A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 21st 15, 04:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

On 21/05/2015 13:29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 09:47:21 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening,
failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its
condition, fell off and died. Viable transport?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908


Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: “I consider myself to be a
careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist
died but don’t think there’s anything I could have done different
to avoid this accident.”


A 'careful and competent driver' who nevertheless couldn't manage to
park outside her house without hitting a wheely-bin.

How about looking before opening her door?
She *obviously* caused the accident by her
carelessness.


Recumbents are very low to the ground and would be easy to miss
with a quick glance in a mirror.


He wasn't riding a recumbent.

It appears that you are assuming that because he is pictured with a
recumbent that is what he was riding. The article has descriptive
text about the bike he was riding, and it doesn't match that recumbent
(or, indeed, any recumbent).

Further, the pictured recumbent is a short wheel-base bike. The
rider's eyeline is rather higher than that of many car drivers (most,
if you exclude 4x4s).

So, unless you count most of the cars on the road as being "low to the
ground and easy to miss", even if he were riding he bike that you're
wrongly assuming, your comment would still be wrong.


The average normal bicycle allows the riders head to be considerably
above the roof of a normal car and therefore offers more area of the
cyclist to be seen.
Whatever type of machine it was, it should not have been in use as it
was unroadworthy, the cyclist should not have been riding it,
additionally the cyclist should have been able to take a better line in
the first place, braked or swerved without falling off, and even if he
fell off, a helmet would probably have saved his life.
Ads
  #52  
Old May 21st 15, 06:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

On 21/05/2015 13:29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 09:47:21 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening,
failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its
condition, fell off and died. Viable transport?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908


Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: “I consider myself to be a
careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist
died but don’t think there’s anything I could have done different
to avoid this accident.”


A 'careful and competent driver' who nevertheless couldn't manage to
park outside her house without hitting a wheely-bin.

How about looking before opening her door?
She *obviously* caused the accident by her
carelessness.


Recumbents are very low to the ground and would be easy to miss
with a quick glance in a mirror.


He wasn't riding a recumbent.


How do you know that? He is pictured with one and the caption says 'his
bike' not 'one nothing like this'.

It appears that you are assuming that because he is pictured with a
recumbent that is what he was riding. The article has descriptive
text about the bike he was riding, and it doesn't match that recumbent
(or, indeed, any recumbent).


There is no descriptive text referring to the bike other than "the bike
Mr Hamilton was riding, made in the early 1970s, was not well maintained
as the tyre tread was worn so much you could see the inner fabric and
the brakes did not work well."

Further, the pictured recumbent is a short wheel-base bike. The
rider's eyeline is rather higher than that of many car drivers (most,
if you exclude 4x4s).

So, unless you count most of the cars on the road as being "low to the
ground and easy to miss", even if he were riding he bike that you're
wrongly assuming, your comment would still be wrong.

Can you explain the following then;

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #53  
Old May 21st 15, 06:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

On 21/05/2015 03:06, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Wed, 20 May 2015 10:44:23 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 20/05/2015 09:47, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening,
failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its
condition, fell off and died. Viable transport?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908



Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: “I consider myself to be a
careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died
but don’t think there’s anything I could have done different to avoid
this accident.”

How about looking before opening her door?
She *obviously* caused the accident by her
carelessness.

Recumbents are very low to the ground and would be easy to miss with a
quick glance in a mirror.
The cyclist was also careless, he would have seen the vehicle stop and
would know that the likelihood is that a door will open soon after, he
failed to allow enough room or stopping distance to avoid the
possibility, his machine was of such a type and in such poor condition
that he left it all too late to slow, stop or otherwise avoid the
obvious obstacle.

"a quick glance"!?
Unlike you, I look *very* carefully before opening my car doors.
She was to blame, unless you strangely consider that the accident
would've happened even if she hadn't opened the door?
She opened her door carelessly, resulting in his death.
How you can side with her is beyond me.


Even she didn't side with her, as she admitted the charge and was
banned for a somewhat inadequate 6 months - yet another case of
under-charging a clear case of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
(which can always be found as careless, so no reason not to go after
the more serious charge).

I hope the personal liability section of the cyclists household contents
insurance is able to adequately compensate the motorist for any damage
to his property and injuries caused by the cyclists stupidity.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #54  
Old May 21st 15, 11:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,703
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

"RJH" wrote
On 20/05/2015 09:08, Bod wrote:
On 20/05/2015 09:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
Recumbent rider failed to notice the likelihood of a car door opening,
failed to pass sufficiently wide and due to his type of machine and its
condition, fell off and died. Viable transport?

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...e-died-9290908


Hmm! The lady said "Mrs Jackson said: "I consider myself to be a
careful and competent driver. I feel very sorry that the cyclist died
but don't think there's anything I could have done different to avoid
this accident."


Who doesn't consider themselves to be careful and competent? It is amazing
to consider the difference between the tiny errors that have to be avoided
in the test to get a licence and the massive errors that can be made
afterwards without losing that licence.

How about looking before opening her door?
She *obviously* caused the accident by her
carelessness.


Quite - and hence the finding of the court.

I've just bought a new to me car, with swish electric folding mirrors. But
they only work off a switch inside the car, so I have to check without
mirrors. Hardly a great hardship, but irritating.


Mine works off the locks. That other manufacturers do differently seems
curious.

But there is a simple technique for opening a door that reduces the
unreliabilty of a visual from inside the car: it can also apply kerb side
for pedestrians. Release the catch so the door moves out slightly to give
those about to pass a signal of intention. Wait a couple of seconds before
opening further. Opening is a two action process of release and push,
anyway, so it's just a matter of including the time separation.



  #55  
Old May 22nd 15, 12:01 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,703
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.


How do you know?

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre
when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It
has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles
as speed rises.

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?


  #56  
Old May 22nd 15, 12:08 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.


How do you know?


Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre
when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider. It
has something to do with the requirement to increase space between vehicles
as speed rises.


Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low
speeds (eg, 30 mph or less).

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?


What does that have to do with the topic?
  #57  
Old May 22nd 15, 08:44 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

On 22/05/2015 00:08, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in

There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.


How do you know?


Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?

What do you think? Think it's a runner?

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre
when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get
wider. It
has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles
as speed rises.


Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was
talking about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low
speeds (eg, 30 mph or less).

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?


What does that have to do with the topic?


Thank you Mr N, exactly what I was going to say.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #58  
Old May 22nd 15, 12:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,703
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.


"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in


There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.


How do you know?


Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?


He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?


Not by any stretch.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.


Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking
about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg,
30 mph or less).


Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters
for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of
needing alphabetti spaghetti.

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?


What does that have to do with the topic?


Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always
whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them,
but pass parked cars much closer than that."

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car
there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is
reasonable.


  #59  
Old May 22nd 15, 12:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.

On 22/05/2015 12:26, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:


There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.


How do you know?


Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?


He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.


Or to have seen and observed (at the very least) a representative sample
of such situations.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?


Not by any stretch.


Really? Whyever not?

Why are cyclists' anecdotes so important but professional drivers'
hundreds of thousands of miles of experience less so?

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.


Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking
about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg,
30 mph or less).


Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters
for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of
needing alphabetti spaghetti.


Stop wriggling: it's undignified.

Your relevant subordinate clause was "...as roads get faster...".

Do you think that roads do that on their own?

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?


What does that have to do with the topic?


Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always
whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them,
but pass parked cars much closer than that."


I had *definitely* noticed that and fully agree with the implicit sentiment.

It *is* odd that cyclists need to be passed with a clearance of twenty
meters (or whatever) but all of this requirement fades away to nothing
when they are squeezing between lines of traffic - isn't it?

Putting aside the problem of opening doors (and when nobody is inside a car
there is no possibility of a problem), I have given two reasons why it is
reasonable.


You insist on wide clearances (when you insist on wide clearances) on
supposed safety and caution grounds.

Why are other road-users not entitled to a similar margin of safety and
caution?
  #60  
Old May 22nd 15, 01:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tarcap
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,950
Default Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck.



"TMS320" wrote in message ...


"JNugent" wrote in message
On 22/05/2015 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in


There are 33,000,000 motorists who regularly pass parked cars, often
closely because of road width, who travel at much faster speeds than
cyclists, but rarely hit opening doors.


How do you know?


Perhaps because he spends a lot of his driving time in urban areas where
exactly those conditions apply?


He claims to represent the other 32,999,999 motorists.

What do you think? Think it's a runner?


Not by any stretch.

Cyclists are always whinging that drivers should give them a least a
metre when passing them, but pass parked cars much closer than that.


Perhaps you've never noticed that as roads get faster, lanes get wider.
It has something to do with the requirement to increase space between
vehicles as speed rises.


Yes, but he wasn't talking about high speed routes, was he? He was talking
about urban (probably inner-city) streets and relatively low speeds (eg,
30 mph or less).


Oh dear, you're at it again. It seems my paragraph included enough letters
for you to reorder into "high speed routes". You should have grown out of
needing alphabetti spaghetti.

A stationary car also does not generate as much air turbulence as one
travelling at 30mph plus. You've never noticed the bow wave and wash of
large lorries when you pass them on the motorway?


What does that have to do with the topic?


Plenty. You obviously haven't noticed "the topic" was - "Cyclists are always
whinging that drivers should give them a least a metre when passing them,
but pass parked cars much closer than that."

No. The topic was "Cyclist dies on unroadworthy wreck". The clue is in the
Subject line. Hope this helps.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cyclist dies Simon Mason UK 42 November 5th 11 03:20 AM
Hilarious Cyclist's Anthem-"The Bicycle Wreck" by Tennessee Mafia Jug Band meb[_80_] Techniques 2 March 12th 08 12:33 PM
QLD cyclist dies in hit / run Jock Australia 3 July 1st 07 08:34 AM
{SYD} Cyclist dies after being hit by car cfsmtb Australia 3 May 29th 06 10:34 AM
another cyclist dies. Steve Knight General 67 November 1st 03 07:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.