Nearly a year since cyclist Emma Foa was killed

[tam]

> If Emma had ridden according to the guidance of cycle craft she would most
> likely still be alive as she would not have put herself in the position
> where the error by the driver was fatal to her.

This was my error- I trusted a bus driver to obey the rules- I put myself in
a dangerous position-which was my right- according
to the law-but-left myself with no escape.
He turned right- without looking-and hit me on the crossing-it was in
Berlin.
If I had ridden like I do in the UK-permanently alert in traffic-I would not
have crossed with the bus so close.
The bus driver was entirely to blame-legally-but-I had let my guard drop and
failed to ride defensively.
Tam

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke
[email protected] says...

> Which is why it is /STILL/ my opinion that the most urgent thing that public
> money to encourage cycling could go into is good quality free or low cost
> training for ADULT cyclists.
>
Which is why giving Sustrans a load of lottery money /wasn't/ a good
thing for cycling.

 

[Mark T]

> Far better to learn from tragic events than avoid open discussion,
> surely?

Open discussion can be done without victim blaming. Blaming Emma in a
direct response to a post from her friend is particularly bad form.

Simon got it right:

"You're right, of course. But nevertheless Emma was riding within the law
and
in accordance with the guidance of the Highway Code. Defensive cycling is
not widely taught - particularly to adults - and Cyclecraft is not widely
publicised. Most utility cyclists simply don't know of these things.>
snippity>

Emma Foa, on the evidence we have, was behaving as a normal, careful
responsible person, using the information available to her. She should have
been safe. She wasn't, but that is really not her fault."

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Rob Morley
> > Which is why it is /STILL/ my opinion that the most urgent thing that public
> > money to encourage cycling could go into is good quality free or low cost
> > training for ADULT cyclists.
> >
> Which is why giving Sustrans a load of lottery money /wasn't/ a good
> thing for cycling.


Doesn't follow at all. Just because the most urgent priority [for the
purpose of argument] wasn't on the table is no proof that a lower
priority - arguably *much* lower - is not a good thing to whatever
degree.


--
Mark, UK
"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created
the Earth."

 

[Peter Scandrett]

stigy wrote on 14/12/2007 10:09:
> With so many lorry drivers not paying due care and attention, I'm a
> cyclist myself and I see it all the time, any finger pointing needs to
> be appropriately directed to the people who are actually breaking the
> law and getting away with it. Just to be clear, that'd be the lorry
> drivers, not the (in the vast majority of cases) the cyclists.

I think I'd tend to agree. I was thinking of this thread yesterday,
however, and I wonder if I could comment a little.

As part of my job we hire 7.5t trucks from time to time (we do gigs and
events) - so I drive a truck a couple of times every three or four
weeks. I know it's not HGV sized but the points still stand, I think.

I was driving it yesterday and I pulled up at some traffic lights on a
roundabout[1] - that is, I wasn't turning a sharp left at the next exit,
but it was a standard roundabout exit. A cyclist - wearing a bright
fluorescent yellow work jacket - came up behind me...

I don't drive these trucks that frequently so I concentrate far more
when driving; the length, breadth and other differences between that and
a car makes me far more aware of what's going on around them, as opposed
to a car which I'm sure most people often drive on 'automatic'. I
spotted this guy on a bike and - I suppose partly with this thread in
mind - I kept an eye on him and wondered what he'd do.

The cyclist slipped up the inside of the truck on the left and sat just
to the front left of my cab. As the lights changed he pulled away, as
did I; for reasons stated above, I gave him a wide berth and it wasn't a
problem but I was a bit concerned for a while.

My reason for recounting this story, however, is just to throw in the
context of the truck drivers a bit - most HGV drivers are of course
professional and trained (well, one hopes) but it is very, very easy to
miss cyclists who place themselves in stupid positions. The guy I
encountered was OK in the end but it illustrated the potential problem
to me; cyclists do bear a responsibility to place themselves sensibly,
and truck drivers have a responsibility to check their mirrors at all
times etc but I was struck when driving the other day how easy it would
have been to miss the cyclist, even though he was wearing a dayglo jacket!

Peter

[1] FWIW the junction was this, and I was leaving at the exit at the top
of the link:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...,-2.257444&spn=0.000808,0.00339&t=h&z=19&om=1

--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/

 

[Señor Chris]

Mark T wrote:
>
> Open discussion can be done without victim blaming. Blaming Emma in a
> direct response to a post from her friend is particularly bad form.
>

Even when the 'friend' concerned is using the anniversary of Emma's
death to attack other people's point of view ?

 

[Mark T]

> Even when the 'friend' concerned is using the anniversary of Emma's
> death to attack other people's point of view ?

Asking people to 'wake up' isn't really an attack in my book. The post was
rather badly written but I think he was making a one line criticism of
those that over-zealously criticised Emma, a victim who was cycling in
accordance with the law and the highway code.

 

[PK]

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
>> Even when the 'friend' concerned is using the anniversary of Emma's
>> death to attack other people's point of view ?
>
> Asking people to 'wake up' isn't really an attack in my book. The post
> was
> rather badly written but I think he was making a one line criticism of
> those that over-zealously criticised Emma, a victim who was cycling in
> accordance with the law and the highway code.

If anything positive can come out of her death, surely it is that whatever
the law say about rights and responsibilities, defensive cycling is the best
policy. cyclecraft is "best advice".

Positioning yourself either by the side of a lorry or where a lorry can come
up and stop by your side intending to turn across your track is not
defensive.

Controlling the traffic by your positioning is the best advice for any
cyclist.

pk

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
[email protected] says...
> Response to Rob Morley
> > > Which is why it is /STILL/ my opinion that the most urgent thing that public
> > > money to encourage cycling could go into is good quality free or low cost
> > > training for ADULT cyclists.
> > >
> > Which is why giving Sustrans a load of lottery money /wasn't/ a good
> > thing for cycling.
>
>
> Doesn't follow at all. Just because the most urgent priority [for the
> purpose of argument] wasn't on the table is no proof that a lower
> priority - arguably *much* lower - is not a good thing to whatever
> degree.
>
The "get bikes off the road" lobby will point to the investment as an
indication that they're right, disinterested parties will think cycling
has had enough investment for a while and some other area should receive
attention, cyclists who 'benefit' from the facilities will get used to
the idea of being segregated ...

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Rob Morley
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
> [email protected] says...
> > Response to Rob Morley
> > > > Which is why it is /STILL/ my opinion that the most urgent thing that public
> > > > money to encourage cycling could go into is good quality free or low cost
> > > > training for ADULT cyclists.
> > > >
> > > Which is why giving Sustrans a load of lottery money /wasn't/ a good
> > > thing for cycling.
> >
> >
> > Doesn't follow at all. Just because the most urgent priority [for the
> > purpose of argument] wasn't on the table is no proof that a lower
> > priority - arguably *much* lower - is not a good thing to whatever
> > degree.
> >
> The "get bikes off the road" lobby will point to the investment as an
> indication that they're right, disinterested parties will think cycling
> has had enough investment for a while and some other area should receive
> attention, cyclists who 'benefit' from the facilities will get used to
> the idea of being segregated ...


You missed my point. Those points may, or may not, have weight: but your
logic was false.


--
Mark, UK
"It is one of the happiest characteristics of this glorious country that
official utterances are invariably regarded as unanswerable."

 

[Simon Brooke]

PK wrote:

> "Mark T"
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Even when the 'friend' concerned is using the anniversary of Emma's
>>> death to attack other people's point of view ?
>>
>> Asking people to 'wake up' isn't really an attack in my book. The post
>> was
>> rather badly written but I think he was making a one line criticism of
>> those that over-zealously criticised Emma, a victim who was cycling in
>> accordance with the law and the highway code.
>
> If anything positive can come out of her death, surely it is that whatever
> the law say about rights and responsibilities, defensive cycling is the
> best policy. cyclecraft is "best advice".

Defensive riding was always the best policy. We don't need deaths to prove
that. The problem is that most cyclists - like Emma Foa - don't know about
it, and that nothing is being done either at a national level or in most
localities to teach adult cyclists about it.

And victim blaming is utterly disgusting.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig

 

[Simon Brooke]

PK wrote:

> "Mark T"
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Even when the 'friend' concerned is using the anniversary of Emma's
>>> death to attack other people's point of view ?
>>
>> Asking people to 'wake up' isn't really an attack in my book. The post
>> was
>> rather badly written but I think he was making a one line criticism of
>> those that over-zealously criticised Emma, a victim who was cycling in
>> accordance with the law and the highway code.
>
> If anything positive can come out of her death, surely it is that whatever
> the law say about rights and responsibilities, defensive cycling is the
> best policy. cyclecraft is "best advice".

Defensive riding was always the best policy. We don't need deaths to prove
that. The problem is that most cyclists - like Emma Foa - don't know about
it, and that nothing is being done either at a national level or in most
localities to teach adult cyclists about it.

And victim blaming is utterly disgusting.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig

 

[PK]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> PK wrote:
>
> Defensive riding was always the best policy. We don't need deaths to prove
> that.

You don't and I don't.


>The problem is that most cyclists - like Emma Foa - don't know about
> it, and that nothing is being done either at a national level or in most
> localities to teach adult cyclists about it.


That sounds very much like you are agreeing with my point - there is an
example here of a individual tragdy from which others can learn and perhaps
avoid similar dangers

>
> And victim blaming is utterly disgusting.


Bald victim blaming is as you say disgusting. But it is not victim blaming
to recognize that while the drivers' behavior was wrong and illegal, Emma's
was legal but unwise.

I used to be work as a supporter for Victim Support and it was always
important to distinguish between blaming the victim for the criminal's crime
and guiding the victim to learn from their experience and not put themselves
at the same risk in the future - whether that be guiding an old dear victim
of burglary artifice not to be so trusting when the stranger arrives at the
door, or the mugging victim who used his very expensive mobile in public in
the wrong part of town to be more cautious in the future. One of the sad
features of Victim Support work is that some victims are serial victims
because they fail to learn these necessary lessons.

Victim blaming is disgusting , but so is politically correct shroud waving
which shuts down discussion and prevent others learning form past tragedies

pk

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
[email protected] says...
> Response to Rob Morley
> > In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
> > [email protected] says...
> > > Response to Rob Morley
> > > > Simon Brooke wrote:
> > > > > Which is why it is /STILL/ my opinion that the most urgent thing that public
> > > > > money to encourage cycling could go into is good quality free or low cost
> > > > > training for ADULT cyclists.
> > > > >
> > > > Which is why giving Sustrans a load of lottery money /wasn't/ a good
> > > > thing for cycling.
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn't follow at all. Just because the most urgent priority [for the
> > > purpose of argument] wasn't on the table is no proof that a lower
> > > priority - arguably *much* lower - is not a good thing to whatever
> > > degree.
> > >
> > The "get bikes off the road" lobby will point to the investment as an
> > indication that they're right, disinterested parties will think cycling
> > has had enough investment for a while and some other area should receive
> > attention, cyclists who 'benefit' from the facilities will get used to
> > the idea of being segregated ...
>
>
> You missed my point.

I'm still missing it.

> Those points may, or may not, have weight: but your logic was false.
>
I stated my opinion. I then explained why I have that opinion. It
wasn't about set theory and logic.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Scandrett <[email protected]> wrote:
>My reason for recounting this story, however, is just to throw in the
>context of the truck drivers a bit - most HGV drivers are of course
>professional and trained (well, one hopes) but it is very, very easy to
>miss cyclists who place themselves in stupid positions.

This is the fault of your vehicle. If you move off without being able
to see that the space you are moving into is clear, you are driving
recklessly. If your vehicle makes that difficult or impossible
because you can't see to the front left of the cab, then you should
take appropriate remedial action. If that's impractical, you need a
better vehicle.

Of course the cyclist would be much wiser not to do as you describe -
I would never do that. But that doesn't make them culpable for your
negligent operation of dangerous heavy machinery in a public place.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

 

[J. Chisholm]

spindrift wrote:
> On 13 Dec, 14:25, "J. Chisholm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Pete Biggs wrote:
>>> stigy wrote:
>>>> It's nearly a year since my friend Emma Foa was senselessly killed by
>>>> the driver of a cement mixer lorry in kings Cross, London. Wake up all
>>>> you cyclists who have been critical of other cyclists killed in road
>>>> traffic accidents.
>>> Please don't be offensive to those who give constructive criticism to
>>> cyclists who could do more to avoid the dangers of lorries. Whether or not
>>> it would have helped your friend, it may help someone else.
>>> ~PB
>> I gather another cyclist was killed by a Tesco lorry in Brixton last week.
>> In Cambridge we've had a student pedestrian killed by a Tesco lorry that
>> 'got lost' and made an unsuitable left turn. I belive the ped was on the
>> pavement and squashed against the wall.
>> Today at c 08:30 a similarly lost Tesco artic was attempting to turn
>> round having entered King's Parade which is an 'access only' cul-de-sac.
>> There are NO Tescos in Cambridge City Centre (yet) only on the outskirts.
>>
>> Jim Chisholm
>
> http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/...var.1888889.0.cyclist_dies_in_lorry_crash.php
>
> A female cyclist has died after a crash involving a Tesco lorry in
> Streatham Hill.
>
> Police are appealing for information about the crash that occurred at
> the junction of Brixton Hill and the A205 Christchurch Road about
> 7.35pm last night.
>
> Officers say the Tesco articulated lorry was turning at the junction
> when it collided with the 41-year-old cyclist.
>
> The cyclist died as a result of her injuries.
>
> A Tesco spokeswoman said: "Tesco is carrying out its own investigation
> into this tragedy, as are the police, so it would be wrong for us to
> comment further. "However, we would like to extend our sympathies to
> everyone involved and our condolences to the family of the woman who
> died." Anyone with information should phone 020 8941 9011.
>
And note this:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=242432
This was a pedestrian killed by a Tesco artic that got lost, and then
the trailer mounted the pavement and squashed the pedestrian against a
wall (in July)

Jim Chisholm

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Scandrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My reason for recounting this story, however, is just to throw in the
> >context of the truck drivers a bit - most HGV drivers are of course
> >professional and trained (well, one hopes) but it is very, very easy to
> >miss cyclists who place themselves in stupid positions.
>
> This is the fault of your vehicle. If you move off without being able
> to see that the space you are moving into is clear, you are driving
> recklessly. If your vehicle makes that difficult or impossible
> because you can't see to the front left of the cab, then you should
> take appropriate remedial action. If that's impractical, you need a
> better vehicle.
>
> Of course the cyclist would be much wiser not to do as you describe -
> I would never do that. But that doesn't make them culpable for your
> negligent operation of dangerous heavy machinery in a public place.

"The cyclist slipped up the inside of the truck on the left and sat just
to the front left of my cab."

Which part of the cyclist's behaviour was not negligent?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> PK wrote:

> > If anything positive can come out of her death, surely it is that whatever
> > the law say about rights and responsibilities, defensive cycling is the
> > best policy. cyclecraft is "best advice".
>
> Defensive riding was always the best policy. We don't need deaths to prove
> that. The problem is that most cyclists - like Emma Foa - don't know about
> it, and that nothing is being done either at a national level or in most
> localities to teach adult cyclists about it.

I would echo that. Until I rejoined this group about a year ago I had
never heard of Cyclecraft. When I did learn of its existence, it proved
hard to find.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
> [email protected] says...
> > Response to Rob Morley
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Mark McNeill
> > > [email protected] says...

> > > > Doesn't follow at all. Just because the most urgent priority [for the
> > > > purpose of argument] wasn't on the table is no proof that a lower
> > > > priority - arguably *much* lower - is not a good thing to whatever
> > > > degree.

> > > The "get bikes off the road" lobby will point to the investment as an
> > > indication that they're right, disinterested parties will think cycling
> > > has had enough investment for a while and some other area should receive
> > > attention, cyclists who 'benefit' from the facilities will get used to
> > > the idea of being segregated ...

> > You missed my point.
>
> I'm still missing it.
>
> > Those points may, or may not, have weight: but your logic was false.
> >
> I stated my opinion. I then explained why I have that opinion. It
> wasn't about set theory and logic.

Do you mean that your opinion is illogical? If not, quite what do you
mean? (I don't mean that to sound cheeky, it's a genuine question.)

cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[[email protected]]

In message <1i9a5yw.1ype90i1e7z6pjN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghea
d.com>
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

> Cyclecraft. When I did learn of its existence, it proved
> hard to find.

Not in stock at FW Evans Waterloo and London Bridge, or Bike UK at
London Bridge - or Borders (bookshop) Kingston Upon Thames.

But I got it on Amazon, easily.

It needs to be pointed to at every opportunity.


--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.