tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post4995843950129481715..comments2023-08-12T08:41:01.080+01:00Comments on Green Bristol Blog: Yet Another Cyclist Killed on the Streets of Cycling City.Chris Hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-88897715920377261692009-11-23T23:17:02.780+00:002009-11-23T23:17:02.780+00:00I reluctantly admit I have temporarily suspended m...I reluctantly admit I have temporarily suspended my commute by bike as I have encountered too many dangerous situations - with vans, buses and pedestrians as opposed car drivers. I can not decipher a safe enough route and really miss the Railway Path for being traffic-free. This city needs MORE greenways like this, NOT shared transport routes.Martynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-61431625635863689412009-11-11T13:49:14.740+00:002009-11-11T13:49:14.740+00:00when I did motor cycle training, the onus was on &...when I did motor cycle training, the onus was on "defensive" riding - which seems to be the same as "assertive". The premise on which it is based is that in the event of a collision with a car/heavier vehicle it is the motorcyclist or in this instance, cyclist who will always come off worse. A car may receive a dent or scratch, a cyclist or motorcyclist may well be killed or maimed, while the motorist may just get a shock or minor injury. This seems to me to be a good argument for putting the onus squarely on the driver of the more powerful mode of transport, as they can inflict the most damage.Woodburnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07196616746964274473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-54821263354417238652009-11-10T22:45:53.642+00:002009-11-10T22:45:53.642+00:00www.ghostbikes.orgwww.ghostbikes.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-28636895795620824942009-11-09T12:04:47.615+00:002009-11-09T12:04:47.615+00:00This the cycling city whose media can't even s...This the cycling city whose media can't even spell:<br />http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Peddle-power-takes-young-Bristol-cyclists/article-1494006-detail/article.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-20874725582165428542009-11-09T12:04:29.239+00:002009-11-09T12:04:29.239+00:00This the cycling city whose media can't even s...This the cycling city whose media can't even spell:<br />http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Peddle-power-takes-young-Bristol-cyclists/article-1494006-detail/article.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-67695171015129808332009-11-08T16:32:40.632+00:002009-11-08T16:32:40.632+00:00Hello everyone,
I think Chris has a good point he...Hello everyone,<br /><br />I think Chris has a good point here but the others as well. Lets just imagine that the car was coming from the side road and the cyclist was on the main road. If the car had crossed without looking, who would have died then? The cyclist of course even if its not his fault. My point is that whether its the car or the cyclists fault, the truth is that the cyclist is always more likely to die that the person in the car because of all the reasons that Chris has given at the end of his article. Which is why the cars should be even more careful and should be obliged to drive slower. In France, the police spends a lot of time stood up at crossings or roundabouts to fine dangerous drivers, in England never...Why is that? Thanks for reading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-20857653135946984322009-11-08T14:01:02.710+00:002009-11-08T14:01:02.710+00:00WestfieldWanderer said...
Belgium - Just the norm...WestfieldWanderer said... <br />Belgium - Just the norm in a civilised country.<br /><br />Belgium a civilised country - funny!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-6796128967395598452009-11-07T21:41:18.667+00:002009-11-07T21:41:18.667+00:00Dave said:
"Imagine if cyclists had this immu...Dave said:<br />"Imagine if cyclists had this immunity from blame - why bother giving way at a junction, even if it is right to do so, if they know that if they are hit it's not their fault - it would be chaos."<br /><br />Seriously? You think cyclists want to get themselves hit? I've been hit by a car and it hurts. I wouldn't put myself in a place where it would happen on purpose no matter who was to blame.<br /><br />I firstly and foremost avoid being hit because it hurts and I might die, not because of territorial issues with drivers.<br /><br />I think the laws are not about immunity either. They're a starting point. In the case of most incidents right now the assumed blame often swings the other way. Time the redress the balance and reassess the bias?<br /><br />I hope you don't mind if I rephrase your words from above slightly:<br /><br />"Imagine if drivers had this immunity from pain - why bother giving way at a junction, even if it is right to do so, if they know that if they hit a cyclist they'll be protected by their car and the cyclist will know this too and give way to them - it would be chaos."<br /><br />Real. Everyday on the roads, this is reality.<br /><br />Want to get priority and have cyclists swerve out of your way because they know they'll be worse of when in an incident? Simply drive in a manner that scares them out of the way. It happens all the time.<br /><br />I'm not saying all drivers do this. Some are very good and sympathetic of others. I'm not saying that all drivers who do it do it on purpose either. For some it's just an ingrained mentality, usually helped by an ignorance of other road users vulnerable situation. And there are enough of the ones that do it on purpose to make it an everyday real threat and danger to others.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17227685430876878223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-67226758989863499042009-11-07T21:40:19.551+00:002009-11-07T21:40:19.551+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17227685430876878223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-50111640215909862682009-11-07T12:01:51.271+00:002009-11-07T12:01:51.271+00:00Dave comes across as an intelligent and thoughtful...Dave comes across as an intelligent and thoughtful bloke and on paper his last comment makes perfect sense. As a fairly high mileage driver myself it would also make sense, from a personal point of view, to agree with him.<br /><br />But I don't. Why?<br /><br />Because I know that us drivers are the greatest source of danger on the roads. I, and anyone else who thinks about it, also know that the faster I go the more danger I present to others. The difference in damage caused at 20mph compared with, say 35mph is colossal. We all know this. This is where the continental law of liability is right. Put the liability on those that cause the greatest danger. When we drive on mainland Europe we are subject to the local laws, and I know that being aware of that law tends to concentrate the mind. Having driven, cycled and walked around French towns I am acutely aware of a difference in attitude amongst road users, and I like it. In practice, I say, this apparently unfair law works. And it works well.<br />I rather feel that the discussion on this blog post has been clouded because the victim was a cyclist. As a cyclist I'm obviously well aware of the general British aversion to cyclists. I'm well aware of the reasons, too. You can be assured that I get more angry at bad cyclist behaviour than any non-cyclist - especially as I'm a trained National Standard instructor.<br /><br />I wonder if the victim had been an adult pedestrian, lost in his ipod, or a child running into the road, that the discussion would have taken a different course.WestfieldWandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02248492361148849247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-12688744123543583512009-11-06T23:07:28.801+00:002009-11-06T23:07:28.801+00:00Dave, as you would know if you read what I have ac...Dave, as you would know if you read what I have actually said, I am not saying cyclists should be absolved of responsibility. <br /><br />Quite the contrary in some respects because I am suggesting that cyclists should almost always be held responsible in conflict with pedestrians. <br /><br />When it comes to cycle/motor vehicle conflict then yes I definitely think the position of cyclists needs to be strengthened so that they are better able to assert their right to use our streets. <br /><br />At present most cyclists experience intimidation and harassment from motorists to such an extent that many people are deterred from cycling. That situation is intolerable.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-84864640286599960072009-11-06T22:46:46.596+00:002009-11-06T22:46:46.596+00:00Like I said, Dave, such a law only works in civili...Like I said, Dave, such a law only works in civilised countries.WestfieldWandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02248492361148849247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-44026136344374705642009-11-06T22:41:37.519+00:002009-11-06T22:41:37.519+00:00@Bristol Dave: not nonsensical at all. That is pre...<i>@Bristol Dave: not nonsensical at all. That is precisely the basis of the law in other European countries regarding drivers and more vulnerable road users.<br />Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have defined liability legislation. This is where there is a legal assumption that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist.<br />So, not invented by Chris, at all. Just the norm in a civilised country.</i><br /><br />These laws are fine, provided cyclists are still responsible and courteous on the road. However, judging by a lot of the cycling I see on pretty much a daily basis in Bristol, giving cyclists immunity from any blame - and let's face it, absolving them from pretty much any responsiblity, since they're safe in the knowledge they will <i>never</i> be blamed for any incident - is about the worst thing you could do to encourage responsible cycling.<br /><br />Especially if people share views such as Chris's, which seems to be that cyclists shouldn't have to shoulder any responsiblity for anything on the road - reference his indignance a few posts down where he implies cyclists shouldn't have to have lights on their bike or make any effort to be seen - but yet I bet he wouldn't support drivers being able to switch their lights off at night.<br /><br />Imagine if cyclists had this immunity from blame - why bother giving way at a junction, even if it is right to do so, if they know that if they are hit it's not their fault - it would be chaos.<br /><br />What's wrong with the current system we have here, whereby the police investigate every aspect of an incident to correctly apportion blame, rather than just assuming the motorist is at fault? It's far more objective and fair, and seems to work OK. Cyclists just don't like it because it highlights the fact that sometimes they are at fault as well.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-28621103780471106922009-11-06T21:04:47.948+00:002009-11-06T21:04:47.948+00:00Oh WW, I wanted them to think I'd invented it....Oh WW, I wanted them to think I'd invented it. I had visions of myself as a new Galileo, ridiculed for suggesting a radically different way of interpreting our environment. Perhaps I can claim to be the first to articulate it in terms of Relative Kinetic Energy?<br /><br />Paul, in response to your last point, where someone is killed there will be an inquest but probably not for at least 6 months. In any case the evidence available at the inquest may be very limited. <br /><br />Often there is only one 'witness', the driver, who will inevitably have an interest in exonerating himself of any blame. Other evidence might include forensic evidence such as skid marks on the road surface which can indicate the speed of the vehicle involved.<br /><br />Coroners are notoriously reactionary in their attitudes and tend to see things from the motorist's perspective. Here's one recent example - http://bit.ly/mN3Wo - where a verdict of accidental death was returned instead of the more appropriate verdict of manslaughter.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-57185976260762606092009-11-06T19:53:36.175+00:002009-11-06T19:53:36.175+00:00@Bristol Dave: not nonsensical at all. That is pr...@Bristol Dave: not nonsensical at all. That is precisely the basis of the law in other European countries regarding drivers and more vulnerable road users.<br />Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have defined liability legislation. This is where there is a legal assumption that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist.<br />So, not invented by Chris, at all. Just the norm in a civilised country.WestfieldWandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02248492361148849247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-30584735222490548522009-11-06T19:40:23.885+00:002009-11-06T19:40:23.885+00:00There's a fool around every corner. The best ...There's a fool around every corner. The best of us are prone to error. Any competent driver or rider will always be aware of this. I'm sure that the driver in this incident, blameless or otherwise, will carry the mental scars for the rest of his or her life. That quiet little voice, deep inside, will always be asking: "What if...". "What if I'd carried a little less speed into that junction...".WestfieldWandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02248492361148849247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-21515708351478502562009-11-06T14:47:30.392+00:002009-11-06T14:47:30.392+00:00Let's make a distinction between who was respo...<i>Let's make a distinction between who was responsible for the collision in terms of contraventions of the rules and who was responsible for the consequences in terms of the amount and direction of force they bring to bear.</i><br /><br />Why? This distinction is not only unnecessary but completely nonsensical, and in fact has only been invented by yourself so that when you apply it to a collision involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle, the cyclist is <i>never</i> at fault, regardless of the circumstances. How very convenient.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-54351647779648135142009-11-06T13:47:38.524+00:002009-11-06T13:47:38.524+00:00Do the police ever release the full report after t...Do the police ever release the full report after they have investigated?<br /><br />Would be interesting to know what actually happened rather than all this constant speculation!Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-37419842317951288532009-11-06T13:05:44.228+00:002009-11-06T13:05:44.228+00:00While we are arguing about the degree of the motor...While we are arguing about the degree of the motorist's responsibility to remember he is operating a lethal weapon as well as moving about from A to B, may I draw your attention to the language in the item just below that all too brief report of the bicyclist's death:<br /><br />"Buggy hit-and run-incident <br /><br />PAULTON: A driver who left a woman and child injured after mounting the pavement in The Pithay is being sought by police.<br /> The blue Citroen Xsara collided with a double buggy being pushed by the woman at about 1.30pm on Tuesday, leaving her and the youngster in need of hospital treatment.<br /> The driver stopped briefly but then made off without leaving any details or waiting for the police.<br /> Anyone with information should contact police on 0845 456 7000."<br /><br /> "The blue Citroen Xsara collided with a double buggy..." ?<br /><br />The woman, and the child who was in the buggy, were on the pavement, not in a dodgem at the fair, and ended up in hospital because that car was driven up on to the pavement. <br /><br />The dangerous habit of driving and parking on our pavements has now been allowed to become so respectable that pedestrians on pavements - if they can get along them past the dustbins and cars parked on them - are now in the same position as pedestrians on the road, in a hopelessly uneven contest.elizabethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-15212925709615401122009-11-06T12:35:46.894+00:002009-11-06T12:35:46.894+00:00This is like the BEP. Is it a sister site??This is like the BEP. Is it a sister site??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-54149691425087067902009-11-06T11:09:36.782+00:002009-11-06T11:09:36.782+00:00Lots to respond to here so I'll start of with ...Lots to respond to here so I'll start of with Graham and come back for more later. <br /><br />First Graham again points out that there are give way markings at the junction and concludes that the cyclist must have failed to give way. We do not know that. It is possible for instance that the cyclist emerged well ahead of the car but was subsequently hit by it. Graham is doing exactly what he accused me of doing and jumping to conclusions.<br /><br />Graham asks how I would report the collision if the motorist had failed to give way. I didn't report the collision. The police and the Evening Post did. All I have done is summarise and link to their reports.<br /><br />Let's make a distinction between who was responsible for the collision in terms of contraventions of the rules and who was responsible for the consequences in terms of the amount and direction of force they bring to bear.<br /><br />In these postings it is the latter aspect that I have been exploring. In terms of the former we do not know enough to justify drawing any conclusions although I have speculated that excessive speed is involved simply because it is a known problem in general and on this street in particular and it is very unlikely that life threatening injuries would otherwise have been sustained.<br /><br />Graham, I have never said that cyclists cannot be at fault. In fact I've said that in cycle/pedestrian conflict the cyclist should almost always be held to be responsible, even if a pedestrian crosses on a pelican against a red man for example.<br /><br />Likewise in motor vehicle/cycle or motor/pedestrian conflict I suggest that the motorist should in general bear a much greater degree of responsibility. That does not mean that actions such as disregarding a stop or give way marking/sign should be ignored but they should be given less prominence in determining who is responsible simply because such actions are within the range of normal human behaviour. <br /><br />We cannot go on condemning children to death because they failed to give way when crossing a road. We must stop motorists and indeed cyclists from travelling at such speeds that the danger of death or serious injury is created in the first place. That is what the 20 is Plenty campaign is about.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-21209613702301115802009-11-06T10:16:44.111+00:002009-11-06T10:16:44.111+00:00I hardly think the ordering of the parties is impo...<i>I hardly think the ordering of the parties is important, it doesn't imply responsibility.</i><br /><br />It's not just the ordering, it's that the cyclist is the active subject and the other vehicle is something which is acted upon. Why put it that way rather than "a collision between X and Y"?<br /><br /><i>And if the Avon and Somerset Police reports do contain spin, can you work out why this might be? Maybe it's because they're sick and tired of coming across incidents which have been caused by the irresponsible cycling so common in this city and yet so ignored by Chris et al.</i><br /><br />No-one is ignoring the irresponsible cycling, but there's no data suggesting it's more common than the irresponsible driving.<br /><br /><i>I'm sure it does, if a car is driving behind you as you wobble up a hill on your bike in the middle of the lane, refusing to pull to the left to let faster traffic past without hindering your own progress, but it's not neccesarily "harassment", is it?</i><br /><br />No, that isn't (assuming it's really without hindering one's own progress and not the all-too-common pothole-filled gutters), but having a car drive down a hill straight at you and leave you nowhere to go, rather than pull into a gap in the parked cars on their side is harrassment, isn't it? Or having a council van overtake and immediately turn left across your path and require avoiding action is, isn't it?<br /><br /><i>And when I'm on my bike, I find the worst harassment by a country mile comes from buses, not cars.</i><br /><br />I live in a village outside Bristol. We don't have many buses (just heard our Sunday service is being cancelled completely this winter), which is part of the reason I bike in all weathers.<br /><br /><i>But I'm not comparing Chris's assumptions to the police/papers view,</i><br /><br />Oh yes you were, assuming that the police and papers are perfectly reliable.<br /><br /><i>Unless the motorist, for some bizarre reason, drove up onto the pavement and over the white lines and hit the cyclist side-on as he was waiting at the junction,</i><br /><br />...or the motorist was speeding along, obscured from the view of a slow cyclist by the parked vehicles in that area that limit the sight-lines (another offence which ASPolice don't often act against). Until more details are known, there are too many possibilities. Assumption is the mother of all mistakes, which is why Chris sensibly moves to generalities.<br /><br /><i>thankfully they don't take Chris's bizarre "Blame apportioned purely on mass of vehicle" nonsense into account, so I don't really see anything wrong with the wording of the article.</i><br /><br />While you may think it's a bizarre concept, taking the mass into account (not purely, but as a factor) happens in more cycling-friendly countries.<br /><br />Glad you agree at last that there's nothing wrong with Chris's wording, though!MJ Rayhttp://mjr.towers.org.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-8349897762796475502009-11-06T00:18:05.777+00:002009-11-06T00:18:05.777+00:00Oh Davey. The law of pain and death that makes you...Oh Davey. The law of pain and death that makes you not be able to tell your story afterwards would say otherwise.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17227685430876878223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-87521315902443843182009-11-05T22:17:23.575+00:002009-11-05T22:17:23.575+00:00When I'm cycling, cars pull out in front of me...<i>When I'm cycling, cars pull out in front of me from junctions all the time and if I go into the back of them I'm to blame.</i><br /><br />Actually, that's not true.<br /><br /><i>Generally</i>, as far as the law and insurance companies are concerned, the person behind in a collision is at fault, but there are a couple of exceptions to this, and one of these is specifically if someone pulls directly out in front of you - in this situation it is them at fault, even though you're behind.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-88625068106379474252009-11-05T18:09:05.416+00:002009-11-05T18:09:05.416+00:00When I'm cycling, cars pull out in front of me...When I'm cycling, cars pull out in front of me from junctions all the time and if I go into the back of them I'm to blame. If a cyclist pulls out in front of a car and the car goes into the back of him, well, we know who is to blame.Obsydiannoreply@blogger.com