# Southampton's answer to fatal accident



## numbnuts (20 Dec 2017)

*MP calls for cyclists to think twice before using busy roads following fatal crash*
This prat wants sacking
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/157...efore_using_busy_roads_following_fatal_crash/


----------



## Rooster1 (20 Dec 2017)

So the answer to road safety is to remove yourself from the road, but only applies to cyclists. ****head.


----------



## Welsh wheels (20 Dec 2017)

Strongly disagree with what he said, but I wouldn't call him a prat. He was awarded a George Medal after tackling a gunman onboard HMS Astute back in 2011, which is not very prat-like behaviour. 
Donning my body armour in saying this, but just because someone doesn't have exactly the views about cycling that we would like doesn't make them a prat. Cycling isn't the be all and end all of life.


----------



## I like Skol (20 Dec 2017)

Someone must have voted for him?

He is obviously not a cyclist! I think it is a very non-cyclist view that think's cyclelanes are the answer. IME cycle lanes are not fit for purpose for someone who genuinely just wants to get from A to B (just like the drivers!) and their existence actually makes the situation for such cyclists worse as the motorists actually expect you to use these dire facilities.


----------



## Tangoup51 (20 Dec 2017)

I think there is merit and some ignorance in his statement.

Some roads are actively avoided by us cyclists particularly ones that do not have proper cycling infrastructure. Typically busy roads though.
I personally only recommend this advice to people who both lack experience and "leg power"
Of course you do not have to do those things but for general safety I've found it works best when going for alternative routes. - Particularly if you're commuting to-and-from everyday.

The ignorance part is the assumption that a Cycle lane is the definitive reason that enables you to cycle the road. - In his context of Safety, it should make sense but in reality it doesn't.

A typical painted cycle lane will have just the same effect as being in the left-hand road position and having cars overtaking you. The only difference is
a white line.. A white line which means and does ultimately nothing. - All it does in reality is give ignorant drivers a reason to be angry at you if you're not nested in a cycle lane.


I can give his statement a benefit of a doubt to a degree but does feel like he needs to understand the very basic dynamics of what a cycle-lane does.


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Dec 2017)

Tangoup51 said:


> I think there is merit and some ignorance in his statement.
> 
> Some roads are actively avoided by us cyclists particularly ones that do not have proper cycling infrastructure. Typically busy roads though.
> I personally only recommend this advice to people who both lack experience and "leg power"
> ...



Agree totally.

If you accept he is not (or may not be) an avid cyclist, then the advice to avoid certain roads has to be accepted as basically sound. After all, if one was giving advice to a child on avoiding "stranger danger", then, "do not talk to strangers" would be reasonable advice.

I am not saying that I am convinced by the hysteria over "stranger danger", and, I am not saying children (or anyone else) should not be able to speak to strangers, but, the reality, particularly in certain urban situations, may be that it is wise not to do so.

In short, we should all be able to go about our daily lives, without fear of being attacked, run over or otherwise molested, but, the reality is, this is, sadly, not always so. Equally sadly, I cannot see any indication that a speedy improvement in the situation is likely, no matter how much we all protest.


----------



## MossCommuter (20 Dec 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> Agree totally.
> 
> If you accept he is not (or may not be) an avid cyclist, then the advice to avoid certain roads has to be accepted as basically sound. After all, if one was giving advice to a child on avoiding "stranger danger", then, "do not talk to strangers" would be reasonable advice.
> 
> ...


We don't tell pedestrians to protect themselves from reckless cyclists by not walking anywhere


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Dec 2017)

MossCommuter said:


> We don't tell pedestrians to protect themselves from reckless cyclists by not walking anywhere



Well, YOU may not, but, personally, I would definitely advise Pedestrians not to walk on shared paths, cycle tracks, roads, or, railways, without at the very least exercising extreme vigilance.

I would have to re-read the article, but, I was not aware the MP's advice was targeted at simply avoiding reckless/dangerous/inattentive drivers, I took it as advice at avoiding a potentially dangerous situation.


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Dec 2017)

In other news clueless MP tells women not to wear short skirts in case they are raped.


----------



## Welsh wheels (20 Dec 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> In other news clueless MP tells women not to wear short skirts in case they are raped.


The two situations cannot be compared at all


----------



## Welsh wheels (20 Dec 2017)

User said:


> They are being. Why do you not agree?


Because saying that a women is asking to be raped is a much more serious thing to say than a well-meaning MP simply advising cyclists not to ride on roads that may be more a threat to their safety than others. Whilst cyclists should be allowed to ride on all roads without fear, we are also responsible for cycling in a safe manner and not taking unnecessary risks. A woman is never responsible for ensuring that she isn't raped.


----------



## Tangoup51 (20 Dec 2017)

User said:


> They are being. Why do you not agree?



The only similarity in that context you are discussing between Welsh wheels and Milkfloat is victim blaming.

To imply that the MP in this case is blaming the victim is wrong, the MP made no statement directly toward the victim who died in this case - or faulted him for the scenario. 

He was simply summarizing the dangers that you will further incur in that scenario because of other people and their faults, not yours.
I,e, because no one invested enough money for proper cycling infrastructure and a band of negligent drivers.

I can't see how that is victim blaming.


----------



## gavintc (20 Dec 2017)

Welsh wheels said:


> Because saying that a women is asking to be raped is a much more serious thing to say than a well-meaning MP simply advising cyclists not to ride on roads that may be more a threat to their safety than others. Whilst cyclists should be allowed to ride on all roads without fear, we are also responsible for cycling in a safe manner and not taking unnecessary risks. A woman is never responsible for ensuring that she isn't raped.


To me they are the same - pure victim blaming. In one, you don't adjust how women dress, you correct the male problem. In the other you don't correct where cyclists go, you correct the driver problem.


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Dec 2017)

gavintc said:


> To me they are the same - pure victim blaming. In one, you don't adjust how women dress, you correct the male problem. In the other you don't correct where cyclists go, you correct the driver problem.



I cannot speak for @Welsh wheels, but, my point was:

- it is NOT the victims fault
- in a potentially dangerous situation, it is wise to take precautions / avoiding action
- it may be HIGHLY desirable that certain activities can be carried out with impunity, but, REALISTICALLY, this not the case in practice

For example, I am a 70 year old male, past the first flush of youth, let us say. IMHO, I SHOULD be free to walk alone, at any time of day, without fear of being robbed etc, but, realistically, there are certain parts of my nearest city (Newcastle-upon-Tyne), or, indeed any other city in the UK, where I would avoid putting this particular "freedom" to the test, particularly if I had been over-indulging in the vino tinto (again).


----------



## Tangoup51 (20 Dec 2017)

gavintc said:


> To me they are the same - pure victim blaming. In one, you don't adjust how women dress, you correct the male problem. In the other you don't correct where cyclists go, you correct the driver problem.



That's wrong. You can't correct the driver issue if road infrastructures are not adequate enough. Both where "cyclists go" and "driver problems" are related between Road Infrastructure.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Dec 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> In other news clueless MP tells women not to wear short skirts in case they are raped.


Can we not use rape to make a political point?


----------



## Tangoup51 (20 Dec 2017)

BoldonLad said:


> I cannot speak for @Welsh wheels, but, my point was:
> 
> - it is NOT the victims fault
> - in a potentially dangerous situation, it is wise to take precautions / avoiding action
> ...




Your comment is very reasonable and logical however nowadays the real definition of Victim Blaming is that basically a lot of people find that logic intimidating and makes the victims feel to blame for avoiding such logical advice.

The reason why they feel like such logical advice is intimidating and uncomfortable is because they want the freedom to do whatever they want, where-ever they want and Don't want to be put on the hot-seat for not following the advice.


But what people often forget is, Advice is Advice. it's not mandatory nor set in stone.

IF you go to a place where you're more likely to get robbed (and you get robbed) I won't blame you for it. But I would advise you not to go there.

There is no connection between Advising and Blaming. But some people seem to use that logical advice as a way to blame people rather than warning them not to do it in the first place.

Personally I don't use it in that way.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Dec 2017)

"It comes after a 64-year-old cyclist died after colliding with a lorry outside the Crickets Arms on Portsmouth Road,Woolston"

No, it doesn't. He died after a lorry collided with him.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Dec 2017)

Please stop talking about rape.


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Dec 2017)

Tangoup51 said:


> Your comment is very reasonable and logical ...........
> 
> .



Oh dear.... I used to work (sorry about the language) as a Software Developer... my wife often tells me that talking to me, is like talking to a computer....

perhaps, she is right (again)


----------



## gaijintendo (20 Dec 2017)

Hmm. Instead of cycle lanes... or cycle paths... some kind of car lane! Or car path! To segregate them from cyclists!

If it wasn't for motorways already existing, that would almost be an idea.

Some roads are dangerous. I feel like it is an inevitability that some accidents will happen on certain roads where speed limits are met and awareness levels are high.

I don't like hearing that argument, but I reluctantly see some mild victim-blaming truth in it.


----------



## BoldonLad (20 Dec 2017)

jefmcg said:


> "It comes after a 64-year-old cyclist died after colliding with a lorry outside the Crickets Arms on Portsmouth Road,Woolston"
> 
> No, it doesn't. He died after a lorry collided with him.



In this tragic situation, which I did not witness, and, where my "knowledge' of events is limited to the newspaper article in the link, I am not laying any blame at anyone's door.

so:

a) not suggesting cyclist was to blame in any way
b) there is nothing in the article (that I can see) to make it clear who collided with who (other than the passage quoted above)
c) it is conceivable a cyclist could collide with a motor vehicle or other object
d) if a cyclist and a pedestrian collide, does it have to be reported as cyclist collides with pedestrian, or, is it conceivable that the pedestrian collided with the cyclist?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (20 Dec 2017)

Sounds like lorries need to be banned from that roundabout.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Dec 2017)

Royston used to own the bike shop in Bitterne triangle as well. So bit of a hypocrite.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Dec 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> Sounds like lorries need to be banned from that roundabout.


Very difficult to do that, as it’s a main entrance to / exit from the bridge, and it’s near the docks.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Dec 2017)

[QUOTE 5086539, member: 9609"]this article takes it a little further
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15779714.Cyclist_killed_and_man_arrested_after_crash_in_Southampton/
_"He said: “I was having a cigarette outside. *I saw a cyclist coming from the roundabout and behind him a lorry *and then I heard a crunch and I saw a man on the road and his bike half on the road and half on the pavement"_


if this is the view point ?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8...4!1saviNQt3yCtr_8SWlCM4keA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It does seem to be one of those horrible lane merging situations.
[/QUOTE]
Something I witness all the time at that roundabout, is lorries approaching it, from the toll gate, and a cyclist, in the truckers blind spot ( which can be surprisingly large ) assumes that they ( the cyclist ) are visible to the trucker, and pull to the right, but they may not realise, that the trucker can’t have seen them do so. I always pull over to the left, before the end of the cycle lane ( which is all the way over the bridge, until just before the roundabout, if there’s a truck behind me. The road is very badly designed at that point, from a cyclists perspective.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (21 Dec 2017)

Rather than (just) railing on a Forum, which arguments we've seen more times than any of us can recall, why don't local cyclists write to their MP and open a discussion with him. His view is uninformed and partial, and without other perspectives being presented things won't change. He's paid to listen.


----------



## Siclo (21 Dec 2017)

Given Royston Smith seems incapable of ensuring his vehicle is insured and feels he's exempt from the seat belt laws I reckon he should stop pontificating about those who are using the roads perfectly legally.


----------



## MossCommuter (21 Dec 2017)

Turns out our bemedalled hero is a bit muddled of thinking.

A bit more detail from road.cc:

http://road.cc/content/news/234267-...ys-cyclists-should-be-forced-ride-cycle-lanes

Just a plain old fashioned anti- cyclist


----------



## Maenchi (21 Dec 2017)

was it ever ? or will it ever be any different ?


----------



## Rooster1 (21 Dec 2017)

Cyclists should be forced to ride in cycle lanes, even though I took the budget for them and used the money elsewhere.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Dec 2017)

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/157...MP_says_his_views_have_been__misinterpreted_/

He’s been misunderstood.


----------



## Rooster1 (21 Dec 2017)

I hope he gets a new bike for Christmas


----------



## jefmcg (21 Dec 2017)

Welsh wheels said:


> Strongly disagree with what he said, but I wouldn't call him a prat. He was awarded a George Medal after tackling a gunman onboard HMS Astute back in 2011


As subsequent posting show, one can be a hero and a prat.


----------



## mjr (24 Dec 2017)

Rooster1 said:


> I hope he gets a new bike for Christmas


Rectally?


----------

