Cycling UK Forum

People occasionally let their attention lapse and have an accident.
If they are wearing headphones then it is the headphones to blame.
If they are not wearing headphones then it was just a lapse of attention.

People screw up their emergency braking in a panic.
Getting in that position in the first place was the mistake.

People who dont wear helmets get killed by crashes and it was not wearing a helmet which killed them.

It is all a load of confirmation bias. Almost identical accidents happen with helmeted, music hating riders on perfectly maintained bikes.

The thing we should be considering are sight lines and entry speeds of both vehicles.
Then consider if one of them had a lapse of attention. The Lorry driver said he never even saw the cyclist! Instead of helmets and earphones, somebody should be looking at the visibility issues at that entrance.

landsurfer wrote:I'm no lawyer but is this whats called a precedent ???

No.

It should be noted that the Telegraph's statements are extremely questionable, to put it mildly. The headline is unequivocal, when the corresponding comment from the lawyer contains no fewer than four separate significant qualifications. And the statement "cyclists have been warned" appears to be false: I can find no record of any such warning.

This appears, on the face of it, to have four potential factors: failure to see, misjudgement, vehicle defect, and music. Show me any incident involving motor vehicles where any of the first three factors appear (or even where they don't) and the media focus on the fourth; in fact show me any such incident where the coroner mentions potential driver distraction by music.

FWIW, full details and link to further references here.

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/2857/

This only seems fair if the coroner listed every other possible distraction, whether or not there was any evidence for it being there. Otherwise surely they should simply state that there's no evidence that the headphones were a distraction.

Bez wrote:FWIW, full details and link to further references here.
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/2857/

This draws attention to what I haven't seen mentioned so far, that there is no evidence of a collision. The incident is apparently consistent with Ms Norton falling off while trying to avoid the lorry she noticed too late.

There is a bit of a sub-plot here in that I suspect this case was originally reported and investigated as a hit-and-run collision and the driver may well have been arrested, possibly fuelling the usual no-smoke-without-fire speculation. That would explain some of the driver's comments and possibly the coroner being keen to exonerate the driver, once there had been a decision that there was no prosecution case.

(The coroner) ... said at no point did witnesses see the two vehicles make contact.

That's not reported in quotes so I'm unclear if it's the coroner's actual words but it's a strange circumlocution which does not necessarily mean the same as the witnesses saying that they saw there was no collision.

If it's correct that the rider fell at the nearside of the lorry and if its driver did not see the rider in front of him, the implication seems to be that she was paying so little attention as she entered the roundabout that she was only aware of the lorry when she was close to riding into its nearside. Had the driver seen the rider ahead on the point of emerging without looking onto the roundabout, he might well have sounded his horn, even if there were to have been insufficient time to avoid a collision with her: that would be the only circumstances when I'd see the headphones as relevant.
=========================
iviehoff posted while I was typing.

Hi,
If wearing headphones and a fault with brake is all the evidence then the rider will be blamed / deemed to be in control of their actions.
I have seen cyclist in front of me at a junction just cruise out without looking left or right.

Even when you see hazards because of another's failing to see you, its in your hands to keep safe, been there many times.

Just one of those things, no doubt that the rider made an effort which ended very badly, I have been there too and live to tell the tale, its just wrong place wrong time

Did anybody wonder if the infrastructure was adequate, meaning was there any provision for the lady avoiding having to negotiate a roundabout at all. Surely having to ride on roads like that are a contributory factor just as much as no helmet or distraction.

The fact is the person is dead and her loved ones are having to suffer the loss. A car driver having a similar experience would likely as not survive.

Cyclists should not be vilified for having no choices in this situation. When will the authorities WAKE UP.

It has just been on Radio4, reported there as the coroner said her death was caused by wearing earphones.
The article was phrased as cyclists could make the effort to look after their own safety and reduce the number of deaths. The reply from the spokesperson that only 2 of 400 killed had been wearing headphones was ignored.
Both of the spokespeople were from the sports side of cycling and one was visually impaired.

In answer to the last post, that was a point repeatedly pushed by one of the "cyclist spokespeople" in the interview.

No surprises there; Radio 4 has a fair bit of form when it comes to spinning anti-cycling arguments.

To be honest, on the basis of what little information is available in the media, I'm highly sceptical that this is a distraction incident. If you look at the roundabout, the carriageway is wide (both on the roundabout itself and at the exits). This means that visibility is pretty good (the trees in the middle diminish that, but given the likely speed of an HGV of this type around the roundabout I don't believe they could have been a factor) but it also means that there's a lot of scope for vehicles to take rather a racing line, ie moving from the offside edge when passing round the roundabout to the nearside edge on exit. It's quite conceivable that someone could enter the roundabout under the assumption that a vehicle would be continuing round it, only to then find it exiting. This could be exacerbated by certain uses of indicators, even legitimate ones such as indicating right while on the roundabout and then making a late indication left.

Speculation, of course. But to me an aural distraction causing failure to see a very large oncoming HGV on a roundabout of this nature seems extremely unlikely (as far as I can understand the events as described, the victim would have been essentially looking straight at it on approach), whereas errors of assumption and misjudgement seem highly plausible.

I really must remember to turn my CD player off when I'm driving home tonight. Wouldn't want to fail to see a massive HGV on the roundabouts I have to drive over. I can't believe I've been such a risk-taking fool for so long.

BakfietsUK wrote:Did anybody wonder if the infrastructure was adequate, meaning was there any provision for the lady avoiding having to negotiate a roundabout at all.

http://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.74 ... .46p,0.85z - it's the typical old-fashioned huge roundabout with no lane markings, no cycling infrastructure, no crossing refuges and hatching next to most of the splitter islands to try to discourage people overtaking bicycles and motorcycles on the entries and exits.

The road.cc report says "She normally wore a helmet and had earphones in playing music and was cycling along Flatgate in Howden, part of the A63 which becomes Hull Road. Initially she was on a cycle path and then on the road. She was seen to enter the roundabout at speed as she rode at the side of the lorry and the wobble as the road began to narrow."

No part of Flatgate or Hull Road has "a cycle path" (I assume they mean a cycle track) that I spotted. Streetview is dated August 2016, whereas this crash was on 23 June and I doubt anyone removed them in between. It's another aspect of this which makes little sense to me.

Hi,
I am not blaming the rider for wearing ear phones as I use them myself, and evidence points to them not being a real hazard.

I think that the rider probably saw the HGV too late, entered the roundabout and was probably slightly intimidated by the bulk of vehicle.
Head phones were mentioned as was other factors, we can only assume judgement of their own ability / awareness of the HGV was a factor.

Plenty of riders who post on here just fall off their bike misjudging a gate / bollard, I do, so its not unfeasible that the rider just misjudged on that day.
Edited-
The problem with putting in structures to slow traffic is drivers just ignore them impatiently, if that's the roundabout then I would be moving at speed there for sure, like I do on those roundabouts, getting your speed correct is a large part of staying safe I.M.O.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:The problem with putting in structures to slow traffic is drivers just ignore them impatiently, if that's the roundabout then I would be moving at speed there for sure, like I do on those roundabouts, getting your speed correct is a large part of staying safe I.M.O.

So what should people with "incorrect" speed do? Give up cycling if they can't afford an e-bike? And would an e-bike's 15mph be "correct"?

Many motorcyclists wear earplugs under their helmets, this in addition to riding in some cases a noisy bike and are thus mostly unable to hear other vehicles BUT they are trained to be more aware of other road users, to perform " life savers" etc.
Many cyclists do not seem to be as careful. I for one have changed the way I cycle after having completed the motorcycle licence training course and am a safer cyclist for it.
Without opining on the specifics of this incident it is evident that wearing headphones and listening to music whilst cycling may render one less aware of other vehicles but this can be mitigated by better observation, sadly few cyclists do so. I hardly ever see cyclists do " life savers", perhaps they are relying on being able to hear an approaching vehicle or are just unaware of the potential risk (I was before having done the motorcycle licence training).

mjr wrote:
And yet, loads of people who criticise listeners wear fat straps in front of their ears that cause lots of wind noise.

Perhaps the most ridiculous post I've ever read on here.

Motorcyclists;
ware ear plugs to protect their hearing from wind noise.
have and use mirrors.

Relying on the noise of a vehicle usually works for pedestrians and bicycle riders... but some of these 'hybrid' cars are very quite - the original tyres have low rolling resistance that reduces noise, the electric motors are quite and the vehicles wind noise is reduced because of the low drag coefficient ... all these things make the vehicle energy efficient ... and reduce the vehicles external noise. I expect that as these cars become more popular both bicycle riders and pedestrians will have to rely more on sight and less on sound.