Sad death

[summerdays]

Also, thinking about it, not having lights on the bike doesn't necessarily mena she was going to cycle unlit - it's just possible that she stayed out later than intended and got caught out...

Remember it is actually an offence to cycle at night unlit, that may sem a petty and callous thing to say in a case like this but proper enforcement of this rule would save lives.

I agree - she may not have intended to cycle in the dark... if the pedal broke and then she was forced to walk then she may not have been expecting to still be on the road when it was dark.

 

[Randochap]

I think it is going a wee bit too far to say just because of this incident it is the responsibility of the bicycle industry to make sure bicycles are roadworthy. After they have been sold complying with the law with their reflectors front, rear and pedals and bell, how is it their repsonsibilty? It is the responsibilty of the user of the bike to ensure that it is roadworthy, period.

I agree the ultimate responsibility lies with the user. However, don't you think that the disappearance of the once-common utility bicycle and a generation now of knowledge of what that is has contributed to bad practices by many "cyclists?"

The bicycle industry continues to fob mountain bikes and racers off on a gullible public and many bike shops cooperate, failing to educate their customers.

Cars aren't allowed on the road without appropriate design for safety.

I'm not saying that bikes should be legislated to carry lights at all times. But any cyclist not carrying lighting after dark should be penalized accordingly.

 

[Dave5N]

I fail to see what is so complicated about this sad case that it warrants 5 pages of diatribes for/against.

The coroner seems to have summed things up pretty succinctly when he opined that walking along an unlit road with no lights or reflective clothing, was "always going to be fraught with danger".

It's very sad that it cost this young woman her life; hers and many others who might have gone on to a good life, but for this common and unfathomable practice.

Again, we might note that it was a mountain bike she was pushing.

If we want a debate, we might ask what has happened to the concept of a proper roadworthy bicycle. If blame should be laid anywhere, it should be at the feet of the bicycle industry and shops who have forgotten what such a machine is.

And here's a hereticial thought: If the industry can't rediscover common sense, then maybe government needs to step in and legislate safety.

Discuss ....

#

You are Tony Bell and ICMFP

 

[Crankarm]

......However, don't you think that the disappearance of the once-common utility bicycle and a generation now of knowledge of what that is has contributed to bad practices by many "cyclists?"

Nope. Ignorance is no defence.

the bicycle industry continues to fob mountain bikes and racers off on a gullible public and many bike shops cooperate, failing to educate their customers.

I don't think this is the case. You as a purchaser of a bicycle of whatever type you have chosen and should be aware of the requirements in law of the mandatory equipment you have to have. I guess at the point of sale if a new bike the LBS/retailer could explain the neccessity of lights and a road worthy bike but wouldn't this just be patronising and pointless. Bike shops sell unroadworthy bikes at their peril. Surely cycle training which many local authorities provide is the way to go or a mandatory bike test for all 11 year olds at school. Bikes in the UK also have to comply with safety features such as reflectors and bell which are the first that come to mind. What the owner/user then subsequently chooses to do is their responsibility. Many bikes in particular road or TT bikes do not comply with the law in terms of reflectors and bells when they are on the road but they are still used by their owners.

Cars aren't allowed on the road without appropriate design for safety.

Yes this is because the consequences are so much more serious for the occupants or other parties they collide with or property they crash into.

I'm not saying that bikes should be legislated to carry lights at all times. But any cyclist not carrying lighting after dark should be penalized accordingly.

Well that's a strange point as technically I believe it is the bicycle that should carry the light(s) and not the rider although presumably if lights are mounted on the bicycle then additional lighting that the rider wears is not a problem. I'm not sure that requiring bicycles to carry lights at all times is either desirable or enforcible. Just think of the weight if you have a decent lighting system and battery to carry that around the whole time or you are cycling on a short trip on a beautiful summer's morning or afternoon and have to carry lights on your bike........

 

[Arch]

I'm not saying that bikes should be legislated to carry lights at all times. But any cyclist not carrying lighting after dark should be penalized accordingly.

So, I cycle to a pub with some mates, on my summer bike, which doesn't have lights fitted permanently, just the brackets (because of the risk of theft of lights). I don't intend to be out late, so I either don't take my lights, or maybe I forget to bung them in my bag. We have a nice time, and decide on the spur of the moment to stay on for dinner at the pub. It gets dark, so I walk home, pushing my bike. And I should get penalised for that? Maybe I should walk home without the bike, and back the next day to collect it? We already have a law saying you must have lights, IF you're RIDING a bike after dark. When are you going to start campaigning for pedestrians to be penalised for not carrying headtorches?

Obviously, it makes sense to make yourself as visible as possible. Just because this girl didn't, doesn't mean the rest of us should have to go equipped for every possible eventuality, all the time.

And blaming the cycle industry for the bike being unrideable is just stupid. It may have been second, third or fourth hand. Any bike, brand new, or 50 years old, might get a puncture or blowout or mechanical failure that can't easily be fixed straight away.

 

[summerdays]

Surely cycle training which many local authorities provide is the way to go or a mandatory bike test for all 11 year olds at school. Bikes in the UK also have to comply with safety features such as reflectors and bell which are the first that come to mind. What the owner/user then subsequently chooses to do is their responsibility.

How is cycle training/bike test going to help with this case. She was a pedestrian who happened to have a bike with her.

11 year olds rarely need lights on their bikes as they normally aren't out after dark on them. My kids bike only have lights put on them when I know we are potentially going to be late back - generally in winter. They would disappear if left on the bike at school.

I have seen initiatives whereby either they fine individuals unless they turn up at a police station with lights within a set period, or even lights given away free. But after that they don't have to bother putting new batteries in or even remember to switch them on. The only way to force everyone to have lights would be dynamo lights. Even then people would remove them or disconnect them (just think of how many bikes you have ever seen with the brakes disconnected presumably because the brake rubs).

 

[Angelfishsolo]

As Arch pointed out, no lights, no reflective clothing and into the curb. I can imagine how difficult it would be to have seen her in any vehicle. It is a tragic Accident that highlights the importance of the old slogan "Be safe. Be seen"

Typical blame the victim, she wasn't riding the bike and she still gets the blame...

 

[Angelfishsolo]

+1

Bus lamps are no brighter than a cars, and probably no where near as good as most car lamps - they still have the legal limit of 55/60w per lamp.

Terrible accident.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

+1 - Especially for the last paragraph.

you are obviously not a driver goffins . if you were you would appreciate that the reason drivers can see less at night on unlit roads is because of the glare from the headlights of oncoming traffic. If everyone increased their lighting beyond the legal limit everyone would be blinded wouldn't they !.In any case drivers are obliged to dip their main beams for oncoming traffic for that very reason

We all have a personal responsibility to act sensibly for ourselves and other road users on the road. Given that there was clearly no pavement and she had dark clothing on at night time with no lights or reflectors she should not have walked or pushed her bike along that stretch of road.

 

[thomas]

We already have a law saying you must have lights, IF you're RIDING a bike after dark. When are you going to start campaigning for pedestrians to be penalised for not carrying headtorches?

Obviously, it makes sense to make yourself as visible as possible. Just because this girl didn't, doesn't mean the rest of us should have to go equipped for every possible eventuality, all the time.

I don't think anyone should assume they can be seen, just because they can see. I think that's the problem with a lot of cyclists without lights, they can see the cars, so in turn assume they can be seen back.

I completely agree that bike shouldn't be forced to have lights on them all the time. Heck, don't even need lights on the bike when it's dark (put them on when you're about to get on and ride it). Just leaving lights on the bike is asking for them to be nicked.

I wouldn't legislate for this, but if you know you're going to be walking down unlit roads then taking a torch is a good idea. I have and probably will still walk down dark roads at night without one so it would be hypocritically for me to say she should of had one. In your head torch idea, maybe peds should also have rear, red lights so you know which way they are walking

 

[Angelfishsolo]

OK look at it this way. If you start a hike up a mountain in daylight and sunshine dressed in shorts and T-Shirt and fail to carry extra clothing should you be exonerated from blame if you end up on the mountain top in the dark, freezing to death - I think not!

Or again; If the pedestrian and bicycle had been a car being limped along with no lights (say failing alternator or battery) how many of us would blame the bus driver? Very few would be my guess.

My heart goes out to both sides but "Safety is everyone's responsibility" and it seems as though the Bus Driver did all he could be expected to do.

I don't think anyone should assume they can be seen, just because they can see. I think that's the problem with a lot of cyclists without lights, they can see the cars, so in turn assume they can be seen back.

I completely agree that bike shouldn't be forced to have lights on them all the time. Heck, don't even need lights on the bike when it's dark (put them on when you're about to get on and ride it). Just leaving lights on the bike is asking for them to be nicked.

I wouldn't legislate for this, but if you know you're going to be walking down unlit roads then taking a torch is a good idea. I have and probably will still walk down dark roads at night without one so it would be hypocritically for me to say she should of had one. In your head torch idea, maybe peds should also have rear, red lights so you know which way they are walking

 

[J4CKO]

Ok, maybe I was rambling, but I do think this country needs a kick up the arse in terms of taking responsibility for our own actions and safety, fine, dont carry lights but dont complain when you have problems and potentially you can get prosecuted if you cause an accident, people always look elsewhere to aportion blame in a situation, rarely themselves, hence why all these claims companies do so well.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I find myself agreeing with you.

Ok, maybe I was rambling, but I do think this country needs a kick up the arse in terms of taking responsibility for our own actions and safety, fine, dont carry lights but dont complain when you have problems and potentially you can get prosecuted if you cause an accident, people always look elsewhere to aportion blame in a situation, rarely themselves, hence why all these claims companies do so well.

 

[Arch]

I don't think anyone should assume they can be seen, just because they can see. I think that's the problem with a lot of cyclists without lights, they can see the cars, so in turn assume they can be seen back.

I think people probably also make a misjudgement about the difference between a lit urban environment, and an unlit rural one. I don't think I've ever seen an unlit cyclist in an urban area so late that it would have been potentially dangerous if I'd been driving. Doesn't make it right not to have lights, but it does make a difference. But I'm quite prepared to believe that you could totally fail to see someone until it was too late on a dark rural road.

 

[TheDoctor]

Obviously 'able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear' doesn't apply to bus drivers then?
I'm blaming the bus driver. The rest of you can continue to blame the victim if you like.