Dozy i-pod zombie gets hit by cyclist

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

Cyclist riding too fast for the conditions, panic brakes and target-
fixates. If he'd maintained his original course and not braked
so hard he'd probably have missed the pedestrian. He couldn't see (or
didn't notice) the pedestrian because the car that he just undertook at
considerable speed was in the way. Lycra lout earns bad publicity for
cyclists generally.

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 18:33:04 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

Cyclist riding too fast for the conditions, panic brakes and target-
fixates. If he'd maintained his original course and not braked
so hard he'd probably have missed the pedestrian. He couldn't see (or
didn't notice) the pedestrian because the car that he just undertook at
considerable speed was in the way. Lycra lout earns bad publicity for
cyclists generally.

Pedestrian decides to go for it, hesitates and then decides, sod it, it's only a bike. Would not have chanced it if it had been a bus.

On 26/11/2015 18:33, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

Cyclist riding too fast for the conditions, panic brakes and target-
fixates. If he'd maintained his original course and not braked
so hard he'd probably have missed the pedestrian. He couldn't see (or
didn't notice) the pedestrian because the car that he just undertook at
considerable speed was in the way. Lycra lout earns bad publicity for
cyclists generally.


Not sure about the braking. I think if he did brake that was the right
thing to do.

But I agree with the rest.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 18:50:01 +0000
Nick wrote:

On 26/11/2015 18:33, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

Cyclist riding too fast for the conditions, panic brakes and target-
fixates. If he'd maintained his original course and not braked
so hard he'd probably have missed the pedestrian. He couldn't see
(or didn't notice) the pedestrian because the car that he just
undertook at considerable speed was in the way. Lycra lout earns
bad publicity for cyclists generally.


Not sure about the braking. I think if he did brake that was the
right thing to do.

I'm thinking that when he panic braked and locked up on the slippery
road, he lost the ability to lean into the turn - he seems to suddenly
start heading towards the back of the bus rather than around it.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

On Thursday, 26 November 2015 18:33:04 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Alycidon wrote:

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

Cyclist riding too fast for the conditions, panic brakes and target-
fixates. If he'd maintained his original course and not braked
so hard he'd probably have missed the pedestrian. He couldn't see
(or didn't notice) the pedestrian because the car that he just
undertook at considerable speed was in the way. Lycra lout earns
bad publicity for cyclists generally.

Pedestrian decides to go for it, hesitates and then decides, sod it,
it's only a bike. Would not have chanced it if it had been a bus.

The pedestrian wouldn't have seen the cyclist for the same reason that
the cyclist didn't see the pedestrian - there was a car between them.
Had the cyclist been riding so that he could stop within the distance
that he could see to be clear then this collision wouldn't have
happened.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:16:43 +0000, Rob Morley wrote:

Had the cyclist been riding so that he could stop within the
distance that he could see to be clear then this collision wouldn't
have happened.

I don't think that's true in this case - because the distance he could
see to be clear suddenly changed.

That is: as he undertakes the car he can see a clear path all the way
to the bus. His speed does not look to be so high that he would have
been unable to stop before the bus. However, the pedestrian then comes
into the path and the distance seen to be clear suddenly changes.

He does undertake the car too fast, in my opinion, but it's not about
stop within the distance you can see clear, it's just too fast.

'Stop within the distance you can see to be clear' doesn't mean 'can
see will definitely remain clear regardless of the actions of every
other road user'. Otherwise most drivers would have to stop
immediately before every vehicle coming the other way reaches them
(unless it's a very wide road, when merely slowing to 1 or 2mph might
be adequate).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Rob Morley" wrote
Alycidon wrote:

Good job it wasn't a bus or lorry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html

Cyclist riding too fast for the conditions, panic brakes and target-
fixates. If he'd maintained his original course and not braked
so hard he'd probably have missed the pedestrian.

Looks like fairly straightforward target fixation; the rider can be seen to
make a leftward path adjustment into the pedestrian. (Panic braking and lock
up usually only introduces an attitude change, not a change of direction of
CoG.) The pedestrian must have been aware because of the way he made several
changes of step speed. He slowed when he thought he had reached a safety
zone behind the bus.

The other thing that seems odd is that the cycle path is separated from the
main carriageway by a solid line. Yet buses are allowed to park on the cycle
path. Seems to defeat the point.