# So I cycled the one-way road that cyclist Claire Hitier-Abadie was killed on (50 second video)



## Mr_Kipling (23 Feb 2015)

Today (23/02/15) I decided to cycle & Video the short route around the one-way system that Cyclist Claire Hitier-Abadie had taken when she was tragically killed in by a lorry in London Victoria on 19 Feburary. I wanted to see for myself how dangerous that section of road is with all the building work going on. 

The road surface & road markings were appalling. There are two lanes both of which are so narrow that if you are not in primary position you are at great risk especially if turning left where the road widens a little and some less experienced cyclists could be tempted to cycle in secondary. 
There is no pavement for most of the section so no Emergency escape route. 
I'm not pointing the finger at the road for the Claire's death, but I do think it made the situation worse. 


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vacrFE5wSqE&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Markymark (23 Feb 2015)

A sign advising cyclists and car drivers that primary is the correct position on that road wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## gavintc (23 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> A sign advising cyclists and car drivers that primary is the correct position on that road wouldn't go amiss.


More likely to see a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Feb 2015)

Horrible.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> A sign advising cyclists and car drivers that primary is the correct position on that road wouldn't go amiss.



that sir is an astonishingly good idea. Bleedin' obvious now you've said it, but I never thought of it even if I would have taken primary position and doubtless been beeped at.


That single suggestion of installing a horde of appropriately targeted "cyclists, take the lane" signs would do more for cyclist safety than anything I've yet heard


----------



## Saluki (23 Feb 2015)

That looks a horrible bit of road to cycle on. +1 for the 'cyclists take primary' sign. Maybe someone should go out with a stenciled sign and a can of paint and do a bit of guerrilla sign writing.


----------



## flyingfish (23 Feb 2015)

The take the lane sign is a great idea. Time to pester the MPs


----------



## Tim Hall (23 Feb 2015)

flyingfish said:


> The take the lane sign is a great idea. Time to pester the MPs


Talking to TFL would be a more direct approach. Or do both.


----------



## CopperCyclist (23 Feb 2015)

They've had "cyclists use whole Lane" signs in some states in the US for a while. Ironically I saw it on a video where a cyclist doing just that was knocked off! 

I thought at the time they were a great idea and that we could do with something similar here - mostly to hammer it home to motorists that (sometimes) that's exactly where we should be.


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 Feb 2015)

Did not realise that it was that bad. Frankly I would have avoided the road. One's odds seriously diminishes in such a place.

ps. OP thanks, provides context. The primary sign suggestion by OMO is excellent.


----------



## DCLane (23 Feb 2015)

That looks an awful route.

As an aside, @Mr_Kipling - what camera do you use?


----------



## slowmotion (23 Feb 2015)

What really shocked me about the clip was that it looks as though the construction sites were allowed to encroach on the temporary road width, making it incredibly dangerous. In Kensington, a large construction site just south of Kensington Gardens has a giant steel framework over four lanes of traffic so that the site cabins are out of the way.


----------



## Mr_Kipling (23 Feb 2015)

DCLane said:


> That looks an awful route.
> 
> As an aside, @Mr_Kipling - what camera do you use?


I use a GoPro Hero3+ I normally have it on my handlebars not my helmet.


----------



## Levo-Lon (24 Feb 2015)

Hmmm, now imaging riding along there at 6 ,8 mph ish on a Boris bike while on the phone?

I think the primary idea is a good idea but you need people to be savy and safty highway code aware for it to work.
I got a few dead friends who did nothing wrong 'its the others' 
I've not heard the term " Primary" until I saw it used on cycle chat.
so if a motorcyclist, car ,van, and keen cyclist hasn't noticed this what chance has a non driver?
Yes I use primary instinctively but I cant remember any instructor or reading it 30 odd yrs ago.
its a horid road for sure and not a place id want to be cycling.


----------



## moo (24 Feb 2015)

meta lon said:


> Hmmm, now imaging riding along there at 6 ,8 mph ish on a Boris bike while on the phone?



We simply don't have the infrastructure for slow cyclists. Someone doing 6mph is never going to be safe mixing with regular traffic on a busy narrow road in London.

It can be done. Cyclists in Denmark and other countries aren't exactly time trialing to work.


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

meta lon said:


> Hmmm, now imaging riding along there at 6 ,8 mph ish on a Boris bike while on the phone?
> 
> I think the primary idea is a good idea but you need people to be savy and safty highway code aware for it to work.
> I got a few dead friends who did nothing wrong 'its the others'
> ...


I didn't mean a sign using the word primary but a simple diagram would suffice like most traffic signs. Or even 'cyclists, ride in the centre of the lane'


----------



## Drago (24 Feb 2015)

Isn't the average speed for cyclists in London supposed to be higher than motorised transport? Proper lane management, education and road markings/signage would resolve this.


----------



## ianrauk (24 Feb 2015)

Drago said:


> Isn't the average speed for cyclists in London supposed to be higher than motorised transport? Proper lane management, education and road markings/signage would resolve this.




Well put it this way. The 12 miles direct main road route door to door on my SE London commute is quicker on the bike. Most of the traffic is school run.


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

Wanstead to Bloomsbury (I don't RLJ) - 10miles

Commute, Weekend
Bike: 37mins, 32mins
Car: c1hr, c45 mins

Bike times are fairly consistent, car times vary wildly.

Bike much faster than cars. Compare commute to weekend and you'll see that cars slow me down.


----------



## MichaelW2 (24 Feb 2015)

Three out of four of this year's London cycling fatalities have been women. The potential danger of left-turning trucks is the same for men. How do men avoid similar dangers on the same roads.
Time to take a serious look at what women do differently that puts them in so much danger.
Is it lack of roadsense
Poor positioning
Lack of experience
Lack of assertiveness and aggression?
More law abiding, ie not pre-empting green lights but waiting patiently for green.
Do they ride bikes with poorer performance, ie heavier, slower to accelerate.
Do women need special training courses to cover this specific lethal situation?
We can try an shift responsibility to truck drivers, but to ride like this is not a problem for us is just stupid.

I am sure there are individual women who can ride London streets with assurance but the numbers say that many cannot.


----------



## Globalti (24 Feb 2015)

I understand that the cyclist was killed as the truck was taking the corner. No truck driver would have tried to overtake in such narrow lanes.

The best explanation I've seen for the preponderance of women victims is that women are less territorial than men and so less likely to be bothered by other vehicles in their road space.


----------



## Dan B (24 Feb 2015)

MichaelW2 said:


> We can try an shift responsibility to truck drivers


I think the responsibility lies more with the haulage companies than the individual drivers.


----------



## Globalti (24 Feb 2015)

No, the responsibility lies with people who casually jump on a bike and ride it around without a care for their actions, in the self-righteous belief that they occupy the moral high ground so can do as they please. When will people start to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences rather than blame others?

(I write this without reference to the tragic case under discussion because as yet, nobody knows what happened.)

The embarrassing aggression of some cyclists towards drivers is the main reason why I don't ride with a club.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

On the primary idea, would some sharrows (sorry, I don't know what the UK term for them is) be something at least? Easy enough to paint on.

A year or two ago there was a program about the woman who was killed by a left turning concrete truck. Following her mother campaigning against the company for more safety. I believe they talked there about the ratio of female to male deaths and the feeling from their research was that the norm was for female cyclists to be less willing to take the lane and force other road users to give them space. It was much more likely for them to 'hide' in the gutter. It's possible that there was a misconception that this was safer (because they were 'out of the road') without acknowledging that giving motor vehicles an inch means that they will push themselves through non-existent gaps.

Commute times. Once the traffic starts building up the bicycle covers the ground faster every time. Last average speed I saw quoted for the busy bit of London was 12mph I believe. Even with my current fitness level I'm happily above that. I believe I would beat a car on my 12 mile commute (if it took the same route) on all but the clearest days. My ride is around 50 minutes, as with the other poster I don't RLJ, when I've taken the car my worst days have been almost 2 hours.

Thinking about it, if it turns out that the cyclist did come up the inside of a left turning lorry then that proves that even on a Boris bike she was travelling faster than the traffic around her.


----------



## Boo (24 Feb 2015)

I did mention this in the original 'Cyclist down' thread - I walked past the accident just after it happened on Thursday, and walking in this morning, there was a police presence grabbing cyclists who were breaking the rules. One guy on a Boris bike going the wrong way down a one way street who (I think) had just tried to barrel through some pedestrians who were crossing at the junction opposite the accident site.
And then 100 yards down the road, another cyclist being directed onto the pavement for a 'chat' after he jumped a red light.


----------



## Globalti (24 Feb 2015)

Lancashire Police regularly tweet about the activities of their traffic officers in order to create the impression that they're out there actively patrolling and catching people. The public has no way of knowing whether the incidents are really happening or just fiction. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for other Police forces to mount the same social media campaign aimed at bicycle riders? They being generally young and, one would suppose, media-savvy, it shouldn't be too difficult to build up an atmosphere of fear of random checks. The lack of visible patrols and therefore fear is what's encouraging motorists to break traffic laws with such impunity all over the country.


----------



## Origamist (24 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Those are disappearing thankfully. You are more likely to see one that says No overtaking cyclists through narrow lanes.


----------



## Origamist (24 Feb 2015)

slowmotion said:


> What really shocked me about the clip was that it looks as though the construction sites were allowed to encroach on the temporary road width, making it incredibly dangerous. In Kensington, a large construction site just south of Kensington Gardens has a giant steel framework over four lanes of traffic so that the site cabins are out of the way.


 
Cyclists are more at risk through road works and TFL have specific guidance on this (my bolds):

"Where cyclists are on-carriageway and the speed limit is 30mph or 20mph, it is usually desirable to keep them on carriageway through the roadworks. In this case, a wide lane (minimum width of 4m) enables drivers of all motor vehicles to overtake cyclists with an acceptable clearance.

If a 4m lane width cannot be achieved then, according to advice given in TAL 15/99 Cyclists at Roadworks (1999), a ‘narrow’ lane width of up to 3.25m to 3.50m will enable car drivers to overtake comfortably and will generally deter drivers of larger vehicles from trying to pass at all.

If 3.25m cannot be provided, then a ‘narrow’ lane width of up to 3.25m and a speed limit of 20mph should be considered with signs stating ‘narrow lane(s): do not overtake cyclists’. *Lane widths between 3.50m and 4m should normally be avoided as drivers of large vehicles may attempt to overtake cyclists without adequate clearance.*"

The lane widths in the clip are not easy to estimate - but look around the 3.5m (using the 2.5m wide bus as a guide)...Hopefully, the investigation into this tragedy will examine the lane widths and best practice guidance.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

Boo said:


> I did mention this in the original 'Cyclist down' thread - I walked past the accident just after it happened on Thursday, and walking in this morning, there was a police presence grabbing cyclists who were breaking the rules. One guy on a Boris bike going the wrong way down a one way street who (I think) had just tried to barrel through some pedestrians who were crossing at the junction opposite the accident site.
> And then 100 yards down the road, another cyclist being directed onto the pavement for a 'chat' after he jumped a red light.


I realise that anecdotally the cyclist seems to have breaking the law and not riding with their own safety in mind at the point she was killed, but it still feels somewhat crass to be concentrating on cyclists in the area as the problem. It may just be my perception of these things, but it seems the reaction is much more often 'let's concentrate on the cyclists' than 'let's deal with all road users' or 'let's look in to the most dangerous vehicles.' It'll be interesting to see if there are stories of cyclists being stopped while doing nothing wrong this time round.


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Those are disappearing thankfully. You are more likely to see one that says No overtaking cyclists through narrow lanes.



I believe the company I work for was one of the first to use these signs , based on feedback from one of its employees who shall remain nameless. I may be wrong but it was suggested and used before this https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cy...er_uploads/appendix-cyclists-at-roadworks.pdf was issued.


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Wanstead to Bloomsbury (I don't RLJ) - 10miles
> 
> Commute, Weekend
> Bike: 37mins, 32mins
> ...




comparable to my times along CS2 , and I definitely don't RLJ , or ride like a twot .

25 mins to Aldgate from Leytonstone ( Wanstead flats ) , I tried it on a sunday morning at 5am once , in the car , and it was still just quicker


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

subaqua said:


> comparable to my times along CS2 , and I definitely don't RLJ , or ride like a twot .
> 
> 25 mins to Aldgate from Leytonstone ( Wanstead flats ) , I tried it on a sunday morning at 5am once , in the car , and it was still just quicker


Sorry, thread diversion. 
I go from wanstead through flats through olympic park to Victoria park. Gorgeous route through there, why not try that way?


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Sorry, thread diversion.
> I go from wanstead through flats through olympic park to Victoria park. Gorgeous route through there, why not try that way?



Black square to follow this diversion !

I have started to use eastway shared path ( kin orrible and slimey) to Victoria park . need to look at how to do Olympic park to Victoria park . don't suppose you have a GPX file from garmin/strava do you.


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

subaqua said:


> Black square to follow this diversion !
> 
> I have started to use eastway shared path ( kin orrible and slimey) to Victoria park . need to look at how to do Olympic park to Victoria park . don't suppose you have a GPX file from garmin/strava do you.


Will pm you.


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> I haven't been keeping up with this story - what law is she supposed to have broken?


Being in someone's way apparently.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

The suggestion that she was riding while on the mobile phone filtering up the inside of a left turning lorry. Thinking on it while neither of those are specifically illegal on a bicycle if it doesn't add up to undue care and attention then I don't know what does. Or is that also not a thing on a bicycle? If not then I'll amend it to 'while anecdotally the cyclist seems to have been taking no care of their own safety'.

And, as always, this is just supposition.


----------



## Levo-Lon (24 Feb 2015)

Boo said:


> I did mention this in the original 'Cyclist down' thread - I walked past the accident just after it happened on Thursday, and walking in this morning, there was a police presence grabbing cyclists who were breaking the rules. One guy on a Boris bike going the wrong way down a one way street who (I think) had just tried to barrel through some pedestrians who were crossing at the junction opposite the accident site.
> And then 100 yards down the road, another cyclist being directed onto the pavement for a 'chat' after he jumped a red light.




and thats why it will always be imposible, stupid people do stupid things.
TMN I think going inside a lorry on a bike on a narrow road using a phone when the lorry is indicating left with beepers sounding is why she died, being an offence is of no concern , suicidal action.

poor truck driver has to live with it.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> So why bother then?


Cycle Chat would be quite dull if we didn't chat about things.
I like to think I'm being fairly even handed with things here, and have tried to stop myself as much as possible from getting involved when it was in the Cyclist Down area. I guess we could just leave any discussions about road safety until all of the investigations have been done and the final results are published, but I'm not sure how much sense talking about it 6-18 months down the line would be. Also, in this case, there's a reasonable chance the result is going to be very little, which is terrible in its own right.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Feb 2015)

The Highway Code also makes it clear you should look before turning.


----------



## idlecyclist (24 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> A sign advising cyclists and car drivers that primary is the correct position on that road wouldn't go amiss.


 
Brilliant idea.

I have seen the "do not overtake cyclist" more and more at roadworks, which is a step in the right direction.
But i think this would be far better. It could easily be deplicted in picture format in a red triangle and displayed by all narrow/dangerious roads and pinch points.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> 'Chatting' about how some stranger might have been careless enough to get killed, when we don't know either way? What is wrong with people? Abstract discussions about road safety are quite different.


I guess I prefer to analyse stuff than ignore it. This discussion does seem to be primarily about how the area, and ones like it, could be made safer. The incident does matter but lets face it the thrust of the conversation isn't 'careless people die' which it could be. It's how do you make these areas safer. Your question was prompted by a post where I stated that I felt cracking down on cyclists in the area around where a cyclist had just been killed seemed like a crass, and incorrect thing to do. I don't disagree that some of the posts in the various threads this incident has created have been insensitive, unfortunately that seems to be the way for some CC posters. I'm not sure how you think the repercussions could be discussed without some degree of speculation by people on the original incident.

I agree, it's wrong to lose sight of the fact that someones life was ended, and a large number of peoples lives have been drastically changed by their involvement in this tragedy. But I feel that isn't being ignored across the board and that if an advocate walks in to a meeting and says 'we need signs where there are narrow lanes saying "don't overtake cyclists"' because they read it here and it struck a chord, or whatever, then that validates the discussion.


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The Highway Code also makes it clear you should look before turning.


rule 73 also says some important things ( makes it clear to use you terminology) about not going up the inside too. in the section for cyclists as it happens.

it also has the same legal standing as rule 170, which is the bits about looking at junctions.

without wanting to start a debate on helmets , using your terminology , the highway code also makes it clear in rule 59 that a helmet and hi viz clothing should be worn.

still if you want to willy wave and not actually do anything then crack on


----------



## glenn forger (24 Feb 2015)

Rule 73 warns against riding between the vehicle and the kerb. There's no kerb in the footage, the building site has encroached onto the road, narrowing the lane and making it very hard to see indicators, let alone lateral movement at lane-changing.


----------



## Origamist (24 Feb 2015)

idlecyclist said:


> Brilliant idea.
> 
> I have seen the "do not overtake cyclist" more and more at roadworks, which is a step in the right direction.
> But i think this would be far better. It could easily be deplicted in picture format in a red triangle and displayed by all narrow/dangerious roads and pinch points.


 
There is a DfT THINK! poster, but no plans for a sign:








However, I'd prefer a no overtaking sign.


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

Cars don't see squeezing past a bike as overtaking. If they did I wouldn't get overtaken on double white lines when going more than 10mph


----------



## Phaeton (24 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> A sign advising cyclists and car drivers that primary is the correct position on that road wouldn't go amiss.


Complete waste of time, you ask 90% (figure plucked from the air) what/where the primary position is, or what it is & they will stare blankly back at you.


----------



## Markymark (24 Feb 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Complete waste of time, you ask 90% (figure plucked from the air) what/where the primary position is, or what it is & they will stare blankly back at you.


As said plenty of times above I mean that's what a sign should show. Forget word primary but shiw a nice picture of bike in middle of lane.


----------



## Origamist (24 Feb 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Cars don't see squeezing past a bike as overtaking. If they did I wouldn't get overtaken on double white lines when going more than 10mph



Quite. That's why I would rather see an update to the HC and red circular signs (prohibitive) with regard to not overtaking cyclists.


----------



## Levo-Lon (24 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> We don't know what happened, except that someone's daughter, wife and mother has died in horrible circumstances. I could speculate that she was directed to go left by a mischievous alien who hovered in front of her - that would be about as much use as all the sickening, vapid victim blaming going on in this thread.




I dont understand your "sickening vapid victim blaming" do what I do if a thread displeases me . I dont read it.
Its been stated she went inside a lorry, firman removed her phone ,indicators and buzzers sounding.
I thought we were discussing how to minimize this sort of tragedy?.

Ahh well ,perhaps we can disscuss the road after the inquest in a year or 2.


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Rule 73 warns against riding between the vehicle and the kerb. There's no kerb in the footage, the building site has encroached onto the road, narrowing the lane and making it very hard to see indicators, let alone lateral movement at lane-changing.



yeah as going up the inside does generally make it hard to see the indicators at the rear of the vehicle. and regardless of indicators or not it really is a simple equation 
or maybe as reported by an eyewitness a phone call was more important than safety. 
oh and the big red and white things are acting as a Kerb in this case. or is your next statement going to be " well that doesn't allow for turning so doesn't apply here" where common sense should- 

DO NOT GO UP THE INSIDE OF LORRIES BUSES OR COACHES WHERE THE ROAD IS NARROW. 


i love the irony too of people saying we need to have segregation but also remove lorries from roads.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Feb 2015)

Here's how they managed to keep the road clear on Kensington Road at the building site I mentioned in post#13. Sorry, it was two lanes, not four that the giant steel platform spanned. (It's since been taken down).


----------



## subaqua (24 Feb 2015)

slowmotion said:


> View attachment 80675
> Here's how they managed to keep the road clear on Kensington Road at the building site I mentioned in post#13. Sorry, it was two lanes, not four that the giant steel platform spanned. (It's since been taken down).


 an innovative solution but not always practical. I would love to build gantries over roads to put accomodation. however as this development didn't come to the road line ( the victoria site has a large excavation and there needed to be a exclusion zone hence the narrowing.

the traffic management could be better on initial view and i dont doubt it has been improved a huge amount form the original plan


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Feb 2015)

moo said:


> We simply don't have the infrastructure for slow cyclists. Someone doing 6mph is never going to be safe mixing with regular traffic on a busy narrow road in London.


He/she is not going to be safe here in Glasgow either.
On my fastest bike I cannot do more than 12mph slightly uphill. On my commute I have to ride a short, fast flowing traffic, left turn only lane. More often than not, I take the pavement for the short bit.



MichaelW2 said:


> Three out of four of this year's London cycling fatalities have been women. The potential danger of left-turning trucks is the same for men. How do men avoid similar dangers on the same roads.
> Time to take a serious look at what women do differently that puts them in so much danger.
> Is it lack of roadsense
> Poor positioning
> ...



By all means, not all of us are slow coaches, but you have made valid points.
I think more (not special, just the ordinary bikability will do) training is needed.
Lots of women I know - including me - are not into the latest carbon frame for cycling the 5 miles to work, we tend to ride any bike that is simple to maintain and has facilities for carrying the shopping. Utilitarian cycling is slow.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Oct 2015)

The truck driver has now been summonsed to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 21 October for causing death by careless driving.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (19 Feb 2016)

Alan Warwick, 61, of Rayleigh, Essex, today pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving at Southwark Crown Court.

He will be sentenced on April 18 at the same court.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...admits-killing-boris-bike-rider-a3184876.html


----------



## HLaB (19 Feb 2016)

So that'll be £150 fine then :-(


----------



## fossyant (19 Feb 2016)

Probably.

Driving and hitting cyclists is lawless these days.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Feb 2016)

It was a last-minute guilty plea to Careless so there may have been some horse-trading.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (20 Feb 2016)

Origamist said:


> Cyclists are more at risk through road works and TFL have specific guidance on this (my bolds):
> 
> "Where cyclists are on-carriageway and the speed limit is 30mph or 20mph, it is usually desirable to keep them on carriageway through the roadworks. In this case, a wide lane (minimum width of 4m) enables drivers of all motor vehicles to overtake cyclists with an acceptable clearance.
> 
> ...




I've just come back from a car journey that involved driving through some roadworks near a level crossing that involve closing one lane, seemingly to enable work on the footway. (Spring Bank West heading to Princes Ave for locals)

There are signs saying "cyclists dismount and follow pedestrian route" helpfully followed by "footpath closed". (I think it's actually a 'footway').

The roadworks are about 100m long, on a stretch where traffic moves slowly at the best of times, as other traffic is usually trying to join from the intersection, and both should be anticipating the crossing barriers coming down as it's a busy stretch of track.

If I was on my bike, I would ignore the information boards, take primary, and no doubt suffer the abuse from drivers. What looks like the pedestrian route, involves crossing the dual carriageway twice and a side road, which in my opinion adds a lot more risk factors, and is unnecessary.

It's on for 4 months, so I reckon a call to highways is in order.


----------



## Drago (20 Feb 2016)

It's agaisst DfT rules not to make provision for cyclists. Telling cyclists dismount on their signage is not permitted, but sadly all too common.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safety-at-street-works-and-road-works


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2016)

TMN means the post on the Singletrack forum that claimed to have been a witness and stated that the cyclist undertook a beeping lorry. The investigating police officer posted beneath and begged the poster to get in touch. Instead, the poster edited his post and removed the incriminating stuff. The copper appeared again and stressed that the poster had claimed to be a witness and it was vital that they got in touch and the officer had already wasted enough time on this. Then the thread was pulled. 
A strange and horrible story, someone trying to big themselves up by claiming to have witnessed the event and a very pissed-off copper.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Feb 2016)

I'm sure 'SteveHunter' also said the cyclist was on the phone and he shouted at her to no avail.

His post on the first page of this thread has been edited, and he removed his avatar which showed a pic of someone.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=94319

Our member @rualexander took a screen grab of one of Hunter's earlier efforts which appears in post 50 of this thread.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/woman-cyclist-killed-in-victoria-tipper-truck.174839/page-4


----------



## Origamist (20 Feb 2016)

I wonder if the seemingly mendacious and indescribably cruel "Steve Hunter" could be traced and charged with perverting the course of justice - wasting police time.

What is odd is that he did not suddenly join the CTC forum to post on the incident when it occurred.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Feb 2016)

Isn't there a syndrome name for this type of behaviour?

Reminds me of the loony American woman who made a media a career out of losing someone in 9/11 until it emerged she had lost no one.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Feb 2016)

The lorry driver has coughed the job, so we can be fairly sure what will emerge is that he killed the cyclist by his careless driving.

The witness statement by 'SteveHunter' cannot have stood up, because if it had, the driver may not have been charged, or at the very least he would have been advised to go to trial using Hunter as a big plank of his defence.


----------



## Origamist (20 Feb 2016)

User13710 said:


> In a similar vein to previous concerns about jumping to conclusions, might it be better to wait and see what emerges? As I said earlier, I wonder if the witnesses came forward, but we don't yet know whether they did or not. It's as bad to prejudge someone as a cruel liar as it is to prejudge a dead cyclist as stupid, isn't it?



Well said. If any additional information comes to light and it transpires that the "Steve Hunter" account of events are corroborated, I will retract my comments and apologise.


----------



## Origamist (20 Feb 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The lorry driver has coughed the job, so we can be fairly sure what will emerge is that he killed the cyclist by his careless driving.
> 
> The witness statement by 'SteveHunter' cannot have stood up, because if it had, the driver may not have been charged, or at the very least he would have been advised to go to trial using Hunter as a big plank of his defence.



That's my interpretation, but let's see.


----------

