Parents of cyclist killed on main road in Dorset call for cycle lane

alansmurphy wrote:

Surely there's the technology.

Black box on all cars that's taking info from satelites not allowing the speed limit to be broken, after dark reduce the limits by 10mph (or more), depending on weather reduce the limits. Or if that's too much work, if you're over the speed limit automatic ticket or insurance price hike.  All cars to have dashcams as well, all  centrallyrecorded, all monitored by Police / Insurance companies when an incident occurs.

It should not be possible for anyone to not drive to the conditions and not be considered dangerous. If you can hit something in a massive vehicle and not know the difference between a 4 legged animal and a person on a bike then you weren't paying attention!

Yeah, but that's just more of the 'war on the motorist'.   Remember: drivers are 'cash cows' who 'subsidise cyclists'.  Any attempt to make them pay more is just 'a ruse' to tax them more, to 'pay for climate change' which - whilst we're about it - is 'a hoax' invented by Jeremy Corbyn whilst he was down on his allotment. 

The right.  I dream of a day when every fucking one of them is wiped from the face of the earth.  

hirsute wrote:

This was the previous article which makes the whole thing even more disgusting, especially how the driver was caught. https://road.cc/content/news/251211-community-order-careless-driver-who-...

Oh - this was that case!    From that Article, for those with low blood pressure:

"Gibbs hit the bonnet and windscreen of Johnson’s van and was thrown 47.5 metres.

Johnson pulled over and made a "cursory" search of the carriageway before continuing to the Applewood Hotel to drop off a suitcase.

...

Johnson did not enter pleas to failing to stop after a road accident or failing to report an accident. Both charges were not proceeded with by the prosecution.

...

After arriving at the hotel, Johnson wiped blood from the van with a tissue and took photographs of the damage. He told mechanics who came to collect the vehicle that he believed he could have hit a deer and may have "blacked out for a second".

Travelling back along the A338 Spur Road, he saw emergency services workers and searched the web for information on road closures.

A police officer spotted the van on the back of a recovery truck and reported it as a possible suspect vehicle for the collision. Attempts were made to track down the driver.

...

At 6.20am the next day, Johnson searched 'contact police', but did not make a call. Three minutes later, officers arrived at his address and arrested him.

Ian Bridge, mitigating, said Johnson was "desperately sorry" for his "momentary inattention" to the road ahead.

Johnson was sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £250 in prosecution costs. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months."

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

or they could campaign for the police to get off their arses and restrict motorists criminal activities,

Highly unlikely to be succesful, though.  Where and when has that ever happened?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

maybe they could campaign for \ speed limit to be 40mph with devices in motors and limit signs to control vehicles and stiffer sentences for killers and removing the bullshit 'death by careless'.

Again - one can dream, but I don't see it ever happening.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Maybe they could campaign for special segregated streets for women to walk down at night time as this is the dame thing right? It totally misses the root cause of the problem and yet again the vulnerable are being made to pay/change what they do.

Well, or campaign for a curfew for men, as has been a rhetorical ploy in the past.  Restricting men to certain streets only, perhaps?  But it's a crap analogy anyway as the practicalities are completely different.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You'll be waiting a long time for a proper cycle lane so in the meantime mr careless and the rest of the criinals will continue on doing their thing knowing full well they'll get the tap on the wrist as per here and it'll never change a fucking thing except push cyclists off the rad or away from cycling altogether, that's the reason why cycling hasn't increased as a whole in the ountry!

But you'll be waiting even longer for the ideal world you are demanding instead.  Why not a proper cycle lane in the meantime?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Considering Alliston got roasted and 18months this is a disgusting outcome yet again!

How the fuck is this careless ffs, British justice at its finest yet again!

The Alliston case was appalling, I agree.  But getting this ineffectually radical and angry even over much more mainstream political issues doesn't seem to go anywhere.  There are any number of topics on which I might occasionally daydream about locking people up or sending them to re-education camps for being so irredembaly stupid, but we all know that's not how the real world actually works (and on those rare occasions when it does, it doesn't go well).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

maybe they could campaign for \ speed limit to be 40mph with devices in motors and limit signs to control vehicles and stiffer sentences for killers and removing the bullshit 'death by careless'.

 

Again - one can dream, but I don't see it ever happening.

 

I've had this in my car for the past couple of years, though you have to actively enable it (speed lim - resume, on wheel) - it uses a combination of GPS, and a camera in front of the rear view mirror to read signs. This enables it to know the speed limit of a given road.

I've found it significantly easier to drive, as I don't have to continually check my speed against the limit; I can spend more time on situational awareness.

The system has no control over brakes, just the amount of fuel in the cylinders. It can be disabled by hard acceleration, or by pausing from the left side of the wheel controls.

Turn it on by default, and most people will never bother to turn it off.

Crippledbiker wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

maybe they could campaign for \ speed limit to be 40mph with devices in motors and limit signs to control vehicles and stiffer sentences for killers and removing the bullshit 'death by careless'.

 

Again - one can dream, but I don't see it ever happening.

 

I've had this in my car for the past couple of years, though you have to actively enable it (speed lim - resume, on wheel) - it uses a combination of GPS, and a camera in front of the rear view mirror to read signs. This enables it to know the speed limit of a given road. I've found it significantly easier to drive, as I don't have to continually check my speed against the limit; I can spend more time on situational awareness. The system has no control over brakes, just the amount of fuel in the cylinders. It can be disabled by hard acceleration, or by pausing from the left side of the wheel controls. Turn it on by default, and most people will never bother to turn it off.

Heh, news today suggests that I spoke too soon about the limting device bit!  EU law appaerntly mandating this system.

Still will believe it when I see it, though.  I predict howls of outrage from the Nick Ferraris and Jeremy Clarksons out there. And I really have huge doubts that, given it can be over-ridden, those who regualrly exceed 40mph in 20mph urban zones will ever even turn the thing on.

Rick_Rude wrote:

It's more shameful that drivers can't pay enough attention not to kill other road users. 

In some ways cycle lanes would lead to less tolerance when people used the roads. 

Good point. If the cyclist's lights were at fault then you can lay money it would have been mentioned, but it wasn't.  I'd take from that that they were working fine and that the van driver just literally failed to notice another road user...

If they were to put a cycle track down, it'd clearly have to be segregated or completely away from the roadway otherwise you'd get people passing at 60/70 and not moving out "because I didn't go into their lane, did I?".

brooksby wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

It's more shameful that drivers can't pay enough attention not to kill other road users. 

In some ways cycle lanes would lead to less tolerance when people used the roads. 

Good point. If the cyclist's lights were at fault then you can lay money it would have been mentioned, but it wasn't.

I wonder if a driver who has knocked down a cyclist, has ever actually got out and 'tampered' with the scene.   A taxi driver told me once that he'd knock me down, and then would take my helmet camera and drive away, dispose of it and then come back.  When I told him that failing to stop was an offence, he just laughed and said he'd tell plod that he 'panicked', and that he'd get off scot-free.  

And he was probably right. 

Rick_Rude wrote:

It's more shameful that drivers can't pay enough attention not to kill other road users. 

In some ways cycle lanes would lead to less tolerance when people used the roads. 

^^ This, cycle lanes and segregation encourage an us and them atmosphere and I believe in the long term only increases the danger of cycling on the roads.

More driver education and much harsher sentences for road users that make “mistakes” or are dangerous would encourage more concentration, attention and driving with care.

Htc wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

It's more shameful that drivers can't pay enough attention not to kill other road users. 

In some ways cycle lanes would lead to less tolerance when people used the roads. 

 

^^ This, cycle lanes and segregation encourage an us and them atmosphere and I believe in the long term only increases the danger of cycling on the roads.

More driver education and much harsher sentences for road users that make “mistakes” or are dangerous would encourage more concentration, attention and driving with care.

That's the logic of the failed "shared space" rubbish, though.  It's disengenuous, becuase it does't actually work like that when there's an imbalance of power.

  I find it hard to believe that those who complain about an 'us and them atmosphere' don't know full well that it _is_ 'us and them', and is inevitably so, becuase there's an 'us' and a 'them', differentiated by an asymettry of power.  "They" have a surfeit of KE and metal box armour, and "they" are not giving that up.

Likewise, I disagree with the mantra about 'more education' that gets pushed as a cure for all ills across any number of domains, usuallly by people who don't want to do anything that might upset those with power.  Education is a hugely over-rated solution to problems.  What most problems need are real material changes to the physical world.

I'm OK with harsher sentences, but it's unlikely to happen.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Htc wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

It's more shameful that drivers can't pay enough attention not to kill other road users. 

In some ways cycle lanes would lead to less tolerance when people used the roads. 

 

^^ This, cycle lanes and segregation encourage an us and them atmosphere and I believe in the long term only increases the danger of cycling on the roads.

More driver education and much harsher sentences for road users that make “mistakes” or are dangerous would encourage more concentration, attention and driving with care.

 

That's the logic of the failed "shared space" rubbish, though.  It's disengenuous, becuase it does't actually work like that when there's an imbalance of power.

 

  I find it hard to believe that those who complain about an 'us and them atmosphere' don't know full well that it _is_ 'us and them', and is inevitably so, becuase there's an 'us' and a 'them', differentiated by an asymettry of power.  "They" have a surfeit of KE and metal box armour, and "they" are not giving that up.

 

Likewise, I disagree with the mantra about 'more education' that gets pushed as a cure for all ills across any number of domains, usuallly by people who don't want to do anything that might upset those with power.  Education is a hugely over-rated solution to problems.  What most problems need are real material changes to the physical world.

 

I'm OK with harsher sentences, but it's unlikely to happen.

Totally agree, but at least education is cheap and thus a reasonable place to start with. They just have to throw together a few public information films and show them during The X Voice or whatever.,

janusz0 wrote:

It's shameful that there's no cycle provision.  Although the law allows us to cycle on 'A' roads, traffic safety experts recommend a maximum speed differential of 15 mph relative to other vehicles around you.  That's why I avoid roads with fast traffic and it's why no planner should allow road systems to exclude 'slow vehicles'.  Whether it's milk floats or bicycles there need to be adequate alternative routes.  If there aren't alternatives, the speed limit should be no more than 25 mph*.

I find it particuarly annoying when the quiet road that I'm following 'crosses' a main road with a 100 metre, or more' dogleg'.  I presume it's to stop motor vehicles taking chances, but it puts cyclists at risk.  Sometimes you could wait for hours before the main road is clear enough to allow you a period long enough to cycle through the dogleg without negotiating fast traffic.  It's just typical of the lack of consideration for minority road users.

At least the driver  admitted responsibilty and made an appropriate statement to the coroner.  However, none of the recommendations can bring Christopher back.  The people who approved plans for the Wessex Way should be on trial for manslaughter.  This wasn't an accident, it was a misjudgment long before Kevin Johnson made his mistake.

A cycle lane will be useful as long as it's segregated behind a decent crash barrier** (not the wire ropes that kill motorcyclists, please) or moved well away from the main road.

* We don't all cycle above 15 mph.

** Remember, Zak Carr was killed when he was cycling along a layby!  (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-who-killed-zak-car...)

Doglegs are safer for cyclists than cross roads in some circumstances - it stops cars just crossing at speed without looking properly -  one crossroads near us in the New Forest has had more one  fatal SMIDSY...

I’m not sure but are you saying that the national speed limit should be 25 and not 60 ? I love cycling on country lanes where the limit is technically 60 as there is nothing else to say otherwise.

Rubbish sentence for someone who basically drove into a cyclist carrying a light, no sort of deterrent....

janusz0 wrote:

It's shameful that there's no cycle provision.  Although the law allows us to cycle on 'A' roads, traffic safety experts recommend a maximum speed differential of 15 mph relative to other vehicles around you.  That's why I avoid roads with fast traffic and it's why no planner should allow road systems to exclude 'slow vehicles'.  Whether it's milk floats or bicycles there need to be adequate alternative routes.  If there aren't alternatives, the speed limit should be no more than 25 mph*.

I find it particuarly annoying when the quiet road that I'm following 'crosses' a main road with a 100 metre, or more' dogleg'.  I presume it's to stop motor vehicles taking chances, but it puts cyclists at risk.  Sometimes you could wait for hours before the main road is clear enough to allow you a period long enough to cycle through the dogleg without negotiating fast traffic.  It's just typical of the lack of consideration for minority road users.

At least the driver  admitted responsibilty and made an appropriate statement to the coroner.  However, none of the recommendations can bring Christopher back.  The people who approved plans for the Wessex Way should be on trial for manslaughter.  This wasn't an accident, it was a misjudgment long before Kevin Johnson made his mistake.

A cycle lane will be useful as long as it's segregated behind a decent crash barrier** (not the wire ropes that kill motorcyclists, please) or moved well away from the main road.

* We don't all cycle above 15 mph.

** Remember, Zak Carr was killed when he was cycling along a layby!  (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-who-killed-zak-car...)

Doglegs are safer for cyclists than cross roads in some circumstances - it stops cars just crossing at speed without looking properly -  one crossroads near us in the New Forest has had more one  fatal SMIDSY...

I’m not sure but are you saying that the national speed limit should be 25 and not 60 ? I love cycling on country lanes where the limit is technically 60 as there is nothing else to say otherwise.

Rubbish sentence for someone who basically drove into a cyclist carrying a light, no sort of deterrent....

janusz0 wrote:

It's shameful that there's no cycle provision.  Although the law allows us to cycle on 'A' roads, traffic safety experts recommend a maximum speed differential of 15 mph relative to other vehicles around you.  That's why I avoid roads with fast traffic and it's why no planner should allow road systems to exclude 'slow vehicles'.  Whether it's milk floats or bicycles there need to be adequate alternative routes.  If there aren't alternatives, the speed limit should be no more than 25 mph*.

I find it particuarly annoying when the quiet road that I'm following 'crosses' a main road with a 100 metre, or more' dogleg'.  I presume it's to stop motor vehicles taking chances, but it puts cyclists at risk.  Sometimes you could wait for hours before the main road is clear enough to allow you a period long enough to cycle through the dogleg without negotiating fast traffic.  It's just typical of the lack of consideration for minority road users.

At least the driver  admitted responsibilty and made an appropriate statement to the coroner.  However, none of the recommendations can bring Christopher back.  The people who approved plans for the Wessex Way should be on trial for manslaughter.  This wasn't an accident, it was a misjudgment long before Kevin Johnson made his mistake.

A cycle lane will be useful as long as it's segregated behind a decent crash barrier** (not the wire ropes that kill motorcyclists, please) or moved well away from the main road.

* We don't all cycle above 15 mph.

** Remember, Zak Carr was killed when he was cycling along a layby!  (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-who-killed-zak-car...)

Doglegs are safer for cyclists than cross roads in some circumstances - it stops cars just crossing at speed without looking properly -  one crossroads near us in the New Forest has had more one  fatal SMIDSY...

I’m not sure but are you saying that the national speed limit should be 25 and not 60 ? I love cycling on country lanes where the limit is technically 60 as there is nothing else to say otherwise.

Rubbish sentence for someone who basically drove into a cyclist carrying a light, no sort of deterrent....

bornslippy wrote:

 

janusz0 wrote:

It's shameful that there's no cycle provision.  Although the law allows us to cycle on 'A' roads, traffic safety experts recommend a maximum speed differential of 15 mph relative to other vehicles around you.  That's why I avoid roads with fast traffic and it's why no planner should allow road systems to exclude 'slow vehicles'.  Whether it's milk floats or bicycles there need to be adequate alternative routes.  If there aren't alternatives, the speed limit should be no more than 25 mph*.

I find it particuarly annoying when the quiet road that I'm following 'crosses' a main road with a 100 metre, or more' dogleg'.  I presume it's to stop motor vehicles taking chances, but it puts cyclists at risk.  Sometimes you could wait for hours before the main road is clear enough to allow you a period long enough to cycle through the dogleg without negotiating fast traffic.  It's just typical of the lack of consideration for minority road users.

At least the driver  admitted responsibilty and made an appropriate statement to the coroner.  However, none of the recommendations can bring Christopher back.  The people who approved plans for the Wessex Way should be on trial for manslaughter.  This wasn't an accident, it was a misjudgment long before Kevin Johnson made his mistake.

A cycle lane will be useful as long as it's segregated behind a decent crash barrier** (not the wire ropes that kill motorcyclists, please) or moved well away from the main road.

* We don't all cycle above 15 mph.

** Remember, Zak Carr was killed when he was cycling along a layby!  (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-who-killed-zak-car...)

Doglegs are safer for cyclists than cross roads in some circumstances - it stops cars just crossing at speed without looking properly -  one crossroads near us in the New Forest has had more one  fatal SMIDSY...

I’m not sure but are you saying that the national speed limit should be 25 and not 60 ? I love cycling on country lanes where the limit is technically 60 as there is nothing else to say otherwise.

Rubbish sentence for someone who basically drove into a cyclist carrying a light, no sort of deterrent....

25 mph limit: Yes I am proposing that this should be applied to any road that carries a mixture of low speed vehicles and vehicles capable of higher speeds. It would require a great deal of new vehicle infrastructure to be built, which would be a good boost to our economy and, I hope, lead to a serious fall in unemployment. We will never have safe roads while human beings are controlling vehicles moving at radically different speeds on shared roads.
It is a national disgrace that nearly 2000 people die on UK roads each year. Many more have 'life changing' injuries. It's as if we have a secret war raging in our country, but no photojournalists or UN observers to shock us into action.

janusz0 wrote:

bornslippy wrote:

 

janusz0 wrote:

It's shameful that there's no cycle provision.  Although the law allows us to cycle on 'A' roads, traffic safety experts recommend a maximum speed differential of 15 mph relative to other vehicles around you.  That's why I avoid roads with fast traffic and it's why no planner should allow road systems to exclude 'slow vehicles'.  Whether it's milk floats or bicycles there need to be adequate alternative routes.  If there aren't alternatives, the speed limit should be no more than 25 mph*.

I find it particuarly annoying when the quiet road that I'm following 'crosses' a main road with a 100 metre, or more' dogleg'.  I presume it's to stop motor vehicles taking chances, but it puts cyclists at risk.  Sometimes you could wait for hours before the main road is clear enough to allow you a period long enough to cycle through the dogleg without negotiating fast traffic.  It's just typical of the lack of consideration for minority road users.

At least the driver  admitted responsibilty and made an appropriate statement to the coroner.  However, none of the recommendations can bring Christopher back.  The people who approved plans for the Wessex Way should be on trial for manslaughter.  This wasn't an accident, it was a misjudgment long before Kevin Johnson made his mistake.

A cycle lane will be useful as long as it's segregated behind a decent crash barrier** (not the wire ropes that kill motorcyclists, please) or moved well away from the main road.

* We don't all cycle above 15 mph.

** Remember, Zak Carr was killed when he was cycling along a layby!  (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-who-killed-zak-car...)

Doglegs are safer for cyclists than cross roads in some circumstances - it stops cars just crossing at speed without looking properly -  one crossroads near us in the New Forest has had more one  fatal SMIDSY...

I’m not sure but are you saying that the national speed limit should be 25 and not 60 ? I love cycling on country lanes where the limit is technically 60 as there is nothing else to say otherwise.

Rubbish sentence for someone who basically drove into a cyclist carrying a light, no sort of deterrent....

25 mph limit: Yes I am proposing that this should be applied to any road that carries a mixture of low speed vehicles and vehicles capable of higher speeds.

It wouldn't matter if you set the speed limit on all UK roads at 5 mph, because as long as there are no coppers out watching the roads (and as long as the motoring lobby - willingly aided by the right wing press - has enough clout to convince the public that any attempt to regulate speed and dangerous driving is part of 'the war on the motorist', there will continue to be 'no coppers out watching the roads'), then drivers know that they've probably got more chance of winning the lottery than getting stopped by the Old Bill. 

This situation will not change as long as there is a far right Conservative government in power, and as long as that government is permitted to pursue its ideological transfer of wealth from the public sector and from the majority, to the private sector and a small subsection of Conservative Party donors.