# Incident near Oval Tube this morning



## scouserinlondon (29 Jun 2009)

It didn't look too pretty this morning by Oval tube. There was a HGV tipper parked half way around the corner, all three emergency services and the ominous blue plastic sheeting up. I really hope it wasn't a fatality but the situation didn't look good.

Really made everybody slow down and give each other more space.


----------



## Jake (29 Jun 2009)

yes justabout to report this too, but you beat me to it. 

Went past about 09.20, lots of blue tape and emergency viechles everywhere. Lorry still there. Did not want to get too close, but lots of voyers standing around or cycling, driving close up. I stayed away as was turning right anyway. Lots of paramedics standing around and medical equipment etc all over the place. Could not say if the "injured" was a pedestrian, a cyclist or what. Hope there is some good news later.

On way back to brixton hill, motorbike mashed up, guy was ok and could not see what he hit.


----------



## Origamist (29 Jun 2009)

I loop around Kennington each morning and I heard lots of emergency vehicles at 8.30ish. I hope the person involved pulls through.


----------



## monkeyjo (29 Jun 2009)

My commute doesn't take me past there but my girlfriend was cycling past the Oval this morning at about 8ish. Apparently there was a female cyclist under a HGV. Didn't look good.

My girlfriend hasn't been commuting on her bike for too long, I think it scared her quite a bit.


----------



## ianrauk (29 Jun 2009)

If so...
is it me or are the majority of these sad cases of left hook fatalities with HGV's women?




monkeyjo said:


> Apparently there was a female cyclist under a HGV. Didn't look good.


----------



## scouserinlondon (29 Jun 2009)

monkeyjo said:


> My commute doesn't take me past there but my girlfriend was cycling past the Oval this morning at about 8ish. Apparently there was a female cyclist under a HGV. Didn't look good.
> 
> My girlfriend hasn't been commuting on her bike for too long, I think it scared her quite a bit.



It's certainly scared me and made me think. I'm always super careful around HGV and busses but just this morning I stupidly followed somebody through a gap I wouldn't normally go near, and seeing something like that really re-focuses the mind.

The HGV was half way around the corner with blue sheeting up on the passenger side so consistent with a left hook.

Hope the person survives.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jun 2009)

ianrauk said:


> If so...
> is it me or are the majority of these sad cases of left hook fatalities with HGV's women?


the great majority. And a majority of the trucks are construction traffic.


----------



## scouserinlondon (29 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> the great majority. And a majority of the trucks are construction traffic.



Construction rigids and their drivers scare me. Tipper operators are often paid per load so have a tendency to drive faster than perhaps they should and are often over weight, a dangerous combination.

Also rigid tippers are quite High, with big wheels so even more likely not to see an undertaking cyclist.


----------



## monkeyjo (29 Jun 2009)

ianrauk said:


> If so...
> is it me or are the majority of these sad cases of left hook fatalities with HGV's women?



That's what I've heard. It was something about men being more likely to get ahead of traffic at a red light.

I know they're digging up the water mains on the way to the Oval, and traffic tends to be a bit hellish. My girlfriend had a 4x4 almost knock her over the other day near the Oval - it pulled left into the bus lane rather than wait for the car in front to turn right.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jun 2009)

I've come up to the Oval with the Babe behind me, and had to be quite assertive to avoid being squeezed from the right as the lanes increase from two to three, the right hand lane becoming a right-turn lane. The 'easy' thing to do is to go to the kerb. The sensible thing to do is to stay in the traffic, even if this means that you lose the advantage of the ASL.


----------



## Origamist (29 Jun 2009)

I'm sorry to report but this is another fatality. Female cyclist. RIP

Police at the scene said they had just received information that it was a fatal collision. I hope they are wrong.


----------



## scouserinlondon (29 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> I've come up to the Oval with the Babe behind me, and had to be quite assertive to avoid being squeezed from the right as the lanes increase from two to three, the right hand lane becoming a right-turn lane. The 'easy' thing to do is to go to the kerb. The sensible thing to do is to stay in the traffic, even if this means that you lose the advantage of the ASL.



I seem to remember the road markings are a bit confusing too. I agree I actually move to the middle lane and am quite happy to queue at this junction.


----------



## scouserinlondon (29 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> I'm sorry to report but this is a fatality. Female cyclist. RIP



Oh dear, that's very sad and confirms my fears. It's the first serious RTA I've seen and I'm quite upset and I didn't actually even see it happen just the aftermath.

Very sad.


----------



## Jake (29 Jun 2009)

Oh dear, that is just awefull. very sad. another lorry another female, another corner


----------



## Sittingduck (29 Jun 2009)




----------



## magnatom (29 Jun 2009)

RIP.

Something has to change.


----------



## monkeyjo (29 Jun 2009)

That's very sad indeed.

Thanks for letting us know Origamist.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2009)

Have they released the name of the cyclist? I can't get hold of a friend of mine who cycles in that area and am a bit worried .


----------



## jemah (29 Jun 2009)

so so sad. RIP


----------



## Davywalnuts (29 Jun 2009)

Again!! Really really sad.. always hurts inside hearing such news..


----------



## Origamist (29 Jun 2009)

theclaud said:


> Have they released the name of the cyclist? I can't get hold of a friend of mine who cycles in that area and am a bit worried .




Not yet. I hope you can make contact with your friend, theclaud.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> Not yet. I hope you can make contact with your friend, theclaud.



Thanks Origamist. There are a lot of cyclists on that route, and she's quite an experienced and assertive one, so knows what not to do around HGVs, but all the same it would be nice to know she's OK...


----------



## Jake (29 Jun 2009)

not seen anything on any online news channels yet. Hope its no-one anyone knows on here.

Nearly got hit on friday - as a ped', my own fault! walked around while sms'ing into the road, did not hear anything coming and nearly sideswipped by the bike, who would have seen me being dumb. No contact and i moved out the way pretty smartish when i realised there was a bike coming. And yes i appologisd


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> Not yet. I hope you can make contact with your friend, theclaud.



Just heard she's OK. Great news for me, but always sad to think that one's good news is someone else's catastrophe.


----------



## scouserinlondon (29 Jun 2009)

Davywalnuts said:


> Again!! Really really sad.. always hurts inside hearing such news..


I think because I'm a newbie cyclist, but this has really shocked me, when I rode past the incident this morning I shuddered and I've thought about it all day.

I know that statistically you're pretty safe but I'm going to redouble my efforts around HGVs


----------



## Bigtwin (29 Jun 2009)

magnatom said:


> RIP.
> 
> Something has to change.



It won't. I commuted across London for 10 years (SW to the City) until 10 years ago, and personally saw a good 1/2 dozen of these - especially around Vauxhaul. Nothing ever changes with stuff like this.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> It won't. I commuted across London for 10 years (SW to the City) until 10 years ago, and personally saw a good 1/2 dozen of these - especially around Vauxhaul. Nothing ever changes with stuff like this.



Not necessarily true. Despite this morning's appalling incident, it looks as if things might be improving measurably, and CC's own roving reporter from Streatham Hill has been offering anecdotal evidence that the very area we are talking about is awash with cyclists, which can only be good for safely. From a recent CTC newsletter:
*Highest level of cycling for 17 years*

Just over a year ago, CTC predicted that higher fuel prices combined with the credit crunch would lead to more people swapping cars for bikes: official government figures published yesterday show that the prediction has come true, with an increase in the numbers of people cycling to the highest level for 17 years. From 2007 to 2008, cycling increased by 12%, at the same time as a substantial fall in cycling deaths, down from 136 to 115 - the second lowest level ever, along with a very small increase of 1% in serious and slight injuries.


----------



## stoatsngroats (29 Jun 2009)

scouserinlondon said:


> I'm going to redouble my efforts around HGVs


----------



## Jim_Noir (29 Jun 2009)

What a tragic loss of life


----------



## Bigtwin (29 Jun 2009)

theclaud said:


> Not necessarily true. Despite this morning's appalling incident, it looks as if things might be improving measurably, and CC's own roving reporter from Streatham Hill has been offering anecdotal evidence that the very area we are talking about is awash with cyclists, which can only be good for safely. From a recent CTC newsletter:
> *Highest level of cycling for 17 years*
> 
> Just over a year ago, CTC predicted that higher fuel prices combined with the credit crunch would lead to more people swapping cars for bikes: official government figures published yesterday show that the prediction has come true, with an increase in the numbers of people cycling to the highest level for 17 years. From 2007 to 2008, cycling increased by 12%, at the same time as a substantial fall in cycling deaths, down from 136 to 115 - the second lowest level ever, along with a very small increase of 1% in serious and slight injuries.



No doubt the number of people pottering around on cyclepaths at the weekneds has gone up. Possibly even people going to work. Nothing whatsoever has changed in London - people still get squashed at big intersections and bridges etc same as they always have.

Personally, I take what the CTC says with a lot of salt, especially when it's "anecdotal", having done some work with them. They have a drum to bang and they do, fair enough, but you can skew the stats anyway you like with this stuff. One person making two journes a year on a bike when they only make one last year is a 100% increase. Find enough of those...!

I note in another section of that report that overall cycling casualties are up 12%. 16,297 reported casualties. So funnily enough a lock-step rise with cycling increase.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> No doubt the number of people pottering around on cyclepaths at the weekneds has gone up. Possibly even people going to work. Nothing whatsoever has changed in London - people still get squashed at big intersections and bridges etc same as they always have.
> 
> Personally, I take what the CTC says with a lot of salt, especially when it's "anecdotal", having done some work with. They have a drum to bang and they do - you can skew the stats anyway you like with this stuff. One person making two journes a year on a bike when they only make one last year is a 100% increase!



The CTC stuff isn't anecdotal, and Dellzeqq's (admittedly informal)observations are about cyclists using the roads, not cycle paths. And I believe London has seen the biggest increase of all. But even if the figures are modest the correlation is there - more cyclists, fewer deaths. Which means that doom and gloom is no good for us, because it discourages the thing that makes us safer - getting more people on bikes more often. Implying that it's suicide to commute by bike is the worst thing you can do.


----------



## Bigtwin (29 Jun 2009)

theclaud said:


> it discourages the thing that makes us safer - getting more people on bikes more often. Implying that it's suicide to commute by bike is the worst thing you can do.




Ah-hem. The casualty increase rate is the same as the cycling increase rate. It doen't make anyone safer by that measure. Luckily, deaths have dropped a bit this last year - good - but so what? Chance? Fluke? Or due to real action and modified behaviour?

What that does is allow town planners and the like to say "everything's fine here - deaths are dropping".


----------



## User482 (29 Jun 2009)

theclaud said:


> The CTC stuff isn't anecdotal, and Dellzeqq's (admittedly informal)observations are about cyclists using the roads, not cycle paths. And I believe London has seen the biggest increase of all. But even if the figures are modest the correlation is there - more cyclists, fewer deaths. Which means that doom and gloom is no good for us, because it discourages the thing that makes us safer - getting more people on bikes more often. Implying that it's suicide to commute by bike is the worst thing you can do.



I can't speak for other parts of the UK, but there are quite a few formal traffic counts done in Bristol to assess the number of cycling journeys made. From what I know of them, we can be reasonably confident in their reliability.

It does seem clear that cycling is increasing, so if serious injuries/ fatalities are holding steady or even falling, this surely is grounds for cautious optimism.

Edited to add: I checked the stats for Bristol - 40% increase in cycling trips since 2003/4. That's using the same set of 43 sampling points around the city centre.


----------



## Origamist (29 Jun 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Ah-hem. The casualty increase rate is the same as the cycling increase rate. It doen't make anyone safer by that measure. Luckily, deaths have dropped a bit this last year - good - but so what? Chance? Fluke? Or due to real action and modified behaviour?



Bigtwin, you've misunderstood the stats. The 12% refers to the increase in cycle traffic (or "road traffic" in the report), not a 12% increase in cycling casualties. The figures on page 10 make this clear.

The total reported casualties among pedal cyclists increased by 1 per cent compared to 2007.


----------



## Riverman (29 Jun 2009)

That sounds nasty. Hope she pulls through.



> That's what I've heard. It was something about men being more likely to get ahead of traffic at a red light.


Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?

I don't trust HGV drivers. Even if I were slightly in front of them I think some drivers wouldn't see me, they'd speed up and turn into me especially if the lights turned green as I tried to pass them.

edit: Just noticed that she's died. RIP


----------



## Crankarm (29 Jun 2009)

My heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of this cyclist. I hope she did not suffer in her passing .

However, I fundamentally disagree with the CTC in how it is addressing cycling safety by advocating a strategy of safety in numbers. How does it DIRECTLY address the many dangerous situations cyclists face on the road? By promoting this safety in numbers campaign they are saying if they get enough people on bikes say half or every one in the country, statistically it can be said that their policy has been a success if only a small proportion of people who cycle are seriously or fatally injured. I think it is a strategy that does absolutely nothing for cycling road safety. If for example cycling numbers increase 5 fold but 1000 cyclists are seriously injured or killed every year on our roads that is ok because the numbers cycling have increased dramtically so 1000 is statistically insignificant. Absolute 80llocks. It really annoys me. Instead why don't CTC address the safety issues that we face every day lobby the Government harder and harder to try to get the law changed for cyclists to mirror the Dutch system of liability on the motorist. Why don't they lobby the Highways Agency and local authorities for segragated cycle facilities at dangerous road junctions. They could even gang up with RosPA and lobby the government for hard hitting adverts on prime time TV making drivers aware of cyclists as has similarly has been done for motorcyclists, to deter drink drivers, speeders and VED tax dodgers. I'm so pleased I'm not a member of the CTC anymore knowing that were I still a member my hard earned would be going on quite useless campaigns and strategies. In my many years of cycling in London and in the provinces I have never benefitted from anything the CTC has done. That's my 2p worth.


----------



## Bigtwin (29 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> Bigtwin, you've misunderstood the stats. The 12% refers to the increase in cycle traffic (or "road traffic" in the report), not a 12% increase in cycling casualties. The figures on page 10 make this clear.
> 
> The total reported casualties among pedal cyclists increased by 1 per cent compared to 2007.



Correct - I'm talking crap about that table. However, the London figs don't show any such drop. In the 10 years to 2003 fatalities increased increased by 25%

Fig 3: Pedal cyclist casualties by year and age (banded) in Greater london (excl. City) 
1981 to 2003 
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
3000 
19 
81 
19 
82 
19 
83 
19 
84 
19 
85 
19 
86 
19 
87 
19 
88 
19 
89 
19 
90 
19 
91 
19 
92 
19 
93 
19 
94 
19 
95 
19 
96 
19 
97 
19 
98 
19 
99 
20 
00 
20 
01 
20 
02 
20 
03 
N 
um 
b 
e 
r 
o 
f 
c 
as 
u 
a 
lt 
ie 
s 
Under 16 
16-24 
25-59 
60 + over 
Unknown 


City of London 
Data for the City of London is only 
available on the LAAU ACCSTATS 
database from 1986 onwards. Table 4 
and Figure 4 show P/C casualties in the 
City of London from 1986 to 2003. 

Overall P/C casualty numbers in the City 
are relatively low, however, the general 
trend was upward from 1987, reaching a 
peak of 91 in 1999. Numbers fell in 2000 
and then rose slightly in 2001 and 2002, 
falling again in 2003 to 64. 

In terms of progress towards the 2010 
target, a comparison of the 2003 figures 
with the 1994-98 average shows an 
overall reduction of 13% in all P/C 
casualties, but an 8% increase in KSI 
casualties.

Pedal cycle usage in Greater 
London 

In order to gain a clearer picture of the 
extent of the P/C collision problem in 
London, it is important to look at casualty 
numbers in relation to pedal cycle 
movements. 

Regular surveys of radial traffic 
movements in London are carried out 
which give useful indicators of the change 
in travel over time. These surveys 
measure 24-hour radial vehicle flows 
crossing the Greater London boundary 
and inner and central London cordons. 
Each cordon is measured every two to 
three years. 

Figure 5 shows the radial cordons, 
combined 24-hour pedal cycle 
movements between 1980 and 2003. 
P/C movements across both the 
boundary and inner cordons have 
reduced over this period (-36% and -7% 
respectively). Numbers across the 
boundary cordon have been falling quite 
steadily from a high of 16,000 in 1986 to 
a low of 9,000 in 2001. Numbers across 
the inner cordon rose steadily from a low 
of 24,000 in 1987 to 31,000 in 1999 and 
then fell to 25,000 in 2002. P/C 
movements across the central cordon 
have been on a general upward trend for 
the last ten years, reaching a high of 
65,000 in 2003. Cycle usage in this 
central area has increased by 41% 
between 1981 and 2003.


----------



## upsidedown (29 Jun 2009)

Riverman said:


> Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?
> 
> I don't trust HGV drivers. Even if I were in front of them slightly I think some wouldn't see me then speed up and turn into me.




How do you know how long the light has been red ? You can make a guess by the length of the queue, but is it worth getting caught half way when they change ?

Do yourself and the driver a favour, keep well away. 

I think it's a little unfair to say that a driver would turn in to you. I couldn't drive one of those things, and the vast majority of people that do have my utmost respect.


----------



## Arch (29 Jun 2009)

Riverman said:


> That sounds nasty. Hope she pulls through.
> 
> Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front *should I always try and get in front of it before it turns * or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?
> 
> I don't trust HGV drivers. Even if I were slightly in front of them I think some drivers wouldn't see me, they'd speed up and turn into me especially if the lights turned green as I tried to pass them.



No. In fact, the opposite to always. Never.

(unless you are absolutely sure that it's only just stopped and won't move off again until you are past, and there is plenty of room to get past, and no pedestrian railings).

It's really not worth it, for the few seconds advantage you get jumping the queue, most of which will only overtake you again anyway. I don't tend to try and get past anything longer than a LWB transit unless I've seen the lights only just change to red and I know the length of sequence (with most lights on my commute, I know the light timings pretty well).

It's not, like upsidedown says, about trusting or not trusting the driver. All vehicles have blind spots, and in some lorry blind spots you can lose a small car.


----------



## Riverman (29 Jun 2009)

It was in response to someone saying that male cyclists generally go to the front of traffic at lights so they aren't as many fatalities.

Just seemed abit too much of a generalisation. I agree, going to the front of lights when there are lorries around is dangerous.


----------



## Arch (29 Jun 2009)

Riverman said:


> It was in response to someone saying that male cyclists generally go to the front of traffic at lights so they aren't as many fatalities.
> 
> Just seemed abit too much of a generalisation. I agree, going to the front of lights when there are lorries around is dangerous.



I thought the thing about male cyclists was that some survey reckoned they were more likely to JUMP the lights, (or at least cross the line) and so be well ahead of traffic when it started off.


----------



## TimO (29 Jun 2009)

Riverman said:


> Quick question. If I'm coming up to a red light and I see a lorry or bus near the front should I always try and get in front of it before it turns or should I stay behind it and wait for it to turn?



As others have said, don't try it. Trying to guess whether you can get in front *and* be sure that the driver has seen you before (s)he starts to pull away is a mugs game, which you are sure to eventually loose, big time.

If possible, I'll avoid areas such as the main roads around Kennington, since the traffic levels are high, the roads wide, and really not generally very friendly places for cyclists.

Having said that, I did use the A3 through there for a couple of weeks when I was doing Jury Service, and you do get quite a lot of cyclists who clearly use that route a lot, and know where and how to get into the correct lanes in plenty of time. Likewise, as in a lot of London, the drivers of motorised vehicles tend to expect to see cyclists a lot more than in other parts of the country. The downside is of course that with big vehicles, such as HGVs and buses, you only need the very occasional bad driver, or slight loss of attention, and the consequences can be horrible.


----------



## Riverman (29 Jun 2009)

I apologise as I didn't mean to offend HGV drivers.

In regards to the second point, I have had this happen to me once before. It's not a case of going way infront of a lorry that he sees you and turns but actually trying to get in front of a lorry when the lights are red then getting up beside it only for the lights to quickly change.


----------



## stoatsngroats (29 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> Believe me when I say that ''we'' are most defo not out to ''get'' cyclists. I always look for them and that's coming from a drivers POV and not of one that cycles to work eveyday.



+1

As a daily driver of HGV's, (Rigid - NOT bendy ones!) I can vouch for the training which, in my case, made great noise aout cyclists on the road - it WAS drummed into me by my instructor. 

During my test, I could have failed for not looking out for a cyclist as I passed by, and for the many voices here and elsewhere who call for more testing of drivers - MOST hgv drivers will have had AT LEAST 2 tests, one for cars, one for HGVs (possibly 2 for HGVs); that's not to say that we're better drivers, just that many will be aware of cyclists. The problem is the potential blind spot - As I said in another post - *JUST DONT GO THERE!*


----------



## Tynan (29 Jun 2009)

I've notice hgv drivers getting much better with bikes these days, that many more bikes, I will go in front of them if I know the lights but I'll put myself in front and well in front to be sure to be seen


----------



## karlos_the_jackal (29 Jun 2009)

As a newbie commuter this type of thing does make you think, but with large vehicles not had any issues, but i must say riding in london does put you in a very alert mode. 
It was a bit weird on the ride back today was coming up the back of a cement mixer at a set of lights obvicyously decided not to go up as couldnt tell when lights had gone, did notice however a warning sign on the back of the mixer stating for cyclists not to go up the inside of this vehicle.


----------



## CopperBrompton (29 Jun 2009)

It really scares me how many cyclists go up the inside of trucks and buses, even when there are railings, high kerbs, etc. 

Educating truck drivers is part of the solution, but the bigger one - from what I see in London - is educating cyclists.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jun 2009)

My tactics seem to vary with big vehicles depending on the scenario.


----------



## simon_brooke (30 Jun 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> Ah-hem. The casualty increase rate is the same as the cycling increase rate. It doen't make anyone safer by that measure. Luckily, deaths have dropped a bit this last year - good - but so what? Chance? Fluke? Or due to real action and modified behaviour?
> 
> What that does is allow town planners and the like to say "everything's fine here - deaths are dropping".



In countries where there are more cyclists on the roads - Holland and Denmark, for example - casualty rates per billion cyclist kilometers are much lower. Which isn't actually surprising - if motorists are used to the idea cyclists will be around, they'll look out for them.

So I think - honestly - real modified behaviour.


----------



## summerdays (30 Jun 2009)

I would say that you should almost always stick behind a lorry waiting at lights, unless you know the light sequence well, have seen them change to red and know that there is a good deal of room to get by. 

I say that the fact that the percentage is more female is to do with them being more cautious in personality and therefore waiting over on the left hand side at a junction. If you are at the front of a queue at traffic lights (whether going left, straight on or right), you want to be in the centre of the correct lane. Actually even further back in the queue you want to be in the centre of the correct lane too.


----------



## Bigtwin (30 Jun 2009)

simon_brooke said:


> I
> 
> So I think - honestly - real modified behaviour.



Oh who's part?

There's certainly not been a jot of difference around here to driving, unless it's got worse. Cycle lanes are still a joke - going nowhere, disappearing at random, full of sunken drains etc.

Mebbe the increases are in "special areas" where particular LAs have done something cycling friendly and it's safer. Here for example, vast sections of the Downs Link have been mettled to make it easier to cycle on, instead of the old mud track. All of it off road, so you probably have more cyclist users who are relatively safe. On road however, things are still as poor as ever and probably worse, given Surrey's policy on road policing (bung some cameras up and call it job done).


----------



## Maizie (30 Jun 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Educating truck drivers is part of the solution, but the bigger one - from what I see in London - is educating cyclists.


I agree entirely! There was a piece on the news a few months back, where they were giving out prism thingys for lorry drivers to put on their left hand window, so they could see if there were any cyclists hiding down there. My husband asked why I was sputtering and I said it was obviously a good thing to help the driver see, but the way the piece was being presented it made it very much the driver's responsibility to see the cyclist, and there was no hint that perhaps a cyclist should take some responsibility for their own safety around these big vehicles.
If I have a bus/HGV/etc near me in a queue, I wait behind it, not a chance that I'll try to go past it. If possible, I position myself so I can see the driver in one of the wing mirrors - so if the driver has previously seen me, and is looking out for me, I'm easy for him/her to spot and see that I'm out of the way when it is time to move again.


----------



## magnatom (30 Jun 2009)

summerdays said:


> I would say that you should almost always stick behind a lorry waiting at lights, unless you know the light sequence well, have seen them change to red and know that there is a good deal of room to get by.



I would change that slightly to 'never'. What is the point of going past the lorry at lights? Just to save a few seconds. Not worth it in my opinion. I've seen lorries start to move before lights have changed, I've seen light sequences changed, etc.

Impatience is a killer.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

It's probably more appropriate to discuss HGVs, mirrors, cycling best practice etc on this thread:

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=36214


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

Well I was even more cautious than normal today, and on the odd occasion where I may have had a think about weaving through stationary traffic I didn't. On the roadworks section of the A3 near Kennington I rode in the middle of the lane while cyclists whizzed down the left side next to the railings and slow moving busses. The net effect of my caution. My journey to work took exactly the same amount of time.


----------



## magnatom (30 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> It's probably more appropriate to discuss HGVs, mirrors, cycling best practice etc on this thread:
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=36214




Actually I think this is a good place to discuss it. Ok we don't know the full details of this unfortunate incident, but if this discussion makes just one person think a little more carefully about how they cycle around HGVs etc then at least something positive has come of her death.


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

I'm rather surprised that this incident hasn't had any local news coverage. Surely the tragic death of a cyclist would make the evening bulletin, but it didn't seem to.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

Fatal road traffic collisions often do not make the television news - it's simply not deemed newsworthy enough. 

I suspect more details will follow in the Evening Standard, South London Press etc.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

I've been known to position myself on the nearside rear corner of a bus or HGV so I can observe the space disappearing in front and prevent other cyclists from entering it becoming a tarmac pancake, but I have been pushed aside and sworn at by other impatient cyclists to get down the inside . These arrogant and selfish cyclists I have no time for as most HGV and bus drivers are really careful and it must be a nightmare trying to drive these big vehicles in towns and cities with cycles flying every which way around them plus all the other distractions they have to contend with. I'm not ignoring the fact that a small proportion of these drivers are also headcase dangerous loons but most are just trying to drive safely. Most of these ignorant, arrogant and selfish cyclists who put themsleves in these dangerous situations I don't care about if they get splatted through their own stupidity. It is the sad consequences they cause that frightens me, the drivers of the vehicles, families and friends of the deceased who won't have some one coming home and any witnesses who happen to see such a distressing scene. So I try to prevent these situations arising in the first place with limited success. There is no indication that the instant cyclist was one of the ones I describe now, but what is clear all drivers need more cyclist awareness training and many cyclists need training in how to negotiate and not to pass large road vehicles in close proximity. Cyclists I believe have to start taking responsibilty for their own safety and actions . It must be devastating for a commercial driver to run over anyone let alone a cyclist. I believe 98% of them have no intention of doing so. Many cyclists need to think a lot smarter from what I have seen. One is a long time dead.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jun 2009)

^^This should be in soapbox^^


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Jun 2009)

What makes the news is often rather random. The same event can be front-page news or a footnote, depending on what else is going on, what the editor is interested in at the time, etc.


----------



## summerdays (30 Jun 2009)

magnatom said:


> I would change that slightly to 'never'. What is the point of going past the lorry at lights? Just to save a few seconds. Not worth it in my opinion. I've seen lorries start to move before lights have changed, I've seen light sequences changed, etc.
> 
> Impatience is a killer.



I couldn't write never as I know I sometimes do go to the front past lorries waiting - especially at the nearest set of lights to my house that I know really well. I know how to tell when they are going to change - they are linked to the next set up which I can see from 100 meters back in the queue - and if you watch the green pedestrian phase turn to red then I know that the lights I'm at will change in about 20 seconds after that. Plus I filter on the right. The reason for filtering forward - well then I don't have to wait for 2 light sequences to get out of the side road. Though I note that as of last month that the sequence has been changed to give a longer phase to the side road.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jun 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> It really scares me how many cyclists go up the inside of trucks and buses, even when there are railings, high kerbs, etc.
> 
> Educating truck drivers is part of the solution, but the bigger one - from what I see in London - is educating cyclists.


I'm forced, however reluctantly, to agree. And my strong impression is that women are more likely to go on the left side than men. And there have been times when I've heard one coming up left of me, intent on going on the left side of the truck ahead of me, and I've turned round and said 'please don't do that - it's the most dangerous thing you can do on a bike'. Which, in London at any rate, it is. 

My surmise, and it really is no more than that, is that less athletic cyclists - and a high proportion of London's women cyclists fall within this category - look for the advantage of being at the front at traffic lights, and don't have the confidence to stick in the centre of the lane.

Let's not lose sight of the really startling thing, though. Construction traffic is the big killer - and that is because people who drive tipper lorries and skip lorries and the like are, _by and large,_ poor drivers. That the HSE is not interested in the deaths caused by construction traffic, while they maunder on about every little concern on building sites (without any discernible effect) is pathetic.


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> My surmise, and it really is no more than that, is that less athletic cyclists - and a high proportion of London's women cyclists fall within this category - look for the advantage of being at the front at traffic lights, and don't have the confidence to stick in the centre of the lane.



I think that many in-experienced london cyclists (of which I am one), think that the 'safety' afforded by being in the cycle box at the front of the junction makes Kamikaze filtering okay, I so many people hurtling down the left of the traffic on the approach to lights. Admittedly I'll filter through slow moving traffic but it's at a very slow pace. I tend to prefer overtaking on the outside too, although I give HGV and busses a bloody wide berth.


----------



## MacB (30 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Let's not lose sight of the really startling thing, though. Construction traffic is the big killer - and that is because people who drive tipper lorries and skip lorries and the like are, _by and large,_ poor drivers. That the HSE is not interested in the deaths caused by construction traffic, while they maunder on about every little concern on building sites (without any discernible effect) is pathetic.



Good point, my only incidents have been related to vehicles from this arena. I know some cyclists foolishly go up the inside but, when I was clipped by a dumper lorry, it was due to a close overtake. Having ridden the stretch of road many times since, it is now an even more unbelievable manouver. Most cars will not attempt an overtake at the point this lorry did.


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Jun 2009)

Yes, skip lorries are the worst in my experience too.

If it's really the case that HSE lose all interest in construction traffic once it leaves the building-site, that needs to be fixed. For example, practices like paying drivers per completed run rather than per hour are bound to encourage stupid overtakes.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jun 2009)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Yes, skip lorries are the worst in my experience too.
> 
> If it's really the case that HSE lose all interest in construction traffic once it leaves the building-site, that needs to be fixed. For example, practices like paying drivers per completed run rather than per hour are bound to encourage stupid overtakes.


It's all fixable, but the HSE doesn't want to know, and main contractors don't want to know because the HSE doesn't want to know, and designers, who do the drawings that call for the transport of spoil really don't want to know, and even CML, who wrote the transport plan for the Olympics really didn't want to know, despite being pressed by yrs truly and Tom Bogdanovich of the LCC.

Cue letter to Sadiq Khan....


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

Isn't the location of the accident yesterday on the proposed 'superhighway' route. I think that both the Oval and Stockwell junctions are pretty lairy places.

My approach at Stockwell is to get into right hand lane on the stretch leading up to the tube station and then either safely filter forward or sit in primary for the short burst up to the A3 right fork. At Kennington I tend to just sit tight in the lane of traffic.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jun 2009)

scouserinlondon said:


> Isn't the location of the accident yesterday on the proposed 'superhighway' route. I think that both the Oval and Stockwell junctions are pretty lairy places.


yes



scouserinlondon said:


> My approach at Stockwell is to get into right hand lane on the stretch leading up to the tube station and then either safely filter forward or sit in primary for the short burst up to the A3 right fork. At Kennington I tend to just sit tight in the lane of traffic.


interesting. If I'm on my own I can do what I want, but if I'm escorting the Babe then we cross the lights at Stockwell in the second lane with me riding facing back, signalling right, and giving the following vehicle the dellzeqq stare from which few recover. At Kennington the trick is to stay in the centre of the nearside lane as the lane slants left - this involves rapping the side of a car with my knuckles if it starts to squeeze in from the right. We head for Kennington Road, not the Elephant, and I accept that heading for the Elephant is altogether more demanding.

Coming south down Kennington Road and turning right for Clapham Road we used to stay in the left lane until after the right turn and then attempt to go two lanes to the right, me signalling, looking back, staring and so on. There have been times when we've thought better of it and ended up in Brixton! Now we go in the right hand lane at the right turn and I go behind the Babe (always a pleasure) giving it large to the vehicle behind - and, thus far, it's worked. But it's no fun.


----------



## MacB (30 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> But it's no fun.



that sums up my riding in London experience pretty well. I get home from my commute and feel pretty good, if a little tired. Cycle across London and I'm wound up like a spring. I'm sure this eases with experience but can't ever imagine it being a relaxing event.


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Jun 2009)

I don't know that it's ever relaxing, but I enjoy 95% of cycling in London. The Elephant & Castle and Marble Arch would be definite exceptions, though.


----------



## trsleigh (30 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Let's not lose sight of the really startling thing, though. Construction traffic is the big killer - and that is because people who drive tipper lorries and skip lorries and the like are, _by and large,_ poor drivers. That the HSE is not interested in the deaths caused by construction traffic, while they maunder on about every little concern on building sites (without any discernible effect) is pathetic.



Too right, a few years ago when there was some building work going on just off Constitution Hill, near Hyde Park Corner. I was coming left off Hyde Park Corner into Constitution Hill, probably at least 20mph, a wide two lane road, plenty of room when I was overtaken by a large tipper lorry indicating left in the right hand lane. I assumed he had not yet cancelled his indicator when holy crap, he turned left right in front of me. Another metre or so and that would have been it.


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> yes
> 
> We head for Kennington Road, not the Elephant, and I accept that heading for the Elephant is altogether more demanding.
> 
> Coming south down Kennington Road and turning right for Clapham Road we used to stay in the left lane until after the right turn and then attempt to go two lanes to the right, me signalling, looking back, staring and so on. There have been times when we've thought better of it and ended up in Brixton! Now we go in the right hand lane at the right turn and I go behind the Babe (always a pleasure) giving it large to the vehicle behind - and, thus far, it's worked. But it's no fun.



Yeah, northbound I go onto the A23 and head for Waterloo, Idon't ever want to negotiate the elephant.

On the way home I'm the same, get across to the right down Kennington road and move over towards the lights. LIke you I ended up getting squeezed down the A23 a couple of times, Brixton is NEVER fun.


----------



## Two mile commute (30 Jun 2009)

Details here.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jun 2009)

I confess I love cycling in London on my own. I find escorting the Babe taxing and joyful at one and the same time. 

Taxing because she is not a strong cyclist, and my perception is that strong cyclists are at less risk than weaker cyclists. I may be wrong in this. 

(Joyful because she is the love of my life, and any endeavour we share is a delight.)


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jun 2009)

Two mile commute said:


> Details here.


desperately sad


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

Two mile commute said:


> Details here.



From the position of her bike it looks like she didn't stand a chance.

Terrible tragedy.


----------



## shunter (30 Jun 2009)

I wonder how much of an issue is it that young inexperienced cyclists imitate the actions of perceived 'experienced' cyclists or the the actions wrongly taken by the majority of cyclists without trying to read the roads themselves. In effect take terrible risks by the imitation of other cyclists.

How many winter 'spin' cyclists are now taking the opportunity to enjoy real cycling on the roads in the good weather without any idea that the roadcraft for two wheeled vehicles is much different than for cars, if they drive one?

I would suggest that assertive cycling within the bounds of good roadcraft keeps you a lot safer than an over cautious and hesitant approach. There is no doubt that car drivers with poor driving skills are protected from their own stupidity by the imposing factor of their car - put them on two wheels however then they become an accident waiting to happen. 

How do you teach inexperienced cyclists in London the survival skills that long term commute cyclists have - more training, group training through commuter traffic with instructors and radio earpieces much like motorcycle training. If not then you will just have to segregate the traffic completely from the cyclist.


----------



## magnatom (30 Jun 2009)

Looks like there is a cycle lane there encouraging the cyclist to cycle close to the barrier. Obviously we don't know the circumstances, but I wouldn't be surprised if the lane was contributory, i.e. encouraged the cyclist to be in the most dangerous place on the road. 

I honestly think that councils should be held responsible if poorly designed cycle lanes were found contributory in cases like this. Big payouts might make lane designers take notice.


----------



## upsidedown (30 Jun 2009)

Two mile commute said:


> Details here.



To my untrained eye that lorry doesn't look to be as long as the big articulated jobs ? Do these come under the same rules as the huge ones for licence purposes ?


----------



## karlos_the_jackal (30 Jun 2009)

Looking at the pictures are very disturbing. From the equipment you can see clipless shoes, so would presume (not entirely correctly) she was quite an experienced rider. 

Shocking that its the 6th one this year


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

upsidedown said:


> To my untrained eye that lorry doesn't look to be as long as the big articulated jobs ? Do these come under the same rules as the huge ones for licence purposes ?


Yeah, although it's a tipper you'd need a full HGV1 to operate it thought it's been a while since I worked in the transport industry.

Tippers are really high vehicles with loads of blind spots down the left hand side.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

scouserinlondon said:


> Isn't the location of the accident yesterday on the proposed 'superhighway' route. I think that both the Oval and Stockwell junctions are pretty lairy places.
> 
> My approach at Stockwell is to get into right hand lane on the stretch leading up to the tube station and then either safely filter forward or sit in primary for the short burst up to the A3 right fork. At Kennington I tend to just sit tight in the lane of traffic.



The A202/A3 junction at Oval tube is problematic for cyclists. 2 lanes merge into 3 narrow lanes. The inside lane is straight ahead and left turn, the middle lane is straight ahead, and the offside lane is right turn only. There is an ASL reservoir there, but no feeder lane due to the narrowness of the three lanes. The traffic light controlled junction is adjacent to Oval tube (so lots of pedestrians). Oval tube has guard railings on the left with Harleyford St. The junction itself is a box junction. 

I go straight on at Oval tube and it's a problem (not so bad if the next set of lights, where the A23 joins are red) but as the road is straight for a good distance, drivers often put their foot down. I usually use the ASL (filtering via the offside lane) at Oval and sit in the reservoir in the centre of the middle lane. I keep this position (the lane markings disappear for a stretch after the A23 joins), and go at a fair lick until the next junction with Kennington Road. This keeps most vehicles from attempting stupid overtakes as it is a couple of feet to the right of the next long feeder lane. The real problem (apart from speed) is vehicles who are unsure whether they should go straight ahead (A3) or left into Kennington Rd (A23) - multi lane mayhem can often ensue. 

As this stretch is earmarked for a Super-Highway coat of paint, let's see what they do with this junction to make it more cycle-friendly.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Jun 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> I confess I love cycling in London on my own. I find escorting the Babe taxing and joyful at one and the same time.
> 
> Taxing because she is not a strong cyclist, and my perception is that strong cyclists are at less risk than weaker cyclists. I may be wrong in this.
> 
> (Joyful because she is the love of my life, and any endeavour we share is a delight.)



Totally agree with this (though I've never knowingly cycled with the one you call 'the Babe').
Albeit 25 years ago I was a Morden to Elephant and Castle regular so am familiar with the landmarks and location of this dreadful incident. I last did the route last year and wrote about it here and it was magical, I love London cycling and have made a pledge to do it as often as my trips to the MIL's allow. It has an excitement all of it's own, maybe it's the danger, maybe a heady mix of sites, smells and sounds, or a landscape that changes every few hundred metres, a road where 2 wheels really can be king. dellzeqq, you're a lucky man (but I think you know that).

On the subject of family and London, my Bro' in law is a very upright and decent fellow, his brother however drives... a tipper truck and is the worst form of knuckle-dragging low-life, gives not one shoot about other road users, and it seems his colleagues are no different. Their attitude is, that with their trucks they can do what they like, they're untouchable, only time matters.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

upsidedown said:


> To my untrained eye that lorry doesn't look to be as long as the big articulated jobs ? Do these come under the same rules as the huge ones for licence purposes ?



It was an 8 wheel tipper (Thames Materials Ltd) and it was laden with what looked like earth/debris.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

magnatom said:


> *Looks like there is a cycle lane there encouraging the cyclist to cycle close to the barrier*. Obviously we don't know the circumstances, but I wouldn't be surprised if the lane was contributory, i.e. encouraged the cyclist to be in the most dangerous place on the road.



There is not a feeder at A202/A3 junction - in the photos that is the feeder to the pedestrian crossing in Harleyford St.


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> It was an 8 wheel tipper (Thames Materials Ltd) and it was laden with what looked like earth/debris.



Yep, and the double front Axle gives it a tighter turning circle, it would have possible come in on her from quite a tight angle.


----------



## magnatom (30 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> There is not a feeder at A202/A3 junction - in the photos that is the feeder to the pedestrian crossing in Harleyford St.




Behind the woman with the Hi viz on, you can just make out a bike symbol. To me that looks like a bike lane, right at the edge next to the barrier. Of course I could be wrong.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

magnatom said:


> Behind the woman with the Hi viz on, you can just make out a bike symbol. To me that looks like a bike lane, right at the edge next to the barrier. Of course I could be wrong.



Yes, it's a feeder lane on Harleyford St. that leads to a ped crossing. The photo shows only where the vehicle came to rest. The A202/A3 junction on the approach from Clapham Rd does not have a feeder lane, only an ASL reservoir.


----------



## garrilla (30 Jun 2009)

Its gruesome and disturbing. The bike is pretty far under the vehicle which itself is away from the kerb. It simply leaves me cold thinking about it.


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

garrilla said:


> Its gruesome and disturbing. The bike is pretty far under the vehicle which itself is away from the kerb. It simply leaves me cold thinking about it.



Me too, it's the first fatal RTA I've ever witnessed the aftermath of and it's really knocked my confidence.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

scouserinlondon said:


> Me too, it's the first fatal RTA I've ever witnessed the aftermath of and it's really knocked my confidence.



If you want someone to ride with you for a few miles, let me know. I come in from Streatham Park.


----------



## RRCC (30 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> Yes, it's a feeder lane on Harleyford St. that leads to a ped crossing. The photo shows only where the vehicle came to rest. The A202/A3 junction on the approach from Clapham Rd does not have a feeder lane, only an ASL reservoir.



Photo from Google maps


----------



## scouserinlondon (30 Jun 2009)

Origamist said:


> If you want someone to ride with you for a few miles, let me know. I come in from Streatham Park.


Cheers mate. It's been a very sobering reminder of not taking silly risks. I'd noticed myself doing the commuter lemming trick a couple of times and just following the crowd.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

RRCC said:


> Photo from Google maps



Thanks, I could not be bothered to Gmap it.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

Truly shocking pics. I have turned cold and have goose bumps and it is 28.4C. I sincerely hope she did not suffer but this sadly looks like it was not the case. What an awful death.

As it happened in rush hour hopefully there will have been witlesses who saw it and will come forward, plus CCTV. The driver was arrested at the scene according to the article charged with causing death by dangerous driving which is good. The lorry looks like it has just rounded the bend behind. Both it and the cyclist must have been travelling in the same direction, obviously there are facts and evidence yet to be discovered but initially to me it looks like the driver of the lorry has just driven right over the cyclist from her rear right quarter as the front wheels are quite sharply turned onto the bike. I bet he was going too fast around the bend had got to close and drove over her intentionally, it happens, (It nearly did to me last year as the driver had seen me and just wanted to run me off the road) or she had a problem - ped crossing causing her to brake, or a controlled ped crossing showing a red light or something caused her to slow or stop suddenly and the driver just drove straight over her. Shocking, absolutely shocking . It's not as if the vehicle has made contact knocked her off and veered away it has driven right over her, I suspect he only stopped as people on the pavement shouted at him he was curshing a cyclist . Surely the cyclist was close to the cab when he turned and you look to where you are going when you turn? Surely he would have heard/seen something. I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Maybe he was using a mobile whilst driving . Pure speculation but something has to explain why the bike is so far under the truck. Hopefully the police and HSE will invetigate fully.

I agree of HGV tipper drivers - that they are the worst as more often than not they are driven by ignorant knuckle draggers who would sooner run you off the road than pull out or slow to give you space and time. As I say one tried to do just this to me last year. But I shouted back at him as he was about 2 feet behind my wheel gesticulating down at me to get out the way. He then forced me off the road onto the verge, then got dwon from his cab to try assault me. When he realised he was going to get his head smashed with my D-lock he backed off, got back in his truck, drove off and waited up the road Duel style then had another pop at me after I had cycled by. Had I not jumped with bike off the road into a 4 ft deep drainage ditch I would have been very dead. He was knuckle dragging thug driving a huge KERRY PLANT HIRE aggregates truck, green and white cabs, whose yard is at Pondersbridge, near Peterborough, Cambs. Beware if you see them the drivers are total psychopathic maniacs.

I am so sorry for this cyclist and her family and friends. She looked like she was a "proper cyclist" there being a road shoe with cleats in the first pic and she was wearing a decent .....helmet which is lying forlonly under the middle of the lorry in one of the pics and no doubt she was wearing hi viz as well.

I think the partial cycle lane to the right might not be relevant as it is too far from the point of impact. Maybe the cyclist wasn't in it? Hopefully there will be good CCTV.

Didn't like the comment atributed to some numptee commuter at Oval station that you didn't want to see this sort of thing on your way to work. What! So it is ok to see it any other time ?


----------



## stoatsngroats (30 Jun 2009)

It's a sickening sight....

Without casting blame at anyone here, or elsewhere, can I ask, just what is the point of trying to sit next to the first vehicle in a queue? I don't understand this.....


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

stoatsngroats said:


> It's a sickening sight....
> 
> Without casting blame at anyone here, or elsewhere, can I ask, just what is the point of trying to sit next to the first vehicle in a queue? I don't understand this.....



I don't know, but I think we'll find that this was not the case here as for my reasons above.

I sit just in front of the first vehicle where ever safe to do so and look back several times at the vehicle, the driver and the number plate. If when I clip in they are too close or I think they are going to cut me up I put my right arm out with palm up to them in a stop motion, look at them and put a few wobbles in for good measure. This works without fail. Most car drivers perversely don't want the hassle of their cars being scratched/damaged if they get too close to you. With trucks I don't know where you begin as they aren't going to incur any damage colliding with a cyclist. Just give them all a wide berth and be mega assertive.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> .



I don't appreiate you dissecting my post or could it be because you ARE a truck driver and have previously insulted me in another post fancying a pop at me again?


----------



## magnatom (30 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I don't appreiate you dissecting my post or could it be because you ARE a truck driver and have previously insulted me in another post fancying a pop at me again?




Mate, to be fair I think lee let you off kinda lightly with his dissection. Your suggestion that the driver intentionally drove over the cyclist


> I bet he was going too fast around the bend had got to close and drove over her intentionally



Is quite a shocking thing to suggest considering how soon after the incident this is, and how little information we actually have. I think you need to take a step back from this as you are getting a little too emotional, IMO.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2009)

As family members of the deceased or the driver might read this thread, Cycle Chat Crime Scene Investigator types would be better advised to stop the pointless speculation.


----------



## summerdays (30 Jun 2009)

If/when this goes to court would someone locally remember to give a report back on here please or a link to a newspaper report as to what the official findings are. Thank you.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> Give it a rest and calm down before you start frothing at the mouth.
> 
> I am more then entitled to dissect any post that I see fit to dissect, especially as driving is my field of expertise and the points I have raised are all valid.



Maybe, but you DO have form .

Driving is your field of expertise......... So what level of expertise have you attained another than a license that entitles you to drive the vehicle you do? You do have an HGV 1, 2 or 3 or PSV license don't you or are you just driving 7.5tonne lorries and 3.5 tonne vans on a car license? You haven't raised any points you've merely criticised me. In fact recollecting your posts in general that's all you seem to do - criticise and when you are pulled up by some one you throw your toys out the pram and start insulting posters.

The police wouldn't have charged this driver with causing death *by dangerous driving* if they did not think the conduct of the driver was seriously wanting or his driving did not fall far below the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. Lets hope they get the conviction and a decent sentence is passed.

RIP the cyclist.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> We would although this depends on your position at the lights. 'Tis also a good case of actually 'jumping'' the lights and going a couple of yards ahead of the stop line, turning around and making eye contact with the driver.
> 
> As for your second point I find this highly unlikely albeit impossible. What you are talking about is using the vehicle as a weapon and considering that you can have between 8 and 11.5 tonnes resting on each axle on a fully laden HGV any impact that said HGV makes with you is likely to do you serious harm.
> 
> Believe me when I say that ''we'' are most defo not out to ''get'' cyclists. I always look for them and that's coming from a drivers POV and not of one that cycles to work eveyday.



Above is your earlier contribution to this thread replying to Riverman's post from page 5. Unsurprisingly it has a clear truck driving slant defending truck drivers with an ever so slight hint of confrontation disagreeing with Riverman, not very sensitive given that the thread concerns a cyclist who has just been crushed to death by a truck.

Also I note you are the only one who has not passed a comment of some form of condolence or how shocking the loss of this cyclists life is or that another cyclist has died. Strange that don't you think?


----------



## amnezia (30 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Maybe, but you DO have form .
> 
> Driving is your field of expertise......... So what level of expertise have you attained another than a license that entitles you to drive the vehicle you do? You do have an HGV 1, 2 or 3 or PSV license don't you or are you just driving 7.5tonne lorries and 3.5 tonne vans on a car license? You haven't raised any points you've merely criticised me. In fact recollecting your posts in general that's all you seem to do - criticise and when you are pulled up by some one you throw your toys out the pram and start insulting posters.
> 
> ...



No where does it say that the driver has been charged with dangerous driving. I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions without knowing any of the facts. Also, your suggestion that driver ran over the cyclist deliberately is not only moronic it could also be considered libellous. 

Its a terrible thing to happen to a fellow cyclist but there's no need to go around making unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

amnezia said:


> No where does it say that the driver has been charged with dangerous driving. I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions without knowing any of the facts. Also, your suggestion that driver ran over the cyclist deliberately is not only moronic it could also be considered libellous.
> 
> Its a terrible thing to happen to a fellow cyclist but there's no need to go around making unsubstantiated claims.



Well you obviously haven't read the article properly. Go forth and read . Whose the moron?

The charge of causing death by danagerous driving has yet to be proved so is itself "unsubstantiated" although as I say the police would not have arrested and charged the truck driver with the instant offence if they didn't think they could realistically get a conviction.


----------



## amnezia (30 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Well you obviously haven't read the article properly. Go forth and read . Whose the moron?
> 
> The charge of causing death by danagerous driving has yet to be proved so is itself "unsubstantiated" although as I say the police would not have arrested and charged the truck driver with the instant offence if they didn't think they could realistically get a conviction.



from the article



> A Scotland Yard spokesman said the driver was arrested at the scene on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.



Being arrested is not the same as being charged


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Jun 2009)

Crankarm, I really think you need to withdraw the absurd statement you made that you think the driver did this deliberately!

A friend is a police crash investigator, and it is absolutely routine in these cases to charge the driver with the most serious offence possible. If the police do not do so, and the investigation takes a long time, it can prove impossible to prosecute later if no charge has been paid. Thus they charge first, investigate later. This in no way implies that the driver is guilty of anything at all.

Similarly, speculation that the cyclist was at fault by cycling up the inside of the lorry is also unjustified. We simply don't yet know what happened.

Ben


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> Maybe, but you DO have form . *Only in your eyes*
> 
> Driving is your field of expertise......... So what level of expertise have you attained another than a license that entitles you to drive the vehicle you do? You do have an HGV 1, 2 or 3 or PSV license don't you or are you just driving 7.5tonne lorries and 3.5 tonne vans on a car license? You haven't raised any points you've merely criticised me. In fact recollecting your posts in general that's all you seem to do - criticise and when you are pulled up by some one you throw your toys out the pram and start insulting posters. *I'm licensed to drive/ride any vehicle on the public highway apart from a bus or mini-bus (A,B,B1,C,CE,C1,C1E,) also hold a full ADR apart from Class 1 & 7 and many moons ago drove a petrol tanker for BP. I didn't criticise at all, merely pointed out that some of the points you raised were mere speculation. Granted you did say this but at the same time speculating that the driver drove over the women intentionally is a touch much IMO. *
> 
> The police wouldn't have charged this driver with causing death *by dangerous driving* if they did not think the conduct of the driver seriously wanting or his driving did not fall far below the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. Lets hope they get the conviction and a decent sentence is passed. *Agreed, (If he has been charged) but I still think that saying this, that and the other on a cycling forum of what could have happened is tad out of order. Not throwing my toys out of my pram at all.*



No, you DO have form. It is not the right moment or thread to remind everyone of your form.

...and commenting on situations and scenarios is out of order. Well if as I read your comment correctly it were banned prevented which I assume is what your are inferring then 97% of comment on this forum would disappear. You have never made speculative comments, remarks or insults?


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> I try to back up what I say with reason and experience and would never speculate when I'm completely ignorant and certainly not about a women cyclist who was killed and if the driver intentionally run them over.



You still haven't made any condolences to the deceased cyclist. Given this is a cycling forum I find that quite shocking. Pretty much everyone else has. Are you just trying to be argumentative? You are now suggesting I am ignorant. Previously on another thread you have thrown a tanturm and called me an idiot. Hardly the most pleasant contributor here.

I try to use facts and evidence that's why I have studied the pics. There is obviously alot more evidence that is not available, but from the postion that the truck came to rest, the cycle beneath it and other things around shown in the pics I surmise that it would be difficult for the driver not to have noticed her had he been paying sufficient attention. Given that he has almost completed the turn as opposed to commencing it or is in the middle of it or if they were both along side each other starting off the final positioning may well have been different. I contend that he must have seen her which makes me think that there is more to this incident than intially meets the eye and given my experience with these specific types of vehicles and drivers _may_ have been intentional.

Here is another lady cyclist who was tragically killed last week when in collision with a truck in Southampton Row, Holborn. Not sure if it featured here.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ion+is+the+second+victim+in+a+week/article.do


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> I can't be arsed with you Crankarm you really are an idiot, welcome to the ignore list.



I am blessed .


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> I can't be arsed with you Crankarm you really are an idiot, welcome to the ignore list.


Good move. Frankly crankarm, in the context of this thread, you're being a knob.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Jul 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> Good move. Frankly crankarm, in the context of this thread, you're being a knob.



FF I had considered you one of the more sensible contributors on these forums never one to jump on a passing nasty bandwagon to make a cheap low comment. However in the context of this thread consider my view of you reversed.


----------



## Riverman (1 Jul 2009)

The lorry driver must be very disturbed after that, it will haunt him for the rest of his life. He should receive counseling, as should those who witnessed it.

We are fortunate that we know these risks. This government should do a lot more to educate people about the risks of cycling near lorries etc. I have never heard a politician even mention this.

This has irked me abit tbh. I had abit of a near miss today. There was some sort of blockage (maybe roadworks, can't remember) on the left lane of a three laned junction. I was moving toward middle as I wanted to go straight ahead. The middle lights were green so I sped along into the middle lane and passing the blocked left lane.

The left lane was only blocked in the middle, so cars were able to drive round the blockage and turn to the left. Unfortunately the middle lights went red so I had to stop. Because I thought the lane was blocked I didn't realise that a car had driven round the blockage and was about to pass me. 

I put my foot down over the line seperating the two lanes and the car almost ran over it. Normally the best thing to do would be to hog the middle of the left lane whilst indicating so the cars can't get past but a combination of lights and blockage didn't allow this.


----------



## summerdays (1 Jul 2009)

Riverman said:


> We are fortunate that we know these risks. This government should do a lot more to educate people about the risks of cycling near lorries etc. I have never heard a politician even mention this.



When I returned to cycling as an adult I didn't know that risk but luckily I happened to stumble across the old CC site, and it was one of the most important things I learnt from there. But loads of cyclists don't read forums so there needs to be another way to get the idea across.


----------



## Bigtwin (1 Jul 2009)

Crankarm said:


> You still haven't made any condolences to the deceased cyclist.




That _would_ seem to be a bit of a waste of time.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Jul 2009)

Bigtwin said:


> That _would_ seem to be a bit of a waste of time.



Why? 

Maybe just a plain lack of respect IMHO. Sadly indicative of the aggressive interactions we see on the road and a number of posts that appear on here .


----------



## magnatom (1 Jul 2009)

Guys, can we leave it here. I think we've lost sight of what this thread is all about. If anyone has any petty arguments can we take them either to PM or to Politics.


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2009)

magnatom said:


> Guys, can we leave it here. I think we've lost sight of what this thread is all about. If anyone has any petty arguments can we take them either to PM or to Politics.



I said the same thing 7 pages ago and pointed out a thread that had a HGV safety video that could have been discussed in detail. More importantly, the message would have reached a far wider audience and could have been a springboard for more constructive debate. (Look at the amount of times this thread has been read compared to the thread in Campaigning.)

The shitty trajectory of this thread is as predictable as it is sad.


----------



## magnatom (1 Jul 2009)

Origamist said:


> I said the same thing 7 pages ago and pointed out a thread that had a HGV safety video that could have been discussed in detail. More importantly, the message would have reached a far wider audience and could have been a springboard for more constructive debate. (Look at the amount of times this thread has been read compared to the thread in Campaigning.)
> 
> The shitty trajectory of this thread is as predictable as it is sad.




Well, I've just started another thread in the hope of making something positive out of this...


----------



## theclaud (1 Jul 2009)

Horrible, chilling pictures. Desperately sad. I'm very glad I didn't see them before I found out my friend was OK - right age and similar bike and helmet. I'd have been a mess.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Jul 2009)

More comment and a post from the driver's partner on:

http://www.londonfgss.com/thread24674-3.html

The deceased cyclist's name was Catriona. She and husband were planning to do a stage of the Le Tour next month. So sad.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Jul 2009)

Im thinking here it must be bloody awful at times to be a HGV driver esp if you have so many blind spots and you don't know whats going on.I have a bit of respect for busesas well although sometimes they can be a bit of a pain.Driving a bus in London is not my idea of fun let alone a lorry.


----------



## scouserinlondon (1 Jul 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Im thinking here it must be bloody awful at times to be a HGV driver esp if you have so many blind spots and you don't know whats going on.I have a bit of respect for busesas well although sometimes they can be a bit of a pain.Driving a bus in London is not my idea of fun let alone a lorry.



I used to work for a trucking magazine and drivers to have a hard and very dangerous job. They have a tendency to also feel quite marginalised too.

Accidents will always happen and I think that many many cyclists, myself included, are not adequately trained to safely ride alongside such big vehicles.

The amount of cyclists I see taking crazy risks and making unpredictable moves is staggering.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Jul 2009)

*Accidents will always happen and I think that many many cyclists, myself included, are not adequately trained to safely ride alongside such big vehicles.*

Perhaps if we are all sensible with big vehicles it will cut the odds,no?

*The amount of cyclists I see taking crazy risks and making unpredictable moves is staggering.*

Aye but that's not my worry.I don't mean that in a bad way but it seems in this country it's a free for all esp in London so if they want to RLJ or whatever I let them get on with it.It's not my job to stop them.


----------



## tdr1nka (1 Jul 2009)

There are a great many sad and emotive deaths in the world everyday, obviously as cyclists we do feel a level of kinship with the deceased, their friends and families but why should this effect us more so than a child that dies from neglect through no fault of it's own?

The singling out of one event, to make an example of, and then slingin sh*te does nothing to lessen the risks or promote safety/awareness overall.

When ever I hear of a death where the cyclist was on the left of a turning vehicle I have to ask with heavy heart, why were they cycling there in the first place?


----------



## Origamist (1 Jul 2009)

theclaud said:


> Horrible, chilling pictures. Desperately sad. I'm very glad I didn't see them before I found out my friend was OK - right age and similar bike and helmet. I'd have been a mess.




When I visited the site a couple of hours after the collision, everything was in situ as in the photographs. It was a compelling and harrowing scene - all I could focus on were the inanimate bits of cycling kit, a mangled bike and the large wheels of the tipper lorry. Although the police were carrying out their investigations and bystanders were congregating outside Oval tube station, there was an eerie stillness that was horribly at odds with what had taken place a few hours earlier. Later in the afternoon the road was reopened and there was no indication that a life had been lost.


----------



## scouserinlondon (1 Jul 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *Accidents will always happen and I think that many many cyclists, myself included, are not adequately trained to safely ride alongside such big vehicles.*
> 
> Perhaps if we are all sensible with big vehicles it will cut the odds,no?
> 
> ...



I think that the Indian phrase 'might is right' is certainly applicable to HGV's vs push bike.

I agree on your second point, the problem I suppose is that loads of dickheads RLJ'ing all over the place only serves to raise the tension between cyclists and motorists.


----------



## CotterPin (1 Jul 2009)

The images are certainly distressing, as is the entire incident. What gets me is the helmet and the hi-viz (think it might have been a cover for her rucksack) lying on the ground. It recalls a comment made by a relative of one of the other cyclists killed in London that she was a careful cyclist and always wore a helmet.

This is not to turn this into a helmet debate (it has already gone off on a number of other tangents) but just to comment that the message cyclists can be protected by personal protective equipment such as helmets and hi viz seems to be fairly well embedded (rightly or wrongly - and as I said, this is not a helmet debate). How on earth do we get the message about road positioning equally (or more) embedded?


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Jul 2009)

Crankarm said:


> FF I had considered you one of the more sensible contributors on these forums never one to jump on a passing nasty bandwagon to make a cheap low comment. However in the context of this thread consider my view of you reversed.


I'll take that as a compliment then...


----------



## Crankarm (1 Jul 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'll take that as a compliment then...



I'll throw you a few more sometime then .


----------



## Origamist (2 Jul 2009)

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelo...lorry-at-oval-tube-named-as-catriona-cockburn


----------



## MacB (2 Jul 2009)

Origamist said:


> http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelo...lorry-at-oval-tube-named-as-catriona-cockburn



thanks O, this bit made me pause:-

Bill Chidley, a bike safety campaigner who runs the movingtargetzine.com website, said: “It’s worth noting in most years since 1999 no more than nine London cyclists have been killed by collisions with lorries.
“Unless we are very careful, it seems clear that at least another three people will die under the wheels of a lorry before the end of 2009. This would make 2009 the worst year for a long time.”

Is it just me or is this a bit out of kilter?


----------



## Origamist (2 Jul 2009)

I'm not quite sure what you mean MacB. 

2008 saw 9 fatalites with cyclists/HGVs in London. I'm assuming this is the figure that Bill was referring to. As we are "only" in July at the moment and there have been 7 deaths so far, 2009 could be a very bad year for HGV/cyclist fatalities. 

If I've misunderstood your point, let me know.


----------



## MacB (2 Jul 2009)

Origamist said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean MacB.
> 
> 2008 saw 9 fatalites with cyclists/HGVs in London. I'm assuming this is the figure that Bill was referring to. As we are "only" in July at the moment and there have been 7 deaths so far, 2009 could be a very bad year for HGV/cyclist fatalities.
> 
> If I've misunderstood your point, let me know.



sorry yes you have and I probably wasn't clear, I meant from the 'ho-hum' just another stat angle. I particularly meant the line:-

It’s worth noting in most years since 1999 no more than nine London cyclists have been killed by collisions with lorries.

I see that as an oh my God type headline, it just came across rather dismissivley, as if those were 'good' years. I haven't visited the source web site etc but am sure they do a good job. But this quote, in this article, came across in the wrong way to me.


----------



## Origamist (2 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> sorry yes you have and I probably wasn't clear, I meant from the 'ho-hum' just another stat angle. I particularly meant the line:-
> 
> It’s worth noting in most years since 1999 no more than nine London cyclists have been killed by collisions with lorries.
> 
> I see that as an oh my God type headline, it just came across rather dismissivley, as if those were 'good' years. I haven't visited the source web site etc but am sure they do a good job. But this quote, in this article, came across in the wrong way to me.



Oh, I see. I suspect the quote from Bill C was simply lifted from the Moving Target website out of context (a lot of the other quotes in article were cut and paste jobs) or he was misquoted.

He's been campaigning on the issue for years and anyone interested in the subject would do well to read his pieces at: 
www.movingtargetzine.com 

It's probably worth mentioning that more pedestrians are killed by HGVs than cyclists in London


----------



## MacB (2 Jul 2009)

Origamist said:


> Oh, I see. I suspect the quote from Bill C was simply lifted from the Moving Target website out of context (a lot of the other quotes in article were cut and paste jobs) or he was misquoted.
> 
> He's been campaigning on the issue for years and anyone interested in the subject would do well to read his pieces at:
> www.movingtargetzine.com
> ...



yep, had a look at the website and the quote doesn't do it justice at all. Just the idea that, what I consider a catastrophic death tally, can be referred to as 'no more than', hit a bum note with me.

someone, might have been Dell, made a really good point about building works not having to extend their plans to co-ordinating their HGV traffic.


----------



## Buffalo Bill (3 Jul 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> yep, had a look at the website and the quote doesn't do it justice at all. Just the idea that, what I consider a catastrophic death tally, can be referred to as 'no more than', hit a bum note with me.



I totally agree that the death tally is catastrophic. I wasn't all that happy with the quote, and I wasn't at all happy to have Moving Target, which has a lot more on it than just 'cycle safety' articles, reduced to the level of the London Cycling Campaign.

Having met numerous victims' families, I can assure you that the dead cyclists are not just numbers to me, but numbers get journalists excited - look at the what a fuss the 85% thing caused.


----------



## MacB (3 Jul 2009)

Buffalo Bill said:


> I totally agree that the death tally is catastrophic. I wasn't all that happy with the quote, and I wasn't at all happy to have Moving Target, which has a lot more on it than just 'cycle safety' articles, reduced to the level of the London Cycling Campaign.
> 
> Having met numerous victims' families, I can assure you that the dead cyclists are not just numbers to me, but numbers get journalists excited - look at the what a fuss the 85% thing caused.



Yep, I should know better than to take any article at face value and really should know better than to voice my reaction without doing my homework.


----------



## Origamist (25 Aug 2009)

*A further appeal for witnesses:*


"My name is Anish Patel and I am the husband of Catriona [Cockburn]. On Monday 29th June at around 08.20, Catriona died as a result of a collision with a green Tipper lorry at Kennington Park Road, at the junction with Harleyford Street. I would like to make a personal appeal for anyone who was in the Oval area that morning , who saw Catriona or the tipper, to come forward as a potential witness.
Even if you did not see the incident directly, you may still have useful information on the lead up to, or aftermath of the incident. So, please, I urge you to come forward. Any information, no matter how insignificant it may seem, may be crucial to the case. I and the entire family would like to understand what happened on that day and you may have seen something that is relevant.

Please contact the Collision Investigation Unit Witness Line on 020 8941 9011 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 if you have any information. Many thanks, Anish."


----------



## diamondwhite (25 Aug 2009)

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to you Anish and your family at what is a difficult time.


----------



## jonny jeez (25 Aug 2009)

magnatom said:


> Actually I think this is a good place to discuss it. Ok we don't know the full details of this unfortunate incident, but if this discussion makes just one person think a little more carefully about how they cycle around HGVs etc then at least something positive has come of her death.



It's certainly done that for me. I pass Kennington and the oval most mornings and even thanksed a lorry on Friday for waiting whilst a bunch of us Cyclist moved off from the lights...now I think about it, we all had no business being in that position in the first place...never gonna slip up the side of big vehicles again.

this is the perfect place for this discussion. Just wonder How often I put myself in the same position.


----------



## jonny jeez (25 Aug 2009)

Origamist said:


> *A further appeal for witnesses:*
> 
> 
> "My name is Anish Patel and I am the husband of Catriona [Cockburn]. On Monday 29th June at around 08.20, Catriona died as a result of a collision with a green Tipper lorry at Kennington Park Road, at the junction with Harleyford Street. I would like to make a personal appeal for anyone who was in the Oval area that morning , who saw Catriona or the tipper, to come forward as a potential witness.
> ...




Very sad, thoughts go out to all those related


----------



## Origamist (16 May 2010)

Lorry driver to stand trial for cyclist's death after prosecutors reject guilty plea

http://road.cc/content/news/17523-l...ts-death-after-prosecutors-reject-guilty-plea

And:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...man-cyclist-phone-drinking.html#ixzz0o1jlF1wT


----------



## Keith Oates (16 May 2010)

It won't be much help to her husband and family but I hope the driver gets a very long (life time) ban!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

It's pleasing that the CPS is taking such a tough line on it - usually you'd expect them to be content with the guilty plea to the lesser charge. I suspect they are very confident they can prove he was over the drink-drive limit, which would make it a 'higher culpability' case.

That should mean a gaol sentence of between two and five years:
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/dangerousdriving.pdf


----------



## dondare (16 May 2010)

After having paid due respects, the important thing that you have to realize is that although these accidents occur and get reported with horrifying frequency they are nevertheless relatively uncommon considering the number of cyclists in London. 
Lorries are especially dangerous compared to other vehicles for a number of reasons; but they are more dangerous to everyone, not just cyclists. Not so long ago one knocked over a bus, seriously injuring several passengers and the driver. On motorways they wipe out whole families. All manner of street furniture gets demolished, some well up on the pavement. 
The view from a cab is very poor and lorry drivers can't see a lot of the road, don't know who or what else is beside or behind them and in any case can't predict where their wheels are going to go during any kind of manoevre. So when cycling the best thing is for you to know where they are and take account of where they might be going. Look behind you when approaching junctions. Don't listen to music. Don't use cycle lanes or ASLs if they place you in one of the driver's many blind-spots, (which they will). Don't cycle near a pedestrian railing if there are lorries anywhere close by. Even change your route to avoid roads used a lot by construction traffic or any particularly stupid road lay-outs. 
I do not believe that the cyclists who have been killed are always guilty of "undertaking" nor do I believe that jumping the lights is the best way of becoming the victim of a left hook. 
Road deaths of all types are much rarer than fatal heart attacks (which regular, moderate exercise protects you against). It is the case that cycling is much more likely to add years to your life rather than be the death of you. On balance, cycling is a great deal safer than not cycling.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 May 2010)

scouserinlondon said:


> Really made everybody slow down and give each other more space.



More like rubbernecking.

Christ I just read the report...Bloody awful...Exactly what I always think...You just don't know what you are up against out there sometimes.

R.I.P


----------



## Crankarm (16 May 2010)

So the scumbag Putz could hopefully be facing a drink driving charge as well. A potentially drunk driver, on the phone and driving dangerously - a lethal combination as the results show.


----------



## mr_cellophane (16 May 2010)

What is also shocking is that he is allowed to drive around for 18 months between incident and trial.


----------



## Crankarm (16 May 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> What is also shocking is that he is allowed to drive around for 18 months between incident and trial.



Our English legal system is the envy of the world - freedom until proven guilty.


----------



## BentMikey (16 May 2010)

Putz - that's an incredibly ironic surname, and describes him and his driving absolutely, in my opinion.

I felt really sick and unwell after watching that recent road rage programme. The lorry driver in there had so much rage and anger towards other road users. I thought of Catriona when I watched that.


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> So the scumbag Putz could hopefully be facing a drink driving charge as well.


Sounds extremely likely to me.


----------



## Origamist (9 Nov 2010)

*Tipper truck driver 'crushed woman City boss to death while chatting on his mobile phone' *

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...boss-chatting-mobile-phone.html#ixzz14mAddH4F


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (9 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> *Tipper truck driver 'crushed woman City boss to death while chatting on his mobile phone' *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz14mAddH4F




Oh, and not just that - drunk as well. 

Shocking.


----------



## magnatom (9 Nov 2010)

That makes for horrible reading. 

If the driver is guilty and is found to be such, then I hope that they throw the book at him. 

My thoughts are with the young ladies family and friends.


----------



## SO8 (18 Nov 2010)

Guilty

7 years and lifetime driving ban ....


----------



## Jezston (18 Nov 2010)

SO8 said:


> Guilty
> 
> 7 years and lifetime driving ban ....



Link?


----------



## jonny jeez (18 Nov 2010)

_'Whilst this was an accident, we say this was an accident waiting to happen and an accident caused almost entirely by Mr Putz' dangerous driving.' 
_

well its not a bloody accident then is it!!


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Link?



HERE!


----------



## Origamist (18 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 635975"]
Finally, an appropriate ban.
[/quote]

Indeed. I was not expecting that.


----------



## scouserinlondon (18 Nov 2010)

Good. No amount of Jail time will bring comfort to the victim's family. There's not a day goes by on my commute when I don't think of that morning as I pass that junction.


----------



## Lizban (18 Nov 2010)

Chuffed about the life time ban. 7 years is any amount of time ever enough? 

It really makes you think stories like this. I hope the faimly is holding up.


----------



## downfader (18 Nov 2010)

A good result, may the drunkard rot in jail.


----------



## Origamist (18 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Indeed. I was not expecting that.



Now I see why:



> Putz has a series of criminal convictions for offences including drink-driving and has been caught 20 times driving an HGV while disqualified. He said the night before the accident he had drunk almost a gallon of Guinness.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/18/lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-hangover


----------



## magnatom (18 Nov 2010)

Good result with the life time ban, however, now having the extra information I feel that 7 years was far too lenient. Exactly what do you have to do to get a full 14 years conviction?!


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Nov 2010)

All well and good, makes a change for once to see a result like this, the problem as I see it isn't the punishment, it's enforcing it. Did I not read somewhere that more than half the motorists stopped in Bradford had no insurance?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Nov 2010)

This does beg one question - why was this man even employed by an HGV company, given the below?



> Putz has a series of criminal convictions for offences including drink-driving and has been caught 20 times driving an HGV while disqualified. He said the night before the accident he had drunk almost a gallon of Guinness...  Sentencing him today, judge Roger Chapple told Putz: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law.





Seriously? WTF! 

I think Thames Materials Ltd should face some hard questions about allowing a man who is quite clearly a loose cannon to drive one of their vehicles around around central London.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Nov 2010)

totallyfixed said:


> All well and good, makes a change for once to see a result like this, the problem as I see it isn't the punishment, it's enforcing it.



Indeed. A lifetime driving ban is a more than appropriate punishment - but this is a guy who has been caught (that's CAUGHT) driving while disqualified TWENTY times. I wonder how much attention he is going to pay to his ban when he gets out of prison.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (18 Nov 2010)

More here.

The full horror of Putz's driving "record" is 



> 20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.


 


Again, WTF. It's beyond comprehension.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> This does beg one question - why was this man even employed by an HGV company, given the below?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well said!! Perhaps we should all write the HSE and Thames materials?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (19 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Well said!! Perhaps we should all write the HSE and Thames materials?



This company has a history.




> Thames Materials Ltd failed several inspections, the company and its drivers had many convictions. In 2002 the Traffic Commissioner tried to revoke its licence to operate lorries,





> this was overturned on appeal.




From lcc.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Nov 2010)

That is 'kin APPALLING!!!! Useless tossers should go on a corporate manslaughter charge innit.


----------



## Riding in Circles (20 Nov 2010)

At least the death of a cyclist has actually been taken seriously for once, it is seldom the case.


----------



## Brains (21 Nov 2010)

http://www.thamesmaterials.com/vacancies.htm

"Thames Materials is an equal oppotunities employer" We don't mind who we employ..... 
I wonder who their insurer is ?


----------



## Origamist (21 Nov 2010)

Item on the tragedy - includes CCTV and an incredibly dignified Anish Patel:

http://www.itv.com/london/death-driver-jailed60736/


----------



## Riding in Circles (21 Nov 2010)

Brains said:


> http://www.thamesmat...m/vacancies.htm
> 
> "Thames Materials is an equal oppotunities employer" We don't mind who we employ.....
> I wonder who their insurer is ?




You are assuming they have insurance.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (21 Nov 2010)

Thanks for the link, Origamist. 
On a side note, it's pretty poor that the BBC have entirely failed to cover this story. 

BBC London News seems to have plenty of time to cover stories about traffic wardens and parking. I think they need to adjust their priorities.


----------



## style over speed (22 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Thanks for the link, Origamist.
> On a side note, it's pretty poor that the BBC have entirely failed to cover this story.
> 
> BBC London News seems to have plenty of time to cover stories about traffic wardens and parking. I think they need to adjust their priorities.



bbc news fail to cover ALL cyclist's deaths, and it has been a deliberate editorial policy for many years. They can find the time to devote many hours to kids that stab each other but companies that employ drunks who drive HGV's whilst banned is of no interest to them.


----------



## Jezston (22 Nov 2010)

Why is it all TV news channels/programmes cover the exact same stories?

Sorry perhaps this is one for P+L!


----------

