Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Gisen
Posts: 252
Joined: 24 Feb 2008, 5:58pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Gisen » 5 Jul 2009, 8:54pm

I have been crushed between railings and a car when it suddenly decided to swerve left (no junction). I vote get rid of them.

Flinders
Posts: 3022
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Flinders » 6 Jul 2009, 5:00pm

Me too. Making the road more dangerous for cyclists who are doing the right thing in order to prevent pedestrians doing the wrong thing is insane. It doesn't even matter if more pedestrians would cop it, -that would be their own fault.
There is too much protection in this world for people who are idiots at the expense of other people who aren't. (see the Darwin Awards -some people shouldn't be breeding)

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18059
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby [XAP]Bob » 7 Jul 2009, 9:12am

Flinders wrote:Me too. Making the road more dangerous for cyclists who are doing the right thing in order to prevent pedestrians doing the wrong thing is insane.


I presume you're not suggesting that walking is the wrong thing and riding is the right thing :)

But yes - we are in a daft state where I'm asked for "Health and Safety" reasons to wear shoes to walk around inside, and told that I'm endangering "everyone in the building" by doing otherwise...
I can vaguely see some increased risk to other people on the stairs at the same time as me - but that's a pretty small subset of people, a pretty small subset of the time.
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.

kwackers
Posts: 15446
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby kwackers » 7 Jul 2009, 11:27am

[XAP]Bob wrote:
Flinders wrote:Me too. Making the road more dangerous for cyclists who are doing the right thing in order to prevent pedestrians doing the wrong thing is insane.


I presume you're not suggesting that walking is the wrong thing and riding is the right thing :)

But yes - we are in a daft state where I'm asked for "Health and Safety" reasons to wear shoes to walk around inside, and told that I'm endangering "everyone in the building" by doing otherwise...
I can vaguely see some increased risk to other people on the stairs at the same time as me - but that's a pretty small subset of people, a pretty small subset of the time.


Health and safety as long as it's politically correct. Banning 'large' people from using the stairs for example would make them safer for all of us - they're more likely to slip, less likely to be able to rescue themselves if they do and more likely to take us with them!

I always walk round with no shoes on at work, nobody ever told me I had to wear them for H&S - although one cleaner insisted the fluff on the carpets was entirely down to my socks - impressive stuff I thought, they'd need to lose 10 times their own mass in sock substance per day to be responsible for that much fluff...

emergency_pants
Posts: 292
Joined: 26 Aug 2008, 3:40pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby emergency_pants » 7 Jul 2009, 8:05pm

Off topic, sorry....

Are these your fluffy socks?

Sares
Posts: 253
Joined: 4 Feb 2007, 3:34pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Sares » 10 Jul 2009, 6:38pm

It's not widely known, I don't think, but the purpose of the railings is to force people on foot to cross at 90 degree angle to the road. This gives them the best view of the traffic. However, much of the railing makes children invisible to aproaching drivers, so this makes it more dangerous for them. There is railing available that can be seen through, this is much better for kids but still a problem for cyclists (and pretty certainly encourages drivers to take less care as there is a barrier). I wouldn't support railing that broke easily, as that would be even worse- giving the appearance of good protection for walkers while providing no protection. No railing at all would be better.

genome
Posts: 41
Joined: 5 Aug 2008, 1:44pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby genome » 12 Jul 2009, 12:58am

Regardless of the results from this debate about the purpose of railings, this lady has died as a result of a preventable situation.

There are certain causes the CTC could, and should, join so that incidents like this do not occur again, chiefly:

  • Promoting sectioned off areas for cyclists (Concrete bollards acting as barriers).
  • Restricting Lorries / Trucks / vans (with restricted view) during peak commuting and business hours in cities: if commuter traffic were kept seperate from deliveries, it would be easier to identify needs and adapt specifically
  • Fit extended mirrors to lorries, trucks, vans, and buses (especially extended buses) to make it easy for them to spot cyclists, this shall also destroy any grounds for the excuse that the cyclist was not visible

Should these suggestions be followed, then at least this cyclists life would not have been lost in vain.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1931
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Pete Owens » 12 Jul 2009, 10:49pm

genome wrote:Regardless of the results from this debate about the purpose of railings, this lady has died as a result of a preventable situation.

There are certain causes the CTC could, and should, join so that incidents like this do not occur again, chiefly:

  • Promoting sectioned off areas for cyclists (Concrete bollards acting as barriers).


Please no.
Segregating cyclists is a bad idea precisely because it makes crashes such as this one very much more likely.

genome
Posts: 41
Joined: 5 Aug 2008, 1:44pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby genome » 13 Jul 2009, 12:44am

Pete Owens wrote:Please no.
Segregating cyclists is a bad idea precisely because it makes crashes such as this one very much more likely.



To my knowledge this lady was not within a segregated cycle lane. Whilst this is a guess, I am pretty sure that none of the other 5 cyclists (4 of them ladies) killed by heavy goods vehicles were in segregated cycle zones either.

Vehicler cycling does not work, especially in places such as London where people drive so aggressively.

Add to this that:
  • Bus and taxis drivers are generally not friendly towards cyclists and tend to view reserved parts of the roads as their own
  • Motorbikes in cycle lanes is just plain lunacy (alas it is the case in London)
  • Heavy goods vehicles and 'white van' men are generally dangerous even for normal car drivers.

One can see why even sustrans recommends on their Bike belles (a site advocating cycling for women) recommends that cyclist plan their route beforehand and use 'quiet streets and cycle paths'. (http://www.bikebelles.org.uk/index.php/staying_safe/)

A cyclist is just flesh and bone travelling around 15+mph; when they are competing with cars and trucks weighing up to several tonnes and travelling up to 40+mph in relatively confined spaces surely the safest option is seperation.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18059
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby [XAP]Bob » 13 Jul 2009, 8:56am

genome wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:Please no.
Segregating cyclists is a bad idea precisely because it makes crashes such as this one very much more likely.



To my knowledge this lady was not within a segregated cycle lane.

--8<--

Vehicler cycling does not work, especially in places such as London where people drive so aggressively.

Add to this that:
  • Bus and taxis drivers are generally not friendly towards cyclists and tend to view reserved parts of the roads as their own
  • Motorbikes in cycle lanes is just plain lunacy (alas it is the case in London)
  • Heavy goods vehicles and 'white van' men are generally dangerous even for normal car drivers.

--8<--

surely the safest option is seperation.


No - it's banning cars/busses/lorries.

Or more practically having vehicular traffic respect other road users. It isn't difficult to cycle around in traffic, unless there are idiots behind the wheels of their vehicles.
In London the average vehicle speed is ~9mph (or was relatively recently) - that's not much different from most cyclists. Any motorist causing a collision with a cyclist should be charged with driving without due care and attention (NB - Causing, not involved in)

In London there should be enough CCTV about to cover most incidents.
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.

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

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby PBA » 13 Jul 2009, 12:38pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:No - it's banning cars/busses/lorries.

Or more practically having vehicular traffic respect other road users. It isn't difficult to cycle around in traffic, unless there are idiots behind the wheels of their vehicles.
In London the average vehicle speed is ~9mph (or was relatively recently) - that's not much different from most cyclists. Any motorist causing a collision with a cyclist should be charged with driving without due care and attention (NB - Causing, not involved in)

In London there should be enough CCTV about to cover most incidents.


At serious risk of upsetting even more people - Having vehicular traffic respect other road users, must be seen as an aspiration rather than an achievable goal.

Adoption of European type rules where drivers are assumed guilty in collisions with cyclists may be of benefit and would probably be quite easy to achieve. Best of all, it's a "no-brainer" as the police and CPS would have clear guidance on what to do.

How much CCTV is there in London? Can the police access this easily? Do they?

Tom Richardson
Posts: 772
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 1:45pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Tom Richardson » 13 Jul 2009, 2:09pm

PBA wrote:

Adoption of European type rules where drivers are assumed guilty in collisions with cyclists may be of benefit and would probably be quite easy to achieve.


Not assumed guilty PBA but required to accept responsibility for the substantial danger that their vehicle brings to public spaces by extending their insurance to cover it regardless of blame.

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

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby PBA » 13 Jul 2009, 2:33pm

I think assumption of guilt would be fine. Make it so that it is for the motorist to demonstrate why they are not guilty, rather than for the "victim" to show why they are...

Using insurance to cover this degrades the matter to civil rather than criminal law (not sure if degrade is the right word...)

thirdcrank
Posts: 30808
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby thirdcrank » 13 Jul 2009, 2:41pm

It's not just tinkering with bits and pieces of legislation but the way society is organised. An intellectually bankrupt highway building set-up is only one small manifestation of this. And the sad thing is, from the days when the sun never set on the British Empire, we allow ourselves to be conned into believing we have the best way of organising things. IMO.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1931
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Female cyclist crushed by lorry outside Oval Tube

Postby Pete Owens » 20 Jul 2009, 11:36pm

There is a brand new local transport note on the subject of railings - LTN 2/09:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltn ... strian.pdf

While it does take a much more sceptical line on the merits of railings from a pedestrian perspective, there is not a single mention of the danger to cyclists.