Cyclist dead after collision with van near Tamworth

danthomascyclist wrote:

The default response shouldn't be to question the cyclist's decision to ride along the road (unless we know they were doing something reckless). The default response should be "what was happening in that motorist's vehicle that enabled them to collide with something the size of a person?"

Further to this point, if a deer or a wild boar ran into the road then what? At what point does a driver cede responsibility for what they hit?

What is the HW code comment, drive to the conditions?

mrmo wrote:

danthomascyclist wrote:

The default response shouldn't be to question the cyclist's decision to ride along the road (unless we know they were doing something reckless). The default response should be "what was happening in that motorist's vehicle that enabled them to collide with something the size of a person?"

Further to this point, if a deer or a wild boar ran into the road then what? At what point does a driver cede responsibility for what they hit?

What is the HW code comment, drive to the conditions?

Even then the two aren't really comparable, as deer and the like tend to run perpendicular to traffic and appear very suddenly. You don't have time to react because it just appears and it's right on you. It's not like the cyclist will have emerged from the undergrowth and shot into traffic across the carriageway. No, if the driver was approaching at, say 70mph, and the cyclist was doing 20mph then he's closing at 50mph, which equates to doing about 22.5m per second. I have fairly average eyesight and I can see something the size of a person several hundred metres away, so in this case we can reasonably imagine the driver would have had about 10 seconds to spot the cyclist and do something about it, like move into another lane, or maybe slow the hell down. There's really no excuse.

vonhelmet wrote:

mrmo wrote:

danthomascyclist wrote:

The default response shouldn't be to question the cyclist's decision to ride along the road (unless we know they were doing something reckless). The default response should be "what was happening in that motorist's vehicle that enabled them to collide with something the size of a person?"

Further to this point, if a deer or a wild boar ran into the road then what? At what point does a driver cede responsibility for what they hit?

What is the HW code comment, drive to the conditions?

Even then the two aren't really comparable, as deer and the like tend to run perpendicular to traffic and appear very suddenly. You don't have time to react because it just appears and it's right on you. It's not like the cyclist will have emerged from the undergrowth and shot into traffic across the carriageway. No, if the driver was approaching at, say 70mph, and the cyclist was doing 20mph then he's closing at 50mph, which equates to doing about 22.5m per second. I have fairly average eyesight and I can see something the size of a person several hundred metres away, so in this case we can reasonably imagine the driver would have had about 10 seconds to spot the cyclist and do something about it, like move into another lane, or maybe slow the hell down. There's really no excuse.

Very well put. it's sad to say but if this case even makes it before a jury, this type of reasoning with beyond the wit of the prosecution and even if they did the jury of motors would just shrug their shoulders and think nothing of a driver not having their eyes on the road for a period of 10 seconds.

Simmo72 wrote:

... a road like this -the only difference between a motorway and a dual carriage way is 1 lane -

The big difference to me seems to be that a motorway will have a hard shoulder, and so would in fact be safe because you would be 2m away from all other vehicles by sticking to the left side of the shoulder.

tuber wrote:

Another shocking cyclist death. It is very very saddening to read so regularly about cyclists having 'collisions' with faster moving vehicles weighing in at a ton or more. After all, a % of the cyclists mindset is often that their travels (for whatever reason), brings enjoyable health, social and environmental benefits. The rewards for this altrustic mindset are deeply unjust. I've been cycling since the late fifties and in my experience people on bicycles have always been treated as second class road users.
The vast majority of this road killing, (a national disgrace of cycling and pedestrian deaths and injuries) is only reported locally, so for many, when it happens - it IS shocking, but only an occasional 'incident'.
Thanks to Road cc we (in the sticks who are interested), now know what's going on.
I think it would be useful if, (for the likes of me) a collation of shocking reports could be easily printed in one go. Those of us that wish to do so could then go round to all our local party candidates, councillors and the like etc. and push comprehensive printouts of this national disgrace through their letterboxes.

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/reference/uk-cycling-fatalities-2015/

Plenty more useful stuff on Bez's website too.

Thank you, grim reading but something I plan to analyse. Whoever my MP turns out to be today, he's going to be receiving some stats.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

My own feeling is that motorists moving at near-motorway speeds on roads like that aren't expecting to see someone on a bicycle doing 20mph. I've witnessed it on the A50 between Stoke and Derby. At 70mph, lone cyclists are approached very, very quickly and I can see how these kinds of accidents may happen.

I think on high speed dual carriageways like this, cycling should be banned.

We don't know the circumstances, but I have on a few occasions ended up on roads like these because I lost the alternative. For example Wrexham bypass, or the A40 approaching Monmouth from north and south. If I know a road such as the A40 Cheltenham to Gloucester I avoid it, I know the alternatives. Sometimes you end up on these roads because that is where the road signs tell you to go.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

I think on high speed dual carriageways like this, cycling should be banned.

Or perhaps they we provide segregated cycle paths adjacent to all roads with speed limits above 40 mph

RedfishUK wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

I think on high speed dual carriageways like this, cycling should be banned.

Or perhaps they we provide segregated cycle paths adjacent to all roads with speed limits above 40 mph

A huge tragedy for the family, and sympathies to them.

So many roads are been turned into virtual m-ways like this though without any parallel provision for people either on foot or bike. This https://goo.gl/maps/imwYI is a streetview link to the A1231 though Washington. A 70mph DC. The cycle infra is narrow bits of path cutting across the slips. I have seen people use it as in places there is no alternative. This is not some rural DC, but in the urban middle of a new town.

Something needs to be done.

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

I think on high speed dual carriageways like this, cycling should be banned.

At the same time, it also needs to be a legal requirement to build parallel (and good quality) or a protected lane for each new or upgraded road like this.