# Third Cyclist killed in London this week



## ozboz (10 Feb 2017)

More horrific news , he was wearing PPe , no mention of lights,

The victim in his 30s was dragged at least 20 yards beneath the lorry’s wheels before the driver was alerted by oncoming motorists to the mountain bike tangled in his front wheel, witnesses said.

A passing bus driver pulled up and attempted to save the man but when paramedics arrived in London’s Docklands at 1.30pm yesterday he was pronounced dead.


----------



## numbnuts (10 Feb 2017)

Very sad news indeed, RIP condolences to family and friends


----------



## Rooster1 (10 Feb 2017)

He didn't stand a chance against a huge lorry like that. Horrendous. RIP.


----------



## Saluki (10 Feb 2017)

Another tipper truck!
RIP chap.


----------



## Globalti (10 Feb 2017)

It's awful. How many cyclists are killed in, say, Copenhagen in a year?


----------



## markharry66 (10 Feb 2017)

Rip what a waste


----------



## snorri (10 Feb 2017)

Globalti said:


> It's awful. How many cyclists are killed in, say, Copenhagen in a year?


Wot no Search Engine access?
252 in 1996.
0.3 average over the last 5 years.
https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/


----------



## rualexander (10 Feb 2017)

snorri said:


> Wot no Search Engine access?
> 252 in 1996.
> 0.3 average over the last 5 years.
> https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/



Wot, no accuracy?

Your 0.3 average is per 10,000 daily commuters over 5 years, according to the article you linked.
Your 252 in 1996 is not number killed, but number of incidents according to wikipedia

From Wiki: "Over all there were 92 cyclists involved serious injury and 3 deaths in 2010, down from 252 incidents in 1996, when the city began a concerted effort to bring down the number of injuries. A cyclist will now on average cycle 4.4 million kilometres (2.7 million miles) before being involved in a serious accident"


----------



## Drago (10 Feb 2017)

Witnesses on TV news saying the feller slipped off on the film of mud on the road and went under. And how did the mud get on the road at that point? From the wheels of the tipper trucks is how.

*If* that is correct then the transport manager ought to be prosecuted. Its an offence, and shows a blatant disregard for the safety of others.


----------



## ozboz (10 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> Witnesses on TV news saying the feller slipped off on the film of mud on the road and went under. And how did the mud get on the road at that point? From the wheels of the tipper trucks is how.
> 
> *If* that is correct then the transport manager ought to be prosecuted. Its an offence, and shows a blatant disregard for the safety of others.



Thats bad , real bad ,


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (10 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> Witnesses on TV news saying the feller slipped off on the film of mud on the road and went under. And how did the mud get on the road at that point? From the wheels of the tipper trucks is how.
> 
> *If* that is correct then the transport manager ought to be prosecuted. Its an offence, and shows a blatant disregard for the safety of others.


Except, if the report that drivers in other vehicles alerted the truck driver to the bike under the front of his cab is correct, it wasn't muck from his truck. It was the muck of an industry that is allowed to drive vehicles unsuitable for safe public road use with atrociously poor law enforcement or monitoring dirtying the road before the cyclist and Primagrange truck came along. (I know this road; speeding is normal - it's almost dangerous to stick to 30 - industrial use is pretty much constant (there's always someone carrying muck around or building stuff there.) It's not the Primagrange transport manager's responsibility for the accident. But it is the responsibility of the combined construction trade and the abnegation of law enforcement duty who leave the muck and let them get away with it. Coroner's verdict will be accidental death, because the coroner's job is to look into the specifics of that particular tragedy.


----------



## Drago (10 Feb 2017)

Indeed, *if* the TV reports are correct the driver of this particular truck may be blameless.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (10 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> Indeed, *if* the TV reports are correct the driver of this particular truck may be blameless.


Blameless, perhaps, but he was still driving a truck that doesn't even allow him to see that he's just killed someone, and the probability is that the cyclist's loss of control was due to the same industry's don't-give-a-damnistry. The driver would, of course, have recently left a worksite proudly displaying its ''Considerate constructors'' notice.


----------



## Slick (10 Feb 2017)

Really sad, Rip.


----------



## Accy cyclist (11 Feb 2017)

Horrible news.


----------



## subaqua (11 Feb 2017)

Drago said:


> Witnesses on TV news saying the feller slipped off on the film of mud on the road and went under. And how did the mud get on the road at that point? From the wheels of the tipper trucks is how.
> 
> *If* that is correct then the transport manager ought to be prosecuted. Its an offence, and shows a blatant disregard for the safety of others.




nope not just transport manager, the site it came from. Its part of planning conditions to wash down vehicles before they enter the public highway. 

the sites at Addenbrookes in Cambridge have a road sweeper as well to ensure no mud. 

FORS and CLOCS require washdown too


----------



## subaqua (11 Feb 2017)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Blameless, perhaps, but he was still driving a truck that doesn't even allow him to see that he's just killed someone, and the probability is that the cyclist's loss of control was due to the same industry's don't-give-a-damnistry. The driver would, of course, have recently left a worksite proudly displaying its ''Considerate constructors'' notice.




*HAULAGE *not CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. sadly not all sites are Considerate constructors sites. so don't do the wash down as there is no enforcement from planning authority. as stated above its part of the planning conditions.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Feb 2017)

subaqua said:


> *HAULAGE *not CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. sadly not all sites are Considerate constructors sites. so don't do the wash down as there is no enforcement from planning authority. as stated above its part of the planning conditions.


Strictly speaking you're probably right to make the distinction. But if the muck they're carting around is coming from one of the many construction sites in the area - and I think you'll find that it is - it's haulage working for the construction industry. The distinction is only a means of allowing the constructors to disown responsibility and continue making, as the expression goes, a killing.


----------



## Drago (11 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4677086, member: 9609"]If the road was muddy (which non of the pictures show)...[/QUOTE]On the tv report last night the road surface did look very brown. No lumps of mud, just a wet film of slimy looking brown. Absolutely agree that those conditions make it even more imperative that people exercise caution.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Feb 2017)

If only these riverside developments had a wide open, underused expanse of water to float their stuff away on, instead of driving _away_ from the river onto the North Woolwich Road....but that's another issue.


----------



## subaqua (11 Feb 2017)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If only these riverside developments had a wide open, underused expanse of water to float their stuff away on, instead of driving _away_ from the river onto the North Woolwich Road....but that's another issue.


What you mean like we are at the NLE at battersea .....

The big players are doing stuff , mainly down to nippy little farkers like me who work for them raiding the points at tender issue . And speaking to plant companies like Lynch. 

The small companies are the worst offenders and I can't wave s magic wand and fix things overnight in the industry. It's going to take time . Like it did in Holland


----------



## srw (11 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> More horrific news , he was wearing PPe , no mention of lights,


Pedantically, but importantly, he wasn't wearing PPE (personal protective equipment). He was wearing a helmet and a hi-viz jacket. A helmet isn't PPE, as has been pointed out many times on this forum. In any case, the sort of PPE that protects a cyclist meaningfully from the aftereffects of being dragged under a lorry's wheels hasn't yet been invented.

And the incident occurred at 1:30 in the afternoon. Lights and a hi-viz jacket aren't required. And even on a grey February day, hi-viz jackets and lights don't really make a meaningful difference, and to call them out teeters dangerously close to blaming the victim. All drivers should always drive in such a way as to be able to react to road hazards, and for a driver in London, a cyclist really shouldn't be unexpected.

Without wishing in any way to detract from the horror of this single incident for the victim's family, it's important to put it into context. Cycling in London is really very safe indeed.


----------



## snorri (11 Feb 2017)

rualexander said:


> Wot, no accuracy?


None at all, just encouraging Globalti to do his own research instead of asking others.


----------



## Drago (11 Feb 2017)

srw said:


> Cycling in London is really very safe indeed.


...until you ride it outdoors, then it gets quite dicey.


----------



## ozboz (11 Feb 2017)

srw said:


> Pedantically, but importantly, he wasn't wearing PPE (personal protective equipment). He was wearing a helmet and a hi-viz jacket. A helmet isn't PPE, as has been pointed out many times on this forum. In any case, the sort of PPE that protects a cyclist meaningfully from the aftereffects of being dragged under a lorry's wheels hasn't yet been invented.
> 
> And the incident occurred at 1:30 in the afternoon. Lights and a hi-viz jacket aren't required. And even on a grey February day, hi-viz jackets and lights don't really make a meaningful difference, and to call them out teeters dangerously close to blaming the victim. All drivers should always drive in such a way as to be able to react to road hazards, and for a driver in London, a cyclist really shouldn't be unexpected.
> 
> Without wishing in any way to detract from the horror of this single incident for the victim's family, it's important to put it into context. Cycling in London is really very safe indeed.



If we wear things to help prevent some form of injury and or the elements be it in cycling or other sports or maybe in your occupation , then in my book if the individual is trying to protect themselves from some form of injury , heat, cold, getting soaked , or whatever , then it is personal protection from what ever they are protecting themselves from , equipment could be argued is a multitude of items ,
Just because things have been pointed out on this forum does not mean that the deliberation of these pointers are absolute , 
Also , cycling in London is safe-ish
I rode to London today for the stop killing cyclist meet, I was accompanied by @jefmcg , I had a very close call with a white van on the CS8 heading back , and @jefmcg told me whilst waiting at lights there had been more , so safe-ish is how I would describe it 

And yes , I was wearing my PPE , 
Helmet , Hi vis , gloves , Lights flashing , waterproof footwear


----------



## srw (11 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> And yes , I was wearing my PPE ,
> Helmet , Hi vis , gloves , Lights flashing , waterproof footwear


"PPE", I gather, has a very specific meaning in the world of Health and Safety, and none of what you cite counts for a cyclist, which is why I'm querying your use of the term. All I can say is that I don't bother with any of what you describe when I've ridden in London (before I got ill last year I did it regularly as a commute), and the number of things I'd call close calls is extremely small - to the extent of about one per several hundred miles.

That might mean that I'm blasé, or that I am lucky; I think it's because I'm risk aware, and can tell the difference between an actual and a perceived danger.



ozboz said:


> Also , cycling in London is safe-ish








2 more women die in London
I'd describe that as safe.


----------



## ozboz (11 Feb 2017)

H&S ,is not a term that is confined to realms of industry, surely when we go out on road on our bikes according to our own perception when considering what could seriously affect our very own H&S we wear or attach items to keep us as safe ,warm and dry as we can , or at least I do , and many of the may I say hundreds of participants of today's rally at the Treasury had taken their own ,appropriate to them ,actions to alleviate possible discomfort, harm or danger , so it is personal protection, ? 
Im not to sure what that biege coloured bit is supposed to be in your post , you may deem things as being safe , but again at this Rally today , all these other people are not so convinced,




So we all played dead for one minute in silence for victims of road deaths whilst riding , 
As for close call , a white van without slowing crossed into the CS8 path. In front of me , he was undertaking another vehicle that was turning right , forcing me to forcibly brake and swerve toward the pavement , take a wobble and get foot to ground my front wheel within inches of his back wheel, 
So yes a close call ,


----------



## srw (11 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> Im not to sure what that biege coloured bit is supposed to be in your post


In which case I suggest you follow the link I provided. And the link within the link.

Like you I wear what I think is appropriate to my own health and safety. But a scarf and some gloves don't really protect me from danger, they keep me warm.


----------



## ozboz (11 Feb 2017)

srw said:


> In which case I suggest you follow the link I provided. And the link within the link.



Dont think ill bother , time to clean the bike , ready for tomorrow's jaunt


----------



## srw (12 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> Dont think ill bother , time to clean the bike , ready for tomorrow's jaunt


You might be educated a bit, and enjoy your next bike ride more. Which I think would be a good thing.

It always strikes me that this sort of discussion is more about fear of danger - a false perception - than about actual danger. It would be stupid to claim that there is no danger, so I don't. But it's also not terribly clever to claim that there is a lot or overwhelming or material danger.


----------



## subaqua (12 Feb 2017)

User said:


> And yet the roads are covered in mud... I've had to complain on a number of occasions.



PM me next time.I have a direct line. 

the newest smallest project there is the main culprit but they will be educated in the error of their ways


----------



## simon walsh (12 Feb 2017)

Very sad news rip


----------



## ozboz (12 Feb 2017)

srw said:


> You might be educated a bit, and enjoy your next bike ride more. Which I think would be a good thing.
> 
> It always strikes me that this sort of discussion is more about fear of danger - a false perception - than about actual danger. It would be stupid to claim that there is no danger, so I don't. But it's also not terribly clever to claim that there is a lot or overwhelming or material danger.


I always enjoy my riding ,so reading a load of stats will have no affect whatsoever ,
Take the dicussion how you will, I have no fear of danger , 
but do consider the possibility encountering it , so by taking appropriate action that could eliminate and or minimise 
risk beforehand is ok in my book, and many others it would seem,
Maybe its a trait I had drummed into whilst serving in the Army at a young age , in a situations where lack of real perception can and did end with catastrophic results .
The fact that last week three persons were tragically lost whilst riding does confirm that cycling is hazardous , so how can it be claimed that it is safe , safe ish,
at best , 
Not very clever to dismiss 
the fact that the stats do reveal the number of cyclist KSi's regardless of percentage , 
None is better than one ,


----------



## Wobblers (12 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> I always enjoy my riding ,so reading a load of stats will have no affect whatsoever ,
> Take the dicussion how you will, I have no fear of danger ,
> but do consider the possibility encountering it , so by taking appropriate action that could eliminate and or minimise
> risk beforehand is ok in my book, and many others it would seem,
> ...



Personal Protective Equipment has a very specific meaning. It is protective equipment which _may _offer _some _protection in an unforeseen event. It is by no means a guarantee of safety. It is also *not a replacement for adhering to safe procedures and adopting the correct practices*. It is a last resort: if you are relying on it for your safety you're doing it wrong. Where I work, that'd get you fired.

From your photo, it was quite plain that many - the majority, in fact - were not wearing PPE. Your risk assessment should take into account that there is surprisingly little evidence to support the idea that helmets and hi-vis decrease the risks for cyclists. In fact, I'd argue that hi-vis runs the danger of training drivers - those who bring the majority of the risk - into expecting and therefore relying on this "PPE", which is exactly the opposite to the safe behaviour necessary.


----------



## lazybloke (12 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]
I very much doubt the masks have any significant filtering effect on the most dangerous particulates, but that's not the point is it?


----------



## srw (12 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]
No, not really. To both halves of that post.


----------



## ozboz (12 Feb 2017)

McWobble said:


> Personal Protective Equipment has a very specific meaning. It is protective equipment which _may _offer _some _protection in an unforeseen event. It is by no means a guarantee of safety. It is also *not a replacement for adhering to safe procedures and adopting the correct practices*. It is a last resort: if you are relying on it for your safety you're doing it wrong. Where I work, that'd get you fired.
> 
> From your photo, it was quite plain that many - the majority, in fact - were not wearing PPE. Your risk assessment should take into account that there is surprisingly little evidence to support the idea that helmets and hi-vis decrease the risks for cyclists. In fact, I'd argue that hi-vis runs the danger of training drivers - those who bring the majority of the risk - into expecting and therefore relying on this "PPE", which is exactly the opposite to the safe behaviour necessary.


Not saying PPE makes you bullet proof , just helps divert or possibly protect and or reduce any injury ,

I am now in the Construction Industry , I am not sure how PPE could circumvent safe practise and procedure other than not wearing it , 
In London , Hi Viz and Helmets could never be mandatory as long as there are Boris Bikes on the road , but if you have never seen a Boris bike , they are lit up , 
as an individual I choose to don articles / items on myself and bike that in my opinion alert others to my presence , therefore decreasing possible risk factors , 
I also wear items to protect me from the elements in winter and summer , mainly for comfort , severe discomfort could lead to distraction , which in turn could lead to a problem , 
Vehicle drivers should only depend on themselves and roadworthy-ness of their vehicles whilst driving to avert collisions with any others regardless,


----------



## lazybloke (12 Feb 2017)

looks likely that tax/duty/congestion charging/polution charging and even public opinion will reduce the number if diesel engines in future, and the so-called clean diesels are not without their problems (inc potentially high maintenance costs).
if DPFs really can work effectively then maybe all those charges I mentioned above could be used to subsidise the maintenance, it would be if benefit to all. Ultimately though, makes sense to transition away from diesel, and masks and protests might help bring that day nearer.
but which energy source? I think it has ti be electricity, clean at point of use at least. I've heard it said that the national grid would fall apart, but I suppose economy 7 type tariffs and a more distributed generating capacity (micro generation) would be part of the solution.


----------



## Drago (12 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]I doubt that's possible, such is the tiny scale of them.


----------



## ozboz (12 Feb 2017)

[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]






Not to sure if they work to well , is there a "does it all filter ? 
Keep your face warm maybe ?
Look cool maybe ?


----------



## growingvegetables (12 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> Not saying PPE makes you bullet proof , just helps divert or possibly protect and or reduce any injury ,
> 
> I am now in the Construction Industry , I am not sure how PPE could circumvent safe practise and procedure other than not wearing it ,
> In London , Hi Viz and Helmets could never be mandatory as long as there are Boris Bikes on the road , but if you have never seen a Boris bike , they are lit up ,
> ...


Lordy - you're overthinking it. I get on my bike and go for a ride! And intend to enjoy!


----------



## ozboz (12 Feb 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Lordy - you're overthinking it. I get on my bike and go for a ride! And intend to enjoy!


I agree , but others reply and be picky , 
So I reply back ,


----------



## srw (12 Feb 2017)

ozboz said:


> The fact that last week three persons were tragically lost whilst riding does confirm that cycling is hazardous , so how can it be claimed that it is safe , safe ish,



[QUOTE 4679088, member: 9609"]seen a bit of this on the news last night - what a lot of cyclists wearing respirators, I take it that it's getting pretty bad down there with the pollution now. Presumably these masks filter out the very damaging particulate matter from the diesel fumes ?[/QUOTE]



ozboz said:


> I am now in the Construction Industry , I am not sure how PPE could circumvent safe practise and procedure other than not wearing it ,





ozboz said:


> Not to sure if they work to well , is there a "does it all filter ?
> Keep your face warm maybe ?
> Look cool maybe ?



I'm going to take the easy option and simply say "no!" to all of this lot. If I'm more with-it tomorrow or later in the week I may give a more subtle response.


----------



## RRCC (13 Feb 2017)

Trying to give some clarity on the legal issues.
The full title of the PPE regs is: The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, they are made under the HSW Act 1974, so this, as indicated in the title, means that they only apply to people involved in work activity.

PPE is defined in Reg 2:


> 2 Interpretation
> (1) In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, “personal protective equipment” means all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety, and any addition or accessory designed to meet that objective.



This could be construed to include cycle helmets and high vis if worn when at work, however:



> Regulation 3
> (1) ....
> (2) Regulations 4 to 12 shall not apply in respect of personal protective equipment which is —
> (a) ordinary working clothes and uniforms which do not specifically protect the health and safety of the wearer;
> ...



All the regulations that impose duties do not apply when travelling on a road.

Therefore the PPE regs do not apply to any cyclist on a public road (they may apply to people riding bikes around industrial sites for work purposes).
Of course, careful reading of reg 2 means that helmets can only be ppe if they protect "against one or more risks to his health or safety," helmet debate thread is that way.


----------

