Cyclist Dies in Brighton

In article <[email hidden]>, ar106
@connectfreeREMOVE.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

?
Sounds like they want to know what happened. Maybe they want to prevent
the same thing happening again.

--
Mike

"Andrew Richardson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

Yes it does look like victim-blaming and it happens all too often in the UK
when it comes to cycling injuries and deaths. The police in question should
be ashamed of themselves.

helen s

Andrew Richardson said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

*A police investigation was focusing on whether the bicycle had lights
and reflectors and whether the woman was wearing any reflective or
light-coloured clothing.*

I know that recent reports suggest that the police are not as bright
as one may hope, but surely it doesn't take much to establish the
above.

*He [Sgt Geer] said, "We want to remind all cyclists to ensure they
wear the correct protective clothing including a helmet and reflective
bands."*

Perhaps the police investigation should first focus on whether the
cyclist was wearing a helmet, and if she was conclude that it did her
no good, and if she wasn't refocus the investigation to discover if
helmet would have saved her life.

Andrew Richardson said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

"A police investigation was focusing on whether the bicycle had lights
and reflectors and whether the woman was wearing any reflective or
light-coloured clothing."

That will be a challenge for them.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

"Bertie Wiggins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andrew Richardson said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

*A police investigation was focusing on whether the bicycle had lights
and reflectors and whether the woman was wearing any reflective or
light-coloured clothing.*

I know that recent reports suggest that the police are not as bright
as one may hope, but surely it doesn't take much to establish the
above.

*He [Sgt Geer] said, "We want to remind all cyclists to ensure they
wear the correct protective clothing including a helmet and reflective
bands."*

Perhaps the police investigation should first focus on whether the
cyclist was wearing a helmet, and if she was conclude that it did her
no good, and if she wasn't refocus the investigation to discover if
helmet would have saved her life.

It sounds to me as though she wasn't carrying lights. They are more
protective than helmets.

Geoff Pearson said:

It sounds to me as though she wasn't carrying lights. They are more
protective than helmets.

Its not so clear. Either there are lights on the bike in which case its
a question of whether they were switched on, or there are not in which
case they already know the answer and wouldn't need to ask. In either
case it does not excuse the driver because there is plenty of street
lighting there by which to see what is on the roads if you bother to look.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Andrew Richardson said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

I don't see a problem with the reporting. There's obviously a very real
problem with the reported attitude of the police, but if the police are
going to get into victim blaming then I'd rather know about it than not.

Quoted message said:

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

Yes, but not on the part of the journalist.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"Andrew Richardson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

Sound like you're shooting from the hip to me.

There are lots of unanswered questions in the article. Quite a few
inferences can be drawn from the sorry tale but unless one was intimately
involved with the incident the inferences remain, at best, guesses.

Here's some things to consider:

The woman was German, was she crossing the carriage way and looked in the
wrong direction before crossing forgetting she was in the UK and not
Germany?

In an accident involving serious injuries, don't the priorities lie with
getting the victim to hospital and not loggin what s(he) was wearing at the
time of the accident?

Having had lights detach themselves from my bike after hitting potholes, a
thorough search of the accident area may have to be made to establish of
lights were fitted to the bike which may well be mangled if a heavy
impact/collision was made.

The accident was pre-dawn. The establishment of whether lights were on the
bike is a legitimate exercise when trying to establish the cause(s) of the
accident.

Establishing that the cyclist was wearing reflective clothing and that the
bike had reflectors and lights could strengthen the case for a prosecution
of the driver and not imply that the woman was feckless.

The article mentions serious head injuries, a helmet may logically be held
to be a possible life saving piece of equipment to those unfamiliar with the
current 'debate' including police, medics and journalists.

All pure conjecture of course and none of it contributing to the general
case that cycling is a beneficial activity whose low risks are outweighed by
an extended lifespan for most participants.

vernon said:

Sound like you're shooting from the hip to me.

There are lots of unanswered questions in the article. Quite a few
inferences can be drawn from the sorry tale but unless one was intimately
involved with the incident the inferences remain, at best, guesses.

Here's some things to consider:

You've missed out the questions they didn't ask:

Was the motorist going too fast?
Was he talking on his phone?
Were his windows clear of mist and condensation?
Was he tuning his car radio or fiddling around with something else in
the car?

Since we know his car was yellow we at least don't need to ask whether
it was visible although that would seem to be irrelevant as they were
travelling in the same direction implying he hit her from behind.

And if they are going to ask why she wasn't using the alternative but
less convenient pavement option it would be valid to ask why he wasn't
using the alternative but less convenient public transport option.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

You've missed out the questions they didn't ask:

Was the motorist going too fast?
Was he talking on his phone?
Were his windows clear of mist and condensation?
Was he tuning his car radio or fiddling around with something else in
the car?

No, I've missed out the questions *you've* assumed they didn't ask.

Vernon

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

You've missed out the questions they didn't ask:

Was the motorist going too fast?
Was he talking on his phone?
Were his windows clear of mist and condensation?
Was he tuning his car radio or fiddling around with something else in
the car?

No, I've missed out the questions *you've* assumed they didn't ask.

If they are asking them, why are they not reported? The only questions
reported were about the behaviour of the cyclist. Nothing at all is
said about the behaviour of the motorist or seeking to gain independent
verification of his story. Why do you think that is?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:45:20 +0000, Andrew Richardson
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

"The cyclist was in collision with a yellow Saab travelling in the
same direction."

Congratulations to the deceased on being able to ride so much faster
than the car as to be able to hit it at a lethal closing speed.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:49:51 -0000, "Geoff Pearson"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It sounds to me as though she wasn't carrying lights. They are more
protective than helmets.

Evidence? Seriously. I don't know of any.

Rule 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear. But of course that is superseded if
the other road user is a cyclist, in which case it's OK to blame them
just for being there.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:56:48 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If they are asking them, why are they not reported? The only questions
reported were about the behaviour of the cyclist. Nothing at all is
said about the behaviour of the motorist or seeking to gain independent
verification of his story. Why do you think that is?

Dead cyclists tell no tales.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

you know? said:

Rule 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear. But of course that is superseded if
the other road user is a cyclist, in which case it's OK to blame them
just for being there.

Not at all, even if you're driving at a speed you can see that is
clear, a cyclist without lights massively increases the danger, the
result when you can see it is an emergency stop situation, if you've
made a slight miscalculation of the road conditions, or the
maintenance of your breaks then you can still hit the cyclist.

Also of course Emergency stops are never truly safe, that's why
they're only used in an emergency. Or are you claiming that the rule
above is actually saying you should drive at a speed which allows you
to stop without performing an emergency stop in. If you're claiming
that the speed limit for lots of locations is probably slower than you
can actually cycle...

Jim.

Andrew Richardson said:

It's bad enough when a cyclist is killed on the road, but is there any
need for this kind of reporting?

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news/NEWS2.html

"Officers also want to know why the woman was cycling on the road on
the eastbound carriageway and not the cycle path on the south side
pavement in Kings Road."

Sounds like victim blaming to me.

I was more concerned by:

' He said: "We want to remind all cyclists to ensure they wear the
correct protective clothing including a helmet and reflective bands.

"They should also make sure they have lights on their bikes and that
they are working properly." '

The implication (If not intentional) being that a helmet and reflectives
should take priority over working lights.

As others have commented, while the attitude of the police *may* be
inappropriate, the article is simply quoting them.

Jon

Jon

Jim Ley said:

you know? said:

Rule 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within
the distance you can see to be clear. But of course that is
superseded if the other road user is a cyclist, in which case it's
OK to blame them just for being there.

Not at all, even if you're driving at a speed you can see that is
clear, a cyclist without lights massively increases the danger, the
result when you can see it is an emergency stop situation, if you've
made a slight miscalculation of the road conditions, or the
maintenance of your breaks then you can still hit the cyclist.

Also of course Emergency stops are never truly safe, that's why
they're only used in an emergency. Or are you claiming that the rule
above is actually saying you should drive at a speed which allows you
to stop without performing an emergency stop in. If you're claiming
that the speed limit for lots of locations is probably slower than you
can actually cycle...

Don't worry Jim, Guy and others here regularly misuse Rule 105

which is, in full with its sectional header:

Stopping distances

105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear. You should

a.. leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that
you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is
never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping
Distances diagram below)
b.. allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in
front on roads carrying fast traffic. The gap should be at least doubled on
wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
c.. remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance
to stop.
In context its meaning is clear.

To use it ( as was done here recently) to say ".... stop even if a
child runs out infront of you", or as Guy does above is, generously,
disingenuous. Less generously, it is thoroughly dishonest and deliberately
misleading.

pk

Jim Ley said:

you know? said:

Rule 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear. But of course that is superseded if
the other road user is a cyclist, in which case it's OK to blame them
just for being there.

Not at all, even if you're driving at a speed you can see that is
clear, a cyclist without lights massively increases the danger, the
result when you can see it is an emergency stop situation, if you've
made a slight miscalculation of the road conditions, or the
maintenance of your breaks then you can still hit the cyclist.

Even on a well lit street where even car headlights provide little
assistance? This was not a case of a person cycling in the dark without
lights. At worst they were cycling on a very well lit street without
lights.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

p.k. said:

Don't worry Jim, Guy and others here regularly misuse Rule 105

which is, in full with its sectional header:

Stopping distances

105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear.

And on a narrow road you should be able to stop in half the distance
because the other half will be needed by the idiot coming the other way.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.