Sad death

[Crankarm]

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

Did I say it would?

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).

We are all responsible for our actions. Ignorance of the law is no defence. There's no accounting for those who deliberately break rules put in place for their safety .

 

[Crankarm]

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.

Speak for yourself . For myself, including most on here, I would not even dream of cycling at night without lights. I try to make myself as visible as possible by using several lights and hi-viz gilet and Scotchlite. I also carry spare rechargeable batteries so I am not caught out with flat batteries. In my youth I dabbled with dynamoes which were unreliable and sapped power. I take my safety very seriously. Modern bike lights are very efficient, relatively cheap and "light" so there is really no excuse for not having any. As always legislation and enforcement is needed for those who can't or won't comply.

 

[Arch]

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.

Well, the victim was apparently walking along an unlit road, no lights, no reflectives, not even a light coloured coat. I think she could have done more to make herself safe.

No doubt the bus driver could have driven more slowly. But if she was so poorly visible as to have not been seen until she was hit, he'd have to have been driving at about 1 mph... If she was so poorly visible, then he was seeing the road as clear. The fact that he didn't know he'd hit her suggests that it wasn't a case of him driving too fast, seeing her too late, and being unable to brake in time.

 

[J4CKO]

Speak for yourself . For myself, including most on here, I would not even dream of cycling at night without lights. I try to make myself as visible as possible by using several lights and hi-viz gilet and Scotchlite. I also carry spare rechargeable batteries so I am not caught out with flat batteries. In my youth I dabbled with dynamoes which were unreliable and sapped power. I take my safety very seriously. Modern bike lights are very efficient, relatively cheap and "light" so there is really no excuse for not having any. As always legislation and enforcement is needed for those who can't or won't comply.

Im with you ! I wasnt reffering to yourself or the incumbent of Cyclechat, who are by and large responsible and take their cycling seriously and I would imagine are a pretty responsible bunch in other areas.

However as you say, legislation and enforcement is required for the clueless, feckless, lazy and those who just dont know (not using the word ignorant) or understand, not everyone is that smart, some choose to ignore and some wilfully just go against the grain.

 

[TheDoctor]

OK. So I'm wearing a pair of jeans, and my grey fleece. All dark stuff. I have a major mechanical / stay late in the pub and when I come out my lights have been stolen. I'm now a few miles away from home, and it's dark. My only way home is to walk along an unlit country road with no footpaths.
What precisely would you all like me to do? Fly? What could I possibly do to make it not my fault if I get killed?

 

[TheDoctor]

Ok. I can see I'm in the minority here, so I'll leave it there.

 

[pedaling]

'"The bus was being driven in a proper manner and one of the passengers was aware of Tracey.'' aware whilst he was about to plough into her? Or am I missing something here?

 

[thomas]

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.

He didn't see her until he'd run her over. Does that mean the bus shouldn't have been moving? He was going under the speed limit, presumably, at a speed which he could stop in. Let's stop blaming other people when people don't take appropriate measures to protect themselves.

I'm no big fan of bus drivers, but I don't think this guy should be blamed.

Does anyone know if she was walking towards or with traffic?

 

[Arch]

with

Why do you say that? I got the impression it was towards, from the specific mention of front lights and reflectors (or lack of them).

Not being funny, just wonder why you say 'with' when I got the opposite impression.

 

[gbb]

I can't open the link, but its funny (not in a laughing sense) how the rules either change, or can be interpreted different ways, in different cases.
I'll relate my similar incident...
Driving on the A1 at a moderate speed, the road is very quiet. (thankfully in a LandRover...that'll become clear why, later)
Its dark, its raining, visibility was poor'ish. In a split second, all i saw was a tractor tyre JUST on the road. Swerved to avoid it, clipped the tractor, lost control. straight across the central reservation, striaght across the other carriageway and into a dyke.
NO lights on the tractor. he'd parked with one wheel on the carriageway (i assume a misjudgement)..to go back and close the gate he'd just come out of.
Luckily, we scrambled out with minor injuries. The Land rover was a complete write off. It was miraculous we got away with it.
The result...i got done for driving without due care. the view at that time was i am in charge of the vehicle, and if you hit someone from behind..YOU ARE AT FAULT.
I can accept part of that, but no (even partial0 blame was attatched to the tractor driver. The Police and the courts were'nt interested.

A few seconds loss of concentration is all it takes. I'd looked at my mate for about 3 seconds, looked back...BANG.

I feel for the driver, i feel for the girl. but ive also driven on dark roads, to find myself confronted by joggers all in black. By the grace of god i didnt hit them. A bend in the road, a seconds look somewhere else, the variables are infinate. You can ony assume the judge is more aware of the specific conditions and geography that we all are.

 

[Randochap]

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?

Yes.

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?

Straw man.

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.

Again, straw man. But you are right; this single event has nothing to do with why you should be equipped for conditions. And if you find yourself ill-equipped, you should be able to make the common sense decision without reference to this particular tragedy.

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.

As a resident of the "Wild West," I'm not particularly a fan of over-regulation and would undoubtedly bridle under the kind of nanny state I don't fit into. I put the suggestion out there for debate. Still, it occurs to me that the knowledge -- now lost, it seems -- of a safe, utilitarian bicycle and accouterments, designed for use on the roads, sprang from the kind of common sense now in similarly short supply.

When people lose the ability to reason in their own interest, the state often steps into the void.