Commuter killed this morning, Victoria Street, London (8th April) - RIP

[Slaav]

I'm all for training, but let's not promote a false equivalence. One party is operating a vehicle that presents an extraordinary danger to others. The other is not.

An absolutely fair comparison and comment - HOWEVER, if I Were the vulnerable one ('motorcyclist') then my training is to ensure that as the vulnerable one, I can foresee and predict what idiots will do....

I sit in my 'tractor' (or Disco to friends) and can look at traffic and cars as a motorcyclist. One sees volumes more than I would ever hope to see as a driver.

It may be the driver's fault, but who gets hurt? It may be 50/50 - so equal blame - but who gets hurt?

It may be 10/90? But who might die?

Either we have to accept that there are idiots and 'plan' accordingly - never 100% safe - or take some risks?

I drive my car and someone will turn in to me - what do I do? I drive defensively - Mum feels 100% comfortable but the Mrs gets wound up like WVM.

It is hell out there but accidents do happen Unfortunately sometimes it involves a big thing and a small thing ....

The answer is TRAINING- on both sides!!!!! And both sides need to know that THEY ARE BOTH (being/AND) in need of training

 

[theclaud]

An absolutely fair comparison and comment - HOWEVER, if I Were the vulnerable one ('motorcyclist') then my training is to ensure that as the vulnerable one, I can foresee and predict what idiots will do....

I sit in my 'tractor' (or Disco to friends) and can look at traffic and cars as a motorcyclist. One sees volumes more than I would ever hope to see as a driver.

It may be the driver's fault, but who gets hurt? It may be 50/50 - so equal blame - but who gets hurt?

It may be 10/90? But who might die?

Either we have to accept that there are idiots and 'plan' accordingly - never 100% safe - or take some risks?

I drive my car and someone will turn in to me - what do I do? I drive defensively - Mum feels 100% comfortable but the Mrs gets wound up like WVM.

It is hell out there but accidents do happen Unfortunately sometimes it involves a big thing and a small thing ....

The answer is TRAINING- on both sides!!!!! And both sides need to know that THEY ARE BOTH (being/AND) in need of training

With respect, you're missing the point. If cyclists or pedestrians in any particular situation really want, or feel they need, training, then I would support their wishes. But there is an absolute responsibility on those operating dangerous vehicles to take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure that they don't kill anyone. This responsibility is shared between those who drive the vehicles and those who ask others to drive them - and it is not escapable by reference to the behaviour of those who are endangered.

 

[Slaav]

With respect, you're missing the point. If cyclists or pedestrians in any particular situation really want, or feel they need, training, then I would support their wishes. But there is an absolute responsibility on those operating dangerous vehicles to take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure that they don't kill anyone. This responsibility is shared between those who drive the vehicles and those who ask others to drive them - and it is not escapable by reference to the behaviour of those who are endangered.

So the 'pedestrian' has no blame associated whatsoever - regardless of their actions?

A car dives along - minding their own business - (not on phone) and a Ped simply steps out? No warning?
Who is to blame etc?

And by 'absolute responsibility' I assume you mean 'blame'?

I may have misunderstood your point - 2 bottles of red does that!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Man walks down a crowed street wildly flailing his arms, kicking out with his legs, and the passers by are to blame for not keeping out of his way?

Yeah. Right. Driverthink at its best, it must be the petrol talking cos it sure ain't a cyclist.

 

[BentMikey]

a Ped simply steps out? No warning?

If the pedestrian stepped out from behind a bus, why are you driving close and fast to the bus, not allowing for the possibility of the pedestrian stepping out. If the pavements are crowded, like on Oxford Street, do you not drive at 15 or 20mph, or even less, to make sure that you can avoid pedestrians?

If you are driving a lorry, do you not check before turning left? If you have a blind spot, is it not your responsibility to have extra mirrors and a sensor at the very least to make sure that someone isn't in that space?

 

[Buddfox]

And if you're sharing a road with a truck, isn't it smart to make sure you are as informed as possible as to the dangers they pose and act accordingly? Some of these comments seem to rely rather too much on perfect driving from 100% of the drivers 100% of the time - that is never going to happen, however many sensors are added to trucks.

 

[Slaav]

If the pedestrian stepped out from behind a bus, why are you driving close and fast to the bus, not allowing for the possibility of the pedestrian stepping out. If the pavements are crowded, like on Oxford Street, do you not drive at 15 or 20mph, or even less, to make sure that you can avoid pedestrians?

If you are driving a lorry, do you not check before turning left? If you have a blind spot, is it not your responsibility to have extra mirrors and a sensor at the very least to make sure that someone isn't in that space?

Sorry but want to pick you up on that. Whilst we are both possibly being pedants and may even agree on a lot of the argument/discussion, it is perfectly possible to have a Ped 'jump' out in front of a car - nobody can possibly drive in a manner that removes 100% chance of an accident - unfortunately many don't give this issue any consideration whatsoever when driving - and cycling.

Using your Oxford St example, you drive along at (eg) 20mph - I wish - and someone sees a bus stopped and dives across the road from an acute angle right in to your path. It happens; nearly happened to me on Monday and gave the Mrs a near Heart Attack. We were lucky!

I do agree with you that there is a massive burden on the Lorry driver in examples such as this tragic occasion, but as I have tried to explain, I still to this day do 'life savers' - especially when turning left in case of numpty cyclists. There are two left turns I do going to and from work where I regularly shake my head in amazement at the positioning and behaviour of some cyclists. Sometimes they are Boris Bikes, often not!

Now I am not saying the following is what happened but let's say I am turning left at a traffic light, and check over my shoulder, mirror and the good ol' life saver - cyclist slides up at the last minute and collides with me by cycling too quickly and dangerously in an attempt to 'make' the lights? These things do happen....

Training really can make a difference; why don't we reintroduce some of those old safety films on TV like the old days? As someone has said before?

Regardless of blame, it is still tragic and a terrible situation.

 

[BentMikey]

Pedestrians are predictably unpredictable. They are not hard to avoid unless you're not anticipating, and not giving them the time and space they need. I see a lot of drivers and cyclists not giving pedestrians the necessary time and space that I think they should be giving them, and that's because "roads are for cars/bicycles". In other words, the drivers and cyclists are relying on the pedestrian to get out of the way or be hit. Not very different to the way we often see lorries being driven.

I'm not saying that pedestrians and cyclists are never to blame, but it's much more often drivers. It's the cager effect altering the balance between who brings the danger, and who is forced to accept the risk.

 

[snailracer]

Everyone makes mistakes...but to allow large motor vehicles that are effectively blind and deaf into a city centre is already a mistake.

 

[Boris Bajic]

With respect, you're missing the point. If cyclists or pedestrians in any particular situation really want, or feel they need, training, then I would support their wishes. But there is an absolute responsibility on those operating dangerous vehicles to take whatever precautions are necessary to ensure that they don't kill anyone. This responsibility is shared between those who drive the vehicles and those who ask others to drive them - and it is not escapable by reference to the behaviour of those who are endangered.

I cannot disagree with this statement. If I have any quibble with it, it would be the word 'absolute', but only because I am a terrible defender of motorists. I feel that road users in heavy (dangerous) vehicles bear a greater responsibility to take necessary steps to minimise death or injury to self and others rather than your wording, but I find myself broadly in agreement.

However, whilst not a proponent of mandatory training for cyclists, I am STRONGLY in favour of the cyclist doing all they can to minimise risk and harm to self.

I do not write with reference to the death in the OP, of which I know nothing. I write as a cyclist in Central London from the age of eleven and a parent who has ridden around Central London with various of his offspring from eleven to eighteen. All my kids rode out on fast A-Roads in The Marches much younger, but cities are cities and despite the lower traffic speeds they present the greater risk in my eyes. Particularly to the novice, the untrained and the unaware.

I confess that as a parent riding to The Emirates down Archway Hill and Holloway Road with a keen 11-12-13-year-old child, I am glad that I've done all I can to teach them to have eyes and ears everywhere. I fret nonetheless. It is not enough that the bus driver, motorcyclist or skip-lorry driver is trained. The cyclist must be very aware and very switched-on too.

I recall my son (then 13) riding with me up Green Lanes and then through a series of rat runs around Endimyon Road to the North Circular. He said "Cars just come so close, it's as if they can't see me". I thought (but didn't say) "They probably can't". After one ride up through Crouch End (not a particularly hazardous place) at eleven, he was almost in a state of shock. He stuck at it anyway, but there is a case for rider training.

For all that all road users bear responsibility and the users of motor vehicles bearer a heavier obligation to ensure the safety of others, I see way too many cyclists in London who are not aware of the danger they put themselves in and are not aware of the danger born of their unsignalled moves across lanes.

 

[Buddfox]

Some background on the cyclist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22090284

 

[glenn forger]

Tipper lorries are often paid per load so have a natural incentive to cut corners, drive faster, take risks.

 

[400bhp]

Some background on the cyclist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22090284

Bloody hell, her lecturer/colleague died a few months earlier after a fall:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/feb/03/seymour-laxon-obituary

 

[BF-GUN]

I'm all for training, but let's not promote a false equivalence. One party is operating a vehicle that presents an extraordinary danger to others. The other is not.

As one who was nearly hit by a cyclist travelling at speed and not obeying the pedestrian crossing in lights which were in my favour I disagree that a bike is not an extraordinary danger to others. The person riding or driving the bikes / vehicles are the potential danger.

 

[glenn forger]

I disagree that a bike is not an extraordinary danger to others.

Your personal experience aside, the statistics do not come anywhere near suggesting that bikes are a danger to anyone.