Another silly accident !!!

Here we go again.

A lousy 391 miles in since last Nov', and riding my winter bike up a main road doing 20odd, three
boys (9~12ish) ran out from behind a parked car straight into my front wheel. Two ambulances needed
to take us to hospital. I'm covered in cuts and bruises, stiff as a log. One of them has a badly
broken leg. I wouldn't care but it happened between TWO zebra crossings, less than 100 yards apart.

On Tuesday night I went up to Croft autodrome, to watch some cycle racing, I mentioned how I had a
month to get "fit", as I had 391m in etc, etc. "fatty" Wanless says, "I had 550+ miles in LAST WEEK"
#*%$;^?*!#*
He rides Audax and stuff like that,
h**p://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/n.f.hall/home.informal/hartside2001pictures/CN
V00008.jpg BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE MY LUCK !!!

Seven unavoidable crashes, some nearly fatal, ALL life threatening, in the last 10 years. After
nearly 40 years of riding, I'm seriously thinking and preparing to pack the bike in for good.

A huge part of my reason to live would go...

Really, really, really P****d off

 

Neil D <n**@NOmail.com> wrote:
> Here we go again.
>
> A lousy 391 miles in since last Nov', and riding my winter bike up a main road doing 20odd, three
> boys (9~12ish) ran out from behind a parked car straight into my front wheel. Two ambulances
> needed to take us to hospital. I'm covered in cuts and bruises, stiff as a log. One of them has a
> badly broken leg. I wouldn't care but it happened between TWO zebra crossings, less than 100
> yards apart.
>
<snip>
>
> Seven unavoidable crashes, some nearly fatal,

Sorry about your and particularly their injuries. I don't know about the other six but this
accident was totally avoidable and your fault. Its one of the classics. Children do that. They are
not yet responsible enough to know to use the crossings and anyway how often do you walk 100yds
down the road and back to a crossing? You should ride or drive prepared for it when there are
parked cars. Bikes have a much higher and therefore better view over parked cars but there are all
sorts of other signs such as shadows you should be alert to. It also suggests you were riding close
enough in that you were at risk to opening car doors as well. Cyclecraft advises at least 5 ft out
from the cars and says

"look out especially for pedestrians, children, cats and dogs who might move out between parked
cars...... High sided vehicles pose a particular problem in this respect as you will not be able to
see over them. When passing such a vehicle move further out than usual, slacken speed and have your
hands ready on the brakes. Take similar precautions near obvious attractors of children such as
ice-cream vans and school buses"

Tony

 

Tony Raven wrote:

>Neil D <n**@NOmail.com> wrote:
>> Here we go again.
>>
>> A lousy 391 miles in since last Nov', and riding my winter bike up a main road doing 20odd, three
>> boys (9~12ish) ran out from behind a parked car straight into my front wheel. Two ambulances
>> needed to take us to hospital. I'm covered in cuts and bruises, stiff as a log. One of them has a
>> badly broken leg. I wouldn't care but it happened between TWO zebra crossings, less than 100
>> yards apart.
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Seven unavoidable crashes, some nearly fatal,
>
>Sorry about your and particularly their injuries. I don't know about the other six but this
>accident was totally avoidable and your fault.

I'm surprised and saddened by your reaction, Tony.

There are cases where cycling accidents are unavoidable, unless we are all to stop cycling.

Last 18 months ago I was cycling down the hill in Greenwich Park on the road. A family group was
walking on the pathway alongside the road. A boy of about ten, without warning threw a stick into a
conker tree and ran out into the road. I took evasive action to avoid the child, but he continued to
run. I hit him a glancing blow with the rear of my slewing bike.

Why I didn't come off the bike, I'll never know. Fortunately the child was unharmed, just shocked.

My point is that however aware you are of your surroundings, accidents are going to happen unless we
all wrap ourselves in cotton wool.

But the story does not end there.

The wheel of my bike was damaged beyond repair, and I had to carry it back up the hill. I asked the
Parks' Police if they could look after the bike while I walked home to collect my car. They refused,
so I went to lock it to the railing inside the park. While I was doing so I was grabbed roughly from
behind and told that I could not lock it there as it was a security risk. I argued my case, and was
told that for all they knew my bike could be packed with explosives in the frame!

I locked my bike just outside the park, where the parks' police have no jurisdiction, and made a
complaint to the Chief Constable of the Royal Parks' Constabulary.
--
remove remove to reply

 

Gonzalez wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
>>Neil D <n**@NOmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>>Seven unavoidable crashes, some nearly fatal,
>>
>>Sorry about your and particularly their injuries. I don't know about the other six but this
>>accident was totally avoidable and your fault.
>
>
> I'm surprised and saddened by your reaction, Tony.
>
> There are cases where cycling accidents are unavoidable, unless we are all to stop cycling.

While I agree that some crashes are pretty much unavoidable (by one of the participants, at least) I
think Tony's response was reasonably fair. Perhaps a little harsh as if someone really desides to
run into you, there is little that can be done. But riding close to parked cars when there is a
group of kids on the pavement playing around is asking for trouble, and 7 'unavoidable' crashes in
10 years is strong evidence that the OP isn't very good at dealing with hazards.

James

 

Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm surprised and saddened by your reaction, Tony.
>
> There are cases where cycling accidents are unavoidable, unless we are all to stop cycling.
>

I agree but this doesn't seem to be one of them from your description.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorry about your and particularly their injuries. I don't know about the other six but this
> accident was totally avoidable and your fault. Its one of the classics. Children do that. They are
> not yet responsible enough to know to use the crossings and anyway how often do you walk 100yds
> down the road and back to a crossing? You should ride or drive prepared for it when there are
> parked cars. Bikes have a much higher and therefore better view over parked cars but there are all
> sorts of other signs such as shadows you should be alert to. It also suggests you were riding
> close enough in that you were at risk to opening car doors as well. Cyclecraft advises at least 5
> ft out from the cars and says

I generally agree but it can be impossible to see or avoid a very small child or animal (shorter
than the vehicle's bonnet) suddenly emerging at high speed from between parked cars straight in
front of you. But fortunately, this doesn't happen often because very young children can't really
move all that fast and cats, dogs and foxes are /so/ fast (and small) that there's little chance of
ever hitting them.

Also, 5 ft*+ may well be a sensible gap to leave but it's difficult to be that sensible all the time
when having to overtake thousands of parked cars.

* Not enough when cycling at over 17mph, imo.

~PB

 

"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> >Neil D <n**@NOmail.com> wrote:
> >> Here we go again.
> >>
> >> A lousy 391 miles in since last Nov', and riding my winter bike up a
main
> >> road doing 20odd, three boys (9~12ish) ran out from behind a parked car straight into my front
> >> wheel. Two ambulances needed to take us to hospital. I'm covered in cuts and bruises, stiff as
> >> a log. One of them has a badly broken leg. I wouldn't care but it happened between TWO zebra
> >> crossings, less than
100
> >> yards apart.
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Seven unavoidable crashes, some nearly fatal,
> >
> >Sorry about your and particularly their injuries. I don't know about the other six but this
> >accident was totally avoidable and your fault.
>
> I'm surprised and saddened by your reaction, Tony.
>
> There are cases where cycling accidents are unavoidable, unless we are all to stop cycling.
>
> Last 18 months ago I was cycling down the hill in Greenwich Park on the road. A family group was
> walking on the pathway alongside the road. A boy of about ten, without warning threw a stick into
> a conker tree and ran out into the road. I took evasive action to avoid the child, but he
> continued to run. I hit him a glancing blow with the rear of my slewing bike.
>

You are a menace. This is a road through the middle of a family orientated park, it used to always
be closed to cars outside of the rush hours so that kids would not be endangered by traffic.

Not only that but it is very wide and so it is easy to ride away from the curb which you should have
be doing unless you had slowed yourself sufficiently by braking down the steep hill.

 

> You are a menace. This is a road through the middle of a family orientated park, it used to always
> be closed to cars outside of the rush hours so
that
> kids would not be endangered by traffic.
>
> Not only that but it is very wide and so it is easy to ride away from the curb which you should
> have be doing unless you had slowed yourself sufficiently by braking down the steep hill.

Why do cyclists never back up other cyclists when they are involved in an accident? *

Mads Hilberg

*) I am not making a statement either way with regards to the particular accident in question - I
wasn't there so I can't judge from the very short description from Niel. If he says it was
unavoidable, who am I to question his judgement?

 

Tony Raven wrote:

>I agree but this doesn't seem to be one of them from your description.

All accidents are avoidable, but at what cost.

Many parents won't let their children cycle, or even walk to school, because of fear of mishaps.
Instead they drive them - which is more dangerous for everyone else.

As a child I used to play in the street, and wander at will around the locality - playing in old
bomb sites and so on. Instead many children are stuck indoors playing their nintedwotsits.

What cost does this bring to the next generation?

Neil had an accident. If he did things differently, yes, the accident may have been avoided. What he
doesn't need is chastisement from those in this group who he turns to for support.
--
remove remove to reply

 

In news:[email protected],
>
> Why do cyclists never back up other cyclists when they are involved in an accident? *
>
> Mads Hilberg
>
> *) I am not making a statement either way with regards to the particular accident in question - I
> wasn't there so I can't judge from the very short description from Niel. If he says it was
> unavoidable, who am I to question his judgement?

Ah but they do. Its just we do not all take the attitude "He's one of us, he *must* be the victim"
rather we consider each case on its merits. If it had been a car hit the children and sent them to
hospital with broken leg(s) would you accept a driver's statement "sorry mate I didn't see them and
couldn't avoid them" without question?

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

In news:[email protected], Gonzalez <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Neil had an accident. If he did things differently, yes, the accident may have been avoided. What
> he doesn't need is chastisement from those in this group who he turns to for support.
> --

Yes he had an accident. He broke a childs leg and sent three of them to hospital and looked for
sympathy for it being the children's fault. Should I support him because he's "one of us" who can
therefore do no wrong?

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

"Mads Hilberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > You are a menace. This is a road through the middle of a family
orientated
> > park, it used to always be closed to cars outside of the rush hours so
> that
> > kids would not be endangered by traffic.
> >
> > Not only that but it is very wide and so it is easy to ride away from
the
> > curb which you should have be doing unless you had slowed yourself sufficiently by braking down
> > the steep hill.
>
> Why do cyclists never back up other cyclists when they are involved in an accident? *
>
> Mads Hilberg
>
> *) I am not making a statement either way with regards to the particular accident in question - I
> wasn't there so I can't judge from the very short description from Niel. If he says it was
> unavoidable, who am I to question his judgement?
>

I was talking about Gonzalez not Niel. I know where he was talking about I used to ride down it
every day clear wide road through the middle of a Park, no parked cars. I do know it is a steep hill
and > 30mph without even pedalling.

I'm happy to back cyclists on all sorts of things including illegal stuff such as riding safely on
the pavement but that doesn't include recklessly endangering other people.

Just because you have right of way doesn't mean it is OK to run people down, this is what I hate
most about car drivers attitudes. The person who is introducing the danger into the situation has an
added burden of responsibility, particularly in the middle of a park.

 

Mads Hilberg wrote:

>Why do cyclists never back up other cyclists when they are involved in an accident? *

I think that Frank was writing with a bit of irony, following Tony's take on Neil's
unfortunate accident.
--
remove remove to reply

 

Tony Raven wrote:

>Yes he had an accident. He broke a childs leg and sent three of them to hospital and looked for
>sympathy for it being the children's fault. Should I support him because he's "one of us" who can
>therefore do no wrong?

Don't you think he already feels bad about it?

What are you hoping to achieve by giving him a hard time?
--
remove remove to reply

 

Frank wrote:

>I was talking about Gonzalez not Niel. I know where he was talking about I used to ride down it
>every day clear wide road through the middle of a Park, no parked cars. I do know it is a steep
>hill and > 30mph without even pedalling.
>
>I'm happy to back cyclists on all sorts of things including illegal stuff such as riding safely on
>the pavement but that doesn't include recklessly endangering other people.
>
>Just because you have right of way doesn't mean it is OK to run people down, this is what I hate
>most about car drivers attitudes. The person who is introducing the danger into the situation has
>an added burden of responsibility, particularly in the middle of a park.

Errrm... I *did* take evasive action, and missed the child apart from a glancing blow. The child was
totally unhurt, not even an abrasion.

The only damage was to my rear bicycle wheel. And such was my control that I didn't fall from
despite a Mavic rim so severely buckled by my slewing that I had to carry the bike up the hill.

And why did I stay on the bike? As the back wheel locked I felt the rear slew towards the child, so
I released the brake, not quite quickly enough to prevent the child running into my rear wheel.

Do you think it would have been safer to cycle on the shared use path on along the side of the road?
--
remove remove to reply

 

"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Frank wrote:
>
> >I was talking about Gonzalez not Niel. I know where he was talking about
I
> >used to ride down it every day clear wide road through the middle of a
Park,
> >no parked cars. I do know it is a steep hill and > 30mph without even pedalling.
> >
> >I'm happy to back cyclists on all sorts of things including illegal stuff such as riding safely
> >on the pavement but that doesn't include recklessly endangering other people.
> >
> >Just because you have right of way doesn't mean it is OK to run people
down,
> >this is what I hate most about car drivers attitudes. The person who is introducing the danger
> >into the situation has an added burden of responsibility, particularly in the middle of a park.
>
> Errrm... I *did* take evasive action, and missed the child apart from a glancing blow. The child
> was totally unhurt, not even an abrasion.
>
> The only damage was to my rear bicycle wheel. And such was my control that I didn't fall from
> despite a Mavic rim so severely buckled by my slewing that I had to carry the bike up the hill.
>
> And why did I stay on the bike? As the back wheel locked I felt the rear slew towards the child,
> so I released the brake, not quite quickly enough to prevent the child running into my rear wheel.
>
> Do you think it would have been safer to cycle on the shared use path on along the side of
> the road?
> --

I think you were going too fast, admit it 30 ish or more. Its the only way you could have the type
of accident you describe.

People take their kids to the park and want to relax with out worrying about traffic I think it is
fine to ride through the park on the road or off, but at a slow speed near peds. Personally I would
be happier if they closed the road altogether because it is a Park and its nice not to always be
watching the kids.

I'm not perfect I admit doing 40+ down some of the hills round there, but this was a Park.

 

> Ah but they do. Its just we do not all take the attitude "He's one of us, he *must* be the victim"
> rather we consider each case on its merits. If
it
> had been a car hit the children and sent them to hospital with broken
leg(s)
> would you accept a driver's statement "sorry mate I didn't see them and couldn't avoid them"
> without question?

No, I wouldn't, but at the same time I wouldn't play judge and jury on a newsgroup based on a short
description of the accident. Nor would I call him a "menace" (Frank's post), or state that the
accident was "totally avoidable and your fault" without knowing the precise circumstances. If as you
say, children "do that", then one could argue it was the fault of the parent(s) who, knowing that
children "do that", still let them play/walk/whatever on a trafficated road with parked cars.

Even in the event that the comments are accurate (which there is some unknown probability that they
may be) this sort of flaming and placing of blame isn't exactly going to elicit a positive response
from the rider in question. Surely you can find a more constructive way of advising others on
matters of road safety.

Mads Hilberg

 

In news:[email protected], Gonzalez <[email protected]> typed:

> What are you hoping to achieve by giving him a hard time?
>

I'm not. Its you I'm giving a hard time

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

In news:[email protected], Mads Hilberg
<[email protected]> typed:
>

> If as you say, children "do that", then one could argue it was the fault of the parent(s) who,
> knowing that children "do that", still let them play/walk/whatever on a trafficated road with
> parked cars.

Absolutely not. That's the whole problem. Kids are not responsible with roads at that age. The
solution that we should lock them away so drivers can get on with their journeys undisturbed is
totally unacceptable. Drivers (and cyclists) have to adapt their driving to deal with the risk.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

Frank wrote:

>I think you were going too fast, admit it 30 ish or more. Its the only way you could have the type
>of accident you describe.

25 - 30. I have been known to go at 45 on that slope, but there were too many people about.

>People take their kids to the park and want to relax with out worrying about traffic I think it is
>fine to ride through the park on the road or off, but at a slow speed near peds. Personally I would
>be happier if they closed the road altogether because it is a Park and its nice not to always be
>watching the kids.

So children shouldn't be allowed to play in the Park with their bikes? Where should they
learn to cycle?

>I'm not perfect I admit doing 40+ down some of the hills round there, but this was a Park.

A road through a park with a speed limit of 30.
--
remove remove to reply