Young cyclist killed

wafflycat said the following on 01/12/2006 10:57:

Quoted message said:

"A teenage boy has died after his bicycle was involved in an accident
with a van on a village street.

<snip>

And the H-word wasn't mentioned once, despite the obvious cue!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

From the above, it sounds like, perhaps, the van was overtaking the
young lad and pulled in before being clear of him :-(

The article says that a witness says "we heard the van did not see
him", which isn't really consistent with an attempt to overtake.

Response to Paul Boyd:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"A teenage boy has died after his bicycle was involved in an accident
with a van on a village street.

<snip>

And the H-word wasn't mentioned once, despite the obvious cue!

Prolly means he was wearing one. </cynic>

--
Mark, UK
"The Internet was a better place when you had to TRY to get on it."

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Paul Boyd:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"A teenage boy has died after his bicycle was involved in an accident
with a van on a village street.

<snip>

And the H-word wasn't mentioned once, despite the obvious cue!

Prolly means he was wearing one. </cynic>

--
Mark, UK
"The Internet was a better place when you had to TRY to get on it."

Slightly less partisan reporting from the Norwich Evening News there.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Slightly less partisan reporting from the Norwich Evening News there.

But still the divorcing of person from vehicle.

"A teenage boy has died after his bicycle was involved in an accident with a
van on a village street."

"We heard that the van did not see him."

Yesterday, there was a serious incident on the A47, near where I live.
Motorist drives into a tree (don't know the detail of how and why). Trapped
in car. Takes hours to free from wreckage. It's reported as "Chaos after A47
crash" The emphasis, as usual with the local press is on the inconvenience
to motorists, with most of the article being about the inconvenience of
traffic distruption.

"Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

From the above, it sounds like, perhaps, the van was overtaking the
young lad and pulled in before being clear of him :-(

The article says that a witness says "we heard the van did not see
him", which isn't really consistent with an attempt to overtake.

Where it says in the original article, "It is believed the van was passing
the bike about 100 metres north of Norwich Road's junction with Bunwell
Street when the accident happened." is consistent with a possible attempt
to overtake.

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

From the above, it sounds like, perhaps, the van was overtaking the
young lad and pulled in before being clear of him :-(

The article says that a witness says "we heard the van did not see
him", which isn't really consistent with an attempt to overtake.

Where it says in the original article, "It is believed the van was passing
the bike about 100 metres north of Norwich Road's junction with Bunwell
Street when the accident happened." is consistent with a possible attempt
to overtake.

And now in the EDP

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED01%20Dec%202006%2011%3A57%3A44%3A347

or

http://masl.to/?L2DD52B4E

"The accident happened at about 100metres north of the junction with Bunwell
Street. Both vehicles are believed to have been travelling south prior to
the collision and the van was believed to have been passing the bicycle at
the time."

My thoughts are with the family. This is a tragedy that could have been
prevented.

The article quoted said:

A woman from Bunwell, who did not wish to be identified, said: "He was
cycling to see a friend in Old Buckenham when it happened. We heard
that the van did not see him."

Yet 'wafflycat said:

From the above, it sounds like, perhaps, the van was overtaking the
young lad and pulled in before being clear of him :-(

The article doesn't suggest this as the most probable cause - perhaps
you'd like to point out how you came to your conclusion?

This accident happened at about 5pm where even in Cornwall it is after
dark at this time of year, and Tacolneston is well North of there. Since
it is likely that the van driver did not see the cyclist, my first
instinct is to ask whether the cyclist had lights and if so how effective
were they. The next question would be was the cyclist wearing reflective
(or at least light) clothing. The next question would be whether the
cyclist was using an appropriate riding position so that he would be
visible to other road users and had some room to "escape" as the van
approached. I'd also like to know what the weather and road surface
conditions were like (e.g. was it raining or was there glare from the
headlights of oncoming vehicles) and whether there were oncoming vehicles
whose lights could have masked the cyclist and/or denied the van driver
room to overtake. I'd also like to know what state the van driver's
windscreen was in, whether his eyesight was up to scratch, whether he was
under the influence of drink or drugs, and whether he was driving tired.

http://tinyurl.com/ycrxoo is a link to local.live.com satelite view of
the road. As you should see, there is a straight stretch of road more
than 100 metres long before the crash site - so if he didn't see the
cyclist, why not, and if he did why didn't he take avoiding action given
that he had at least 100 metres in which to do this?

There are a lot of factors to this, and lots of unanswered questions, so
perhaps it would be best if we left this to the experts who attended the
scene rather than jump to conclusions.

Quoted message said:

The emphasis, as usual with the local press is
on the inconvenience to motorists, with most of the article being
about the inconvenience of traffic distruption.

It's 'cos they find it harder to get details of the crash, but easy to get
details of the traffic 'chaos'. Lazy reporting.

"Will Cove" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My thoughts are with the family. This is a tragedy that could have been
prevented.

The article quoted said:

A woman from Bunwell, who did not wish to be identified, said: "He was
cycling to see a friend in Old Buckenham when it happened. We heard
that the van did not see him."

Yet 'wafflycat said:

From the above, it sounds like, perhaps, the van was overtaking the
young lad and pulled in before being clear of him :-(

The article doesn't suggest this as the most probable cause - perhaps
you'd like to point out how you came to your conclusion?

Can you point out where, exactly, I said it was the 'most probable' cause?
What I actually said was 'perhaps' which is entirely different in meaning to
'most probable'.

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the above, it sounds like, perhaps, the van was overtaking the
young lad and pulled in before being clear of him :-(

The article doesn't suggest this as the most probable cause - perhaps
you'd like to point out how you came to your conclusion?

Can you point out where, exactly, I said it was the 'most probable'
cause? What I actually said was 'perhaps' which is entirely different
in meaning to 'most probable'.

Must be a colloquial difference. Where I live, leaving out the "perhaps"
would indicate near certainty while leaving it in suggested to me that you
consider it to be the most probable cause but that there were other (less
likely) alternatives.

I appologise if I misinterpreted. However, the crux of my post stands - I
don't think that we should jump to conclusions WRT what caused the accident
because there are too many unanswered questions.

wafflycat said:

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED01%20Dec%202006%2010%3A18%3A35%3A480

or

http://masl.to/?A2DC13B4E

Very sad. Needless waste of a young life. Whether he was a stealth
cyclist, or the van driver was to blame is largely immaterial now, as
the poor lad will still be dead.

However - I really hope it wasn't a case of invisibility - because
somehow that's even more needless.

I *almost* ran into another cyclist when I was riding between
Gressenhall and Litcham (Norfolk) the other evening - about 18:30. On an
unlit, rural road, he had dark clothing, no lights, and was cycling at
about 5mph compared to my 20mph - so he "just appeared" in my field of
view (as aided by my dyno and two Halogens) and I had to brake hard to
avoid. If I'd been driving, and not paying full attention, he could so
easily have become a hood ornament. Even a reflective would have made
all the difference in the world.

I really hope the case referred to here was not brought on by this kind
of behaviour. 🙁

wafflycat wrote:

The emphasis, as usual with the local press

Quoted message said:

is on the inconvenience to motorists, with most of the article being
about the inconvenience of traffic distruption.

Archant papers always seem to take this angle when reporting RTCs (whether
bicycles are involved or not) - I've noticed it a lot in he Suffolk rags as
well..

Curiously they *also* seem to do a lot of campaigns about road safety (well
at least in the Suffolk ones - are they also doing "name and shame a drunken
driver" and "slow down, belt up and shut up" round your way?

A bit of a paradox IMO....

Alex

--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

Chris Smith said:

Very sad. Needless waste of a young life. Whether he was a stealth
cyclist, or the van driver was to blame...

Even if he /was/ a stealth cyclist (for which there is seldom any
excuse), we should still bear in mind the obligation on the part of the
van driver to drive at a speed from which he can stop in the distance
that he can see to be clear ahead.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Mr R@t (2.30zi) said:

wafflycat wrote:

The emphasis, as usual with the local press

Quoted message said:

is on the inconvenience to motorists, with most of the article being
about the inconvenience of traffic distruption.

Archant papers always seem to take this angle when reporting RTCs (whether
bicycles are involved or not) - I've noticed it a lot in he Suffolk rags as
well..

It seems to me they just print the police press release more or less
verbatim. Never mind. The police press officer is probably a better
writer anyway.

--
Dave...

Danny Colyer said the following on 01/12/2006 20:06:

Quoted message said:

Even if he /was/ a stealth cyclist (for which there is seldom any
excuse), we should still bear in mind the obligation on the part of the
van driver to drive at a speed from which he can stop in the distance
that he can see to be clear ahead.

Do you drive? Speaking generally as we don't know the circumstances of
this particular case, we could for arguments sake say that the van
driver was driving at a speed from which he could stop in the distance
that he thought to be clear ahead. The problem with stealth cyclists is
the very fact that they are stealth, so a driver may think the road is
clear until a black shape suddenly separates itself from the darkness.
I know that argument can be taken to either extreme, and I'm not trying
to justify anyone's actions, but just point out a real life situation.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul Boyd

('usenet.dont.work@plusnet') said:

Danny Colyer said the following on 01/12/2006 20:06:

Quoted message said:

Even if he /was/ a stealth cyclist (for which there is seldom any
excuse), we should still bear in mind the obligation on the part of the
van driver to drive at a speed from which he can stop in the distance
that he can see to be clear ahead.

Do you drive? Speaking generally as we don't know the circumstances of
this particular case, we could for arguments sake say that the van
driver was driving at a speed from which he could stop in the distance
that he thought to be clear ahead. The problem with stealth cyclists is
the very fact that they are stealth, so a driver may think the road is
clear until a black shape suddenly separates itself from the darkness.

I agree people /do/ drive like this, and that it is currently considered
socially acceptable for people to drive like this - just as it was
socially acceptable to drive when drunk thirty years ago. What I'd say,
though, is that it should not be socially acceptable. It /is/ illegal.

Even a black cyclist in black clothes on a black bike isn't invisible. If
you can't see a black cyclist in black clothes on a black bike in
sufficient time to take appropriate avoiding action, then you're driving
too fast for the conditions.

No, I'm not defending cyclists who ride without lights and reflectives at
night or in poor visibility. They shouldn't do it. But that is not an
excuse for killing them.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Paul Boyd wondered:

Quoted message said:

Do you drive?

Occasionally.

Quoted message said:

Speaking generally as we don't know the circumstances of
this particular case, we could for arguments sake say that the van
driver was driving at a speed from which he could stop in the distance
that he thought to be clear ahead.

He is obliged to be able to stop in the distance that he *can see* to be
clear ahead, not the distance that he *thinks* is clear ahead.

Quoted message said:

The problem with stealth cyclists is
the very fact that they are stealth, so a driver may think the road is
clear until a black shape suddenly separates itself from the darkness.

When I drive, I'm very well aware that cats, dogs, sheep, deer, fallen
trees, dustbins, bags of rubbish, pedestrians and even stealth cyclists
may appear unlit in front of me. Anyone who is not aware of the
possible presence of unlit hazards is not fit to take charge of any kind
of vehicle in a public place.

I'm not going to defend stealth cycling, but nor do I accept that a
competent driver is likely to miss a stealth cyclist. I manage to pick
them out on an unlit cyclepath with < 35W of lighting. I even used to
manage it when I only had 6W. With the benefit of car headlights there
is no excuse.

Quoted message said:

I know that argument can be taken to either extreme, and I'm not trying
to justify anyone's actions, but just point out a real life situation.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On 02/12/2006 16:19, Danny Colyer said,

Quoted message said:

He is obliged to be able to stop in the distance that he *can see* to be
clear ahead, not the distance that he *thinks* is clear ahead.

I think perhaps I didn't make my point clear. What I was saying was
that when driving at night, it's possible to see a certain distance
ahead that is clear - i.e, you can't see any danger or obstructions
ahead, and a driver may drive at a speed that allows them to stop for as
far as they can see no danger because they may not consider that there
might in fact be danger there. With me so far? (I'm not sure I am!)
Under certain conditions, they can't see an unlit cyclist, and because
they can't see him, they believe that they have a certain "safety"
margin that in fact they don't have. Again, I'm not defending any
action because a competent driver should be looking that much more
carefully in that "safe" zone just in case there is something there
after all.

Quoted message said:

When I drive, I'm very well aware that cats, dogs, sheep, deer, fallen
trees, dustbins, bags of rubbish, pedestrians and even stealth cyclists
may appear unlit in front of me.

I'm sure everyone is aware of everything that could suddenly appear in
front of them any time they drive, day or night. A child could suddenly
run out between parked cars right in front of you when you're doing
20mph, and you're fully aware that that is a possibility. So what do
you do? Drive past parked cars at 3mph to avoid any possible injury
just in case a child runs out? I bet you don't, and nor should you
necessarily as the powers that be have decided that in most cases 30mph
is a "safe" speed at which to hit a pedestrian. I'm not going to get
into whether that decision is right or wrong!

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to defend stealth cycling, but nor do I accept that a
competent driver is likely to miss a stealth cyclist.

Yes, I agree. However, there are a lot of incompetent drivers out there.
I seriously believe that all drivers should be retested every 5 years
or whatever. When I was in the States, the guys I was working with
couldn't believe that my license lasted until I was 70 - I had to show them!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/