London cyclist may have hit door

[kishan]

sad way to go rip the government really need to sort things out for cyclists how many more riders need to die before action is taken? surely if the government got ride of that shitty law of cyclists must use the road and created split pavements or allowed us to ride on pavements again like we used to when little more and more people will do cycling which means people wil lget fitter,save more cash and the enviornment wont be effected and road deaths will drop.

 

[downfader]

Man charged with manslaughter of cyclist Sam Harding in Holloway

http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/new..._of_cyclist_sam_harding_in_holloway_1_1195136

Reminds me of the time I apparently "upset" a driver back last Feb. He shot past me at speed giving me an inch his missus would be unhappy to receive. I sat behind him at the lights 25 metres away, followed him through green and up a road until he pulled over to park. I took it wide just incase and sure enough he threw his car door open as I drew level.

I asked, rather politely "more space next time please!" His response was unprintable and I'm left in no uncertain terms that his car door was being used as some kind of weapon against me. It was like a petulant child in rage.

Stories like that remind me of that driver and why I try to go wide

 

[gambatte]

It's hit court
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20669294

 

[mr_cellophane]

Mr Aydogdu had bought his Audi a month before and had its windows coated with a dark plastic film which reduced visibility in and out of the car to 17%

Does anyone know what the legal minimum is ?

Wasn't the bus driver partly to blame as well for driving too close behind ?

 

[subaqua]

Does anyone know what the legal minimum is ?

Wasn't the bus driver partly to blame as well for driving too close behind ?

it must let through 75% of available light if first used on or after 1 April 1985. or 70% if first used before that date.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...requirements-for-glazing-in-road-vehicles.pdf

 

[Hawk]

Wasn't the bus driver partly to blame as well for driving too close behind ?

I guess the driver was an easier target for CPS in this case

 

[Scruffmonster]

Where there also few cars on the road back then?

Don't be so glib.

You can SEE a car. You have to LOOK for a cyclist. Massive difference.

 

[BentMikey]

Not really, no. For both you have to look. There isn't a massive difference.

What there is is a difference in danger each presents to you. This is why drivers so easily pull out in front of cyclists (SMIDGAF), and require rather a lot more room before pulling out in front of an HGV.

 

[Scruffmonster]

You can glance at a door mirror and see a car.
You need to pause and look at a door mirror to see a cyclist.
(Same applies for a shoulder glance)

There needs to be a mass education in the practice of LOOKING for any and all other road users. I know it should already be happening, but it's not.

The current culture is (and this you pointed out) that you check your mirror and window for danger to yourself as a car driver. Too few drivers are aware of the danger that a door poses to cyclists. They believe the check is a one way system, when it's so obviously not.

 

[Andrew_P]

Why are the CPS and Police so inconsistent on these things? I was quite shocked at the linked crash to being recorded as accidental death.

 

[GrasB]

You can glance at a door mirror and see a car.
You need to pause and look at a door mirror to see a cyclist.

Incorrect! You can glance & see a large shape you ASSUME is a car. You need to pause & look at the door mirror to actually see any vehicle. Drive a car on the road with a lot of sponsorship decals or a painted design on the front & you realise the typical standard of observation on the roads is non-existent.

 

[Scruffmonster]

Incorrect! You can glance & see a large shape you ASSUME is a car. You need to pause & look at the door mirror to actually see any vehicle. Drive a car on the road with a lot of sponsorship decals or a painted design on the front & you realise the typical standard of observation on the roads is non-existent.

Why does the internet demand that people narrow their point down to such an exact level of reasoning before anyone will accept it? You've expanded my point and clarified it, you haven't rendered it incorrect.

Our brain will process many things on auto pilot. Noticing things that we expect to be there is one of these instances. There's no relevant, quotable science here but I think most would agree that given 100 glances at a door mirror you'd expect to spot an object that you expect to see, close to 100% of the time*. Asked 100 times 'Was there a car there' or 'What colour was the car' we'd all be spot on. Asked 'What colour was the pram crossing the road' I'm sure we'd all fail.

The problem is that most people are pre-conditioned to automatically see large shapes as they represent danger. Currently, there is no visible campaign to highlight the danger that doors pose to cyclists, in the way that there has been for say, properly looking at junctions for motorcycles, for example.

There should be a campaign to highlight the dangers. It's an extra 5 seconds to properly look. It should happen. Every single time.

* = I know the 'most of the time' opens the door to accidents, but that's always going to be the case. Infallibility in any human based system is impossible.

 

[BentMikey]

Wrong. You just need to look and you'll see all that's required. Cyclists are not camouflaged, they are easily visible road users.

Your use of the word glance is what is wrong - it's a meatware problem. Glancing won't let you identify cars either, much less judge their vector and speed.

 

[Arjimlad]

I hope Mr Ay Dog Doo gets convicted. 17% visibility indeed. We've all seen cars like that and know how they are driven. Sorry that's such an indefensible generalisation but...

 

[Scruffmonster]

Wrong. You just need to look and you'll see all that's required. Cyclists are not camouflaged, they are easily visible road users.

Your use of the word glance is what is wrong - it's a meatware problem. Glancing won't let you identify cars either, much less judge their vector and speed.

Do we really need to debate the meaning of the word 'Look'?

As I've said, people are looking/peeking/scanning/glancing for danger to themselves.

They are lot looking/peeking/scanning/glancing for dangers that they may pose to others by opening the door. They're not conditioned that way.

You will only see what you are looking for. It's how we work. People need to be educated to look for cyclists when they open a door.

I know that's wrong, but it's the way that it is.