and deaths that do occur are usually the result of a whole sequence of mistakes, so are much rarer.

    When you mix squashy human bodies and one tonne plus metal boxes travelling at speed a single mistake can result in death and there is an unending supply of people who will make those mistakes.
  • redhanded wrote:
    People will ALWAYS feck up and do something wrong, it is human nature, whether this is through wilful stupidity, inexperience, inattention, ignorance or any number of other reasons, and that applies to both cyclists and drivers.

    ........

    When you mix squashy human bodies and one tonne plus metal boxes travelling at speed a single mistake can result in death and there is an unending supply of people who will make those mistakes.

    This is the view I've come to. The only 100% safe interaction with a lorry is at a distance, preferably with a decent sized chunk of concrete between you.

    This morning, as I do every morning I cycled through a section of CS8 in the Battersea area where the cycle lane ends in a row of parked cars, forming a chicane-like pinch point with a pedestrian refuge in the centre of the road. I take primary position of course.

    Some optimistic soul has erected a "Think bike" sign to warn drivers. This is a nice thought, but rather undermined by the fact I had been overtaken by an HGV a few minutes earlier in which the driver was reading a full A3 size road atlas as he drove.
  • Just been there to lay some flowers although I struggled to find the actual place since there is nothing to indicate where it happened. I was approached though by an Evening Standard reporter who pointed out the spot to me. He was pleasant even after he realised I knew nothing specific about the poor woman and commented on how they are trying to raise the profile of cycling safety. He mentioned that she'd been cycling south on Gallery Road and had just turned west onto Thurlow Park Road when it happened.

    When I laid the flowers, I realised there was no card to leave a message so I tore off the 'Space for Cycling' card from Monday's ride and left a note on the back saying that it was a pity change hadn't happened soon enough and an RIP - I hope that doesn't appear over-politicised. The BBC illustrated their report from Monday's ride with lots of pictures of fit young men flying around on bikes quite confidently - and that's great for those who fall into that camp. I'm not entirely sure how much I'd use lots of segregated bike paths either (even though I'm not a fit young man) but there are a lot of other demographics out there who would.
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    redhanded wrote:
    spen666 wrote:

    There is insufficient money and space to build completely seperate facilities for cyclists.
    Who is going to pay for it?Where is the land going to come from to provide these facilities?

    Really?

    There is plenty of space. It is a question of priorities. See this article.

    http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.co ... s-streets/
    A few photos of some wide streets means nothing. There are far more roads all over Britain where there is not space for cycling facilities seperate from motorised traffic, are those roads to be off limits to cyclists? They will certainly be more dangerous as you reduce the experience of motorists and cyclists inter reacting.

    Your idea wiill mean the end of Audaxes, sportives, club rides and even LEJoG and C2C rides as it will not be possible either financially or in terms of space to provide segregated cycling facilities on all roads

    At present we have the right to use all roads but special roads for cycling. Why would you want to stop that or make it far more dangerous to use those roads?

    It will kill cycling as anything other than a pootle to the park or to the shop.
    spen666 wrote:

    We need not only to prosecute offenders but have sufficient punishments for those who are guilty of such offence.

    To do otherwise is to excacerbate the underlying problem. For example to remove cyclists from the road will merely encourage motorist to drive badly as there is one less object in their way.

    Road users need to be forced to realise their responsibilities to other road users. Segregation does nothing of the sort

    Deal with the causes of the problem not the symptoms

    That is the shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted approach. Wait until a vehicle kills someone, then prosecute them.

    You accuse separate facilities as being utopian, but thinking you can force or prosecute people into not making mistakes is even more utopian.

    People will ALWAYS feck up and do something wrong, it is human nature, whether this is through wilful stupidity, inexperience, inattention, ignorance or any number of other reasons, and that applies to both cyclists and drivers.

    You can't punish people into making less mistakes, but what you can do is design infrastructure that minimises the negative consequences of inevitable mistakes.

    That is the approach used in other modes of transport that have a far better safety record than the roads. They try to design a system so a single human feck-up will not have tragic consequences and deaths that do occur are usually the result of a whole sequence of mistakes, so are much rarer.

    When you mix squashy human bodies and one tonne plus metal boxes travelling at speed a single mistake can result in death and there is an unending supply of people who will make those mistakes.

    The rest of this is a turkey voting for Christmas.

    Taking your suggestion it is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It works in all other aspects of life - we prosecute people who offend. For most people the fear of prosecution (& the penalties ) are enough to prevent them offending.

    Drink driving for example used to be a prevalent offence until we started to prosecute more people and the punishments were enough to deter people. Nowadays drink driving is regarded by society as being unacceptable.
    There is no reason that we cannot take the same approach to driving offences.

    Most people dont pay proper attention when driving and some drive dangerously. Why? Because they can get away with it and if caught the penalties are minimal.

    Dont bury your head in the sand face the causes of the problem and deal with them, do not advocate sticking plasters
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • I don't think anyone's suggesting the complete separation of bikes from motorised vehicles in all circumstances. I know everyone always harks on about the Netherlands, but presumably audaxes, long-distance challenges etc still take place there in spite of all the segregated infrastructure they have. Cycle sport of various kinds certainly does.
This discussion has been closed.