Cycling UK Forum

a.twiddler wrote: ↑20 Oct 2023, 11:53am
One of the drawbacks of helmet wearing seems to be the increase in wind noise reducing your ability to accurately place anything approaching from behind. Attaching stuff to your helmet to deflect the wind could make it less effective in the event of an accident, maybe even cause further injury. If you discount using a mirror, and don't want to attach some fuzzy fabric to your helmet strap to break up the airflow, it looks like you'll have to bite the bullet and cultivate your own bushy sideburns/baffle as per Elvis or Bradley Wiggins. It might not work for everyone and might take some time before the shrubbery gets dense enough to be effective but it's a 100% organic and biodegradable solution if it works. It's the ultimate gadget that you'll never forget to take with you. Perhaps we'll have a test report in due course?

Could we please have this put in the TOO GOOD TO LOSE area?

thx

mattheus wrote: ↑20 Oct 2023, 12:19pm

a.twiddler wrote: ↑20 Oct 2023, 11:53am
One of the drawbacks of helmet wearing seems to be the increase in wind noise reducing your ability to accurately place anything approaching from behind. Attaching stuff to your helmet to deflect the wind could make it less effective in the event of an accident, maybe even cause further injury. If you discount using a mirror, and don't want to attach some fuzzy fabric to your helmet strap to break up the airflow, it looks like you'll have to bite the bullet and cultivate your own bushy sideburns/baffle as per Elvis or Bradley Wiggins. It might not work for everyone and might take some time before the shrubbery gets dense enough to be effective but it's a 100% organic and biodegradable solution if it works. It's the ultimate gadget that you'll never forget to take with you. Perhaps we'll have a test report in due course?

Could we please have this put in the TOO GOOD TO LOSE area?

thx

I wonder how many lives have been saved BY a helmet that go unreported

mattheus wrote: ↑20 Oct 2023, 11:25am

cycle tramp wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 9:54pm I would be supporting Carlton Green here , as would the police force with whom I worked with to secure road closures following road traffic collisions...
...whilst the word 'accident' does mean unintended consequences.. it also carries with it the subtext that no one was to blame for the unintended consequences.

No it doesn't. An accident can occur where one or more negligent individuals are to blame.
If you choose to phrase a statement to give the "subtext" you refer to, that's upto you. It is NOT part of the word "accident".

pwa's post shortly above sums this up perfectly. EDIT - this one: viewtopic.php?p=1803606#p1803606

I think the issue I have is with the word 'unintended' especially in so far as this case is concerned... in which driver A, despite the highway code, and despite the recent emphasis on protecting vulnerable road users has made the clear 'intention' of placing their convenience above the safety of bicycle user B, by attempting to overtake him on a narrow lane and ended up killing him.
I think at this point if driver a had every intention of not killing cyclist B, they might have waited for the lane to widen or for cyclist B to reach a field gateway and pull in..
..as this didn't happen, what you are choosing to call an accident many of us are calling 'a probable event' or even 'a likely outcome' To call it an accident is perhaps to belittle the tragic end to cyclist B.. and perhaps helps driver A escape any responsibility. It is clear that driver A fully intended to pass cyclist B no matter what the cost to cyclist B was. Which perhaps makes it manslaughter rather than an accident...

What's the evidence that overtaking was involved?

Thanks

Jonathan

The police report advised that both were travelling in the same direction... the other press report mentions that the collision was with the trailer and not main vehicle... as I know of no way that a trailer can be used in front of a towing vehicle- I suspect that the collision occurred whilst being overtaken...
..note the word collision and not accident

Jdsk wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 10:14pm

Cowsham wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 10:08pm ...
I've this bought and fitted -- not just because I need to brace myself but to keep me from looking behind while on flat bar bikes -- for some reason I seem to veer off line more when looking back over my shoulder on flat bar bikes than on drop bar bikes so this very bar end mirror is installed.

Have you tried dropping the arm on the side to which you're turning?

Jonathan

I think it's the distance between my hands and the position of my shoulders when sitting more upright on straight bars. Also you can feel via hands and along the wrists if the drop bars are moving from straight.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑11 Oct 2023, 1:48pm One difference I would make is that a firearm has few other purposes beyond being a lethal weapon, whereas a motor vehicle is primarlily a means of transport whose careless use may have fatal consequences.

But there are a multitude of 'other purposes' though and to say "may have fatal consequences" is a bit off the mark, more like is signifiantly likely to reap lethal harm in the hands of someone wilfully or otherwise using it not in accordance to law. Just like a firearm will do.

there's an estimated annual 1.25million road deaths (and prob 20Million Serious Injuries), most from a machine operated by a human that was designed with 'non lethal' purposes.
Says much about those that are allowed to use them and those that control their use, that so many lives are so easily snuffed out despite best part of a century trying to make the non lethal machine not so lethal.
Some countries clearly have a firearms problem regards homocides, but even the US has more road deaths than homicides by over 50%
And most homocides are down to how people are living in fear and can't see a way to live without that fear, which is caused ultimately by tyrannical governmentsthat run their countries for the elites and not the people, that includes ours.

And yet the focus in those countries were motorvehicle weapon deaths far exceed firearm deaths, is certainly not on the former, never mind the huge harms beyond direct physical harms that people with motorvehicle weapons do.

Mike Sales wrote: ↑13 Oct 2023, 4:25pm

Airsporter1st wrote: ↑13 Oct 2023, 10:01am I can’t help thinking that a sricter driving test will simply result in more unlicensed (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

Should not detected unlicenced drivers lose the car until they can send a legal driver to pick it up from the pound? After all, the police cannot allow an illegal vehicle to drive away. Crushing (the car) could well deter persistent offenders.

The savings made from buying and running a non MOT'd/untaxed/uninsured vehicle mean it's not prohibitive for repeat offenders simply by crushing the vehicle. The fines/loss of vehicle stack up less expensive than purchasing a vehicle and going through all the expense of insurance/MOT/VED in almost all cases, and with the chances of being caught so low, this is why so many do it.

The 1million uninsured to my mind is nowhere near the actual, not when the government/police brag about 550,000 uninsured vehicles taken off the roads between 2018 - 2021. I don't beleive for an instance that more than 10% of all uninsured drivers are getting tugged

They reckon 130 deaths per year involved uninsured drivers (not always at fault), against what, 1700-1800 total.
The odds might likely be more with uninsured driver even if the figure was 2 million (which I think is more closer the mark than a million), there's still a higher liklihood of a collision/injur/death but it's not as wide a gap as people think. I've been struck/injured more by insured drivers by a ratio of 4:1, and the probable uninsured driver drove off.

Carlton green wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 6:39pm ...
Describing something as an accident absolves people of responsibility and takes away accountability.

I agree. A mate of mine was once described as "an accident looking for somewhere to happen". He was very clumsy and careless.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑20 Oct 2023, 5:23pm
..as this didn't happen, what you are choosing to call an accident many of us are calling 'a probable event' or even 'a likely outcome' To call it an accident is perhaps to belittle the tragic end to cyclist B.. and perhaps helps driver A escape any responsibility. It is clear that driver A fully intended to pass cyclist B no matter what the cost to cyclist B was. Which perhaps makes it manslaughter rather than an accident...

I have not chosen to call anything an accident. We can choose when and where to deploy words.

The last time I fell off my bike, if you asked me:
Was it an accident?
My answer is:
"Yes!"
Could you have avoided it?
"Yes, without doubt!!!!"

I didn't tell people that my leg is covered in blood "due to an accident".
I said "i fell off, my leg is cut up a bit."

Likewise, journalists CHOOSE whether to use the word ACCIDENT. I agree that it's not helpful in these kinds of incidents.
But that doesn't make it WRONG!!!

plancashire wrote: ↑21 Oct 2023, 10:36am

Carlton green wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 6:39pm ...
Describing something as an accident absolves people of responsibility and takes away accountability.

I agree. A mate of mine was once described as "an accident looking for somewhere to happen". He was very clumsy and careless.

Are you quite sure about this? What if I said:
"Your mate caused that accident through negligence and general stupidity. "

plancashire wrote: ↑21 Oct 2023, 10:36am

Carlton green wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 6:39pm ...
Describing something as an accident absolves people of responsibility and takes away accountability.

I agree. A mate of mine was once described as "an accident looking for somewhere to happen". He was very clumsy and careless.

Clumsiness can be reduced and carelessness is surely rarely acceptable behaviour. To have an ‘accident’ that only injured such a causer would be bad but to have one that injured someone else is far worse. To excuse the death of another because it happened in an ‘accident’ should really be heavily questioned and with a view to prosecution. If you thoughtlessly injure someone with a car that’s too similar to thoughtless physical assault, being in a car should make little to no difference to the way that the law sees things. If you drive then you are or should be responsible for the consequences of your actions and no saying ‘It was un-intended’.

mattheus wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 8:54am

plancashire wrote: ↑21 Oct 2023, 10:36am

Carlton green wrote: ↑19 Oct 2023, 6:39pm ...
Describing something as an accident absolves people of responsibility and takes away accountability.

I agree. A mate of mine was once described as "an accident looking for somewhere to happen". He was very clumsy and careless.

Are you quite sure about this? What if I said:
"Your mate caused that accident through negligence and general stupidity. "

That's how most of my little accidents around the house and garden happen. Stubbing my toe on things is a favourite. I don't like to wear slippers for long, so I need to take care when walking around furniture, but over the years I must have caught a little toe on something hundreds of times. And each time it was accidental, as I didn't intend it to happen. I just failed to be mindful. It is a risk I can live with because the injury is minor, the pain is soon over, and nobody else is affected.

If people do use the fact that an injury-causing incident is an accident as an explanation and excuse for what happened, it is their failure to understand that accidents are usually avoidable, and that in serious matters we ought to make an effort to avoid accidents. Causing an accident through negligence or recklessness, resulting in injury or death for others, is criminal behaviour.

Cycling is an activity that carries some risk of accident to the cyclist through their own mistakes, and a much lower level of risk to others. Towing a trailer is an activity that can easily cause an accident involving others if it is not done with great care. If you put those two activities together in the confined space of a narrow fenced / hedged or walled lane, it requires great care and focus all round for the trailer to pass safely. The consequences of a mistake could easily be a serious accident, and the fact that it is an accident is in no way an absolution for whoever caused it. The danger is obvious, so the focus of the participants should be on avoiding an accident. That ought to be front and central to everyone's thinking.

I live in countryside and I drive, sometimes with a large vehicle, and I am very aware of the narrowness of some lanes and the need to be alert to all sorts of things. The right foot is always ready to go for the brake. Driving on lanes like that, with their varying width and often unreliable surfaces, is not like driving on ordinary roads. It requires constant caution, low speed and an expectation that you will have to stop from time to time as you encounter other road users. You have to have a mindset that expects slow progress. People who live in communities with lanes like that avoid driving on those lanes more than necessary, because they are not an easy or fast way to get where you want to go. Usually you pick a route through the lanes that gets you to a normal width road pretty soon.

A tragic outcome, and as someone else has stated (in different words) "will justice be done?".

Here's a note I posted on a caravan forum a few weeks ago (it got no responses!)
I was driving a car at the time, but it would have been hair-raising (and heart-beat racing) If I'd been on the bike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all know there are caravans and trailers with perished, beyond-their-life tyres put on the road each year and used 'because they have a good tread depth. Always worth checking the dates.
Another danger confronted me last week....... Travelling South from Cromer on a road with 40MPH limit, as I approached a RH 90 degree bend I saw over the bushes a caravan approaching the bend from the opposite direction. My first thought was 'crikey, he's going far too fast'! My first reaction was to brake as I thought the caravan would turn over. It rounded the corner and thankfully stayed upright. Then another car/caravan combo came around going equally as fast - the caravan jackknifed as the car exited the corner, but thankfully righted itself before getting to me. Was it 'friends in convoy' being idiots? or did they both 'forget' they were towing? A frightening experience (maybe for them also). Be careful out there folks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------