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

According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 10, 11:26 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
FrengaX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash

Same story here.
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/...ter___s_death/

If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell:
Cyclist wearing headphones, rides straight out of a junction, slams
into lorry, and dies.

Scarily enough, if you do a search in the words "cyclist inquest
headphones" there are a worryingly large number of hits (though many
duplicates). It's a similar madness as drivers who insist on using
their hand-held phones while driving.

Nothing wrong with bikes/cycling, but a little sense of self-
preservation is definitely worth while.
Ads
  #2  
Old September 4th 10, 11:43 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash

Same story here.
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/...ter___s_death/

If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell:
Cyclist wearing headphones, rides straight out of a junction, slams
into lorry, and dies.

Scarily enough, if you do a search in the words "cyclist inquest
headphones" there are a worryingly large number of hits (though many
duplicates). It's a similar madness as drivers who insist on using
their hand-held phones while driving.

Nothing wrong with bikes/cycling, but a little sense of self-
preservation is definitely worth while.


Look up 'ipod zombie' for a bit of a laugh.
One I saw the other day was texting with both hands while cycling the wrong
way along a one way road.


  #3  
Old September 4th 10, 12:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash

Same story here.
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/...ter___s_death/

If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell:
Cyclist wearing headphones, rides straight out of a junction, slams
into lorry, and dies.

Scarily enough, if you do a search in the words "cyclist inquest
headphones" there are a worryingly large number of hits (though many
duplicates). It's a similar madness as drivers who insist on using
their hand-held phones while driving.

Nothing wrong with bikes/cycling, but a little sense of self-
preservation is definitely worth while.


note that the accident happened after she left the safety of a cycle lane.
Since she was able to cycle straight out of the end of it perhaps there
should be some form of chicane at the end of the cycle path to prevent it
recurring, at least that would heighten awareness that there is a junction.


  #4  
Old September 4th 10, 12:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,347
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash



This is much more complicated than you are portraying it.

There isn't a cycle lane on Northam Road at that point but there is an
unmarked shared pavement route there. I would guess she was cycling
westbound to the Fire Station in St Marys.

If those assumptions are correct then the accident is a text book one as
illustrated he
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cy...sion_risks.jpg)
and it links to why cycle paths are more dangerous in another thread.
Danish research has classed the problem as insoluble in that even if
the cycle path has priority the problem remains The headphones were
most likely completely incidental to what happened.

Its a busy road so its unlikely the sound of the lorry would have stood
out even if she had not been wearing headphones. The cycle pavement is
on the left of a left turning lane that the lorry would have been using
and ends there so you need to rejoin the straight on traffic by crossing
the left turning lane. The difficulty for a cyclist is you need to
check traffic through 270 degrees when you are on the cycle facility and
that is what she would appear to have failed to do. Headphones or not
do not make up for lack of looking and she paid a high price for it.

The lorry driver did what is classically known in the literature as
"looked but failed to see" - cyclists in those positions are invariably
invisible to drivers even when they are looking. Whether he made the
other classic error of not fully passing her before making his turn I
don't know but he should have been aware she was there from having
passed her earlier.

The guilty parties if any are the traffic planners. If she had been
riding on the road she would not have been going straight on on a cycle
path to the left of a left turning lane. Its not the only place where
I've seen such stupidity I'm afraid to say.

Tony
  #5  
Old September 4th 10, 01:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

Tony Raven wrote:
FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash



This is much more complicated than you are portraying it.

There isn't a cycle lane on Northam Road at that point but there is an
unmarked shared pavement route there. I would guess she was cycling
westbound to the Fire Station in St Marys.

If those assumptions are correct then the accident is a text book one
as illustrated he
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cy...sion_risks.jpg)
and it links to why cycle paths are more dangerous in another thread.
Danish research has classed the problem as insoluble in that even if
the cycle path has priority the problem remains The headphones were
most likely completely incidental to what happened.

Its a busy road so its unlikely the sound of the lorry would have
stood out even if she had not been wearing headphones. The cycle
pavement is on the left of a left turning lane that the lorry would
have been using and ends there so you need to rejoin the straight on
traffic by crossing the left turning lane. The difficulty for a
cyclist is you need to check traffic through 270 degrees when you are
on the cycle facility and that is what she would appear to have
failed to do. Headphones or not do not make up for lack of looking
and she paid a high price for it.
The lorry driver did what is classically known in the literature as
"looked but failed to see" - cyclists in those positions are
invariably invisible to drivers even when they are looking. Whether
he made the other classic error of not fully passing her before
making his turn I don't know but he should have been aware she was
there from having passed her earlier.

The guilty parties if any are the traffic planners. If she had been
riding on the road she would not have been going straight on on a
cycle path to the left of a left turning lane. Its not the only
place where I've seen such stupidity I'm afraid to say.

Tony


she should have stopped and looked when she reached the junction, she did
not, she cycled straight on.
since she had been stopped and told to remove the headphones on previous
occasions it is reasonable to assume that she was a typical cyclist: "road
laws do not apply to me"
in those glamour shots she is quite good looking, what a waste.


  #6  
Old September 4th 10, 03:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
FrengaX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

On Sep 4, 12:52*pm, Tony Raven wrote:
FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...f-headphones-e...


This is much more complicated than you are portraying it.

There isn't a cycle lane on Northam Road at that point but there is an
unmarked shared pavement route there. I would guess she was cycling
westbound to the Fire Station in St Marys.


The road runs NE/SW (Northam Bridge), and I assume she was travelling
SW. There is no indication of a cycle lane (how can it be share
pavement if it is unmarked?). I have checked back a fair way on Google
Street view. So if she was on the pavement, she should have been
doubly careful when crossing side streets.

If those assumptions are correct then the accident is a text book one as
illustrated he
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cy...sion_risks.jpg)
and it links to why cycle paths are more dangerous in another thread.
* Danish research has classed the problem as insoluble in that even if
the cycle path has priority the problem remains *The headphones were
most likely completely incidental to what happened.


I've encountered cycle paths like that and I tend to ride in the road
instead. It's bloody ridiculous to expect to give way at every side
turn.

Its a busy road so its unlikely the sound of the lorry would have stood
out even if she had not been wearing headphones. *The cycle pavement is
on the left of a left turning lane that the lorry would have been using
and ends there so you need to rejoin the straight on traffic by crossing
the left turning lane. *The difficulty for a cyclist is you need to
check traffic through 270 degrees when you are on the cycle facility and
that is what she would appear to have failed to do. *Headphones or not
do not make up for lack of looking and she paid a high price for it.

The lorry driver did what is classically known in the literature as
"looked but failed to see" - cyclists in those positions are invariably
invisible to drivers even when they are looking. *Whether he made the
other classic error of not fully passing her before making his turn I
don't know but he should have been aware she was there from having
passed her earlier.

The guilty parties if any are the traffic planners. *If she had been
riding on the road she would not have been going straight on on a cycle
path to the left of a left turning lane. *Its not the only place where
I've seen such stupidity I'm afraid to say.

Tony


  #7  
Old September 4th 10, 03:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,074
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

Mrcheerful wrote:
FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash

Same story here.
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/...ter___s_death/

If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell:
Cyclist wearing headphones, rides straight out of a junction, slams
into lorry, and dies.

Scarily enough, if you do a search in the words "cyclist inquest
headphones" there are a worryingly large number of hits (though many
duplicates). It's a similar madness as drivers who insist on using
their hand-held phones while driving.

Nothing wrong with bikes/cycling, but a little sense of self-
preservation is definitely worth while.


note that the accident happened after she left the safety of a cycle
lane. Since she was able to cycle straight out of the end of it
perhaps there should be some form of chicane at the end of the cycle
path to prevent it recurring, at least that would heighten awareness
that there is a junction.


Perhaps they could put a red light at the end to stop...........

Nah - never work would it.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.


  #8  
Old September 4th 10, 04:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,347
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

FrengaX wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:52 pm, Tony Raven
There is no indication of a cycle lane (how can it be share
pavement if it is unmarked?).


Its marked as such on the cycling maps issued by the City Council


I've encountered cycle paths like that and I tend to ride in the road
instead. It's bloody ridiculous to expect to give way at every side
turn.


I agree & so would many regular cyclists. Novices, non-cyclists &
politicians think they're the bee's knees though

Tony
  #9  
Old September 4th 10, 04:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,164
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 12:52:08 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

There isn't a cycle lane on Northam Road at that point but there is an
unmarked shared pavement route there. I would guess she was cycling
westbound to the Fire Station in St Marys.


The incident occurred at the junction of Northam Road southbound and
Prince's Street.

If those assumptions are correct then the accident is a text book one as
illustrated he
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cy...sion_risks.jpg)
and it links to why cycle paths are more dangerous in another thread.
Danish research has classed the problem as insoluble in that even if
the cycle path has priority the problem remains


At that traffic light controlled junction there doesn't seem to be a
problem which needs solving so long as cyclists and pedestrians give
way when crossing Prince's Street as they are supposed to. There
doesn't appear to be any priority for cyclists at that point which
features a left hand "turn left" lane and sweep from Northam Road into
Princes Street. The cycle lane on the east side (If that is what it
is) seems to stop 25m to the north of the junction.

The headphones were most likely completely incidental to what happened.


That seems unlikely as it appears the cause was a lack of attention to
the road. As witnesses said - she rode at some speed into the side of
the rear of the trailer without slowing for the junction at all. It is
likely that the headphones both isolated her from the environment and
the music distracted her. It isn't uncommon and cyclist wearing noise
excluding headsets or ear buds which also exclude environmental cues
are a common sight.

Its a busy road so its unlikely the sound of the lorry would have stood
out even if she had not been wearing headphones. The cycle pavement is
on the left of a left turning lane that the lorry would have been using
and ends there so you need to rejoin the straight on traffic by crossing
the left turning lane. The difficulty for a cyclist is you need to
check traffic through 270 degrees when you are on the cycle facility and
that is what she would appear to have failed to do.


As the traffic light facing her was at green as she cycled down the
pavement she would have had to look to her right and rear to check for
traffic coming down the left hand lane and straight ahead to see
traffic stopped or otherwise at the lights going west out of Prince's
street.. That isn't 270 deg and in any case the road traffic had
priority so it was her responsibility to ensure the way was clear
before crossing the junction.

It wasn't a case of her starting to cross and being struck by a left
turning vehicle but of her riding into the rear side of a long vehicle
which had already turned left.

The lorry driver did what is classically known in the literature as
"looked but failed to see" - cyclists in those positions are invariably
invisible to drivers even when they are looking. Whether he made the
other classic error of not fully passing her before making his turn I
don't know but he should have been aware she was there from having
passed her earlier.


It is difficult to see why you think a lorry driver should have taken
note of, and given way to, a cyclist running parallel with him and
separated from the main road by a pavement, a fence and a strip of
grass. The lorry was past the crossing before the cyclist arrived at
it. At no time on that section of road did the cyclist have priority,
the lorry driver had a green traffic light to turn left.

The lorry was towing a grain trailer and it was the rear of the grain
trailer the cyclist hit.

If it was a "classic case" of anything it was of the lethality of a
lack of attention to the road when cycling.

The guilty parties if any are the traffic planners.


From the photos of that junction I can't see why you think that.
Assuming she was cycling south along the cycle lane to the east of the
pavement and main road she would have joined the footpath near the
Creditmarket shop about 25m from the junction. At the junction she
went straight ahead, apparently without pause, across Prince's street
towards the Prince of Wales pub on the south of the junction. As she
went under the rear trailer wheels of a tractor/trailer combination
the lorry was already well past the turning into Princes street. It
appears the cause in this case was simply a combination of a lack of
attention and excessive speed by the cyclist.

If she had been
riding on the road she would not have been going straight on on a cycle
path to the left of a left turning lane.


If she had stopped and given way to the priority traffic there would
have been no accident.
  #10  
Old September 4th 10, 05:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default According to Doug, this would have been the lorry driver's fault

On 04/09/2010 11:26, FrengaX wrote:
PERIL OF HEADPHONES EXPOSED AFTER GIRL CYCLIST DIES IN CRASH
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...-dies-in-crash

Same story here.
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/...ter___s_death/

If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell:
Cyclist wearing headphones, rides straight out of a junction, slams
into lorry, and dies.

Scarily enough, if you do a search in the words "cyclist inquest
headphones" there are a worryingly large number of hits (though many
duplicates). It's a similar madness as drivers who insist on using
their hand-held phones while driving.

Nothing wrong with bikes/cycling, but a little sense of self-
preservation is definitely worth while.


EXTRAXT:
“But she was ignorant to the dangers of the road and thought she was
invincible. Nothing could separate her from her music. It was the love of her
life. She even complained to me that the police had stopped her a couple of
times and told her to remove her headphones. Amber thought she knew better.”

But there's something wrong with this story.

Headphones might mask things a cyclist would be better off hearing (like
traffic), but they don't block the vision. The accident, as described, did
not occur because the cyclist couldn't hear the lorry she hit. It happened
because she didn't see the lorry she hit.

One possible factor, I suppose, is that loud repetitive music can excite and
elate the listener (even if it depresses many others) and may contribute the
a feeling of power and invincibility.
 




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
Driver's ed in 2009? [email protected][_2_] Social Issues 4 June 5th 09 07:59 PM
A cyclist's question to Cornerstone Driver's education... And theirresponse... [email protected][_2_] Social Issues 0 June 3rd 09 03:07 PM
Driver's education in 2009? [email protected][_2_] General 3 June 2nd 09 07:25 PM
Not always the driver's fault..... John Burns UK 129 August 2nd 05 10:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.