CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Cyclist dies in Olympic media bus crash

(91 posts)

1234

  1. wee folding bike
    Member

    Well, it's a bit rambling, but it certainly seemed that he was calling for a law. Even the memsahib took that meaning from it. I sniff a bit of vehicle reversing here (sniffing for vehicles is not a sensible way to behave on the road).

    “Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on,” he said. “You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘Well, I have done everything to be safe’.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Wesley Hawes (@wezmiester)

    02/08/2012 15:05

    @bradwiggins
    Greater consideration of alternative and safer cycle routes during the Games, would have saved my friend.

    "

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9447019/Tributes-killed-to-cyclist-Dan-Harris-killed-by-an-Olympics-bus.html

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Dave
    Member

    He would be redeemed in my eyes if he went on record to the media saying he *doesn't* think the solution to being crushed by heavy vehicles is just to wear a helmet.

    I really felt deep disappointment in him this morning (especially in light of Cav's sensible call for stricter liability, and his lovely outburst re: doping).

    As it is, just mentioning sotto voce that you didn't really mean what you were widely quoted as saying isn't going to do much to undo the damange.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. Grahamn
    Member

    wearing a helmet never killed anyone

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Dave, selectivity is great.

    Cav also said cyclists shouldn't wear iPods (I'm assuming you read the piece?).
    Brad also said the roads should be safer and organisations were working towards that.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. minus six
    Member

    Brad inadvertently presented the media with their usual preferential soundbite, served up on a nice shiny gold plate.

    Numpty.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    @wc of course, but there's a world of difference between saying people /shouldn't/ do things and actually having a law against it.

    I think it's comparatively dangerous to ride without a mirror, but people are free to disagree with that opinion and do as they please. Not so much if I called for legislation making it illegal for you to ride without a mirror though...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    bax: Which is why he would have done better to keep his mouth shout on the matter. Another cyclist dead and the media are jumping all over the place, blaming the victim. Very, very sad.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. wee folding bike
    Member

    wearing a helmet never killed anyone

    Wrong.

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I guess if Brad had called for segregated infrastructure with cyclist priority lights and strict liability then the lawmakers would be making it happen right now?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. minus six
    Member

    I don't believe Bradley should have kept his mouth shut.

    Like Chris Hoy should have done before him, they should use their position, while in the full spotlight of success, to pay tribute to the dead olympic cycling hopefuls killed while out training on UK roads.

    But somehow, the opportunity is always missed.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. Dave
    Member

    I guess if Brad had called for segregated infrastructure with cyclist priority lights and strict liability then the lawmakers would be making it happen right now?

    You're putting it simplistically, but we can at least agree that politicians do ultimately legislate in response to pressure from society (whether the public, lobby groups, whoever), yeah?

    If the headlines were full of 'Wiggo calls for compulsory blind spot mirrors after cyclist crushed outside Olympic venue' that certainly wouldn't /hurt/. After all, what he *did* say has been all over the papers, and radio, and TV.

    Or, to put it another way, Wiggo has many times the power of the whole Pedal on Parliament movement, since he can generate headlines whenever he likes, and he's a popular household name, by whom politicians won't like being humiliated or called out. If PoP wasn't pointless, as I hope it wasn't, we must acknowledge the influence that guys like Wiggo can bring to bear.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    I guess if Brad had called for segregated infrastructure with cyclist priority lights and strict liability then the lawmakers would be making it happen right now?

    No, it just would not have been reported at all. The fact that he has made headlines is down to him (drunk) having made opinions known which chimed perfectly with the average Daily Mail reading driver's prejudices against cyclists: wearing iPods, RLJing, not wearing helmets, only themselves to blame when killed really.

    Wiggo made the mistake of assuming he was speaking informally to friends. If he was trying to make a more nuanced point then he made a mess of it. Much better that he kept his mouth shut until he was sober and had the facts of the tragic killing of a young man in his possession.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    [Self-Censored]

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. wee folding bike
    Member

    which chimed perfectly with the average Daily Mail reading driver's prejudices against cyclists:

    Bizarrely a Daily Mail piece on this is OK.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182586/Bradley-Wiggins-knows-lot-cycling-But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. crowriver
    Member

    Here's the video of what Wiggo actually said (scroll down to foot of article). I'm struck by how apologetic and defensive he is about cycling. Not once does he mention that road design or standards of driving might be factors, just that the roads are "dangerous". Maybe he should have stuck to the humble statement about half way through "To be honest I'm not really the best person to ask about this". If only he'd left it at that...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. crowriver
    Member

    wfb: that article is more than okay, it is excellent! Cannot quite believe it's in the Mail!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. spytfyre
    Member

    [self censored]

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Nelly
    Member

    Daily Mail piece is pretty good actually. Comments reflects the eejits of course!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    Via Facebook

    "

    Jings. I am in opinionated-mode today. My top cycle safety measures -- in the wake of the tragic London death -- would be more cyclists on roads (safety in numbers and heighteneed motorist awareness), European-style junction priority, drivers made legally and automatically responsible in any crash with a cyclist (like Netherlands and Norway) with non-compulsory helmet wearing. UK's half hearted committment to cycling is the real problem. More at -

    http://www.lesleyriddoch.co.uk/2012/08/dont-make-cycling-helmets-compulsory.html

    "

    Concludes with -

    "

    THE easiest way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more. While cyclists are still the exception not the rule, the odd cyclist is seen as an irritant not a fact of life, motorists don't get used to sharing space and - above all -- council chiefs don't seize the nettle and give bikes top priority in road layout. That's the only way to really raise bike use and make cyclists feel safe -- go to any German city and you'll see what I mean! As usual Britain is all talk and relatively little action – with cycle lanes that don't connect and sometimes even end in telephone boxes or bollards. So lets bite the bullet and give cyclists priority on roads. Olympics success means a new generation of British kids will want to saddle up - and a generation of policy maker will spend years trying to find any better way to tackle inactivity, obesity and road congestion in a oner! So fix the problem -- dinnae persecute the cyclist!

    "

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. spytfyre
    Member

    [self censored]

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "
    The fatal accident happened just before Bradley Wiggins was due to speak about his Olympic gold win at a press conference. He said: "Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don't have a helmet on, then you can't argue…Once there is a law passed for cyclists then are protected and you can say, 'Well I have done everything to be safe'."

    "

    http://www.channel4.com/news/wiggins-denies-he-called-for-legally-enforced-helmets

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. Claggy Cog
    Member

    I think any cyclist killed in any crash is now going to spark a debate, small or large, for compulsory helmet wearing. This is whether or not the cyclist could or could not have been saved had they been wearing one. It is going to become the usual diversion for not having to look at motorist's/driver behaviours and deal with that appropriately. In many people's view cyclists should just not be on the road at all. What they don't realise is that if you are killed by a car you will not be claiming any sort of compensation, and I think BW has changed his tune slightly, possibly making matters worse by implying that should you be involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet then you are less likely to be able to claim damages.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. Dave
    Member

    It's sad because it's such a diversion, but unfortunately one that needs to be fought time and again.

    Some of the fact sheets coming out are nice, for a change.

    Over 50% of deaths in London result from people being puréed under 10+ ton vehicle wheels. When the DfT got experts to examine dead folk they only reckoned a little over 10% might have been saved. That means, in practice, that 95% of deaths would keep on happening even with universal helmet wearing, making two assumptions:

    - a helmet can't lift up the axles of an HGV or bus, so if you were going to die, whether or not you had one on is neither here nor there
    - all other cyclists die purely because of head injuries, never because of other injuries

    The government could make a positive contribution without going as far as stricter liability just by legislating to the effect that in crashes, drivers (and cyclists) take their victims "as they find them", with no discount possible because the victim was wearing ordinary clothes.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "I think BW has changed his tune slightly, possibly making matters worse by implying that should you be involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet then you are less likely to be able to claim damages"

    I'm afraid that is one possible outcome of this.

    it was good to hear Chris Boardman on Newsnight last night cooling the BW 'row' down AND calling for reallocation of roadspace.

    BW said something foolish - whatever he actually said/meant at a time when his mind/body was understandably elsewhere. NOT that his job is anything to do with 'speaking for cycling'.

    Chris Boardman and the sport side of cycling, plus Sky - particularly because of the Sky Rides - have a real chance now of getting changes for 'ordinary' cycling in the UK.

    'Cycle campaign groups' need to work directly with 'sport' to present a united front (difficult!)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Not sure if you were trying to make a point spitters or not. I'd posted something, decided it was inflammatory, can't just delete posts, so had to replace it with... nothing... Et voila.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Claggy Cog
    Member

    http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/magazine/113723-opinion-cycle-helmet-laws-should-be-backed-by-evidence/

    CTC Scotland committee chairman's piece.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "
    In practice, this disbenefit is potentially very substantial, not least because the deterrent effect is likely to be strongest among key target groups for physical activity promotion, e.g. women, teenagers, less well-off communities and ethnic minority groups.

    "
    "
    Written by Chris Oliver.

    Chris Oliver is a consultant surgeon working in Edinburgh and has many years of experience treating cyclists after serious road traffic, cycle sport and commuting cycle injuries. In his training he spent a year as a neurosurgeon and has a wealth of experience on head injury. Chris Oliver is also Chair of CTC Scotland.

    "

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Ross Lydall (@RossLydall)

    07/08/2012 07:28

    Exclusive: Safety measures were removed from Olympics junction to instal Games Lanes 10 days before cyclist killed

    http://tinyurl.com/d4kvynl

    "

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin