Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
anothereye
Posts: 750
Joined: 8 Mar 2009, 4:56pm
Location: Haringey, North London

Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby anothereye » 30 Jun 2009, 8:11pm

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/news/london/female-cyclist-crushed-by-lorry-outside-oval-tube
A WOMAN cyclist has been crushed to death by a lorry in front of hundreds of commuters on their way to work....
Witnesses said she became trapped between the lorry and railings at the height of morning rush hour, just after 8.30am yesterday. She was rushed to hospital but died a few hours later.
She is the sixth cyclist to die this year after being hit by a heavy goods vehicle - five of whom have been women....
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the driver was arrested at the scene on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.


I don't think we can get rid of the lorries; but we can get rid of the railings!

Gerry
Last edited by anothereye on 30 Jun 2009, 9:19pm, edited 1 time in total.

tali42
Posts: 88
Joined: 5 Jun 2009, 8:15pm
Location: Coventry

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby tali42 » 30 Jun 2009, 8:48pm

Sad.

The roadside fencing near intersections does seem very common in the UK. I've feel a little uneasy cycling near it, given that it tends to close off a potential escape route.

Is it really so necessary. Does such fencing contribute to the severity of accidents with lorrys?

User avatar
rbrian
Posts: 851
Joined: 4 Mar 2009, 7:43pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby rbrian » 30 Jun 2009, 9:46pm

tali42 wrote:Is it really so necessary. Does such fencing contribute to the severity of accidents with lorrys?


Yes, unquestionably, by removing an escape route. You might just fall onto the pavement; not pleasant, but much much better than being squashed against the railings. They're only there to keep the pesky pedestrians out of the way of the drivers, who, of course, own the road. Cyclists shouldn't be on the road in the first place. :roll:
Cynic? No, an optimist tempered by experience.

askeans
Posts: 142
Joined: 2 Jul 2007, 5:04pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby askeans » 1 Jul 2009, 10:07am

It's a balence - how many cyclist die compared to how many peds would die if you removed them?

Harsh and cold but these are the decesions that need to be made.

Do we have it right I don't know.

User avatar
Mythical
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 6:35pm
Location: Wigan

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Mythical » 1 Jul 2009, 10:51am

I was going to post something about pedestrians and darwin awards, but I fear it would be misconstrued. The point I was trying to make was that if putting more furniture in the roads (chicanes, roundabouts, pinch points, etc) doesn't really make drivers any more careful, but roads with NO furniture does make people slow down and take more care, does the same not apply to street furniture for peds?

Case in point (i think): My Primary school had railings outside which continued for half a mile or so. When our class would walk to church, everyone would be playing about behind the railings, generally being kids. As soon as the railing stopped, the teachers/helpers started saying things like "be careful near the road" and "stop being silly now" and everyone walked nicely in pairs, holding hands and acting like perfect little angels. Then again, it was a while ago.

Besides, isn't all this c*** there for the benefit of the drivers, reinforcing the idea that anyone in a car has the diving right to drive on the road they're for no one's use but theirs? Would taking all this stuff away lesen the idea that roads are a private haven for those who think they pay for them?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/misfit-cyclist - The photos are rubbish but the memories are good. :)

User avatar
Coffee
Posts: 395
Joined: 15 Jul 2008, 2:24pm
Location: Huntingdonshire

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Coffee » 1 Jul 2009, 12:13pm

Mythical wrote: but roads with NO furniture does make people slow down and take more care, does the same not apply to street furniture for peds?



I haven't experienced 'more care' in our town centre with dropped kerbs and no street furniture, it seems to encourage use of the pavements for easy mounting to overtake, park and U-turns. Some people will do, if they can.

HGV's might be more tempted(lazy) to mount kerbs on turns if the barriers weren't there, I wondered if a barrier/island between the cycle path/left side of road at junctions would help protect cyclist/motorcycles. That or HGV drivers/mirrors being better or just off the road during peak commuter periods.
Rule 63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white VAN (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable, watch out for Anna Meares elbows.

PBA
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 1:13pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby PBA » 1 Jul 2009, 1:19pm

Mythical wrote:Besides, isn't all this c*** there for the benefit of the drivers...


No - In what way do drivers benefit? By not having to bump over the corpses of the pedestrians?

Railings are provided in an attempt to make the interaction of vehicles and pedestrians safer. I have no doubt that in a lot of cases provision of railings makes many pedestrians safer than they would be without the railings.

A lot of cases is, of course, not all cases. Railings seem to be particularly poor when retro-fitted at junctions which are already of a poor standard of construction. I don't know the area where this accident happened but it would be quite likely to be old sub-standard junction. I'm guessing that the design of the road in this area is constrained and cannot readily be improved. I'm also guessing that a great many lorries use the junction every day and don't hit cyclists.

I note that the driver has been arrested and charged. If the same driver had gone through the junction in the same way and in the absence of railings, the cyclist would still have been hit, but would now have been sent into the pedestrians with possibly equal or worse outcome.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18064
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby [XAP]Bob » 1 Jul 2009, 1:35pm

Coffee wrote:HGV's might be more tempted(lazy) to mount kerbs on turns if the barriers weren't there, I wondered if a barrier/island between the cycle path/left side of road at junctions would help protect cyclist/motorcycles. That or HGV drivers/mirrors being better or just off the road during peak commuter periods.


A few bollards would stop that - and provide a natural barrier for pedestrians, whilst allowing the "throw myself onto the pavement" escape route so desperately needed by this lady.

Driver should be banned for life,
From the linked article:
These images show the scene after a woman, in her 30s, fell under the front wheel of the lorry as it turned left from Clapham Road into Harleyford Street, by Oval Tube station.

So she wasn't even sideswiped / blindspot crawling by the sound of it.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
Mythical
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 6:35pm
Location: Wigan

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Mythical » 1 Jul 2009, 1:55pm

They're there to keep the pedestrians out of the way of the drivers - sure, it benefits the pedestrians not to get run over, but drivers benefit by not having to factor pedestrians into their assessment of the junction - removing any interaction between vehicles and pedestrians.
Sure, if the lorry driver had taken the corner the same way and the railings hadn't been there the consequences would have been worse, but would he have been so lazy if there had been ten pedestrians at the side of the road and not metal railings?


coffee wrote:I haven't experienced 'more care' in our town centre with dropped kerbs and no street furniture, it seems to encourage use of the pavements for easy mounting to overtake, park and U-turns. Some people will do, if they can.

I thought these 'no furniture roads' still had kerbs - like where it's just been resurfaced, and there are no markings and no pinch points, roundabouts, etc. I've definitely seen that slow people down without any mounting of kerbs.

I agree on the point about Mirrors, but there are only so many mirrors you can fit and there's bound to be a blind sopt somewhere.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/misfit-cyclist - The photos are rubbish but the memories are good. :)

gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby gilesjuk » 1 Jul 2009, 5:30pm

Solution to railings is make them easily crushable from the road side but strong from the pedestrian side.

Cut a horizontal wedge shape into the railing and insert a plastic wedge that can collapse in the event of an accident?

Of course kids do climb on them and may break them.

adinigel
Posts: 177
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 1:07am
Location: Swindon - Home of the Magic Roundabout

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby adinigel » 2 Jul 2009, 6:44am

[XAP]Bob wrote:....Driver should be banned for life,
From the linked article:
These images show the scene after a woman, in her 30s, fell under the front wheel of the lorry as it turned left from Clapham Road into Harleyford Street, by Oval Tube station.

So she wasn't even sideswiped / blindspot crawling by the sound of it.


Should he be banned for life? Do we know who was at the lights first? If the cyclist was there first and the lorry pulled up alongside then total blame is on the driver but if th elorry was already there and the cyclist squeezed up the inside then I would suggest the cyclist contributed greatly to the accident.

Nigel
DSA registered Driving Instructor, RoSPA Diploma in Advanced Car Instruction, SAFED registered van trainer, National Standards Cycling Instructor

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18064
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby [XAP]Bob » 2 Jul 2009, 12:41pm

adinigel wrote:Should he be banned for life?


Yes - he was in charge of a lethal weapon and his actions resulted in the death of another person.
For her to have ended up under the front wheels she must have been ahead of the lorry at some point - I know lorries have blind spots, but there are a number of drivers (thankfully not many around here - they all seem to be pretty good*) who simply don't check when they move off.

I have NO idea why causing death by dangerous driving doesn't come with a life sentence.

If I had a licensed rifle and shot someone I'd be banned from having another weapon - why is that different when the weapon is a car?

Bob

* In fact one companies lorries are SO well driven that I've written to the company to pass on my thanks.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby gilesjuk » 2 Jul 2009, 1:29pm

Judges are suffering from RTA apathy. They've seen so many cases it becomes less shocking and tend to edge towards the lower end of the penalty spectrum.

Plus they see it as a genuine accident if the driver wasn't on a phone as they can't prove anything else (unless it's on CCTV).

This morning illustrated how many hazards there are. A guy in a car looked down momentarily to light a fag that was in his mouth. Doesn't sound like that would take long to do but he wouldn't have seen me at all as he was looking down for the duration of time that it took to pass me (he was on the other side of the road fortunately).

PBA
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 Apr 2009, 1:13pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby PBA » 2 Jul 2009, 1:40pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:...he was in charge of a lethal weapon...


Yes he was. I have a tin of beans in the cupboard at home which I could club someone with - so I have a lethal weapon too.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but so many things could be used as weapons. The real matter is how both the driver and cyclist acted. I expect that wil be explored in court and until such time as the outcome is known calls for life bans are probably premature. Remember that as cyclists we too have lethal weapons...

gilesjuk wrote:Solution to railings is make them easily crushable from the road side but strong from the pedestrian side.


If you can make it work, you are on to a winner. The goal with almost all street furnature is to make it only strong enough.

(For instance) Lamp posts used to be made of concrete because they were cheap and strong. The problem is they are too heavy to be accelerated quickly in the event of a vehicle impact so tended to cause much more damage than a "lightweight" steel post. Secondly after the impact, the damage caused would take its toll and down would come the post - about a tonne of concrete landing right on top of the victim...

Railings are approved by the Highways Authority and are manufatured to a standard design. There would be scope for improvement and a robust and effective plastic widget would easily be incorporated into the stadard design should it be proved to be effective.

askeans
Posts: 142
Joined: 2 Jul 2007, 5:04pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby askeans » 2 Jul 2009, 4:15pm

Can't see it working - if it is light enough to be moved by an escaping cyclist it is light enough to be moved by any anti social person.