[Closed] 2 cyclists killed by LGV, in Cornwall

but it not the road that kills someone, i don't see lumps of tarmac jumping up and assualting people. It is how the driver chooses to behave on a piece of road that is at issue

Precicely, and DC's encourage some people to wrongly become complaceant and not look for slow moving objects.

Saying certain roads aren't dangerous sounds like the NRA saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, whilst both are strictly true, I'd not stand in front of a gun whether the person behind it was an idiot or not!

Is it half of them?

It's quite possible for most drivers to be above average if there are a few really, really bad drivers.

Above median, on the other hand...

and DC's encourage some people to wrongly become complaceant and not look for slow moving objects.

but it is not just DCs, it is all roads! Drivers get complacent on roads they know.

IanW - Member
Poly- You shouldnt blame the victim, they were doing what they had every right to do.

pingu66 - I assume so in reality he has enforced rest breaks so should be able to concentrate on his driving.

peyote - the judiciary should be the force to make it happen, at the moment it's being at best complacent and at worst encouraging this carelessness resulting in death

what sentence for DBDD would cause you to change YOUR driving behaviour? The reality is nobody expects it to happen to them therefore the sentence is irrelevant as a deterrent. If you want to focus on judicial intervention you need to catch (and prosecute) people for relatively minor incidents that don't result in death.

A custodial sentence for killing on the roads as default might help. We're not in general talking DBDD here, as that does normally get custodial, but plenty of cases of DBCD which don't. I find it hard to believe the the current widespread leniency doesn't encourage people to be less bothered about their driving standards. You are right that a crack down on more minor offences would help - that is after all part of the "could have been me" attitude, as general driving standards are appalling poor, and most people are just lucky that they haven't killed somebody.

I've cycled on the A30 doing LEJOG and it's genuinely terrifying being passed by HGVs at 60mph. I'd be very surprised if anybody ever cycles on it twice

Once you're on it though the trouble is even if you realise you've made a terrible mistake you've probably booked 10 B&Bs for the rest of your trip to John o'Groats and arranged to meet people on specific days along the way so because there's no alternative route that will get you to wherever you have to be that night you just have to suck it up and stick with it

Once you're on it though the trouble is even if you realise you've made a terrible mistake you've probably booked 10 B&Bs for the rest of your trip to John o'Groats and arranged to meet people on specific days along the way so because there's no alternative route that will get you to wherever you have to be that night you just have to suck it up and stick with it

there is an alternative route, really near buy as well... thats the sad thing 🙁

I don't know the road in question, but in my experience of long-distance touring, the most dangerous and frightening roads are 2-lane dual carriageways with central barriers and [i]no hard shoulder[/i]. Imagine a lorry in the nearside lane, being passed in lane 2 by another lorry. Now imagine this combination bearing down on you, cycling along in lane 1. Where is lorry 1 going to go? Lorry 2 can't move out any further because of the central barrier.
On the other hand, if the road has a hard shoulder it can be used as a cycle lane and life is much safer if not significantly more pleasant.

I just opened this thread as I saw it on the news last night and was shocked and felt awful for the victims and families.

Then I read the comments on the dangerous road and whilst I can't comment on that, Ive just returned from driving down the A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking, (where there are wide cycle paths on each side) and saw a road biker in all the gear, head down on the main dual carriage way. He was totally oblivious to a lorry approaching him at 50mph, who was being overtaken at about 60mph by a van. The lorry was forced to break hard to get down to the 15-20mph the cyclist was doing and await the van to overtake him.

Now, you can say its legal, but its also bloody stupid and puts drivers backs up who may be less generous to other cyclists in future.

Rockape - (where there are wide cycle paths on each side)

A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking

If that's the section I think it is the the lanes were badly cracked and potholed last time I rode it, which was admittedly a couple of years ago. It was ok if you were bimbling/on a mountain bike but at 20 odd mph on a racing bike it'd be a nightmare.

Which brings us back again to the provision of facilites for cyclists, insofar as they're generally inadequate and often downright dangerous.

I was heading down to Cornwall on the A30 last year, and saw two cyclists on the opposite carriageway. My thoughts then were that it's not a road i would choose to cycle on, its effectively a motorway and full of traffic at this time of year.
Some do though, most far more experienced riders than me so who am i to say?

My thoughts with the families of the deceased.

Ive just returned from driving down the A24 between Leatherhead and Dorking, (where there are wide cycle paths on each side) and saw a road biker in all the gear, head down on the main dual carriage way.

I bloody hate cycle paths like that. There's this assumption that cyclists HAVE to use them but cycle paths are almost always designed for speeds of about 10mph and in most cases (when doing 20+mph) it's actually safer and more convenient (for the cyclist) to use the road. Blame piss-poor provision for vulnerable road users, bad road design and the "motorist comes first" attitude of town planners for that lot.

We had a really bad road rage incident a few weeks ago when a white van cut us up and the passenger got out and was screaming abuse cos we weren't using the shared use foot/cycle path (which was covered in leaves and debris and schoolkids walking home). That wasn't on an A-road, that was just a residential street. It would have been far better for all if the council simply hadn't bothered with that dreadful piece of "cycle provision" (unless it was intended for the kids riding to school?). If it wasn't there, we wouldn't have had the road rage and the council would have saved themselves a few tens of thousands of pounds.

You can argue common sense too, personally I'd never even consider riding on such a fast road but what's to say these two poor guys knew an alternative route? Bottom line is that they had every right in the world to be there and everyone has the responsibility to drive/ride according to conditions.

Wide ,clean and clear if you are talking about the section near the foot of Boxhill on the A24. Smooth and fast with very good lines of sight.

There was a tandem doing some charity ride north bound on the A3 above Guildford maybe 3 weeks ago. They had a pick up in lane 1 with orange flashing lights as a back up security vehicle. Very good idea as that stretch of the A3 is very fast flowing, much like the A30 .
Was causing a little bit of a hold up , but much better that than being involved in a RTC

[quote=neil the wheel ]Imagine a lorry in the nearside lane, being passed in lane 2 by another lorry. Now imagine this combination bearing down on you, cycling along in lane 1. Where is lorry 1 going to go?
I assume that, in your scenario, lorry 1 doesn't have a brake pedal?

Now imagine you're driving a tractor instead of pedalling a bike. Do you think that affects lorry drivers 1's decision making process?

I imagine most would consider that this driver has above average ability too

http://www.****/news/article-2354904/Champion-car-racer-26-killed-cyclist-losing-control-roundabout-speaking-mobile-phone-girlfriend.html

I expect he probably does when he's devoting his full attention to his driving.

just saw the remains of the bikes on the news, horrific 🙁

Whilst this is a terrible tragedy, I do question some people's sanity in this. Even worse, I saw what was evidently a group of LEJOG'ers today riding up the A34. In the short space of time I saw them, there were a number of traffic incidents caused by huge speed differences, and scarily some near misses for them.

Considering what happened, how anyone in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to ride up there is beyond me. Even with a misjudge of understanding the road,I would be off on the first opportunity and seeking an alternative route, for my own safety.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Why put yourself in harms way for it? I saw them unloading in the big Tesco car park first thing, whilst I went in to get some food & fuel, then saw them up near the A303 junction. It would have taken all of one or two HGV's coming past me at 60mph to realise this is a really bad idea.

This should be a non issue, we should all be able to use the roads together, in a utopian world maybe that would be the case, but in reality we don't. We share rubbish roads with big, fast, metal boxes that can kill us.

[quote=Hob Nob ]It would have taken all of one or two HGV's coming past me at 60mph ..............
That can happen on any road - are you suggesting that they should all be off-limits to cyclists?

I passed these guys about 20 mins prior to the accident one was wearing high viz I think - I was lucky to be on my way to a course (an lgv course) at the time. Turns out it was a good day to have off as the rest of my crew had to recover the bodies of the poor guys

In the short space of time I saw them, there were a number of traffic incidents caused by [s]huge speed differences[/s] bad driving

Oh come on. Cycling on a dual carriageway with no hard shoulder is just a recipe for disaster. I drive a boring Volvo. I drive it as safely as I can. Sometimes I change the radio station which requires that I take my eyes off the road for a moment. That's not bad driving, that's normal.

And the slip roads coming onto the DC are a death match for anyone on a bike.

As always, thoughts with the families.

Double post.

just to be really emotive

young women goes out on a friday night, dressed up, short skirt etc.

She gets raped.

I get the feeling that many on here think it would be her fault.

Sometimes I change the radio station which requires that I take my eyes off the road for a moment. That's not bad driving, that's normal

Well, you're half right; it [i]is[/i] bad driving to take your eyes off the road to perform an unnecessary task but it does seem to be normal. And therein lies the problem - most drivers are of the opinion that it is normal to perform tasks other than driving whilst driving (and that includes me I'm sorry to say).

You can travel a long way at speed when you take your eyes off the road "for a moment".

young women goes out on a friday night, dressed up, short skirt etc.

She gets raped.

Yep, very emotive, but not without a grain of truth, after all how many people would say "Come on, she put herself at risk by being dressed like that in that environment". Word for word you could use that to defend the KSIs of cyclists who are on dual carriageways without hi-viz.

It's a ridiculous state of affairs to absolve and excuse bad driving because it's considered normal, in exactly the same way as it's ridiculous to blame the rape victim for being raped. The overwhelming message sent out should be: "Men, stop raping women"* and "Drivers, stop killing and injuring other road users"*, neither of these should be something that any civilised society should be accepting because it's normal.

*By the way, there is no implicit assumption that all men rape and all drivers kill/injure before that's jumped upon.

Until driving of motorised vehicles is treated as a serious undertaking in our culture , these tragic events will be repeated.

Working in the building industry, there has been a whole h&s 'industry' devoted to make the work place 'safer' and also to absolve litigation on employers.Training and awareness is ongoing throughout these days.

Yet, on our roads, virtually anyone can drive a three and a half ton truck , with NO training, even our so called driving test is a cursory one off affair. There needs to be a whole cultural shift, which won't happen overnight , but can be achieved if there is a will to do so, whilst the interests of big business always come first in our political system, sadly a few lives are seen as collateral damage. 😥

Don't think anyone has ever been raped due to a momentary lapse of concentration*

* not saying that was the cause of the accident in this case, as the full facts of the matter remain unknown to me at least

Don't think anyone has ever been raped due to a momentary lapse of concentration

I think the comparison only stands up within the limitations expressed in those posts that mention it. Obviously (I hope!) the 'intent' between rape/RTI is very different.

On the whole though "out groups" within a given population tend to be those that suffer more than those with the most power, be it choice of transport, gender, race or any other way of distinguishing segments of society. Unfortunately those same "out groups" are the ones that tend to be blamed for their suffering...

why are most humans considered 'able' to drive, when patently many are not, its this divine right that seems to be considered sacrosanct, the right to charge about in tons of metal, with very little or no responsibility, and when it goes wrong, often there is very little sanction. The right to drive should be a privilege,and treated as such-- but as we live in societies bound up with said mode of transport , its treated as an inalienable given.

Working in the building industry, there has been a whole h&s 'industry' devoted to make the work place 'safer' and also to absolve litigation on employers.Training and awareness is ongoing throughout these days.

A proper risk assessment of the route would probably have suggested travelling on roads with less vehicles & lower average speed too.

A motorcyclist friend of mine who got taken out by a lorry was in the same hospital ward as a cyclist who had been sucked in by the draught of an overtaking lorry & then hit by the car behind, we don't know the circumstances of the tragedy involving the two cyclists in Cornwall but it could very easily be a similar scenario.

Two guys lose their lives on a UK highway, in broad daylight and we are discussing if it was a "good idea" if they were there as less dangerous routes were available.

If we as cyclists start that argument what are the non cyclists going to turn it into. Its his fault there was a safer route, its his fault for taking to the roads in a vulnerable vehicle.

And as for the rape scenario!

Come on guys this should be about us as cyclists raising the issue of shit roads and shit driving standards, but in another thread. Hopefully one day having had enough to do something about it, ride on Parliament, ride on some of the most dangerous roads as a group. I don't have the answers and I may be wrong.

Lets try and pay respect to the two gentlemen who have sadly been taken from their loved ones while enjoying a hobby that many of us love.

Taking cyclists off roads (like this one) doesn't make them any safer, sure it might reduce the number of deaths, but it doesn't make them safer, if anything it makes them worse as there is less expectation of cyclists being there.

Reducing deaths and injuries is an admirable goal, but it should be achieved by by making the roads safer, not by reducing the number of people using them.

The one and only way to do this is with a change in approach/culture to the way we drive. You can argue the toss about bad road layout and poor visibility etc, but all of that can be mitigated if driven appropriately.

I'm still appalled at the number of people who don't even adjust their speed for poor weather let alone anything else, if people are still happy to barrel along at 80 on am motorway in torrential rain when they can barely see what chance is there that they'll drive sensibly anywhere else.

I'm trying to pay my respects to them by defending their right to be there as well as offering my sympathies.

People have been riding LEJOG for years and years...surely all the motorists on that road know that there will be cyclists there and so drive extra carefully.

Lets hear it for the road designers too.

Designing a road which many legitimate users feel is too dangerous for them to use.

im sure you would all have different opinions if you were driving the lorry

im sure you would all have different opinions if you were driving the lorry

I'm sure if I'd just killed two people because I couldn't look where I was going while in charge of a massive vehicle at speed, I'd certainly feel different about it.

But that's not the point really, is it?

Completely tragic event but I don't see how anything other than total segregation would eliminate all risk of this happening again.

If I'm assessing the risk of using a bike on a road I tend to consider if I'd be happy driving a car at 20mph on it - If I thought driving a car at that speed would increase the risk of an accident I would choose a safer route to cycle on. I suppose when planning such a long journey that it would be very difficult to plan for every potentially dangerous stretch of road.

Thoughts with the families of the victims, very sad indeed.

I'm sure if I'd just killed two people because I couldn't look where I was going (allegedly) while in charge of a massive vehicle at speed, I'd certainly feel different about it.

I'm sure if I'd just killed two people because I couldn't look where I was going while in charge of a massive vehicle at speed, I'd certainly feel different about it

You are assuming that is what happened, albeit a reasonable assumption to make it is still just that an "assumption" as to what happened. I suspect that lorry drivers may be assuming a different scenario & until such time as proven otherwise I will continue to feel for all those involved. 🙁

There's a saying- "you can't put a price on life" unfortunately you can and it seems the price of several thousand lives every year is less than the value of a mobile workforce and cheap transportation of goods is to our economy.

There's numbers in that equation somewhere not sure what they are.

There's a saying- "you can't put a price on life" unfortunately you can and it seems the price of several thousand lives every year is less than the value of a mobile workforce and cheap transportation of goods is to our economy.

where cars are concerned it is nothing new.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect[/url]

I assume that, in your scenario, lorry 1 doesn't have a brake pedal?

As a motorist and a cyclist I see terrible standards from drivers and cyclists alike. The fact is cars drive into toher cars and lorrys crash into other lorries every day so the argument that people should keep their eyes peeled and just avoid accidents is nonsense. Accidents happen every day and cyclists are so much more at risk. Roads are dangerous places and I just wish we'd ban cyclists from dual carridgeways and busy A-roads and build dedicated cycle lanes - proper lnes, not just white lines painted at the side of the road where all the potholes are and all the road debris ends up causing punctures. Not all cases of RTA's involving cyclists are the motorists fault an some cyclists do put them selves in situations where they are exposing themselves to heightened ris. Not saying its their fault, they deserve it or it should be treated any different, but from a personal survival point of view its a reality to deal with. I don't ride my bike on dual carridgeways because of this - I don't like putting my life in the hands of a total stranger. All you can do in life is to look out for yourselfe, try to minimise risks and hope for the best. But accidents do happen, and sometimes accidents are no-body's 'fault', they're not as a result of anyones neglegence, they're accidents. The concept that everyone should pay is invented by laywers to exploit more cash out of people.

woobliscott, they are not accidents, those are cases of negligence. A tyre blow out is probably an accident, although many cases i suspect are actually drivers not bothering to check tyre wear or pressure.

That there are so many incidents on the road and that people accept that people being killed is fine is disturbing.

Where i used to work i had a talk from one of the foremen, he said that within British Steel there had for many decades been an attitude that blast furnaces, hot metal, heights, kill people, that accidents were a fact of life. There was no point in H&S a few deaths a year was acceptable collateral damage.

He himself had gone to a employees home to tell his wife what had happened. That it was the most horrible job he had ever had to do, to explain why he had allowed a member of his team to die.

I do not regard any deaths that are preventable as acceptable. Yes fast moving cars can and probably always will kill people. The sad fact is that most deaths are not accidents, they are totally preventable if drivers actually bothered to pay attention to driving and not phones, makeup, reading, maps, drinking, rubbernecking. More still can be prevented if drivers were to check there tyres regualarly, to service there cars etc.

the word 'accident' is used far too flippantly,thereby already excusing parties involved of responsibility, the word should always be Incident-- and until it can be proven one way or another remain as such. Accidents are by their name --unpreventable--they are rare-- itsa misnomer to use the word in most cases!

as for the right to ride on the road, we are all road users, whether in a vehicle,cycle, horse or on foot--the issue of awareness is much needed--concentration is needed when driving, so why have in car visual systems,i have seen drivers watching movies on laptops , a guy i worked with used to watch porn on his way to work whilst driving at high speed on narrow roads-- and boast about it !! these are the things we are up against--the trivialising of driving,the infantile attitude of some people , and a very hands off enforcement of bad/careless driving.

good points made above...btw...by mrmo

Unless I've lived on another planet for the 35 years since I first had a driving licence. I don't think that rules of driving or the responsibility which goes with its entitlement have changed.
The driver of any motor vehicle, must: Ensure they are fit to drive. Accept that they hold that licence on the basis that they play by the highway code and the law and are solely responsible for abiding by them.
Furthermore, they may from time to time have to deal with or encounter, pedestrians, cyclists and animals.
This is a tragic loss of life and my thoughts are with those left behind and others in similar circumstance.
However, almost undoubtedly, this has occurred because either the driver became ill, or he simply wasn't accepting his responsibilities to himself or others.
By the way, I have to drive for work and often cart my mtb about to ride in other areas.
Hopefully, accepting all the responsibility which goes with it.
It's not the driving which is particularly hard, but driving well, for many seems to be, so often.

More still can be prevented if drivers were to check there tyres regualarly, to service there cars etc.

It still astonishes me that it's considered acceptable to own an expensive piece of complicated machinery with ONE test to use it and NO requirement to ever do another test or to take it to a garage more than once a year (for an MOT).

Imagine that with any other form of public transport or even something basic like a forklift truck! Imagine getting on a plane and the pilot saying "yep, passed my test on a Cessna 30 years ago, never needed another test - oh and the plane was last serviced 9 months ago, it was fine then except the garage said one of the bolts holding the wings on was a bit rusty and might need to be looked at next time".

😯

If only someone had the political balls to stand up and introduce mandatory retests every 5 years, full safety checks every 6 months and a proper judicial system that treated driving offences as a serious crime rather than a case of "oh, an accident, how terrible, give me £60, have 3 points, try not to kill anyone again".

It still astonishes me that it's considered acceptable to own an expensive piece of complicated machinery with ONE test to use it and NO requirement to ever do another test or to take it to a garage more than once a year (for an MOT).

what is more astonishing is that someone in government thought it might be a good idea to do the MOT every two years! I think this idea got scrapped in the end?

If only someone had the political balls to stand up and introduce mandatory retests every 5 years, full safety checks every 6 months and a proper judicial system that treated driving offences as a serious crime rather than a case of "oh, an accident, how terrible, give me £60, have 3 points, try not to kill anyone again".

It would be a start if they enforced the 12 points and your banned rule that already exists!

You are assuming that is what happened, albeit a reasonable assumption to make

It's a bl**dy excellent assumption to make. Lorry drivers on their forums might be assuming something different, but it's highly likely they're wrong. Care to suggest an alternative scenario for running into a couple of cyclists on a straight level road with excellent visibility?

Not all cases of RTA's involving cyclists are the motorists fault

The vast majority are. The few which are caused by cyclists are generally caused by them being total idiots, riding in a way which I [b]never[/b] do (and I presume most on here never do either). Hence [b]all[/b] RTAs involving sensible cyclists are the motorists fault. You might argue that sensible drivers don't cause RTAs either, but in that case there are very few sensible drivers (I won't even include myself in that bracket).

It's a bl**dy excellent assumption to make

Not all cases of RTA's involving cyclists are the motorists fault

The vast majority are.

Lots of people still against strict liability tho

lets put the pitchforks away until the details have come out

I'm not sure there have been many pitchforks on display - just that some have suggested sympathy with the driver, something I'm not prepared to give until it's shown that the most likely scenario is incorrect. I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable position to take.

yep only 20% caused by cyclists a study in london found - first google hit I found, thought I'd seen some others with even lower %

I'd be surprised if the proportion caused by cyclists wasn't disproportionately high in London.

a cyclist who had been sucked in by the draught of an overtaking lorry & then hit by the car behind

Who's fault are you suggesting such an incident was?

@aracer

Who's fault are you suggesting such an incident was?

er the cyclists???

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

....

Are you agreeing with me? I think so, but [s]you[/s]we're being a bit too subtle.

@racer, yes just trying to put it as too many seem to think.

As for who is at fault in the example of the lorry and following car...
Both guilty of something, quite what not so sure.

Both guilty of something, quite what not so sure.

That would be for the courts to decide. The same courts who I suspect are heavily biased against the cyclist for "riding on a road that was obviously dangerous"*

*Now trade marked by the Petrol Lobby.

Completely tragic event but I don't see how anything other than total segregation would eliminate all risk of this happening again.

There is a third (and i think only realistic) option, and its Autonomous Driving. Everyones working on it.

Most of the advantages can be gained without full autonomy via "driver assist" systems. Cars and lorries will detect accidents before they happen and take avoiding action if the motorist doesn't do anything. This already exists for pedestrian detection and its being written into euro NCAP rules.

The word "assist" has been chosen carefully, because (at the moment) the driver still ultimately remains responsible for any collision. A lot of real world testing is done too, to ensure risk compensation doesn't remove any benefits.

As for who is at fault in the example of the lorry and following car...
Both guilty of something, quite what not so sure.

put me off DC riding anyway.

[url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/anatomy-of-the-death-of-a-cyclist-william-honour/ ]found it[/url], I didn't get the details correct but 3 drivers all thought they were driving carefully result 1 poor dead cyclist and "accidental death".

@ aracer

Who's fault are you suggesting such an incident was?

I don't know the full details of the accident, I was just using it as an example of the additional dangers of cycling on DC's & yes more than likely was a combination of the car & lorry drivers poor driving as illustrated above.

Re your comments about sensible cyclists, I'd like to class myself as one of those but just like every other human alive I am still prone to the odd error even when cycling.

One thing I do know for sure is that friends & relatives will want to know what really happened, rather than assumptions being made, to cause the death of their nearest & dearest. Whether they get closure or whether the lorry driver gives full & frank evidence, we have yet to see - again why I for one would like to see the rolling out of in cab/car cameras to get a better evidence in these tragic circumstances.

Let's not stop with cameras. We should have compulsory in-vehicle GPS systems linked to a "Black Box" recorder.

[url= http://www.aberdeen-asset.com/doc.nsf/Lit/PressReleaseGroupstatementfromAAMreAndrewMcMenigallandTobyWallace20130703 ]The Cyclists[/url]

http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/fundraiser-web/fundraiser/showFundraiserProfilePage.action?userUrl=mcmenigallwallace&isTeam=true

It's mind boggling that this road was approved for bicycle use.

jasperb - Member
It's mind boggling that this road was approved for bicycle use.

What a stupid blody comment,2 people got killed you muppet,for the road to be banned to cycle usafe that would be up to the Department for transport to make an traffic regulation order and errect signage,as on motorways and the A55 in north wales in places,just perhaps how on a straight road with an overtaking lane the driver failed to slow down behind them or overtake.

So please show some respect for their families and freinds, and also the driver concernned who must be reliving the ordeal.

Are you drunk?

Yes, it was a tragic event and it was not my intention to disrespect anyone involved. How you got that impression though is beyond me.

Well I've been taken out (in my car) by a German lorry today. He decided to stay on the left of the roundabout to exit no.3 and T boned me as I left the roundabout in the Right lane at exit 2.

He "didn't see me" - I replied with some choice words explaining a) you shouldn't bloody drive if you can't see where you're going and besides b) it's traditional to use the right hand lane when turning right. Thank god I was in a sturdy (deceased) car. It was a graphic demonstration of lorry blind spots and how things can catch you out from nowhere. I really didn't see that happening until I was covered in glass.

Just goes to show you can't be too careful (apparently common accident with LHD trucks in UK).

Cycle safe and RIP to the riders.

It's mind boggling that this road was approved for bicycle use.

roads don't have to be 'approved' for bicycle use, by default they are all legal for bicycle use unless specifically exempted (ie: TRO or Mway).

lets not forget the roads were there before the cars.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, banning cyclists/horses/walkers whatever from roads does not make them safer.

You should look at this from the other angle, if a road is dangerous then you need to remove the cause of the danger, not the people in danger.

God bless. Awful, just awful

I've said it before, I'll say it again, banning cyclists/horses/walkers whatever from roads does not make them safer.

I didn't get the details correct but 3 drivers all thought they were driving carefully result 1 poor dead cyclist and "accidental death".

None of the drivers charged? Not even the first one, who clipped a cyclist as he was riding along? That is quite shocking - or at least it would be if it wasn't the norm, and what you kind of expect from our justice (sic) system. I do find it extremely hard to believe that they couldn't have convicted at least one of those drivers, if not all 3 of DBCD if they'd bothered to try (to be honest they were all guilty of DBDD but I'm not expecting miracles). Do you think that sort of endorsement of bad driving by the police and CPS really doesn't have an impact on people's attitudes to driving, poly?

Do you think that sort of endorsement of bad driving by the police and CPS really doesn't have an impact on people's attitudes to driving, poly?

BTW has anyone looked at his FB to see if he's a cyclist hater?

On a clear road there's no reason to drive close to a cyclist unless you want to "punish" them.

Oh, or unless you're too busy texting to see them...

Motorways?

nice of on the one not-really-relevant bit of my comment 😉

Bicycles have never been allowed on motorways (as far as I know?), their entire purpose is at odds with travelling bike bike/horse/on foot, they were built specifically for moving cars at high speed, most other roads pre-date cars and I was referring to removing bikes from roads that they are already allowed on that have been developed over time.

However, despite that my point still stands, banning them doesn't make them safer. It might reduce the number of deaths but only by reducing the number of users and that is not the same thing.

Treat the cause not the symptom.

Some roads are dangerous for vulnerable road users, the solution is to make them safer*, not remove the users, and its that fundamental point that people far and wide seem to be missing.

*primarily by the way we use them, not necessarily by material redesign.

Aracer - you are trolling on partial 3rd hand information about a hypothetical case, where you don't even know if it was police, cps or court that made the decision.

Not trolling, because I'm not trying to get a rise simply challenging your attitude to this. It would appear to be a real rather than hypothetical - [url= http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/cyclist-died-after-being-struck-4214530 ]here[/url] is the press report (I'm not sure what hand of information that counts as). I don't see how it's relevant which one of the police, CPS or court decided not to prosecute - all part of the system which is failing and I included both police and CPS in my comment (surely the court doesn't decide not to prosecute if the CPS wants to bring the case, but even if it does it makes no difference to my point). Oh, and I forgot to mention before that the coroner is quite clearly failing by calling for cyclists to wear helmets but not suggesting there is a problem with drivers passing too close or driving too close to the car in front.

The point is that such standards of driving are seen as normal and acceptable, with the endorsement of the justice system.

On a clear road there's no reason to drive close to a cyclist unless you want to "punish" them.

Oh, or unless you're too busy texting to see them...

just a thought, in 2011 official figures i have seen say 636 people were murdered, and 1901 were killed on the roads.

If you want to stop uneccesary deaths where would you put the effort?

The point is that such standards of driving are seen as normal and acceptable, with the endorsement of the justice system.

the below sums up the above quite nicely i think.

[url= http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/20240-male-drivers-fail-to-see-the-point ]http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/20240-male-drivers-fail-to-see-the-point[/url]

[i]I've said it before, I'll say it again, banning cyclists/horses/walkers whatever from roads does not make them safer.[/i]

It makes them safer for the cyclists/horses/walkers that don't use them!