Cyclist, 60, killed in south-east London hit-and-run crash

alansmurphy wrote:

You're basically saying that people are being allowed to speed, that shit large multi-nationals have taken prime space to produce awful products that pollute the atmosphere and furthermore provide dangerous vehicles driven by incompetent unfit staff...

 

And the bike is the problem here?

Read this bit again:

"I'm not apologising for bad driving. I'm just being realistic."

It's a busy road with a 60mph speed limit. If you feel brave enough to mix it on your bike with tipper trucks travelling quite legally at 60mph, as well as boy racers in stolen cars, on that route at night, please be my guest.

OldRidgeback wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

You're basically saying that people are being allowed to speed, that shit large multi-nationals have taken prime space to produce awful products that pollute the atmosphere and furthermore provide dangerous vehicles driven by incompetent unfit staff...

 

And the bike is the problem here?

 

Read this bit again:

"I'm not apologising for bad driving. I'm just being realistic."

It's a busy road with a 60mph speed limit. If you feel brave enough to mix it on your bike with tipper trucks travelling quite legally at 60mph, as well as boy racers in stolen cars, on that route at night, please be my guest.

You can say you aren't apologising for bad driving, but saying that you aren't doesn't sit well with the fact that you clearly are.  It's right there in your post.

Why do you feel the need to slip into victim-blaming, when someone has died?  You don't know why they were on that road, and for all your claims of there being good alternative routes, I would bet they aren't particularly well signposted or easy-to-find by anyone not familiar with the area.  You seem quick to excuse bad driving because the driver might be 'tired', yet strangely reluctant to tolerate any such imperfection on the part of cyclist victims.

Personally I'd only end up on such a road by mistake, and would be perfectly happy to surrender roads like this for the exclusive use of motorists (let them kill each other) but the quid-quo-pro ought to be their entirely giving up their right to use many of the smaller roads. 

Why do you feel the need to contest BTBS's comments?  What do you think you are achieving by doing so?  You end up acting as the spokesperson for motor-culture.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

You're basically saying that people are being allowed to speed, that shit large multi-nationals have taken prime space to produce awful products that pollute the atmosphere and furthermore provide dangerous vehicles driven by incompetent unfit staff...

 

And the bike is the problem here?

 

Read this bit again:

"I'm not apologising for bad driving. I'm just being realistic."

It's a busy road with a 60mph speed limit. If you feel brave enough to mix it on your bike with tipper trucks travelling quite legally at 60mph, as well as boy racers in stolen cars, on that route at night, please be my guest.

 

You can say you aren't apologising for bad driving, but saying that you aren't doesn't sit well with the fact that you clearly are.  It's right there in your post.

 

 

 

"You can say you aren't apologising for bad driving, but saying that you aren't doesn't sit well with the fact that you clearly are.  It's right there in your post."

Nope, I live in a place called the real world. In the real world, things are not very simple and sometimes not very nice. Yep, some of those truckers may be driving badly, but the majority are probably doing what they're supposed to do, driving at the speed limit. But that limit is fast. Add to that a few boy racers doing what they're most definitely not supposed to do, driving at massive speeds while possibly under the influence of drink or drugs. I'm most certainly not apologising for their behaviour. Nope, that route is most definitely not very nice to cycle on.

I'm not apologising for the behaviour of any driver there, good or bad. I make no excuse for anyone and if that's what you think I've said, you need to reread my comments. I'm just saying what it's like in Erith, which is not one of London's prettier areas. This is about as far from Richmond Park as you can get in terms of cycling. You don't seem to understand that.

Maybe the person rode onto the road by mistake, maybe not. I don't know, neither do you. I feel sorry for the family as riding on the route was a dangerous mistake to make.

What I am saying without a shadow of a doubt is that the route is not suitable for cycling. That's a fact, again one you may not like. But if that's your view, I invite you to go and ride it so you can see just how unpleasant and unsuitable it really is.

Now if you really cared you could maybe go and protest about cycle safety on the route. Wave your flags about cycle safety. I'm pretty sure most of the locals would be glad to see an end to the boy racers using the place as an illegal racetrack at night, but maybe the local criminal fraternity might not be so pleased. The industries in the area (the asphalt and concrete plants, the margerine factory, the supermarket distribution centre, the haulage industry and others) employ a lot of local people, so trying to get those shut down certainly would not go down well at all. It's an interesting area and has rather shadowy undertones to it that someone who knows the area, like me, knows to be wary of.

OldRidgeback wrote:

What I am saying without a shadow of a doubt is that the route is not suitable for cycling. That's a fact, again one you may not like.

You accuse people of "not getting it" and now you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of "fact".
Of course there is doubt, not in your mind maybe but in the minds of plenty of others. What you are calling "fact" is your own opinion and however much you seek to explain and justify it will not cause it to become fact.

The "fact" in this case is that a person using this road legitimately (whether you like it or not) was killed. It seems most likely that the cyclist was killed by someone operating a motor vehicle and not taking proper account of the presence of the cyclist or that cyclists could legitimately use this road. It is also "fact" that the driver broke the law by failing to stop.

Someone died and you seek to suggest the reason for the death was not choosing an alternative route rather than looking for the real cause. How dare you call on people to grow up when you've made such insensitive and frankly hurtful comments on such a case?

shay cycles wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

What I am saying without a shadow of a doubt is that the route is not suitable for cycling. That's a fact, again one you may not like.

You accuse people of "not getting it" and now you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of "fact".
Of course there is doubt, not in your mind maybe but in the minds of plenty of others. What you are calling "fact" is your own opinion and however much you seek to explain and justify it will not cause it to become fact.

The "fact" in this case is that a person using this road legitimately (whether you like it or not) was killed. It seems most likely that the cyclist was killed by someone operating a motor vehicle and not taking proper account of the presence of the cyclist or that cyclists could legitimately use this road. It is also "fact" that the driver broke the law by failing to stop.

Someone died and you seek to suggest the reason for the death was not choosing an alternative route rather than looking for the real cause. How dare you call on people to grow up when you've made such insensitive and frankly hurtful comments on such a case?

 

Yep it's a fact that whoever was driving the vehicle that struck the victim committed an offence. I did point that out quite early on. Leaving the scene of a crash is no small offence.

Other than that, we don't know many facts. We don't know whether the driver was speeding, or under the influence of drink or drugs (both risks common on that route as I also pointed out), using a cellphone at the wheel illegally or simply tired (a driving hazard that is often overlooked). 

Yep, it is legal to cycle on that stretch of road, which I also pointed out. But it's dangerous and not the best place to cycle. The cyclist took a risk in using it, and unfortunately paid the price.

Is there any of this you disagree with?

OldRidgeback wrote:

"I'm not apologising for bad driving. I'm just being realistic."

I don't think the subtleties of that argument are going to come across on a Web forum. It's probably impossible to make all the points about 'being realistic' without being interpreted as an apologist for antisocial behaviour, incompetent driving or poor town planning.

For example, have you seen the Dunham Massey close pass of the day article, involving cyclists? I know that shared-use path well. I commute down it fairly regularly, and run down it too. During 'rush-hour' in the sunnier months, it can be really busy with head-down cyclists, and when it gets a bit darker it can get fruity, with scallies on and off bikes (and other stuff they're not meant to be on). Then there are random horsists, laying shit and taking up a lot of room on one-ton lumps of panic. 

 If I suggested that dog-walkers were better off not using it, or just needed to get a bit realistic, beecause of all that might befall them due to other types of users, and there being a wealth of other sites for Fido to stretch his legs and various sphincters, I'd be well aware that probably every other poster would call me out for just saying it's OK that they're being muscled out. In short, it comes across exactly as apologising.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Apologise for talking about how if we were to victim blame women it would be scandalous, but cyclists killed/injured on a main road are been called out by people like you because there's a parallel road that may or may not be useful for that person.

I'm not apologising to you, it's people like you who want to push cyclists off the road using the 'it's common sense' bullshit argument with not a scrap of proof who should apologise. Your way of thinking has never, ever resolved the problem nor made cycling safer by pushing people off the bit of highway they want to go about their business on. Why do you think we are in the shitty sutuation as we are now, because of concession after concession and it's still no safer!

Jeez, you just don't get it do you? That dual carriageway runs right past two of the largest asphalt plants in the London area, as well as a big cement plant. You know those construction trucks no-one likes seeing on London roads? Well this is the area where about 1/3rd of them in the London area start and finish from. London is a 24 hour city.

In addition, you've got the margerine factory (Olivio if you must know) and one of the biggest supermarket distribution centres in the South East of England, all concentrated in the area. So at 4.30am when the incident happened, the night shift truck drivers would've been at their most tired and least attentive. Ever worked a night shift? I have and believe me, at 4.30am you tend to be trying hard not to nod off. A truck driver might even have hit the cyclist and not known about it. There are a lot of big trucks using that rout, all day and every day and the speed limit is 60mph.

Now add to that the fact that the area is a hotbed for vehicle crime and that you've got loons in nicked cars playing out their fantasies of being in the Fast and Furious films on all the high speed dual carriagesways in and around Thamesmead and Erith. There are one or two high speed fatalities/year in the area with young lads going very fast and finding out the hard way that the laws of physics can be rather final when it comes to hitting something at speed. If one of those lads hit the cyclist, you can bet they'll have headed off at speed and the car will be either dumped somewhere (if stolen) or being patched up and sprayed up in one of the numerous workshops around the area (if not stolen).

Read my comments again. there's plenty of proof in there for you to appreciate why the road is not safe for cycling. 

I'm not wanting to push cyclists off the road. I've probably been cycling a lot longer than you and plan to continue to do so.

As I said, several times, I know the area very well. You don't. Come to London and assert your legal right to ride that route and mix it with construction tipper trucks travelling at 60mph and driven by drivers being paid by the load. Juggle hand grenades. Neither is a very safe option. And they are entirely avoidable.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Do you think it's safe or sensible to take unnecessary risks?

I'm not apologising for bad driving. I'm just being realistic. You are being naive. Anyone who cycles along that route is taking a big risk. And it's a risk they don't need to take because there are other roads in the area that are a lot more suitable, rather more scenic (in daytime) and rather more pleasant, which I know because I've ridden along them.

Apologise or not, frankly I don't care any more. What I do know is you don't know the area and don't know that road. Sorry to have to say this, but grow up.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Next we'll be telling women not to walk down certain roads on their way to somewhere because thugh it's legal it's not safe/common sense to do so, so we'll start telling them to go a less convenient route and start to apportion blame if they're raped, even more so if they have alluring clothes, loomk defenceless and haven't bothered to armour themselves up or have no anti rape device.

I don't know about 'next we'll be doing this' -  this has been going on for a long time.  Maybe doesn't happen quite as shamelessly as it used to, but it quite clearly still goes on.

For the rest of it, I feel you mix up good and bad arguments.  Personally I'd accept a _slightly_ less direct route in return for safety, but it's entirely a question of degree.  Mainly I just want cars banned from more existing routes.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

And why do places where there are some parallel roads or cycle infra next to main roads not attract high levels of cycling?

Because it's more dangerous criss crossing mulitple junctions (As we see in the Netherlands with over 60 deaths a year at these junctions between infra and roads), more stop start and yes more circuitous so takes longer to get where you are going. People want to find the easiest/most direct roujte, that's the main road, from there you can go direct, have fewer stops, can make single turns to change direction and not have to wait to try to get into a busy flow of traffic from a side junction after you've already navigated multiple junctions already.

The thinking that there's a perfectly legit road next to the main is backward thinking in terms of safety, this is why I oppose segregated infra. In NL their infra often goes the long way around compared to roads, it still means you have to stop start quite often even despite the massively lower traffic levels, and as I said there is a very high chance you'll get mown down at these crossings even in the cycling norvana of NL. There are many narrow and not very good cycle lanes in NL next to perfectly good, smooth and direct roads.

Pushing cyclists off main roads and basically forced to use backroads/rats runs/ supposed 'quietways' simply ignores the real issues and still does not change the number of deaths or serious injuries of cyclists. We know this because despite various interventions and increased helmet wearing we have seen no  real improvements, cycling numbers are down, those who do cycle cycle further accepted but the % of those getting about by bike has remained static, why is that?

Telling people to use a worse route than the one you are perfectly allowed to doesn't make cycling more attractive, and as for the usual bullshit about just because it's legal doesn't make it safe/'common sense' nonsense. There's jack all evidence to prove that pushing cyclists off the main roads is safer, there's jack all evidence to prove that taking the lane is more dangerous than ceding priority and geting out the way all the time.

The stats don't lie and caving in and ceding has never, ever worked to improve matters, hi-vis, helmets, ever brighter lights and all the other victim blaming tools haven't improved cyclist safety one jot.

Next we'll be telling women not to walk down certain roads on their way to somewhere because thugh it's legal it's not safe/common sense to do so, so we'll start telling them to go a less convenient route and start to apportion blame if they're raped, even more so if they have alluring clothes, loomk defenceless and haven't bothered to armour themselves up or have no anti rape device.

Might as well tell peds not to walk across roads ever for fucks sakes given the number of deaths on/near main roads, after all, it's legal but it's not common sense is it

i take offence at your comment about women. You can apologise or not but frankly it was uncalled for.

I know that route. You don’t. It’s a dual carriageway with a 60mph speed limit and a high percentage of heavy trucks accessing the numerous industrial sites along the route. The crash happened at night but even so there would be plenty of trucks on the road. It is not remotely suitable for cycling. Feel free to ride it if you like. 

i know the area and there are some pleasant alternative routes I’ve cycled myself. They are better for cycling. That’s my point which you do not seem to have understood as you’ve gone off on a tangent and frankly, been insulting.

I’m sorry for the rider’s family but I can’t understand why he chose that route to cycle on.

alansmurphy wrote:

Oh yes, there's always a rather and I'm probably arguin semantics - but the road is not dangerous, it's the behaviour of others that is dangerous, minority or otherwise.

 

We also have no idea why he was riding on it; didn't know the area versus may have been yards from his home. At the end of the day, one person has killed another and left the scene. Questioning why the dead man was there is massively missing the point.

Read this again.

"Mixing cyclists with 50/60mph motor vehicle traffic on a dual carriageway is not a recipe for safety. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's good sense."

No we don't know what he was doing there. And I do feel sorry for his family. But there is such a thing as common sense. Ordinarily I wouldn't countenance victim blaming, but dual carriageways are not the best places for cycling. As I said, when I was younger and less aware of my mortality, I did use to ride along a busy dual carriageway. Now I admit I was taking a stupid and unecessary risk in doing so. I wasn't just putting myself at risk either. I've seen what happens when a fast moving vehicle hit an animal that walked into the roadway and it wasn't pretty and the people in the vehicle were lucky to escape serious injury.

Yes the vehicle driver committed a serious offence by leaving the scene of a crash. 

alansmurphy wrote:

The road is perfectly suitable, the road hasn't killed anyone.

 

It's the drivers of the vehicles on it that are the problem, alongside vehicles with blindspots and deliberately designed to travel beyond legal speed limits and only protect those inside it!!!

Would you rather ride along a route with a 50/60mph limit carrying a high percentage of heavy vehicles travelling at that speed, or an alternative parallel route with a 30mph limit used by other cyclists and cars instead? You're assuming that the motor vehicles using the route are speeding and the drivers are not paying attention, when it's likely that only a minority of drivers are not taking the requisite care.

On my commute either cycle and take the train or use my motorbike. If I'm doing the latter I use the (very busy) A2 dual carriageway and I'm still amazed when I pass cyclists riding along the hard shoulder of what is to all intents and purposes, an urban motorway. The hard shoulder is not a safe place to be on a bicycle on such a busy route. If you doubt this coment you might want to check the DfT website and see how many crashes there are on the hard shoulders of motorways (and dual carriageways) of the UK road network. They are not safe places to linger.

When I was young I did use to ride along the busy dual carriageway from the Forth Road Bridge into Edinburgh and now I have to asky myself why. There were alternative routes even before the current cycle path was constructed. Mixing cyclists with 50/60mph motor vehicle traffic on a dual carriageway is not a recipe for safety. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's good sense.