Third Cyclist killed in London this week

[subaqua]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

Wot, no accuracy?

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

 

[Drago]

Cycling in London is really very safe indeed.

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

 

[ozboz]

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]

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.

Also , cycling in London is safe-ish

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

 

[ozboz]

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]

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]

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]

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.