Cycling UK Forum

Sadly two cyclists were hit by a Range Rover in Warrington two days ago, and it seems the woman driver was using her mobile phone at the time.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... yclist_mum

Everytime such news comes around my wife urges me to give up cycling. I tell her that cycling keeps me fitter and healthier - as long as those metal boxes don't hit me.

This accident is more poignant because it occurred within a mile of my inlaws' home and so my wife is really putting the pressure on me. I won't give up cycling but wondered if members here had any arguments I have not encountered to keep their legs rotating in the face of such accidents?

Geoff

That is terribly sad.

I can't think of anything in particular which would convince your wife - I would suggest that this is an argument against ridiculous 4x4s and (possibly) using your mobile phone while driving, far more than anything else. The fact that she hit a cyclist is irrelevant - it could as easily have been a pedestrian.

Geoff,

Very sad news indeed.

I would agree with Dean, this particular incident relates more to the car drivers stupidity and their mobile phone use, which could have quite easily taken out pedestrians or other road users, unfortunately it was a case of wrong place, wrong time for the cyclists.

Life is short, do the things you enjoy and spend time with the people that make you happy. Thank your lucky stars each day and continue though something's got to get you in the end.......!

If you enjoy cycling carry on enjoying it, sometimes it's difficult for other people to see your point of view if they don't participate in that particular activity themselves, when incidents such as this happen, people only see the dangers. They don't see the upside of a great activity, that far outweighs any risk.

I was in a similar situation, with the hard word from my wife and members of my family when I wanted to learn skydiving. I've completed many jumps now, all without incident. Now they even come to watch.....

Yet in the last 3 weeks, I've hit a cow and crashed on the roadbike (see a previos thread) & gone over the handlebars of my mountain bike, requiring 3 stitches in my chin.

Without any 'risk' you may as well stop in bed all day

Enjoy life and your cycling !

Dave.

It is indeed a tragedy,it never fails to amaze me the sheer number of people using mobiles whilst driving,the law is useless unless enforced.

Her poor husband and children.

I passed the scene of that accident about 5 hours afterwards and it was still cordonned off! I believe there was a child with her but that may be just passed down talk.

In fact, I was sworn at by a driver when I was correctly positioned for a right hand turn, just past where that accident happened. I tried very hard not to retalliate as I would have liked & just told the 'silly little man' to be quiet!

I think it is irrelevant whether the driver was driving a 4x4 or whatever vehicle. One cannot just say it was because it was a 4x4 the accident happened! The fact is, people are using phones constantly. I see them in my rear view mirror talking away at traffic lights, phone still jammed to their ears! Why are more people not prosecuted for doing this? What did people do before mobile phones? If mine rings whilst I am driving - well it just stays where it is. I wouldn't use a bluetooth ear-piece. In fact, I only hear it ring if I'm at home.

Fiddling with radios etc, lighting cigarettes and even eating sweets can be just as bad. Even turning around & chastising kids. I was waiting in a queue the other day and the young lady (?) behind me suddenly disappeared, re-appearing later, then kept diving down and over. What she was doing is only known to her!!

I think drivers should be re-tested every so many years, or made to take the Institute of Advanced Motorists test, which trains drivers to look at potential hazards etc.

Hi Anura,
I walked past the scene mid afternoon so we were probably there at the same time! Spooky...

You may be right that it is irrelevant that she was driving a 4x4, I wouldn't be so sure though. I sometimes drive a minibus and I certainly get a more cocooned sense of protection / isolation than when I drive my wife's Rover 25. It maybe a factor in making drivers slightly less aware of the outer vulnerability of other road users. Also the 4x4s with large bonnets obscure more of the road immediately in front.

I agree that using a mobile phone maybe no more distracting for the driver than changing a CD or remonstrating with a child. It is easier to legislate for the more obvious though. I'd hoped mobile use in vehicles had declined by now.

Geoff

Geoff - motorists mount the pavement to kill - one drove a 4WD and trailer off a railway bridge, wrecked a passenger train and a freight train, killing several passengers and the driver of the freight train. On the same logic as your wife's, freight train drivers would have to give up driving trains.

Motorists don't just kill cyclists, they kill other motorists, so again the logic would be to stop motoring.

The roads are dangerous places due to dangerous motorists, but we have to go about our daily lives anyway.

Not too long ago, a female on her mobile. driving like a bat out of hell up our lane, ran into the car of one of our neighbours just as he was turning out of his drive. He wasn't hurt, but you see, you're not safe anywhere.

OP, I don't think there's anything you can say to stop your loved ones worrying about your safety. To most people's eyes a cyclist on the road looks extremely vulnerable and fragile compared to other road users.

On the subject of 4x4 drivers, as a motorist I find them to be the most aggressive and least considerate of drivers. I'm not talking about off-roaders or rural users, I mean the large shiny ones that infest our towns and cities. The high driving position seems to literally make them look down their noses at everyone else. Not all of them of course. Just a lot.

Very sorry for this poor lady and her family

bikely-challenged wrote:OP, I don't think there's anything you can say to stop your loved ones worrying about your safety. To most people's eyes a cyclist on the road looks extremely vulnerable and fragile compared to other road users.

On the subject of 4x4 drivers, as a motorist I find them to be the most aggressive and least considerate of drivers. I'm not talking about off-roaders or rural users, I mean the large shiny ones that infest our towns and cities. The high driving position seems to literally make them look down their noses at everyone else. Not all of them of course. Just a lot.

Very sorry for this poor lady and her family

Yes, I have to say I agree with this sentiment. We're plagued round here with huge shiny 4x4s which I'm sure in the majority of cases are simply not needed. Yesterday I was waiting at lights when an enormous Mercedes of some ilk pulled up rather close. When I looked questioningly at the driver, I realised she could barely see over the steering wheel.

They might like feeling safe and invulnerable. Just a shame for the rest of us road users.

Jan

jan19 wrote:They might like feeling safe and invulnerable. Just a shame for the rest of us road users.

Jan

Don't know about this country but in the States you're more likely to be killed in a 4x4 per mile travelled than any other vehicle.

The high c of g makes them unstable and more likely to roll over (certainly seen a few over the years that have obviously rolled).

The tendency to replace ordinary cars with them and then drive them the same means accidents are more likely.

A friends husband was brain damaged after driving her 4x4 - he lost it coming off a roundabout flipped over the barrier, rolled down a hill before ending up in a pond.
Lost it because he drove it like a car and rolled over a barrier that would have stopped an normal car....

The high viewpoint often has drivers making the mistake of watching whats happening several cars ahead which means if the car directly in front brakes the 4x4 driver takes longer to notice.

I think they should be moved out of the PLG group and require an extended license to drive.

I think the main problem with moving them out of the PLG group is working out where to draw the line.

The "Chelsea Tractor" is something that we can all recognise, but is very difficult to define.

It doesn't really need to be on the fact that it's 4x4, as there are small cars with that layout (4x4 panda is about the most innocuous vehicle I can think of from the "over-protective of it's occupants" point of view).

If you go on seating capacity you end up including people carriers which large families depend on, while allowing through many of the "chelsea tractors" that are the real problem.
The same argument applies to seating height, which might have value otherwise.

Maybe some combination of seat height and drivetrain layout could be used to distinguish? but there are a few 4x4 people carriers, which don't seem to be a problem, and why should they get included?

Ground clearance may be the only way to target the off-road styled 4x4s without including others, but the makers would soon find a way around that.

And all that is without the problem of each possible classification change attracting massive counter lobbying from anyone who may be affected by it.

I'm fairly sure that if a workable definition could be found, getting it legislated on would be something that most politicians would be fairly keen on (if only so they could tax the things even more).

Saw a commercial driver yesterday morning on a mobile, map propped open on the dashboard, talking away and steering with his elbows. Unfortunately no amount of proactive road positioning from cyclists can counter such foolishness.

Phil_Lee wrote:I think the main problem with moving them out of the PLG group is working out where to draw the line.

<snip>

I agree, so rather than try anything too clever my thinking would be weight. Say 1.6 tonnes - it is after all a private LIGHT vehicle.
Nobody would stop you buying something heavier, you'd just need to do an extension to your license.
I reckon most large cars are bought on impulse, having a barrier like this would probably be enough to put most people off.
Obviously the weight limit should be brought in over time.

Cars in general are just too heavy these days - my mini weighs 1200kg - where's the sense in that? There are two seater aircraft flying around the skies as we speak that weigh 220kg - a fifth the weight.

kwackers wrote:Cars in general are just too heavy these days - my mini weighs 1200kg - where's the sense in that? There are two seater aircraft flying around the skies as we speak that weigh 220kg - a fifth the weight.

No wonder MPG hasn't improved over the years as much as should be expected. My old Saab 9000 (which is a huge car IMHO even if dwarfed my some 4x4s) weighs 1900kg.

kwackers wrote:Cars in general are just too heavy these days - my mini weighs 1200kg - where's the sense in that? There are two seater aircraft flying around the skies as we speak that weigh 220kg - a fifth the weight.

The sense in that is quite simple, but two fold. Economics of manufacture and safety regulation. Your mini would cost a few multiples of it's current price if it where to make use of modern weight saving technologies, for example composites, which would incur significant weight savings. How much does that plane cost to buy and maintain, how practical is it? However there are many complications to consider such as how to scale up the production, and dust from broken composites can cause cancer. Also the crash test regulations are constantly being upped in level with the most recent changes being to give pedestrians a more cushy landing when walking out without looking.