Cycling UK Forum

Plod's information is worrying and a bit depressing. So there is little chance of a report from a member of the Public leading to a prosecution? Must admit I'm not really surprised. So much for my scheme to shop every motorist I see on my commute, take down every reg. number and car description, and type them all on on our Constabulary's website!

Perhaps in a case such as this the 'burden of proof' should rest with the Defence. 'Guilty until proved innocent' in other words. But the Human Rights lobby would make mincemeat of that I suppose!

And as for two-way radios: I have never possessed such a thing and certainly never thought of using one while driving. My experience is, they are considerably more difficult to operate than handheld phones (you have to keep pressing and releasing the 'transmit' button). Do repeatedly-offending drivers equip themselves with such a device, simply so that they can use it as 'evidence' in their defence? Surely a loophole in the Law here that could be plugged!

Mick F wrote:Wasn't there a case a few months ago that a chap was done for using a mobile, when all he did was move it from the dash board? A police car went past and they saw him touching it. The phone was examined and he hadn't used it to make or receive a call. He was simply moving it.

This, on the other hand, is worrying in the other sense. On numerous occasions I find myself setting off in the car only to discover that my phone is still in my pocket, so I have quickly passed it to my wife in the passenger seat. Surely the law cannot be such an ass!

A very tragic case.

Part of the reason for the semantics used: "Cyclist", "Pedestrian" but "Car", "Van", "Lorry" etc., is that the in the case of a bicycle (or ped!) the human is the bulk of the mass of the combination: he or she typically weighs 70-80 Kg (in my case over 90! ) as opposed to the under 10Kg mass of the cycle. It's just the way people put it: they don't see a bicycle, they see a cyclist; but they don't see a motorist, they see a car.

And when we get on to the semantics of "the cyclist collided with..." as opposed the "the cyclist was in collision with..." - yes I agree the second terminology is far fairer and more equitable and should always be the phrase used. I think maybe people are running foul of the spelling and grammar-checkers embedded in so many of our word processing tools nowadays, which so zealously discourage anyone from using the passive voice, and maybe gratuitously change one's text accordingly. For the record, I always use a word processor like MS Word with spelling and grammar checkers turned off. I can't stand the things!

Anyway it should be standing guidelines in the news sites that the phrase "the cyclist collided with..." should not be used unless there is no element of doubt. In other words, this should be a proactive measure, instead of the news site waiting for a complaint from one of us before amending.

Has anyone seen or posted a link to this?
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/resourc ... cling.html

Bearing in mind that it places the onus on cyclists (it refers to an earlier video aimed at drivers but I haven't seen that one), I think it's reasonably fair and balanced. The fact that Cemex (whose lorries alas! have been involved in several fatalities in recent years) have got involved in this, does them credit.

stephenjubb wrote:..banned from driving for life then sent to military boot camp....

Hmmm... the chronology of your proposed sentence looks interesting. Zombie boot camp?

Am I alone in thinking this looks like a case for study under the Mental Health Act, rather than judicially? The only pertinent words in the report are "under stress" but there must be more to it than that. This is not rational behaviour even for a lousy driver.

You have done very well Brian, perhaps you will re-consider your misgivings? It would be great to hear in your next post, that you have made the cycle-commute permanent! I find that I do my commute (same distance as you, but not in London) without feeling too hot at the end of it, but maybe that's because I go at a fairly slow pace. I still get there quicker than any public transport! You could try wearing lighter clothing, and changing when you get to the office if dress codes demand it. And obviously when you get home there's that long-awaited shower waiting? Give it a try.

EdinburghFixed wrote:Okay, so it felt scary, but what do you think is protecting you from a 70mph rear impact on a "normal" road, which is absent in an 85mph impact on a dual carriageway?

The point. Cycling on a dual carriageway itself, between junctions, presents no more hazard than a fast single carriageway. If you're struck from behind by a vehicle going at 60mph, you're dead. If you're struck behind by a vehicle going at 80mph, you're dead. No difference. And I know plenty of single carriageway roads where cars routinely (albeit illegally) do 80mph plus. So where's the safety for cyclists in that?

In fact D/Cs can be safer, in that it is more likely that a following motorist can overtake you safely, seeing as there's more room. On a S/C there's always the risk of a motorist seeing a cyclist and an oncoming vehicle, thinking he can squeeze past regardless (after all "a cyclist doesn't take up any room"). We all know the consequences.

It's at junctions that special care is needed. If the cyclist is staying on the D/C and a car is leaving by a left-hand slip road, then it goes without saying that the car must not endanger the cyclist. That means: no overtaking and then cutting across. No undertaking and clipping from behind (one of these must have happened in poor Marie's case: I do not know which). You slow down and make the turn (onto the slip road or whatever) when you can do so safely, showing consideration for any other road user in the vicinity. That's all. These simple rules ought to be drummed into every driver when they're still at the L-plate stage. Repeat after me. "Do-not-overtake-a-cyclist-and-turn-left". "Do-not-undertake-a-cyclist-too-close-and-turn-left". Simple.

But of course the cyclist can take measures to improve his or her safety, as has been outlined above.

We cycle a four-lane road as part of our commute, it's a 40mph limit with common vehicle speeds of 50mph and above (there's no central reservation but otherwise it's just like a bona fide dual carriageway).

In fact some sections of the A23 used to be like that, before it was upgraded (though it had a 60mph limit). I often used to cycle along it when it was like that. I didn't feel particularly threatened, though it was a far from pleasant ride.

...by a motorist.
Anyone who thinks it's only cyclists who deliberately flout red lights, and motorists merely keep going when the lights turn to amber so that's all right then isn't it? the law allows it after all...

Take note of this example please. I come to a stop at a red light, pedestrian crossing. Car draws up alongside me. Pedestrian finishes crossing but the light is still red - but then, the law's the law. Not so for motorist, he evidently regards the lights as only approximately red. So he roars off crossing the lights still at full red, it was a good ten to fifteen seconds more before they turned to red/amber then green.

Or perhaps he was afraid I would get away from the lights ahead of him, and then slip into primary and impede his progress? There is a roundabout a bit further along, and, true, I generally approach it in primary position.

*sigh*

anothereye wrote:Update:Tribute to dead cyclist on A23 removed by Highways Agency:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4431244.Tribute_to_dead_cyclist_on_A23_removed_by_council_bosses/
The Argus.co.uk - Brighton,UK

Gerry

That's disgusting. Just because it's an embarrassment - a bicycle in a setting where the HA would prefer it if bicycles and cyclists didn't exist....

There was a floral tribute attached to a tree, in a country lane near me: for well over a year it was there undisturbed by the powers-that-be, now and then fresh flowers would be placed there so evidently there was someone who cared. I cycled past it many a time. But there was a difference. This was a victim of a car accident, a passenger in the car, and people who ride - and get killed - in cars, are ordinary guys like us aren't they, not some cycling weirdos we would prefer to have on another planet. And the driver who killed that young lad - there is no other way of putting it - was just out for a drive like all decent folks wasn't he!? No matter that he drove like a homicidal maniac before wrapping his car round that tree. No matter that his passengers were screaming at him to be let out moments before the crash (according to evidence given at the trial), after all he was a good driver wasn't he, why should he? No matter that he got off scot-free at the trial, on a technicality. After all he was a motorist, so that's ok then...

Sorry about the rant. Some things just get to me...

Oh and I love this comment someone added to that news story in the Argus:

So, do you think the Cenotaph should be knocked down? After all, it's a memorial and it's right in the middle of a road...

Well I only hope that any other published visual material which portrays a 'dangerous' activity gets the same treatment. Indeed, when one considers the number of old movies depicting characters smoking...

Come on now, all you skilled Photoshoppers! Time to get to work and create the definitive and PC-version of Casablanca - not a whiff of tobacco smoke in sight! Be ruthless!

stoobs wrote:There is a huge (long) slip lane here, presumably to take the infrequent crowds at Hickstead.

Actually this is not quite true: not the whole picture; that particular exit serves quite a large population area including Burgess Hill and several surrounding towns and villages. No-one disputes that if you construct a motorway or motorway-style road, you need to provide means of getting on and off it at convenient places!

anothereye wrote:Nevertheless; where Marie died was an off-slip rather than a slip road (much more difficult to negotiate).

The point precisely, and something I didn't fully think through . (I do have Cyclecraft though I don't have my copy ready to hand at the moment).

The real danger for cyclists is when they want to continue on the D/C rather than take the slip road. An entry slip road is usually less of a problem, because vehicles are entering the D/C at moderate speed and prepared to give way or even stop. And the technique of, in exceptional cases, carefully cutting across the slip road at right angles, will usually work.

It's the exit slip road which is the real peril, because - especially when it is long and straight - motorists are liable to take it at speed, only braking as they finally approach the roundabout some distance ahead. And often without indicating. And a cyclist does not really want to be deflected from his or her straight course continuing along the D/C, so paths intersect. I suppose the best option is to divert along the slip road, then stop, look right and wait till no-one is approaching, then cross it from left to right at right-angles and continue along the D/C. But this loses time.

Perhaps an improvement would be to have far more sharply-curved exit slip-roads forcing vehicles to drop speed considerably. Indeed something I have seen lots of times on autoroutes in France (normal speed limit 130 Km/h): cars taking the slip road are faced with staged mandatory speed limits of 90 Km/h dropping to 70 Km/h and then 50 Km/h (about 31mph) at the point where the road curves off the motorway. And the steepness of the bend justifies it! Of course these roads don't have cyclists, but the same design could be applied to D/Cs which do permit cyclists.

I do not want to see all our D/Cs become, like motorways, prohibited roads for cyclists.

thirdcrank wrote:The inability to distinguish between peddling and pedalling seems pretty widespread in the reports about this.

Presumably because the journos are more au fait with the first of these words, than the second!

Although the normal national and local speed limits cannot be made to apply to cyclists, I suppose it's not beyond the power of a local authority to impose any by-law it likes - and maybe enforce it if it wants to. There has been a 20mph speed limit in London's Richmond Park for some years now - a by-law - applicable to all vehicles including cyclists. I don't know how well it is enforced, but certainly hitting an errant deer at over 20mph would be painful (to cyclist and deer equally)! I personally rarely exceed 20mph anyway.

Perhaps it would make more sense to have a notice urging cyclists to show consideration for pedestrians and to reduce speed when necessary when in the vicinity of other users. But is this open to too subjective an interpretation? Certainly I have witnessed many occasions when - teenagers mostly - have been cycling illegally and at speed through shopping precincts, and intimidating pedestrians. I would welcome a measure of enforcement there too.

Does it actually need the CPS to get involved?
As I understand it, the offence of simply using a handheld phone while driving is not a felony, it's not an arrestable offence. The usual penalty will surely be a fine and points on one's licence. A FPN will deal with that will it not, or at most an appearance before Magistrates? But it will have some deterrent effect even so. And the motorist thus deterred, the motorist who doesn't use his phone, when otherwise he might have done so, might be the very motorist who doesn't run down and kill a cyclist at the next junction. If so, a valuable deterrent indeed!

See also the report on the subject, by - not some car-hating fringe organisation - but as august and motorist-friendly a body as the AA.

Shocking stuff, here. So at any one instant in time there are 100,000 (yes that's 100,000: I didn't add any noughts, that figure comes from the AA) potential killers at large on our roads - to put it at its starkest. What are we to do? Particularly chilling to me is this extract:

Driving performance under the influence of alcohol was significantly worse than normal driving, yet better than driving while using a hand-held phone. Drivers also reported that they found it easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone.

Should we be 'shopping' every motorist we see with a handheld? (I see some every day - I'm sure most of you do too). Surely just reporting them to the police wouldn't work, they'd be overwhelmed if it ever took off. I have once or twice tried to enter a phone-using motorist onto our local (Sussex) police's 'Operation Crackdown' website, and I gave up half way through, so much detail you need to fill in. And if I, a member of the public, am going to chicken out half way through, what about the poor PC who's got to decypher all this public feedback and turn it into an actual summons for the offending motorist? It ain't gonna happen...

So what is the solution?

A very tragic case. I know the area where this happened quite well, and I remember the occasion.

Although I generally use the 'quieter roads' to which the Coroner referred, from choice (and because I am getting slower with age), I do not hold that the A23 and similar busy D/Cs are simply no-go areas for cyclists. Indeed I feel it is a disservice to the memory of Marie Vesco, and to her friends and family, to state that she committed an error in choosing to cycle along this road due to her not knowing of the parallel alternative roads. The cause of her death was two instances of bad driving, not the fact that she was cycling. Many competent and experienced cyclists use busy main roads from choice because, a roadie especially, can maintain a high speed thereon, and usually in reasonable safety (of course, with the high vehicular speeds, if a collision happens it is likely to be very serious).

So how does one maximise one's safety at an awkward slip road? My view is that motorists must, of course, be aware of cyclists ahead and be prepared to drop speed and exit the road behind the cyclists, not in front of them. What is the best strategy for the cyclist?