Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby TonyR » 6 Sep 2015, 6:48pm

[XAP]Bob wrote: The car turned onto a road that wasn't clear and proceeded down the wrong side of that road - he drove into the cyclist as much as the cyclist rode into him, except that his movement created the collision path.


My read is he saw the cyclist and tried desperately to pull into the kerb to get out of his way. Staying where he was or trying to pull over to the other side of the road would probably have been much worse. It may not be in Preston but its very common in London to pull across the near lane when its clear and wait for a gap in the far lane to complete the turn. Without it you would probably never get to pull out in places where there is a queue of traffic in the far lane. I do it on the bike even.

Yes the cyclist could have avoided it, so could the motorist - and the motorist should have done, whereas the cyclist could have done.


I could see that one coming from way back and I do think the cyclist bears some blame in this one. He was going way to fast for the circumstances, failed to moderate his speed when it was clear he should have and went for a gap at speed when he should have slowed and assessed the situation. If the car had been further out London style and stationary would he have just ploughed into it at speed because he had theoretical right of way?

How fast do you think he was he going by the way - it looked fast?

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby Bicycler » 6 Sep 2015, 7:50pm

Wow, that was odd. I read a name and thought "could it be..". Looked at the photo and yes, it's Mike. He's an acquaintance of mine from a few years back, though I never knew he rode a bike :? If I do happen to see him about I'll have to direct him to the linked article. In addition to wishing him well of course :)

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby Bicycler » 6 Sep 2015, 8:16pm

Just to provide a bit of local knowledge to add to Tony's observations. The video doesn't show it well but the cyclist is riding down an incline. Not a hill but noticeable enough to allow you to travel a good bit faster than you would on the flat. The example of pulling out into one lane in order to slot into the opposing lane is not relevant to this location which although once a main through road is now only used to access or leave that side of the town centre. The traffic volume isn't such that you will get queues up the incline.

One other thing that may not have been obvious is that the car is exiting a one way street where left and right turning traffic are separated by a traffic island, joining the road at a slight angle https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.75926 ... 312!8i6656 This might have been one reason why the driver decided to lazily join the road at an angle and cut the corner rather than turn properly. The other presumably being all those illegally parked cars on the other side of the road :roll:
Last edited by Bicycler on 6 Sep 2015, 8:33pm, edited 1 time in total.

irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby irc » 6 Sep 2015, 8:32pm

On google maps he passes Tesco at 10/11 seconds. Crash at 20 secs approx 260 ft later. So 18-19mph. A reasonable speed for that street if there wasn't a car pulling out. I think the wide lense makes it look faster than it was.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby Tonyf33 » 8 Sep 2015, 1:46am

inattention by both parties, however it somehow comes across that the majority think that by riding defensively he would have absolutely avoided the collision, but that just isn't the case is it.

He could have come to a standstill and the driver could easily have still driven into him, maybe the impact would have been less, maybe it could have been even worse. Whilst avoiding the collision completely would probably be the expected outcome by riding more defensively and paying somewhat more attention to the greater hazards, given how the driver continues his path in the wrong lane that is not an absolute outcome, not by any stretch.

As for the riders comments re h£#*&@s, how tragic :roll:

irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby irc » 8 Sep 2015, 6:24am

Tonyf33 wrote:inattention by both parties, however it somehow comes across that the majority think that by riding defensively he would have absolutely avoided the collision, but that just isn't the case is it.

He could have come to a standstill and the driver could easily have still driven into him,


But once near walking speed he could have, if necessary, gone alongside the kerb or onto the kerb. Or gone along the offside of the car. Even if he had been hit I'm sure without the added speed he put into the collision his injuries would have been far less. There are plenty options once you are slow enough and alert enough. I've avoided several collisions with cars over the years by taking avoiding action of various kinds by being aware of what's happening and trying to avoid it. Won't always work. I' don't think I'd have hit that car though.

reohn2
Posts: 37928
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby reohn2 » 8 Sep 2015, 8:40am

irc wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:inattention by both parties, however it somehow comes across that the majority think that by riding defensively he would have absolutely avoided the collision, but that just isn't the case is it.

He could have come to a standstill and the driver could easily have still driven into him,


But once near walking speed he could have, if necessary, gone alongside the kerb or onto the kerb. Or gone along the offside of the car. Even if he had been hit I'm sure without the added speed he put into the collision his injuries would have been far less. There are plenty options once you are slow enough and alert enough. I've avoided several collisions with cars over the years by taking avoiding action of various kinds by being aware of what's happening and trying to avoid it. Won't always work. I' don't think I'd have hit that car though.

+1
IMO the kerb would perhaps have been the safest bet but there's no way I would've continued at the speed he did,self preservation first all else second.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby beardy » 8 Sep 2015, 8:45am

Meanwhile the quote about any cyclist not wearing a helmet not loving his family was NOT made by the cyclist who crashed in the video.

Zigster
Posts: 49
Joined: 29 Oct 2012, 7:55am

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby Zigster » 8 Sep 2015, 9:19am

Two comments in papers over the last two days.

Yesterday's Evening Standard contained a letter from someone partially blaming cyclist Paul Hutcheson for his own death because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Today's FT contains a column from "fitexecutive" spouting the usual stuff about why you must always wear a helmet even on very short trips, and saying how compulsory helmet laws have massively reduced the head injury rates in Australia and New Zealand.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby Bicycler » 8 Sep 2015, 9:23am

beardy wrote:Meanwhile the quote about any cyclist not wearing a helmet not loving his family was NOT made by the cyclist who crashed in the video.

The Lancashire Evening Post news story said it was: http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/preston ... -1-6997118

It appears the Mirror also reported the story: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cy ... ar-4783102
(presumably conducting a different interview and without that particular line but still very much consistent with the helmet advocating stance).

If I happen to bump into him (unlikely, it's happened twice in the past decade) I'll ask but unless there are other sources of information I don't see any reason to doubt the LEP.
Last edited by Bicycler on 8 Sep 2015, 9:31am, edited 1 time in total.

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby beardy » 8 Sep 2015, 9:30am

Yes, you are right there. I was misled by a bit highlighted in red in the link from the original post, which said 'comments by others' but that was in addition to his comment. :oops:

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby Thermostat9 » 8 Sep 2015, 9:48am

“Any cyclist who goes out without a helmet telling his wife and children he loves them is lying.”

Oh no! My wife cycles without a helmet (just like me). Are we supposed to hate each other?

I suspect (but do not know) that we have another example of what happens when people ride bikes on the road as a 'sport' and not as transport. I came across a few of them at the weekend (while I was in my car :( ) too much drafting while imagining they are in a peloton of three or four middle aged fat blokes on the Tour and less imagining what the traffic is doing around them. On the whole I think this is a 'bad thing'.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby bovlomov » 8 Sep 2015, 9:52am

Even if the rest of his argument is sound [it isn't], is he really suggesting that anyone who does anything with a higher than average level of risk can't love their family? So, all you people who do those things: rock-climbers, overeaters, overworkers, drinkers, pill-poppers, slobs, ladder-climbers, kayakists, pot-holers, firemen, servicemen, parachutists, swimmers, war correspondents, miners, trawlermen, rugby players, boxers, shift workers, astronauts, tightrope walkers, human cannonballs.... YOU DO NOT LOVE YOUR FAMILIES!

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby beardy » 8 Sep 2015, 10:03am

But the practice of pulling into lane 2 when approaching a sliproad where cars are coming down to join onto the motorway, is something that most people do, and so it has ceased to be considered a 'courtesy' and has - with absolutely no basis in law or in the Highway Code - become a 'duty'. And if you don't do it, you get abuse and threats.


I would not be so sure about that if I was you!

I remember being quite surprised when a HGV driver was convicted* for failure to move over to the middle lane at a slip road, it may well have resulted in a crash or fatality to get that far but he was still convicted, when to my mind (like yours) it is the duty of the vehicle entering the motorway to 'fit in'.

*Memory fades, it may have just been found liable but I think it was convicted.

jqdsffjdsoge
Posts: 76
Joined: 24 Jun 2013, 9:31am

Re: Love Your Family - Wear A Helmet

Postby jqdsffjdsoge » 8 Sep 2015, 10:08am

beardy wrote:
But the practice of pulling into lane 2 when approaching a sliproad where cars are coming down to join onto the motorway, is something that most people do, and so it has ceased to be considered a 'courtesy' and has - with absolutely no basis in law or in the Highway Code - become a 'duty'. And if you don't do it, you get abuse and threats.


I would not be so sure about that if I was you!

I remember being quite surprised when a HGV driver was convicted* for failure to move over to the middle lane at a slip road, it may well have resulted in a crash or fatality to get that far but he was still convicted, when to my mind (like yours) it is the duty of the vehicle entering the motorway to 'fit in'.

*Memory fades, it may have just been found liable but I think it was convicted.


There was also a case of a cyclist being convicted for not using the cycle lane. Thankfully, that was overturned on appeal, and I'd hope that the HGV driver in the case you mention, would have appealed, too. Certainly, rule 259 of the Highway Code states that you give way to traffic already on the motorway - yes, I know, HC isn't law, etc etc etc.
--
Just a bloke
2008 Surly LHT | 2013 Surly LHT | 2014 Genesis Flyer | 2015 Giant Defy Advanced 3