Cyclist died after crash with walker

[Paul - xxx]

Duncan Gray vaguely muttered something like ...
> To summarise:
>
> The cyclist was travelling too fast to be able to stop striking someone
> who walked out into the road unexpectedly. That doesn't necessarily mean
> his speed was reckless.

I wasn't suggesting it was ...

> Having heard all the evidence, coroner Dr Matthew Orde said
> "I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
> accident. "
> which sounds like a fair conclusion to me.

Yup.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

 

[Danny Colyer]

iarocu wrote:
> Would this cyclist still be alive an Air Zound horn had been
> fitted and used?

It *may* have made a difference if the horn was fitted in such a way
that the cyclist could brake, swerve and sound the horn all at the same
time (as they are on my bikes). Otherwise, I suspect he wouldn't have
had time to sound the horn.

> Would he still be alive if he had been riding a
> recumbent?

Without having seen the incident, it's impossible to say.

> I'm not a darksider but I presume that on a 'bent would be
> less likelyhood of being thrown over the bars.

Absolutely. The article mentions severe head injuries, with the
implication that the head injuries were the cause of death. I would
imagine that the head injuries were a result of landing head first after
flying over the handlebar, something that wouldn't have happened had he
been riding a bent. I would expect that the cyclist would have escaped
with no more than a few scrapes or bruises if he had been riding a bent.
The numpty ped may well have suffered severe leg injuries, but he
might not have suffered a fractured sternum.

> Would either of these
> be better protection than a plastic hat?

Yes, IMHO.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[davek]

Paul - *** wrote:
> Maybe the cyclist was also travelling too fast for him to stop in distance
> he could see to be clear ...

It sounds very much like the distance he could see to be clear was
suddenly curtailed by a fatal margin.

Nothing much he could have done about that short of staying at home on
his turbo trainer, or cycling at sub-walking speeds.

d.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:55:26 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Unless we assume the total cluelessness of the coroner, then a
>decision made in court, with all the evidence in front of it, has to
>carry just a little more weight than newspaper-based Usenet ramblings.

Assuming total cluelessness of the coroner is supportable. They have
a reputation for being even worse than magistrates at handing down
gratuitously cager-friendly opinions.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Peter B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Assuming total cluelessness of the coroner is supportable. They have
> a reputation for being even worse than magistrates at handing down
> gratuitously cager-friendly opinions.

Some years ago an old lady died after being hit by a motorcycle while
crossing our suburban road in darkness.
The coroner blamed the poor street lighting.

Pete

 

[Velvet]

Personally, having had pedestrians leap out in front of both me+bike and
me+car, I'd like to see more emphasis placed on pedestrians being
educated to *look* *properly*.

In the car instance, I've had both ped *and* kidonnabike do it.
Kidonnabike *very* nearly got plastered on the front of my car, so close
was he when he decided that riding off the pavement and straight out
between two closely parked cars was a good thing. He was laughing, and
given he'd been stationary on the pavement as I'd approached, I can only
assume it was deliberate.

In the bike instance, daft bint walking along the pavement suddenly
stepped out without looking on a diagonal to get to the school some way
further up. On my part, sharp application of brakes (see, they *do*
work *grin*) and then loud ringing of my bell coupled with 'would you
step out without looking in front of a car too?' gave her the fright of
her life.

Having said that, I know mixing bikes and pedestrian areas is something
fraught with these hazards - I've been a rabbit in the sights of a
cyclist myself, and it's hard to pick a direction and stick with it when
there's a person+metal thing bearing down on you - all too easy to get
stuck in the wavering, especially when the cyclist seems to be following
the waverings and aiming straight for you no matter what!

--


Velvet

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:06:31 GMT someone who may be Velvet
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Having said that, I know mixing bikes and pedestrian areas is something
>fraught with these hazards

The road research laboratory, which now laughably calls itself the
transport research laboratory, has studied cycling in "pedestrian
areas". The conclusions are clear, there is very little problem with
this.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Mark Thompson]

> I'd like to see more emphasis placed on pedestrians being
> educated to *look* *properly*.

Every single child in the country is taught it in school. It's lack of
brain rather than education that lets 'em down.

 

[Simon Proven]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:06:31 GMT someone who may be Velvet
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Having said that, I know mixing bikes and pedestrian areas is something
>>fraught with these hazards
>
>
> The road research laboratory, which now laughably calls itself the
> transport research laboratory, has studied cycling in "pedestrian
> areas". The conclusions are clear, there is very little problem with
> this.
>
>

Have you ever been to Cambridge? The pedestrians in the
"pedestrianised" areas (those that still permit cycling) are pretty
clueless.

--
Simon

 

[Velvet]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:06:31 GMT someone who may be Velvet
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Having said that, I know mixing bikes and pedestrian areas is something
>>fraught with these hazards
>
>
> The road research laboratory, which now laughably calls itself the
> transport research laboratory, has studied cycling in "pedestrian
> areas". The conclusions are clear, there is very little problem with
> this.
>
>
Having cycled in mixed-use areas, and been pedestrian in mixed-use
areas, I would disagree strongly. It can be nigh on impossible to cycle
due to pedestrians displaying a strong element of brownian motion around
you with no warning, or as a pedestrian fraught with problems of
avoiding the more gung-ho varieties of cyclists.

--


Velvet

 

[Velvet]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>I'd like to see more emphasis placed on pedestrians being
>>educated to *look* *properly*.
>
>
> Every single child in the country is taught it in school. It's lack of
> brain rather than education that lets 'em down.

I was taught it in school, I'm not so sure it's still being taught in
schools to the extent that it's getting used. I certainly see many kids
not looking these days. They walk out, expecting the vehicles to see
them and take avoiding action while they continue to saunter as slowly
as possible across the roads.

--


Velvet

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:33:15 GMT someone who may be Velvet
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> The road research laboratory, which now laughably calls itself the
>> transport research laboratory, has studied cycling in "pedestrian
>> areas". The conclusions are clear, there is very little problem with
>> this.
>>
>Having cycled in mixed-use areas, and been pedestrian in mixed-use
>areas, I would disagree strongly.

They did study the subject in some detail, before coming to their
conclusions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Tony Raven]

Danny Colyer wrote:
>
>I would expect that the cyclist would have escaped
> with no more than a few scrapes or bruises if he had been riding a
bent.
>

Right, contact Mr Martlew about a mandatory bent law ;-)

Tony

 

[Velvet]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:33:15 GMT someone who may be Velvet
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>The road research laboratory, which now laughably calls itself the
>>>transport research laboratory, has studied cycling in "pedestrian
>>>areas". The conclusions are clear, there is very little problem with
>>>this.
>>>
>>
>>Having cycled in mixed-use areas, and been pedestrian in mixed-use
>>areas, I would disagree strongly.
>
>
> They did study the subject in some detail, before coming to their
> conclusions.
>
>

I'm sure they did, the question is whether the study itself was flawed
or not, to be honest. A study is capable of producing a wholly
different set of results, based on how carefully (or not) the study was
actually constructed.

Perhaps a url to said study might be of use?

--


Velvet

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:42:21 GMT someone who may be Velvet
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Perhaps a url to said study might be of use?

The last time I looked they only gave summaries of their reports.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Velvet]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:42:21 GMT someone who may be Velvet
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Perhaps a url to said study might be of use?
>
>
> The last time I looked they only gave summaries of their reports.
>
>
>
>

So no way to tell if the study's of any merit whatsoever then.

--


Velvet

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 1 Nov 2004 10:41:24 -0800, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Right, contact Mr Martlew about a mandatory bent law ;-)

You may jest, young man, but in my view that is actually the only
logical position for anyone seriously concerned about head injuries:
to advocate recumbency.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[will24387]

On 1 Nov 2004 10:41:24 -0800, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Right, contact Mr Martlew about a mandatory bent law ;-)

You may jest, young man, but in my view that is actually the only
logical position for anyone seriously concerned about head injuries:
to advocate recumbency.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

any law that could be brought in i think should be. it makes me sad this because the man killed (andrew faulding) used to be a teacher of mine before he left to go to Brighton. he was really nice man and great teacher. RIP

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:50:50 +1100, will24387
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>any law that could be brought in i think should be.

What /any/ law? There are a lot of laws that /could/ be brought in.
Some of them do some good, others don't. Most, on the face of it,
don't - largely because all the things which really needed to be
controlled (like assault and murder and theft) have been illegal since
forever, so any new law is very likely to be tinkering at the edges or
a knee-jerk reaction to stupid tabloid headlines.

I think I would probably vote for any party which made a manifesto
commitment to pass no new law without repealing at least one old one,
and to ensure that any new law enacted or repealed had pr-defined
success criteria, with the enactment or repeal automatically reversed
if the criteria are not met.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

will24387 wrote:

> any law that could be brought in i think should be.

Why? If you want to wear a helmet, no-one is stopping you. If you
don't want to wear a helmet then it's not hurting anyone else.