Cyclist's death reported in local paper

[betty swollocks]

Here.
Another tragedy.
Looks as though the lorry driver was not to blame despite being on hands-free.
It's possible that the victim, Mr Fraser made a misjudgement about the time he had to cross the road to make his exit, but I'm just wondering whether a man with his visuo-spatial awareness and fitness (he was an accomplished cricketer), could make such an error.
I'm going to speculate on something here, which possibly only a cyclist could do:- I'm wondering if Mr. Fraser's foot slipped on the pedal and he was unable to push off properly or quickly because of this.
We'll never know, but it does seem to me that it's a strong possibility.

RIP Robb Fraser. So so sorry for your family and friends.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I notice the report mentions the lack of a helmet. Is helmet use mandatory in the UK? If not, why mention it? Would a helmet even have played any role in such a collision?

I always wear a helmet these days, but much of that decision is based on the press's zeal to blame non-helmet-wearing cyclists when they are knocked down by distracted drivers.

As for hands-free calls while driving, I've seen reports that suggest they are just as distracting as cellphones or being drunk at the wheel. I find it somewhat worrisome that the inquest so casually dismisses the use of a hands-free phone as a contributing factor.

 

[oldfatfool]

I notice the report mentions the lack of a helmet. Is helmet use mandatory in the UK? If not, why mention it? Would a helmet even have played any role in such a collision?.

To be impartial, the report also mentions the use of a Hands free phone, is that illegal? why mention it? Did its use contribute to the accident in anyway?

 

[Ian Cooper]

Well, firstly, I'm not a reporter tasked with being fair or balanced. Nor am I a judge at an inquest who is tasked with finding legal fault.

Like I said, hands-free-phone use has been reported to be as distracting as alcohol use. As such, I wonder why it is still legal. Helmet safety is a lot more controversial. While I see your point, I think there's a big difference in how these two things were reported and how they affected the inquest. I see a 'blame the victim' mentality at play here and a marked unwillingness to criticize the driver whose vehicle killed him.

And hands-free phone use may indeed be illegal, since it is a distraction. I'm not sure what UK law says about its use, but here in the US, it's definitely in a legal grey area.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I'm always wearing a helmet these days. But I doubt a 40 ton truck going at 40mph would bounce of it.
Everyone is in search of reasons for things these days, and cyclists don't have much for the press to latch on to.

 

[green1]

I see a 'blame the victim' mentality at play here and a marked unwillingness to criticize the driver whose vehicle killed him.

The driver who had right of way? It looks like a misjudgement by the cyclist to me.

 

[oldfatfool]

Like I said, hands-free-phone use has been reported to be as distracting as alcohol use. As such, I wonder why it is still legal. Helmet use is a lot more controversial. While I see your point, I think there's a big difference in how these two things were reported and how they affected the inquest. I see a 'blame the victim' mentality at play here and a marked unwillingness to criticize the driver whose vehicle killed him.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly, and do indeed believe that hands free is as distracting as any other activity,however in the case reported above eye witnesses testify that the cyclist effectively cycled into the front of the lorry giving the driver nowhere to go.

IF this is the case then I honestly feel sorry for the driver and see him as as much a victim, by reporting that he was hands free is therefore as you say trying to apportion blame in his direction possibly unfustifiably so.

The law is an ass,it is interesting to note that it is perfectly legal to drive whilst operating a hand held walkie talkie, something that I would say is even more distracting given that the need to concentrate in order to make out what is being said is much greater.

 

[betty swollocks]

The report also mentions that the lorry driver was travelling below 30mph in a 40mph limit area.
The helmet element of the report is a typical comment written by a non-cyclist.
The contention that Mr Fraser did not see the lorry is ridiculous.
I really do think that his foot slipped and he was therefore not able to propel himself across the road as fast as he anticipated he needed to.

 

[User16625]

A helmet was as much use to that cyclist as bullet proof vests would have been to victims of hiroshima. Unless the cyclist deliberately jumped into the trucks path (or actions as good as), then its the truckers fault. Its a mere legality, not rocket science.

 

[green1]

A helmet was as much use to that cyclist as bullet proof vests would have been to victims of hiroshima. Unless the cyclist deliberately jumped into the trucks path (or actions as good as), then its the truckers fault. Its a mere legality, not rocket science.

Reading the report it looks like thats what happened (or a misjudgement/slip).

 

[xpc316e]

It seems as though nobody saw his foot slip. The witness says "If he makes that, it will be a miracle." If the witness had stated that he set off in plenty of time to safely carry out the manoeuvre, but for some reason he failed to do so, then we can begin to conject about feet slipping from pedals. One wonders why he set off into the path of the truck, and from his wife's statement it seems that some suspicions of his taking his own life have crossed people's minds.

It looks as though we will never know what went on, so perhaps the best we can do is offer our sympathy to his family and friends.

 

[Alun]

And hands-free phone use may indeed be illegal, since it is a distraction. I'm not sure what UK law says about its use, but here in the US, it's definitely in a legal grey area.

Use of a hands free phone in the UK is not illegal !
What do you mean by a " legal grey area"? Is it's use allowed in the US or not, or does it vary state by state?

 

[mr_hippo]

Let's make all cars that seat more than one oerson illegal so that the driver will not be distracted by
Squabbling kids in the rear seat
Nagging wife
Talkative workmate
Backseat drivers
There will be no CD/radio and no GPS,
No ashtray
No opening windows so that the driver cannot wind the window down and have a smoke

 

[david k]

Well, firstly, I'm not a reporter tasked with being fair or balanced. Nor am I a judge at an inquest who is tasked with finding legal fault.

Like I said, hands-free-phone use has been reported to be as distracting as alcohol use. As such, I wonder why it is still legal. Helmet safety is a lot more controversial. While I see your point, I think there's a big difference in how these two things were reported and how they affected the inquest. I see a 'blame the victim' mentality at play here and a marked unwillingness to criticize the driver whose vehicle killed him.

And hands-free phone use may indeed be illegal, since it is a distraction. I'm not sure what UK law says about its use, but here in the US, it's definitely in a legal grey area.

its allowed, although i dont feel its any better than just using the phone!!! by the time ive sorted my hands free and pressed the right button im just as distracted as picking up the mobile(celphone)

 

[xpc316e]

its allowed, although i dont feel its any better than just using the phone!!! by the time ive sorted my hands free and pressed the right button im just as distracted as picking up the mobile(celphone)

According to the law, if you have to press a button it is not hands-free!