Cycling on TV tonight

[HLaB]

Looked again at the video.

The case of the cyclist crushed by the left-turning lorry was shocking. It was all captured on CCTV. The lorry overtook the cyclist and then immediately turned left on her. This is all perfectly clear from the footage. No way do we here have a case of a cyclist shooting up the nearside of a stationary lorry: something we all avoid doing (don't we?) and warn cyclists against doing. No: she did nothing wrong - I, for all the care I take, could equally have been that victim. So could any of us. How that lorry driver could claim she was in his 'blind spot' when she was in front of him, beats me.

She paid for perfectly sensible cycling with her life. For that lorry driver not to be jailed for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, coupled with a lifetime ban, is a total travesty of justice.

That was my first opinion too "the lorry overtook the cyclist and then immediately turned left on her", the video unfortunately was too short to say for certain but I'm glad I'm not the only one to feel that.

 

[Pete]

I think you might like to change that. There's no crime of jaywalking here, and rightly so thank goodness.

You may note that I did qualify it, in a later post.

I have had trouble with pedestrians stepping out into my path without looking. Surely we all have. There may not be a crime associated with it, but pedestrians have a responsibity of due care, too.

My father once ran down and killed a pedestrian with his car. This is an incident in my family history that I do not willingly enlarge upon, even though it happened nearly 60 years ago (before I was born in fact). The pedestrian was visibly and obviously drunk and simply lurched into his path without warning. There was nothing he could do. And he was completely exonerated of any motoring offence - I believe the police did not even bring charges.

 

[Globalti]

My father killed a cyclist in similar circumstances. The Police also did not press charges although they checked his car and said any fault could have made him liable to a manslaughter charge.

 

[ChrisKH]

I think you might like to change that. There's no crime of jaywalking here, and rightly so thank goodness.

No there isn't but maybe there should be. I was following a Police cyclist this morning and we both experienced three incidents over a space of 200 yards, two of which were pedestrian related; White VAN ASL creeper; numerous peds crossing on green on a very busy light withy both me and the police cyclist having to swerve in and out of them - he seemed surprised that I should use my bell (!!) and the the third was a pedestrian who just stepped out into the road without looking forcing us to swerve to the middle. This is everyday behaviour in London. And accepted/expected unfortunately.

 

[magnatom]

I posted this in a similar thread in commuting. I thought I would add it here:

The programme focused on extremes. For cyclists they had plenty of red light jumpers, for car drivers they had a couple of crazy 4x4 drivers and for pedestrians they had an old chap who couldn't get across some non-pedestrianised traffic light (I did feel sorry for him!)

It was interspersed with some sensible comments from commentators (although the lady motor columnist did say a few peculiar things!). John Franklin had about 2 sentences about cycling down the left of large vehicles. It's a shame he wasn't given more air time.

I actually cheered at one point. Strangely enough it was the kids protesting about RLJing cyclists. Good for them!! However, it did paint cyclists in a pretty poor light.
I have never been a fan of critical mass, and the section focusing on it did firm my views against it. Really what is the point of it? It just serves to irritate drivers and alienates drivers further!

I found myself grumping about many of the cyclists road position an although drivers certainly have a responsibility to drive carefully around us, it did look like cyclists were sometimes their own worst enemies.

The piece on the cyclist that was killed by the truck was saddening, and it appeared that the truck did overtake and left hook. If this was indeed the case then the driver was 99% at fault. However, had the lady cyclist been further out it might have put the driver off the maneuver. I am certainly not saying this to criticise the lady cyclist, I just wanted to point out to those who advocate cycling close to the curb the possible benefits of primary/secondary positions.

I should say all the stories of death were saddening. In fact you couldn't help but feel sorry for the chap who lost his wife at the traffic light pedestrian crossing.

My 2p worth anyway. What do others think?

 

[spindrift]

Cynthia Barlow:

Mrs Barlow: Of course it is. If I can retreat a bit from dangerous driving and just talk about my own experience of careless driving. In my daughter's case she was killed by a concrete mixer lorry. It was clear right from the start that the CPS were going to opt for a charge of careless driving because that was the cheapest, easiest, most convenient option, the one that they could most likely aim for. So careless driving it is. The police then investigate to that standard and it goes to the Magistrates' Court. The only form of death which magistrates still deal with is road death; manslaughter, murder, all those go to a higher court, road deaths do not, they stay with the Magistrates' Court. Should, therefore, the magistrates be given special training? That is a very good question. They do not at the moment. They receive no special training in dealing with road death cases. So the whole system is weighted towards the driver. I was not allowed access to any of the police reports or any of the evidence in advance of the trial. The CPS briefed a barrister who had no specialist knowledge. The policeman was a man who was—laconic would be putting it politely. He was only able to answer questions which were specifically asked of him. He did not volunteer any information. So the whole system falls down if you are dealing with a barrister who has no specialist knowledge, reporting to magistrates who also have no specialist knowledge and against that you have a barrister paid by the driver's insurance company and they make sure that he is very well-paid, and I have seen this performance twice. The victim does not get a look in and this is my fundamental complaint about the way things operate.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/105/3121002.htm


That woman who demanded the traffic warden call the speaking clock!

She said, stridently:

These parking tickets eat up my money, I mean, IT'S MY DRESS ALLOWANCE!!!!

The woman slagging cyclists off was Erin Baker,, an ignorant, offensive woman who claims cyclists are suicidal.

She's a sloppy, unprofessional hack:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/erinbaker/nov06/cyclistneverwrong.htm

She claims, among other things, that cyclists are, "for the most part dangerous, irresponsible road-users".

Why the hell anyone thought that dozy cow's views were worth anything is beyond me.

On the whole it was ok, the courier made me wince but the drivers seemed incoherent with rage most of the time. They need to get a bike and chill the flip out with some squirrel comedy.

 

[walker]

Thinking about what I said earlier, realise I left out some things. The plight of Jane McVitie - killed by a left-hook from a lorry - very sobering. And - equally moving if less tragic - the unfortunate 82-year-old man unable to cross the road to get to the synagogue - having to take a bus up and down the road - how much dafter can our roads policy get!? Maybe I was a bit harsh in mentioning 'jaywalkers' - although there certainly are some.

I'm a Jay Walker, No, really, I am

 

[wafflycat]

Yesterday I was in pedestrian mode in my nearest town. I was waiting at a light controlled ped crossing. Traffic light changed to amber. Traffic light changed to red. Ped crossing light went green. Car zoomed through red light as peds start to cross... The driver (male, in black 'chavmobile') almost took out an elderly lady (no, not me).

 

[Pete]

You are forgetting your Highway Code (amended version). Green means go. Amber means accelerate towards the lights hoping to beat them. Red also means go, at higher speed, because you accelerated whilst they were amber.

 

[wafflycat]

My thought that was it must have been a cyclist in disguise, coz as any fule noe, it's only cyclists who jump red lights. Indeed there's a lot of them in these parts, as I see far more cyclists in disguise doing RLJ, as opposed to cyclists not in disguise...

 

[spindrift]

It didn't really add anything but it wasn't the cyclist slagfest I was expecting. It may even encourage more attending the next CM...

 

[John the Monkey]

It may even encourage more attending the next CM...

I have to say, the politicised cyclists shown made me (personally) cringe, and I wouldn't turn up to a CM having watched the portrayal of the event on the programme.

 

[Pete]

Just looked up the Wiki entry on jaywalking, and maybe I misunderstood the terminology. I thought it meant any sort of careless pedestrian behaviour which endangers them and other traffic. It appears that it means specifically, crossing a road where prohibited to do so (which does not apply anywhere in Britain except motorways, so the term is redundant).

But for me a common gripe is pedestrians, walking on the pavement the same direction as me cycling on the road, who suddenly lurch into the carriageway without looking, to get round an obstacle say. Yes, I know, being in primary position would lessen the risk from these. But I can't be in primary position all the time, sometimes there is traffic passing on my right.

 

[Pete]

I have to say, the politicised cyclists shown made me (personally) cringe, and I wouldn't turn up to a CM having watched the portrayal of the event on the programme.

This is a great shame, because there is a lot more to CM than the 'trustas' and much of it is really friendly and good-humoured. You get motorists waiting patiently as the cyclists stream past, even shouting their support (yes, really!). Some sit in their cars patiently but without menace. Tourists on the pavement take piccies, and stop you and ask you what it's all about. Sometimes they ask 'how can I join in? Where does it start from? Is it a demo?' There is music played, often from sound systems towed by bikes (ref. Valiant ) Mostly - repeat mostly - the police on duty have been friendly and supportive (I know about the few exceptions). When we get to known flashpoints like Parliament Square, where the idiot lobby take it upon themselves to circle umpteen times in order to make some 'point' or other - the best advice is to stop and wait by the roadside until the lunatic element lose interest and move on (often the Police decide 'enough' and block further circuits, forcing a move). Speaking for myself, at the London event (every last Friday of month, 6.30pm, front of NFT), it's a social gathering which can be combined with a 'normal' ride.

Do think about coming along. You may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[domtyler]

Just looked up the Wiki entry on jaywalking, and maybe I misunderstood the terminology. I thought it meant any sort of careless pedestrian behaviour which endangers them and other traffic. It appears that it means specifically, crossing a road where prohibited to do so (which does not apply anywhere in Britain except motorways, so the term is redundant).

But for me a common gripe is pedestrians, walking on the pavement the same direction as me cycling on the road, who suddenly lurch into the carriageway without looking, to get round an obstacle say. Yes, I know, being in primary position would lessen the risk from these. But I can't be in primary position all the time, sometimes there is traffic passing on my right.

You can and should be in primary position if there are pedestrians milling around, this will help you to avoid having an accident where a pedestrian steps out in front of you.