Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The examples of wind, debris and health issue were just that - examples of possible causes. While I disagree with your interpretation of these as unavoidable, it's a moot point here, as we have no information about the actual causes. Cyclists don't generally fall over and die, so something caused these deaths. Unless we know what caused these deaths, any comment about them being avoidable or unavoidable is pure fantasy.

I'd imagine they just hit something. And since they were presumably not suicidal, it was likely not something they expected. And I'm not sure in what alternate reality heart attacks, strokes, inclement weather and human error (beyond a certain point) are avoidable.

So if a sudden obstruction appears in your path, or moving into your path, you're saying that drivers shouldn't brake, but should just steer away - is this actually your advice on dealing with emergencies like this?

No. First of all you didn't establish that the driver did not attempt to use the brakes at any point. You just said it didn't look like it to you, which means nothing except a questionable attempt to detract blame from the cyclist and bring unwarranted question to the actions of the driver. Second, my advice is that in an emergency, a driver should take any action they can to avoid the loss of life and secondarily minimise other forms of damage. Further, in judging a drivers' actions ex post facto, it must also be understood that it's a little different sitting safely behind a keyboard judging a video as actually being there and having to do something in a split-second.

By any reasonable standard, the driver acted correctly. In that particular circumstance, at that place, at that time, the drivers' actions were the only actions that could possibly have avoided a fatality, and in so doing, not cause any others. Whether the driver used the brake or not (and you didn't show that they didn't) made no difference whatsoever to this accident. The driver's only option was immediate evasive action and that's what they did.

I find it incredible that this has to be explained.

Fascinating how with single vehicle collisions, it is impossible to say for sure what happened - but for single vehicle deaths involving cyclists, you're able to say with absolute certainty that they were unavoidable.

Your own hypothetical scenarios suggested they were unavoidable.

SeanW wrote: »

I'd imagine they just hit something. And since they were presumably not suicidal, it was likely not something they expected. And I'm not sure in what alternate reality heart attacks, strokes, inclement weather and human error (beyond a certain point) are avoidable.

Given that you imagine that every oul wan mooching on the pavement on her bike is 'menacing with intent', I'm not too sure that your imagination is a sound basic for proceeding here.

It may well be that they just hit something, but given that it rarely happens that cyclists hit something and die, there is likely to be a bit more to the story.

Again, it's worth pointing out the contrast to the things you imagine for cyclists and the things you imagine for motorists. Is there any vague possibility that there might be just a hint of some personal bias involved here?

SeanW wrote: »

No. First of all you didn't establish that the driver did not attempt to use the brakes at any point. You just said it didn't look like it to you, which means nothing except a questionable attempt to detract blame from the cyclist and bring unwarranted question to the actions of the driver. Second, my advice is that in an emergency, a driver should take any action they can to avoid the loss of life and secondarily minimise other forms of damage. Further, in judging a drivers' actions ex post facto, it must also be understood that it's a little different sitting safely behind a keyboard judging a video as actually being there and having to do something in a split-second.

By any reasonable standard, the driver acted correctly. In that particular circumstance, at that place, at that time, the drivers' actions were the only actions that could possibly have avoided a fatality, and in so doing, not cause any others. Whether the driver used the brake or not (and you didn't show that they didn't) made no difference whatsoever to this accident. The driver's only option was immediate evasive action and that's what they did.

I find it incredible that this has to be explained.

You're right that I haven't established anything. I'm far from expert in these things. To me, the cyclist was incredibly foolish, and the driver did indeed probably save their life by steering away from the incident.

The question of braking probably didn't have a huge impact on the cyclist. It did have an impact on the further risk to the trucker and the risk of damage to the vehicle. It seemed to me that the driver swerved away, but pretty much kept going at a similar speed, resulting in them driving off the road.

There's a reason why brakes and steering have different controls, brakes with the feet, steering with the hands - to allow the drive to brake and steer simultaenously.

It looked to me like this driver didn't brake as they swerved.

SeanW wrote: »

Your own hypothetical scenarios suggested they were unavoidable.

Not really. You'd really need more information to come to that conclusion.

For example, if the cyclist was out cycling in a red weather warning (or a driver was driving in a red weather warning) and wind or debris was a result of the storm, then that is very avoidable.

We don't have anything near enough information to conclude that these deaths were unavoidable.

magicbastarder wrote: »

Saying 'they fell off the bike' is about as clear as saying 'they crashed the car'.
Did they topple off the bike while waiting at lights and hit their head on a kerb? Did they fall off their bike coming down from the Sally gap at 70km/h? Did they fall off their bike while avoiding an unexpected obstacle or hitting a greasy patch on a wet day?

All 'they fell off their bike' tells us is that there was no impact with a car.

Did they fall off their bike after a near miss with a car or pedestrian but with no contact made.

I have fallen 3 times I can think of without an impact 1. Was wet leaves on the turn of a concrete road 2. Was to avoid rear ending a car that stopped suddenly going down hill in the wet to turn without indicating 3. I wasn't paying attention on a really long straight road and tramlined myself to the curb

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

....and by an extraordinary co-incidence, I was also cycling on that very road (R153) with the club on the day that gentleman passed away. We passed the spot where he fell about 30 minutes beforehand (going in the opposite direction).

I knew only to see that gentleman to died. Went to school with his nephew. He's buried in the grave behind my mam and one grave over.

Across from him is the grave of a boy of 13 who was knocked off his bike and died.

Just so sad to have 2 people who died out cyclibg facing each other.

Mandatory hi-vis for houses would surely have prevented this from happening

donvito99 wrote: »

Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909

We need to be realistic. The house must accept some responsibility here! I mean a big house on a narrow road? who ever thought that was a good idea?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play Deflection too, please?

Hmm, lemme see...

Has anyone gone with "Look, at the end of the day, nobody was killed by the house!" yet? I'll go with that, so!

Fun innit?

kenmm wrote: »

That area is a sh!tshow for mixture of walkers, cyclists etc. The cycle track is no where near wide enough for the volume of traffic.

Interesting to see a subdivision of cyclists now. Too 'non MVP' for road, too 'Mamil' for cycle track

I suppose it gets us nearer to cyclists being individuals and not one giant group

I dont know that route but in general everybody needs to start treating cycle lanes like roads and not be goin down em the wrong way, walking in them or not looking for traffic before crossing

kenmm wrote: »

It wasn't even using the house lane ffs

Actually it was. It's called "off the road". Though the comparison between bicycles and houses in this regard is interesting :P

07Lapierre wrote: »

We need to be realistic. The house must accept some responsibility here! I mean a big house on a narrow road? who ever thought that was a good idea?

Last I checked, houses did not travel and they remain off the road most of the time.

Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).

donvito99 wrote: »

Shouldn't have been in the living room without helmets either.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-53721909

If sitting in your living room was as dangerous as some cyclists claim their cycle trips are, then that might not be a bad idea.

SeanW wrote: »

Actually it was. It's called "off the road". Though the comparison between bicycles and houses in this regard is interesting :P

Last I checked, houses did not travel and they remain off the road most of the time.

Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au7gmWjhfR8

If sitting in your living room was as dangerous as some cyclists claim their cycle trips are, then that might not be a bad idea.

That house isnt wearing a helmet

breezy1985 wrote: »

That house isnt wearing a helmet

Those dark brown bricks are impossible to see at night. All of us on (or bordering on) the road need to take responsibility for our own safety.

SeanW wrote: »

Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for the average driver's observational skills is it?

p_haugh wrote: »

Came a cross this gem of a cycle track on the n11 the other day

Still, its better than this one!...

https://scontent.fdub4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/116255332_3244275428928725_7766705148008481815_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Lkfwj2tBCcUAX8YogGY&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&oh=71d2176083d2c5ba1a46461fe874e379&oe=5F59EDA0