Father of killed cyclist hits out at danger junction



M

Martin Dann

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
>> sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
>> As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
>> and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
>> spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
>> a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
>> elephants for your own safety.

>
> While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
> laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
> immense.


A TV and poster campaign would be quite effective, combine this with
safety notices on HGVs and I suspect the number off accidents would go down.


> The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
> large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
> If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
> those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.


I agree, but the more vulnerable road users still need to be aware of
the dangers, and how to avoid them.

It is a bit like crossing the road, the drivers using that road should
have a responsibility to not hit you, but you still need to look for a
suitable gap before crossing.
 
M

Mark T

Guest
Martin Dann writtificated

> A TV and poster campaign would be quite effective, combine this with
> safety notices on HGVs and I suspect the number off accidents would go
> down.


I'm still puzzled as to why vehicles with large blind spots are still on
the road. In a car I can simply turn my head to check the blind spots.
Surely suitable mirrors can be fitted to lorries?
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:23:00 +0100, Peter Fox
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Oh I see, lorry drivers should be held responsible not even for their
>actions but their compliance with accepted practice but cyclists who breeze
>along *****-nilly are exempt from personal responsibility.


What evidence, other than that of the driver, to support this claim.

By his own admission, the driver had positioned himself to the right
of the road. He says this was so he could make the left turn, but how
do we know that it was for that reason. It seems quite possible that
cyclists were already to his left but he's failed to register their
presence, while sub consciously positioning himself to their right.

As already said, victim blaming is very easy - especially when the
victim is dead.
 
C

cupra

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:23:00 +0100, Peter Fox
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oh I see, lorry drivers should be held responsible not even for their
>> actions but their compliance with accepted practice but cyclists who
>> breeze along *****-nilly are exempt from personal responsibility.

>
> What evidence, other than that of the driver, to support this claim.
>
> By his own admission, the driver had positioned himself to the right
> of the road. He says this was so he could make the left turn, but how
> do we know that it was for that reason. It seems quite possible that
> cyclists were already to his left but he's failed to register their
> presence, while sub consciously positioning himself to their right.
>
> As already said, victim blaming is very easy - especially when the
> victim is dead.


The coroner blamed the road layout and lorry design, not the driver nor the
cyclist.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 09:39:46 +0100, Peter Fox
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box in front of
>>>> him and the first cyclist moved across him causing him to brake. He
>>>> said: "It was as if they came from nowhere."
>>> That sounds like an admission that he didn't look, or wasn't aware
>>> that he had blind spots. A good driver will know that he has blind
>>> spots, and also that passing pedestrians or cyclists will not
>>> necessarily know that they are in a blind spot.

>> No.
>>
>> All drivers know they have blind spots and they're quite huge on an artic.
>> This driver was clearly aware of the danger and yet as he was turning,
>> with many other things to look out for as well, some cyclists either tried
>> to dodge in front or blithely carried on cycling up the inside without
>> paying the slightest bit of attention to the signalling and road
>> positioning of the lorry.

>
> "Lorry driver John Humphrey told the inquest he stopped on
> the right side of the junction to give himself room to turn
> left."
>
> What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?


Good point.

Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
to use the roads. After all, you wouldn't accept excuses from or on
behalf of an "inexperienced driver".

> What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
> be particularly concerned about before turning left?


Let me guess...

....that he should be able to see what is happening in his blind spot?

> "He said there were no cyclists in the advanced stop box
> in front of him and the first cyclist moved across him causing
> him to brake. He said: "It was as if they came from nowhere.""


> Now the driver is aware that cyclists are passing on his inside, how
> should the driver now proceed? Is it right to assume there are no
> more cyclists on the inside just because one has passed?


How long should he wait? Until the lights turned red? What safety would
that provide?

> Victim blaming is very easy - the dead can't speak to explain their
> actions. But what about laying some blame on the culprit.


I thought that that was what certain posters had done.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
spindrift wrote:
> On 7 Apr, 09:23, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
>>>> sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
>>>> As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
>>>> and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
>>>> spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
>>>> a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
>>>> elephants for your own safety.
>>> While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
>>> laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
>>> immense.

>> OK then the sooner we get started the better!
>>
>>
>>
>>> The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
>>> large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
>>> If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
>>> those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.

>> You have jumped to a conclusion. You somehow assume that the driver was
>> negligent. Really? - He had eyes in the back of his head but wasn't using
>> them? He could tell by instinct how many cyclists were queuing up to sneak
>> in front could he?
>>
>>> Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
>>> responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab. But as the
>>> end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
>>> be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users. And if they do choose to
>>> drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
>>> while doing so.

>> Oh I see, lorry drivers should be held responsible not even for their
>> actions but their compliance with accepted practice but cyclists who breeze
>> along *****-nilly are exempt from personal responsibility.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Fox
>> Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more atwww.vulpeculox.net
>> (Note web site has moved April 2008)

>
> I repeat, there is no evidence that madeleine was "sneaking" alongside
> the lorry or "breeaing along ***** nilly".
>
> A bit less victim-blaming please.


If she hadn't been alongside the lorry, the collision could not have
happened.
 
P

PK

Guest
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Which bit of "don't overtake a left-turning vehicle on the nearside" is so
> difficult for any reasonably intelligent adult to understand?
>
> These cases come up all the time - at least a couple per year (most often
> in London). Why *do* some cyclists insist on putting themselves in this
> danger? It can only be because they are unaware of it - which is an
> absolute indictment of the cycling training process (or lack thereof).



Or they (or some of them) are so determined to save the extra few seconds,
they ignore the risk?

pk
 
M

Martin Dann

Guest
JNugent wrote:
>
>> What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?

>
> Good point.
>
> Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
> to use the roads. After all, you wouldn't accept excuses from or on
> behalf of an "inexperienced driver".


At what age should cyclists take this test, after all children can cycle
on our roads, or are you proposing testing 3 year olds?



>> What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
>> be particularly concerned about before turning left?

>
> Let me guess...
>
> ...that he should be able to see what is happening in his blind spot?


If he has pulled up besides a cyclist, or started an overtaking
manoeuvre before stopping at the lights, then he should be able to see
what is happening in his blind spot.

I have often had cars and trucks pull up on my right at junctions, with
them indicating left. This has even happens when I am in the middle of
the lane.
 
N

Nuxx Bar

Guest
On Apr 7, 7:36 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 Apr, 05:04, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
> > wrote:

>
> > >Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
> > >sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
> > >As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
> > >and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
> > >spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
> > >a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
> > >elephants for your own safety.

>
> > While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
> > laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
> > immense.

>
> > The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
> > large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
> > If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
> > those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.

>
> > Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
> > responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab. But as the
> > end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
> > be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users. And if they do choose to
> > drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
> > while doing so.

>
> There is no evidence that Madeleine undertook. The driver admitted
> seeing the other cyclist and yet continued to turn. accepting the only
> surviving witness to a fata RTA is problematic, using a girl's death
> to bang the drum about speed cameras is beneath contempt.


I agree. Using the girl's death as an excuse to install a speed
camera, when exceeding the speed limit was nothing to do with the
accident, is indeed beneath contempt, as are the trolls who advocate
such measures.
 
N

Nuxx Bar

Guest
On Apr 7, 9:33 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7 Apr, 09:23, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Crispin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:51 -0500, Jeff <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:

>
> > >> Drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, need to share the roads. To do so
> > >> sensibly requires that each group understand the needs of the others.
> > >> As a prior poster noted, every vehicle has blind spots. Do pedestrians
> > >> and cyclists consider that and attempt to position themselves in visible
> > >> spots (I do)? Do they even know how large lorries operate? When you're
> > >> a mouse living amongst elephants, you ought to know a bit about
> > >> elephants for your own safety.

>
> > > While educating the public about the dangers of large vehicles is a
> > > laudable ambition, the practical difficulties of such a task are
> > > immense.

>
> > OK then the sooner we get started the better!

>
> > > The onus must be on the driver of any vehicle - especially those of
> > > large vehicles - to show care and consideration to those around them.
> > > If drivers are not prepared to show that care and consideration to
> > > those around them, they should not be allowed to drive.

>
> > You have jumped to a conclusion. You somehow assume that the driver was
> > negligent. Really? - He had eyes in the back of his head but wasn't using
> > them? He could tell by instinct how many cyclists were queuing up to sneak
> > in front could he?

>
> > > Designers of these vehicles, as others have said, must also take
> > > responsibility for the safety of those outside the cab. But as the
> > > end user, drivers should refuse to drive vehicles which they deem to
> > > be fundamentaly unsafe for other road users. And if they do choose to
> > > drive such a vehicle, they should be accountable if they kill someone
> > > while doing so.

>
> > Oh I see, lorry drivers should be held responsible not even for their
> > actions but their compliance with accepted practice but cyclists who breeze
> > along *****-nilly are exempt from personal responsibility.

>
> > --
> > Peter Fox
> > Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more atwww.vulpeculox.net
> > (Note web site has moved April 2008)

>
> I repeat, there is no evidence that madeleine was "sneaking" alongside
> the lorry or "breeaing along ***** nilly".
>
> A bit less victim-blaming please.


A bit less non-cyclist-blaming-no-matter-what-the-circumstances,
please.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Martin Dann wrote:
>
> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> What does that road positioning tell an inexperienced cyclist?

>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle
>> and to use the roads. After all, you wouldn't accept excuses from or
>> on behalf of an "inexperienced driver".

>
> At what age should cyclists take this test, after all children can cycle
> on our roads, or are you proposing testing 3 year olds?


I don't think that allowing small children out onto the roads under
their own conrol - whether on foot or on a bicycle - is a good idea.

>>> What should a driver who has positioned his vehicle is such a manner
>>> be particularly concerned about before turning left?


>> Let me guess...


>> ...that he should be able to see what is happening in his blind spot?


> If he has pulled up besides a cyclist, or started an overtaking
> manoeuvre before stopping at the lights, then he should be able to see
> what is happening in his blind spot.


Of course.

He says that neither thing happened, though.

> I have often had cars and trucks pull up on my right at junctions, with
> them indicating left. This has even happens when I am in the middle of
> the lane.


You'd know what to do (and what not to do) in such circumstances.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:57:25 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>If she hadn't been alongside the lorry, the collision could not have
>happened.


Likewise, if the lorry hadn't been alongside her, her death could not
have occurred.

You sometimes have a penchant for stating the bleedin' obvious.
 
P

PK

Guest
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:57:25 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If she hadn't been alongside the lorry, the collision could not have
>>happened.

>
> Likewise, if the lorry hadn't been alongside her, her death could not
> have occurred.
>
> You sometimes have a penchant for stating the bleedin' obvious.



It is likely, therefore, that the person most at fault was the person doing
the pulling up alongside

pk
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


>> If she hadn't been alongside the lorry, the collision could not have
>> happened.


> Likewise, if the lorry hadn't been alongside her, her death could not
> have occurred.
> You sometimes have a penchant for stating the bleedin' obvious.


Even though, for some reason, you completely snipped the context, you
wiull no doubt remember that "If she hadn't been alongside the lorry,
the collision could not have happened" was posted in response to an
assertion that she was *not* doing anything which would have placed her
alongside the lorry.

The assertion was (verbatim):

"...there is no evidence that madeleine was "sneaking" alongside
the lorry or "breeaing along ***** nilly".

Of course, there *was* evidence as to what happened - it came from the
driver of the (small) lorry involved.
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:45:35 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
>to use the roads.


That doesn't stop motorists placing themselves to the left of left
turning lorry drivers at junctions[1]. I'm interested that you
appear to think that cyclists would be superior to motorists.


[1] a general comment.I have no idea whether the cyclist did this or
not in this particular case.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
J

JNugent

Guest
David Hansen wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
>> to use the roads.

>
> That doesn't stop motorists placing themselves to the left of left
> turning lorry drivers at junctions[1]. I'm interested that you
> appear to think that cyclists would be superior to motorists.
>
>
> [1] a general comment.I have no idea whether the cyclist did this or
> not in this particular case.


Tested and proven competence to drive may well not stop "motorists
placing themselves to the left of left turning lorry drivers at
junctions", but *something* seems to be stopping it (or keeping
occurrences down to small numbers, relative to the numbers of cars, vns
and lorries on the roads).

Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
to use the roads, largely for their own safety, but also for the safety
of others.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:27:45 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
>to use the roads, largely for their own safety, but also for the safety
>of others.


Have you any evidence to suggest that Madeleine Wright was not a
competent cyclist?

Indeed, the only evidence to suggest that she went up the inside of
the truck after the truck arrived at the junction is the driver's
evidence that he saw no bikes ahead of the advance stop line and that
he braked when he saw a cyclist pass across him. He went on to give
evidence that "It was as if they came from nowhere." Yet despite
cyclists popping up all around him he drove on regardless killing an
innocent young lady.

That suggests gross negligence - not an accident.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


>> Cyclists should need to pass a test of competence to ride a bicycle and
>> to use the roads, largely for their own safety, but also for the safety
>> of others.


> Have you any evidence to suggest that Madeleine Wright was not a
> competent cyclist?


To prove it? No.

To suggest it? Yes.

> Indeed, the only evidence to suggest that she went up the inside of
> the truck after the truck arrived at the junction is the driver's
> evidence that he saw no bikes ahead of the advance stop line and that
> he braked when he saw a cyclist pass across him. He went on to give
> evidence that "It was as if they came from nowhere."


All compatible with being overtaken on the left whilst turning left - a
phenomenon often complained about here.

You seem to have difficulty with acceptance of the legal system. Our
system works on the basis of evidence. When credible evidence (which is
neither inherently improbable nor self-contradictory and is consistent
with the physical facts) is given and is not challenged by another
witness, that evidence is highly likely to be accepted. The non-witness
"evidence" of pundits who can't accept the way the courts work doesn't
get taken into account for some reason.

> That suggests gross negligence - not an accident.


Indeed it does. Think about it.