The ArgusCyclists injured in hit and run (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Cyclists injured in hit and run

Police are searching for a driver who knocked down two cyclists in a hit and run.

Cyclist Matt Scott was left with a broken collarbone and friend Marc Townsend suffered a minor brain injury following the collision.

The pair were cycling along Station Road, Berwick, with friend Mark Tearle when a 4x4 towing a horse box tried to overtake them on Sunday morning (December 9).

As the vehicle passed them the driver had to pull back in suddenly to avoid an oncoming car and knocked Mr Scott and Mr Townsend off their bikes.

Mr Tearle said: “The vehicle must have straddled across the centre of the road as it suddenly made a sharp maneouver, steering into Matt who was struck about midway along the trailer, sending him shuddering out of control into Marc.

“It’s such a blur, it was so quick. I had managed to maintain control but Matt had hit the tarmac hard on his right side, his head just inches away from the wheels of the trailer, with Marc tangled in Matt’s bike striking his head as they both finally came to a halt in a crumpled mess on the floor.

Failed to stop

“The driver of the 4×4 did not stop and by the time we had realised, it was too late to catch his vehicle registration or have the wherewithal to take a photograph.

“The thought that this could have been so much worse will not leave my thoughts.

“The inconsiderate, dangerous action and callous indifference for the lives, health and well being of others, exhibited by that driver is too much for me to even contemplate, I don’t have the words to describe the way I am feeling.”

A spokeswoman for Sussex Police confirmed that officers had been called to the incident just after 10am.

Anyone who believes they saw the 4x4 before or after the collision, or who thinks they know the identity of the driver, should contact Sussex Police on 101.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:32pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Number Six says...

A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said Number Six
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Rocco10 says...

Doubt they'll ever prove it in court. Rural area too. I'm assuming from the description above that the two cyclists were riding side by side rather than inline?
Doubt they'll ever prove it in court. Rural area too. I'm assuming from the description above that the two cyclists were riding side by side rather than inline? Rocco10
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Wivvy Dave says...

Number Six wrote:
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area.

It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
[quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side. Wivvy Dave
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Nick Brighton says...

Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote:
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area.

It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
What is certain is that a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident, where people were injured, failed to stop. That is an offence, whether the accident was their fault or not.
[quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]What is certain is that a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident, where people were injured, failed to stop. That is an offence, whether the accident was their fault or not. Nick Brighton
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Tue 11 Dec 12

ecw says...

Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote:
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area.

It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
What a ridiculous comment and observation. The point is the driver did not stop. Of course we can blame the driver of the 4X4. And I would even be so bold as to lay 100% of the blame on the driver's side, regardless whether the cyclists were side by side or single file. They are vulnerable on the road and that argument trumps all the side swipes at how well or not well cyclists behave on the road. The driver knocked off two cyclists and continued on his/her way - no wonder the third party is angry.
[quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous comment and observation. The point is the driver did not stop. Of course we can blame the driver of the 4X4. And I would even be so bold as to lay 100% of the blame on the driver's side, regardless whether the cyclists were side by side or single file. They are vulnerable on the road and that argument trumps all the side swipes at how well or not well cyclists behave on the road. The driver knocked off two cyclists and continued on his/her way - no wonder the third party is angry. ecw
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 11 Dec 12

LB says...

I strongly suspect the 4x4 would not have tried that manouver if a horse and rider had been going along the road as there was obviously insufficient space to do it safely. They made a reckless judgement and didn't bother to see what all the fuss was about behind them after the event. Even the car that had been coming the other way stopped to see if they could help.

"Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall?"

I nearly got hit by a car jumping a red light when walking across at a junction. I was clearly contributing to my own downfall by being on the road if we all start using the 'you asked for it by being on the road in the first place' argument.
I strongly suspect the 4x4 would not have tried that manouver if a horse and rider had been going along the road as there was obviously insufficient space to do it safely. They made a reckless judgement and didn't bother to see what all the fuss was about behind them after the event. Even the car that had been coming the other way stopped to see if they could help. "Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall?" I nearly got hit by a car jumping a red light when walking across at a junction. I was clearly contributing to my own downfall by being on the road if we all start using the 'you asked for it by being on the road in the first place' argument. LB
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

...the driver of the 4x4 starts a manoeuvre can't make it so pulls back in.
It doesn't really matter whether the cyclists were single line or double and wouldn't have made an difference if they had been pedestrians or a broken down car, the driver failed to take safe action and then failed to stop.
This poor driving could be for a number of reasons.
That should be the only speculation. The manoeuvre itself was unsafe.
...the driver of the 4x4 starts a manoeuvre can't make it so pulls back in. It doesn't really matter whether the cyclists were single line or double and wouldn't have made an difference if they had been pedestrians or a broken down car, the driver failed to take safe action and then failed to stop. This poor driving could be for a number of reasons. That should be the only speculation. The manoeuvre itself was unsafe. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Number Six says...

Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote:
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area.

It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
Do you know something we don't? I only ask because you make some kind of leap of logic and bring in farm vehicles. How do you know it's a farm vehicle? I would venture to opine that there are more 4x4s used for urban traffic than there are in rural areas. There are paddocks five minutes away from where I live and the horse owners have quite a range of 4x4s.

As other people have pointed out, the fact that he didn't stop speaks volumes
[quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]Do you know something we don't? I only ask because you make some kind of leap of logic and bring in farm vehicles. How do you know it's a farm vehicle? I would venture to opine that there are more 4x4s used for urban traffic than there are in rural areas. There are paddocks five minutes away from where I live and the horse owners have quite a range of 4x4s. As other people have pointed out, the fact that he didn't stop speaks volumes Number Six
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Tue 11 Dec 12

graham_Seagull says...

Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
are you suggesting that the cyclists deserved to be hit by their possible actions?

Ridiculous!!

Even if the cyclists were riding 4 abreast along the middle of the road and being completed gits, the driver should not attempt to overtake if it puts the lives of others at risk!!

Your comments are appalling.
[quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]are you suggesting that the cyclists deserved to be hit by their possible actions? Ridiculous!! Even if the cyclists were riding 4 abreast along the middle of the road and being completed gits, the driver should not attempt to overtake if it puts the lives of others at risk!! Your comments are appalling. graham_Seagull
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

Key question: were they both wearing helmets? Yes, the driver is at fault for not stopping. But as they are mentioned as both hitting their heads this is yet another example of why wearing helmets should be compulsory, especially as a shared road user. I say this as a cyclist who firmly believes that wearing a helmet, along with obeying the road laws and having appropriate lighting, should be strictly enforced for the safety of all cyclists.
Key question: were they both wearing helmets? Yes, the driver is at fault for not stopping. But as they are mentioned as both hitting their heads this is yet another example of why wearing helmets should be compulsory, especially as a shared road user. I say this as a cyclist who firmly believes that wearing a helmet, along with obeying the road laws and having appropriate lighting, should be strictly enforced for the safety of all cyclists. Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Poccypoc says...

**** Chelsea tractors. A friend of a friend has just bought one. Where's he live? Patcham! Why the hell do you need a Chelsea tractor in Patcham?! He only drives 5,000 miles a year, too!
**** Chelsea tractors. A friend of a friend has just bought one. Where's he live? Patcham! Why the hell do you need a Chelsea tractor in Patcham?! He only drives 5,000 miles a year, too! Poccypoc
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 11 Dec 12

K_N_F_ says...

Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote:
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area.

It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
Two cyclists side-by-side (in accordance with the highway code) or one cyclist avoiding a pothole or being blown by a gust of wind - they'll both occupy the same amount of road. That's why the highway code says to give them plenty of room.

http://preview.tinyu
rl.com/cnahhdy

It's a long straight road, not hard to plan a safe overtake or to hang back until it's safe. This person needs to know what they've done.
[quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]Two cyclists side-by-side (in accordance with the highway code) or one cyclist avoiding a pothole or being blown by a gust of wind - they'll both occupy the same amount of road. That's why the highway code says to give them plenty of room. http://preview.tinyu rl.com/cnahhdy It's a long straight road, not hard to plan a safe overtake or to hang back until it's safe. This person needs to know what they've done. K_N_F_
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Tue 11 Dec 12

K_N_F_ says...

Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote:
A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area.

It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
Two cyclists side-by-side (in accordance with the highway code) or one cyclist avoiding a pothole or being blown by a gust of wind - they'll both occupy the same amount of road. That's why the highway code says to give them plenty of room.

http://tinyurl.com/c
nahhdy

It's a long straight road, not hard to plan a safe overtake or to hang back until it's safe. This person needs to know what they've done.
[quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]Two cyclists side-by-side (in accordance with the highway code) or one cyclist avoiding a pothole or being blown by a gust of wind - they'll both occupy the same amount of road. That's why the highway code says to give them plenty of room. http://tinyurl.com/c nahhdy It's a long straight road, not hard to plan a safe overtake or to hang back until it's safe. This person needs to know what they've done. K_N_F_
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

It's not compulsory to wear a helmet for cycling or horse riding. Only motorcycling.
However, it is good practice. However, it's irrelevant because these cyclists could have been pedestrians who still would have been hit and I doubt that pedestrians generally wear helmets for good practice.
I'm amazed that people find excuses for crap driving......however
, if we find out she is a woman or an old person driving I am sure the comments would be about the poor driving.
The fact is someone driving a vehicle started a manoeuvre and made a poor judgement which resulted in injury to another road user.
Poor driving.
It's not compulsory to wear a helmet for cycling or horse riding. Only motorcycling. However, it is good practice. However, it's irrelevant because these cyclists could have been pedestrians who still would have been hit and I doubt that pedestrians generally wear helmets for good practice. I'm amazed that people find excuses for crap driving......however , if we find out she is a woman or an old person driving I am sure the comments would be about the poor driving. The fact is someone driving a vehicle started a manoeuvre and made a poor judgement which resulted in injury to another road user. Poor driving. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Plantpot says...

If EVERYONE just obeyed the Highway Code, there would be far fewer issues on the road.

It wouldn't surprise me if the driver of the vehicle didn't even feel the collision - after all, it was a connection with his trailer, and the lightest of hits would have been enough to knock the guys off their bikes.

Of course, in today's society there is no such thing as an accident anymore.
If EVERYONE just obeyed the Highway Code, there would be far fewer issues on the road. It wouldn't surprise me if the driver of the vehicle didn't even feel the collision - after all, it was a connection with his trailer, and the lightest of hits would have been enough to knock the guys off their bikes. Of course, in today's society there is no such thing as an accident anymore. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
It's not compulsory to wear a helmet for cycling or horse riding. Only motorcycling.
However, it is good practice. However, it's irrelevant because these cyclists could have been pedestrians who still would have been hit and I doubt that pedestrians generally wear helmets for good practice.
I'm amazed that people find excuses for crap driving......however

, if we find out she is a woman or an old person driving I am sure the comments would be about the poor driving.
The fact is someone driving a vehicle started a manoeuvre and made a poor judgement which resulted in injury to another road user.
Poor driving.
Maxwell Ghost...I am not defending poor driving at all, they are clearly at fault here. But comparing pedestrians to cyclists is clearly illogical...cyclists are not only travelling at much faster velocities but have further to fall not to mention share the road (and legally not the pavement) with much faster/larger vehicles. Wearing a safety helmet, as recently recommended by Wiggins, makes complete sense and it is understandable why Australia and New Zealand have it as part of their laws. It's a logical as wearing a seat belt in a car. Having been hit by a vehicle travelling at 30mph through a give way without giving way I can speak from experience...
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: It's not compulsory to wear a helmet for cycling or horse riding. Only motorcycling. However, it is good practice. However, it's irrelevant because these cyclists could have been pedestrians who still would have been hit and I doubt that pedestrians generally wear helmets for good practice. I'm amazed that people find excuses for crap driving......however , if we find out she is a woman or an old person driving I am sure the comments would be about the poor driving. The fact is someone driving a vehicle started a manoeuvre and made a poor judgement which resulted in injury to another road user. Poor driving.[/p][/quote]Maxwell Ghost...I am not defending poor driving at all, they are clearly at fault here. But comparing pedestrians to cyclists is clearly illogical...cyclists are not only travelling at much faster velocities but have further to fall not to mention share the road (and legally not the pavement) with much faster/larger vehicles. Wearing a safety helmet, as recently recommended by Wiggins, makes complete sense and it is understandable why Australia and New Zealand have it as part of their laws. It's a logical as wearing a seat belt in a car. Having been hit by a vehicle travelling at 30mph through a give way without giving way I can speak from experience... Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

They are not all at fault.
If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside.
It is an offence to drive without due care and attention.
All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe.
Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions.
In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers.
Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers.
The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.
They are not all at fault. If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop. It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside. It is an offence to drive without due care and attention. All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe. Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions. In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers. Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers. The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They are not all at fault.
If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside.
It is an offence to drive without due care and attention.
All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe.
Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions.
In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers.
Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers.
The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.
I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They are not all at fault. If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop. It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside. It is an offence to drive without due care and attention. All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe. Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions. In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers. Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers. The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.[/p][/quote]I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others. Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Tue 11 Dec 12

DougM says...

Mr Murdoch wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They are not all at fault.
If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside.
It is an offence to drive without due care and attention.
All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe.
Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions.
In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers.
Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers.
The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.
I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.
Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists.
Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter.

Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments.
Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They are not all at fault. If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop. It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside. It is an offence to drive without due care and attention. All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe. Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions. In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers. Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers. The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.[/p][/quote]I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.[/p][/quote]Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists. Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter. Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments. Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this? DougM
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I agree that some equipment will reduce the risk of injury in many circumstances, however, not all circumstances so neither drivers or cyclists can be complacent.
There is an important point though about night time cycling and kit.
I am a journalist and I once covered a High Court case where a cyclist was cycling along with all the protective kit and lights on.
A vehicle came up behind the cyclists and ploughed through the cyclist leaving him with catastophic injuries which meant the cyclist would need lifetime care.
His solicitor sought damages via the driver's insurance in the High Court.
The case failed because the cyclist's rear flashing light was not British Standard and while illuminated and apparently working perfectly, the pulsating light did not pulse at the right frequency therefore rendering it not legal.
Therefore, the cyclists didn't get a penny at the UK state will pay for the cyclists care for the next 50 years or so.
So all these cyclists who run red lights, cycle without lights, if you are killed, you are killed, if you are maimed and need lifelong treatment you will be unable to make a claim against a driver's insurance to make it easier in your life because you have not followed the law. At the moment helmets are not included in that nor is high viz. Perhaps they should be.
I agree that some equipment will reduce the risk of injury in many circumstances, however, not all circumstances so neither drivers or cyclists can be complacent. There is an important point though about night time cycling and kit. I am a journalist and I once covered a High Court case where a cyclist was cycling along with all the protective kit and lights on. A vehicle came up behind the cyclists and ploughed through the cyclist leaving him with catastophic injuries which meant the cyclist would need lifetime care. His solicitor sought damages via the driver's insurance in the High Court. The case failed because the cyclist's rear flashing light was not British Standard and while illuminated and apparently working perfectly, the pulsating light did not pulse at the right frequency therefore rendering it not legal. Therefore, the cyclists didn't get a penny at the UK state will pay for the cyclists care for the next 50 years or so. So all these cyclists who run red lights, cycle without lights, if you are killed, you are killed, if you are maimed and need lifelong treatment you will be unable to make a claim against a driver's insurance to make it easier in your life because you have not followed the law. At the moment helmets are not included in that nor is high viz. Perhaps they should be. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

DougM wrote:
Mr Murdoch wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They are not all at fault.
If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside.
It is an offence to drive without due care and attention.
All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe.
Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions.
In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers.
Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers.
The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.
I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.
Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists.
Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter.

Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments.
Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?
It is very sad when you see posters such as DougM becoming overly and unnecessarily aggressive over an issue such as this. I don't have any political intentions. I am only concerned that since there are drivers such as the one described in this article then we cyclists need to take safety precautions. No, drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact. However motorcyclists DO wear helmets, and so do serious cyclists (especially when it is a sport)....so your argument is irrelevant and illogical.

Wearing a helmet can save serious head injury, and any serious cyclist is fooling himself if he think he can share the road with drivers (some as dangerous as the one in this article) without some kind of safety protection.
[quote][p][bold]DougM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They are not all at fault. If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop. It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside. It is an offence to drive without due care and attention. All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe. Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions. In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers. Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers. The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.[/p][/quote]I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.[/p][/quote]Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists. Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter. Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments. Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?[/p][/quote]It is very sad when you see posters such as DougM becoming overly and unnecessarily aggressive over an issue such as this. I don't have any political intentions. I am only concerned that since there are drivers such as the one described in this article then we cyclists need to take safety precautions. No, drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact. However motorcyclists DO wear helmets, and so do serious cyclists (especially when it is a sport)....so your argument is irrelevant and illogical. Wearing a helmet can save serious head injury, and any serious cyclist is fooling himself if he think he can share the road with drivers (some as dangerous as the one in this article) without some kind of safety protection. Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I agree that some equipment will reduce the risk of injury in many circumstances, however, not all circumstances so neither drivers or cyclists can be complacent.
There is an important point though about night time cycling and kit.
I am a journalist and I once covered a High Court case where a cyclist was cycling along with all the protective kit and lights on.
A vehicle came up behind the cyclists and ploughed through the cyclist leaving him with catastophic injuries which meant the cyclist would need lifetime care.
His solicitor sought damages via the driver's insurance in the High Court.
The case failed because the cyclist's rear flashing light was not British Standard and while illuminated and apparently working perfectly, the pulsating light did not pulse at the right frequency therefore rendering it not legal.
Therefore, the cyclists didn't get a penny at the UK state will pay for the cyclists care for the next 50 years or so.
So all these cyclists who run red lights, cycle without lights, if you are killed, you are killed, if you are maimed and need lifelong treatment you will be unable to make a claim against a driver's insurance to make it easier in your life because you have not followed the law. At the moment helmets are not included in that nor is high viz. Perhaps they should be.
That is a most interesting but very concerning case. And I agree that I think high viz and helmets should be included in the law, in addition to far more strict application of the law when it comes to cyclists not wearing lights and especially those who run red lights.

Of course it must be added that it does not seem the cyclists in this article were doing anything wrong and the driver is clearly at fault for not stopping... I just sincerely hope they were wearing helmets and that others reading about it are reminded of the importance of doing so, and wish them a speedy recovery.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I agree that some equipment will reduce the risk of injury in many circumstances, however, not all circumstances so neither drivers or cyclists can be complacent. There is an important point though about night time cycling and kit. I am a journalist and I once covered a High Court case where a cyclist was cycling along with all the protective kit and lights on. A vehicle came up behind the cyclists and ploughed through the cyclist leaving him with catastophic injuries which meant the cyclist would need lifetime care. His solicitor sought damages via the driver's insurance in the High Court. The case failed because the cyclist's rear flashing light was not British Standard and while illuminated and apparently working perfectly, the pulsating light did not pulse at the right frequency therefore rendering it not legal. Therefore, the cyclists didn't get a penny at the UK state will pay for the cyclists care for the next 50 years or so. So all these cyclists who run red lights, cycle without lights, if you are killed, you are killed, if you are maimed and need lifelong treatment you will be unable to make a claim against a driver's insurance to make it easier in your life because you have not followed the law. At the moment helmets are not included in that nor is high viz. Perhaps they should be.[/p][/quote]That is a most interesting but very concerning case. And I agree that I think high viz and helmets should be included in the law, in addition to far more strict application of the law when it comes to cyclists not wearing lights and especially those who run red lights. Of course it must be added that it does not seem the cyclists in this article were doing anything wrong and the driver is clearly at fault for not stopping... I just sincerely hope they were wearing helmets and that others reading about it are reminded of the importance of doing so, and wish them a speedy recovery. Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Tue 11 Dec 12

DougM says...

Mr Murdoch wrote:
DougM wrote:
Mr Murdoch wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They are not all at fault.
If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside.
It is an offence to drive without due care and attention.
All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe.
Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions.
In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers.
Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers.
The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.
I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.
Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists.
Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter.

Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments.
Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?
It is very sad when you see posters such as DougM becoming overly and unnecessarily aggressive over an issue such as this. I don't have any political intentions. I am only concerned that since there are drivers such as the one described in this article then we cyclists need to take safety precautions. No, drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact. However motorcyclists DO wear helmets, and so do serious cyclists (especially when it is a sport)....so your argument is irrelevant and illogical.

Wearing a helmet can save serious head injury, and any serious cyclist is fooling himself if he think he can share the road with drivers (some as dangerous as the one in this article) without some kind of safety protection.
Please indicate instances of aggression in my post.
Now you say "drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact" - in my post you ignored this bit - "Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists".

This means that they would benefit from wearing helmets far more than cyclists, and there would be less head-injuries for the NHS to deal with if they did, but you choose to ignore this??

Secondly you continue to promote your own interests (helmet wearing) in an instance where it is not relevant - should you not be focusing your energies on promoting safer driving?

And please leave off the accusations of aggression, it's not polite to cast aspersions.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DougM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They are not all at fault. If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop. It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside. It is an offence to drive without due care and attention. All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe. Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions. In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers. Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers. The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.[/p][/quote]I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.[/p][/quote]Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists. Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter. Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments. Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?[/p][/quote]It is very sad when you see posters such as DougM becoming overly and unnecessarily aggressive over an issue such as this. I don't have any political intentions. I am only concerned that since there are drivers such as the one described in this article then we cyclists need to take safety precautions. No, drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact. However motorcyclists DO wear helmets, and so do serious cyclists (especially when it is a sport)....so your argument is irrelevant and illogical. Wearing a helmet can save serious head injury, and any serious cyclist is fooling himself if he think he can share the road with drivers (some as dangerous as the one in this article) without some kind of safety protection.[/p][/quote]Please indicate instances of aggression in my post. Now you say "drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact" - in my post you ignored this bit - "Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists". This means that they would benefit from wearing helmets far more than cyclists, and there would be less head-injuries for the NHS to deal with if they did, but you choose to ignore this?? Secondly you continue to promote your own interests (helmet wearing) in an instance where it is not relevant - should you not be focusing your energies on promoting safer driving? And please leave off the accusations of aggression, it's not polite to cast aspersions. DougM
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

DougM wrote:
Mr Murdoch wrote:
DougM wrote:
Mr Murdoch wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
They are not all at fault.
If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside.
It is an offence to drive without due care and attention.
All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe.
Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions.
In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers.
Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers.
The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.
I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.
Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists.
Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter.

Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments.
Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?
It is very sad when you see posters such as DougM becoming overly and unnecessarily aggressive over an issue such as this. I don't have any political intentions. I am only concerned that since there are drivers such as the one described in this article then we cyclists need to take safety precautions. No, drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact. However motorcyclists DO wear helmets, and so do serious cyclists (especially when it is a sport)....so your argument is irrelevant and illogical.

Wearing a helmet can save serious head injury, and any serious cyclist is fooling himself if he think he can share the road with drivers (some as dangerous as the one in this article) without some kind of safety protection.
Please indicate instances of aggression in my post.
Now you say "drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact" - in my post you ignored this bit - "Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists".

This means that they would benefit from wearing helmets far more than cyclists, and there would be less head-injuries for the NHS to deal with if they did, but you choose to ignore this??

Secondly you continue to promote your own interests (helmet wearing) in an instance where it is not relevant - should you not be focusing your energies on promoting safer driving?

And please leave off the accusations of aggression, it's not polite to cast aspersions.
Telling people to go "elsewhere" and accusing them of promoting "political points" and "your own interests" instead of discussing the issue at hand is being needlessly aggressive and is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Yes, the key issue here is bad driving -there is no argument over that. And OK, so there are more pedestrians and drivers who receive head injuries than cyclists, but maybe that has something to do with statistical logic -of course the numbers for pedestrians and drivers would be higher than cyclists, but that does not prove that wearing a helmet would not provide necessary protection for a vehicle on a road with other high speed vehicles. As someone hit by a dangerous driver I am thankful I had it. It is a shame that such circular and side stepping logic is used to dissuade people from using something that can protect you from injury (I guess similar "logic" is used to dissuade people from wearing seatbelts, or hats in a construction site etc).
[quote][p][bold]DougM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DougM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: They are not all at fault. If this driver is traced he/she will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop. It is not an offence to stand on a roadside, cycle on a roadside or park a car on a roadside. It is an offence to drive without due care and attention. All a helmet would do is reduce the risk of serious head injury. They do not protect from head injury, they merely reduce the risk. Sadly a helmet also does not protect you from multiple injuries and internal injuries which can be caused by a side swipe. Also, if you get your handbook for your car, you will read that airbags in cars do not work for all passengers and in all seating positions. In fact, they can cause death for adults under a certain height, those who sit close to the wheel, children in booster seats or in baby carriers. Newer cars have the ability to switch off some airbags as they create more risk for some drivers/passengers. The police used to call accidents road traffic accidents. They are now called road traffic collisions because there is no such thing as an accident, someone or something is always the route cause of an incident, usually human error.[/p][/quote]I did not say the cyclists were at fault... clearly the driver is by not stopping. However, Maxwell's Ghost, you cannot argue against a safety device because in certain circumstances it will not prevent injury or in extreme cases cause it -otherwise we might as well give up wearing car seatbelts with that type of logic... I just hope these cyclists were wearing helmets and that a lot more start doing so as it is the safe and reasonable thing for a road user to do to prevent head injury (in addition to obeying the rules and being visible). It possibly saved my life and I am hoping to will do so for others.[/p][/quote]Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists. Unless you advocate compulsory helmet-wearing for drivers and pedestrians then your argument is a non-starter. Whether these guys were wearing helmets or not is wholly irrelevant as this article refers to a case of dangerous driving - these cyclists should not have been knocked off their bikes at all - then typically people like you obfuscate the serious issue of innocent people being injured in hit-and-runs with your pointless helmet-promotion arguments. Please take your political points elsewhere and lets focus on the real issue which is how can people get away with driving like this?[/p][/quote]It is very sad when you see posters such as DougM becoming overly and unnecessarily aggressive over an issue such as this. I don't have any political intentions. I am only concerned that since there are drivers such as the one described in this article then we cyclists need to take safety precautions. No, drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact. However motorcyclists DO wear helmets, and so do serious cyclists (especially when it is a sport)....so your argument is irrelevant and illogical. Wearing a helmet can save serious head injury, and any serious cyclist is fooling himself if he think he can share the road with drivers (some as dangerous as the one in this article) without some kind of safety protection.[/p][/quote]Please indicate instances of aggression in my post. Now you say "drivers or pedestrians do not wear helmets for the simple reason that pedestrians are not travelling on the road, and drivers are already somewhat protected within their vehicles from impact" - in my post you ignored this bit - "Head injuries are far more prevalent amongst pedestrians and car-drivers than they are amongst cyclists". This means that they would benefit from wearing helmets far more than cyclists, and there would be less head-injuries for the NHS to deal with if they did, but you choose to ignore this?? Secondly you continue to promote your own interests (helmet wearing) in an instance where it is not relevant - should you not be focusing your energies on promoting safer driving? And please leave off the accusations of aggression, it's not polite to cast aspersions.[/p][/quote]Telling people to go "elsewhere" and accusing them of promoting "political points" and "your own interests" instead of discussing the issue at hand is being needlessly aggressive and is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Yes, the key issue here is bad driving -there is no argument over that. And OK, so there are more pedestrians and drivers who receive head injuries than cyclists, but maybe that has something to do with statistical logic -of course the numbers for pedestrians and drivers would be higher than cyclists, but that does not prove that wearing a helmet would not provide necessary protection for a vehicle on a road with other high speed vehicles. As someone hit by a dangerous driver I am thankful I had it. It is a shame that such circular and side stepping logic is used to dissuade people from using something that can protect you from injury (I guess similar "logic" is used to dissuade people from wearing seatbelts, or hats in a construction site etc). Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

8:57am Wed 12 Dec 12

ON THE RIVET says...

It is very sad that this has turned into a helmet debate.

No amount of polystyrene wrapped around your head is going to save your life while falling from a bicycle if there are inconsiderate drivers like in this instance diving you off the road. It sounds to me like these cyclist had a lucky escape.

When you over take cyclists or horse riders you should take extreme care and think of theirs and your saftey. SLOW DOWN is the first step. The last step (read highway code for in between steps) should be to check in your mirrors and make sure that you have carried out your manoeuvre safely . Making out that the person in the car in this instance didn't know what they have done is ridiculous.

This incident sounds like it could of been a lot worse than a broken collar bone and bad concussion for the cyclist and bring up the helmet debate really doesn't help.
What should be done is sorting out people that really shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle, at the very least they should be banned for a year and forced to use other transport like a bicycle.

I am a cyclist, motor cyclist and a car driver I know the real problem here is inconsiderate sometimes irrational irate people that think that other people should get out of there way when they are in their metal boxes on wheels.

These people probably don't barge people out of the way when they walk down the street or push people over that walk slowly infront of them. But put these people in a metal box on wheels and they feel they have a right to barge and harass or dare I say it run people off the road ! These car drivers with closed minds and very little more in those minds than getting to their destination as quickly as possible, with out due care and attention to other road users need to be taken off our roads. They are the cause of death of other car drivers, motor cyclist children playing in or by the street as well as cyclists and other road users. They could be the cause of death of your loved ones as well as mine and should not get away with it. If you know the driver that caused this incident please tell the police.
Yes people make mistakes WE ALL DO, but to drive away without stopping is unforgivable.

If you are that driver and you have got away with it on this occasion please please think about your actions. If you can wonder for one moment what it is like to be those cyclist you have mowed down so indiscriminately maybe then you will show some sort of humanity and compassion and turn yourself in to the police !
It is very sad that this has turned into a helmet debate. No amount of polystyrene wrapped around your head is going to save your life while falling from a bicycle if there are inconsiderate drivers like in this instance diving you off the road. It sounds to me like these cyclist had a lucky escape. When you over take cyclists or horse riders you should take extreme care and think of theirs and your saftey. SLOW DOWN is the first step. The last step (read highway code for in between steps) should be to check in your mirrors and make sure that you have carried out your manoeuvre safely . Making out that the person in the car in this instance didn't know what they have done is ridiculous. This incident sounds like it could of been a lot worse than a broken collar bone and bad concussion for the cyclist and bring up the helmet debate really doesn't help. What should be done is sorting out people that really shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle, at the very least they should be banned for a year and forced to use other transport like a bicycle. I am a cyclist, motor cyclist and a car driver I know the real problem here is inconsiderate sometimes irrational irate people that think that other people should get out of there way when they are in their metal boxes on wheels. These people probably don't barge people out of the way when they walk down the street or push people over that walk slowly infront of them. But put these people in a metal box on wheels and they feel they have a right to barge and harass or dare I say it run people off the road ! These car drivers with closed minds and very little more in those minds than getting to their destination as quickly as possible, with out due care and attention to other road users need to be taken off our roads. They are the cause of death of other car drivers, motor cyclist children playing in or by the street as well as cyclists and other road users. They could be the cause of death of your loved ones as well as mine and should not get away with it. If you know the driver that caused this incident please tell the police. Yes people make mistakes WE ALL DO, but to drive away without stopping is unforgivable. If you are that driver and you have got away with it on this occasion please please think about your actions. If you can wonder for one moment what it is like to be those cyclist you have mowed down so indiscriminately maybe then you will show some sort of humanity and compassion and turn yourself in to the police ! ON THE RIVET
  • Score: 0

9:13am Wed 12 Dec 12

LB says...

I've seen a photo of one of the helmets the cyclists in this incident was wearing. It was shattered so has clearly done its job.

There does seem to be an element of 'not wearing a helmet makes you fair game for 2 ton vehicles towing a ton of horse in a trailer' to some of the above posts.
I've seen a photo of one of the helmets the cyclists in this incident was wearing. It was shattered so has clearly done its job. There does seem to be an element of 'not wearing a helmet makes you fair game for 2 ton vehicles towing a ton of horse in a trailer' to some of the above posts. LB
  • Score: 0

9:54am Wed 12 Dec 12

voiceofthescoombe says...

So they were wearing helmets obeying the rules of the road and still got wiped out by an idiot in a hurry.
So they were wearing helmets obeying the rules of the road and still got wiped out by an idiot in a hurry. voiceofthescoombe
  • Score: 0

10:18am Wed 12 Dec 12

Morpheus says...

Where is the witness in the oncoming car?
Where is the witness in the oncoming car? Morpheus
  • Score: 0

10:53am Wed 12 Dec 12

Fairfax Sakes says...

I'm not sure why the horse would be better off wearing a helmet, however country drivers are notorious for poor driving skills, often drunk the wheel-better off not cycling in the dark on a Saturday night anyway to be honest.
I'm not sure why the horse would be better off wearing a helmet, however country drivers are notorious for poor driving skills, often drunk the wheel-better off not cycling in the dark on a Saturday night anyway to be honest. Fairfax Sakes
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Steve Ancell says...

graham_Seagull wrote:
Wivvy Dave wrote:
Number Six wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said
How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.
are you suggesting that the cyclists deserved to be hit by their possible actions?

Ridiculous!!

Even if the cyclists were riding 4 abreast along the middle of the road and being completed gits, the driver should not attempt to overtake if it puts the lives of others at risk!!

Your comments are appalling.
Even I agree with that and I am a driver. Anyone driving a motor vehicle should not attempt to overtake a cyclist unless it is safe to do so even if there is an impatient motorist behind them.

Any decent driver wouldn't overtake a horse in that manner so why do it to a human being on a pushbike?. What puzzles me is why no other driver pursued the offending vehicle to the next set of traffic lights and then enlightened them of their error.
[quote][p][bold]graham_Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wivvy Dave [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Number Six[/bold] wrote: A 4x4 towing a horse box. Nuff said[/p][/quote]How dare a farm type vehicle use the road, especially a rural area. It seems to me that as a cyclist was struck by a vehicle pulling back in and was then knocked into another cyclist he may (I say may as there is no confirmation of this but tellingly the third cyclist does not complain about being hit whilst in single file and close to the kerb) well have been travelling two abreast which is only allowed "where it is safe to do so". Was it therefore safe, were the cyclists contributing to their own doenfall? Was the vehicle swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle that it too had drifted over the white line? We just don't know do we so don't instantly blame the 4x4. It may be poor driving but why assume that 100% of the blame lays on one side.[/p][/quote]are you suggesting that the cyclists deserved to be hit by their possible actions? Ridiculous!! Even if the cyclists were riding 4 abreast along the middle of the road and being completed gits, the driver should not attempt to overtake if it puts the lives of others at risk!! Your comments are appalling.[/p][/quote]Even I agree with that and I am a driver. Anyone driving a motor vehicle should not attempt to overtake a cyclist unless it is safe to do so even if there is an impatient motorist behind them. Any decent driver wouldn't overtake a horse in that manner so why do it to a human being on a pushbike?. What puzzles me is why no other driver pursued the offending vehicle to the next set of traffic lights and then enlightened them of their error. Steve Ancell
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Old Ladys Gin says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I agree that some equipment will reduce the risk of injury in many circumstances, however, not all circumstances so neither drivers or cyclists can be complacent.
There is an important point though about night time cycling and kit.
I am a journalist and I once covered a High Court case where a cyclist was cycling along with all the protective kit and lights on.
A vehicle came up behind the cyclists and ploughed through the cyclist leaving him with catastophic injuries which meant the cyclist would need lifetime care.
His solicitor sought damages via the driver's insurance in the High Court.
The case failed because the cyclist's rear flashing light was not British Standard and while illuminated and apparently working perfectly, the pulsating light did not pulse at the right frequency therefore rendering it not legal.
Therefore, the cyclists didn't get a penny at the UK state will pay for the cyclists care for the next 50 years or so.
So all these cyclists who run red lights, cycle without lights, if you are killed, you are killed, if you are maimed and need lifelong treatment you will be unable to make a claim against a driver's insurance to make it easier in your life because you have not followed the law. At the moment helmets are not included in that nor is high viz. Perhaps they should be.
This collision happened at 1000hrs so what use would HiViz clothing have been?
There is a survey somewhere on the net that shows that the human eye is attracted to bright colours - therefore we, by nature, are likely to give less clearance to them.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I agree that some equipment will reduce the risk of injury in many circumstances, however, not all circumstances so neither drivers or cyclists can be complacent. There is an important point though about night time cycling and kit. I am a journalist and I once covered a High Court case where a cyclist was cycling along with all the protective kit and lights on. A vehicle came up behind the cyclists and ploughed through the cyclist leaving him with catastophic injuries which meant the cyclist would need lifetime care. His solicitor sought damages via the driver's insurance in the High Court. The case failed because the cyclist's rear flashing light was not British Standard and while illuminated and apparently working perfectly, the pulsating light did not pulse at the right frequency therefore rendering it not legal. Therefore, the cyclists didn't get a penny at the UK state will pay for the cyclists care for the next 50 years or so. So all these cyclists who run red lights, cycle without lights, if you are killed, you are killed, if you are maimed and need lifelong treatment you will be unable to make a claim against a driver's insurance to make it easier in your life because you have not followed the law. At the moment helmets are not included in that nor is high viz. Perhaps they should be.[/p][/quote]This collision happened at 1000hrs so what use would HiViz clothing have been? There is a survey somewhere on the net that shows that the human eye is attracted to bright colours - therefore we, by nature, are likely to give less clearance to them. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Old Ladys Gin says...

ON THE RIVET wrote:
It is very sad that this has turned into a helmet debate.

No amount of polystyrene wrapped around your head is going to save your life while falling from a bicycle if there are inconsiderate drivers like in this instance diving you off the road. It sounds to me like these cyclist had a lucky escape.

When you over take cyclists or horse riders you should take extreme care and think of theirs and your saftey. SLOW DOWN is the first step. The last step (read highway code for in between steps) should be to check in your mirrors and make sure that you have carried out your manoeuvre safely . Making out that the person in the car in this instance didn't know what they have done is ridiculous.

This incident sounds like it could of been a lot worse than a broken collar bone and bad concussion for the cyclist and bring up the helmet debate really doesn't help.
What should be done is sorting out people that really shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle, at the very least they should be banned for a year and forced to use other transport like a bicycle.

I am a cyclist, motor cyclist and a car driver I know the real problem here is inconsiderate sometimes irrational irate people that think that other people should get out of there way when they are in their metal boxes on wheels.

These people probably don't barge people out of the way when they walk down the street or push people over that walk slowly infront of them. But put these people in a metal box on wheels and they feel they have a right to barge and harass or dare I say it run people off the road ! These car drivers with closed minds and very little more in those minds than getting to their destination as quickly as possible, with out due care and attention to other road users need to be taken off our roads. They are the cause of death of other car drivers, motor cyclist children playing in or by the street as well as cyclists and other road users. They could be the cause of death of your loved ones as well as mine and should not get away with it. If you know the driver that caused this incident please tell the police.
Yes people make mistakes WE ALL DO, but to drive away without stopping is unforgivable.

If you are that driver and you have got away with it on this occasion please please think about your actions. If you can wonder for one moment what it is like to be those cyclist you have mowed down so indiscriminately maybe then you will show some sort of humanity and compassion and turn yourself in to the police !
In France and Belgium and other countries where they had very high fatality rates they have changed the emphasis on safety.
Once the rules and regs were plainly geared towards priority for motor vehicles; now changed to priority in favour of the most vulnerable, pedestrians and upwards.
In this country we have not yet adapted this change of attitude and have the highest off crossing pedestrain casulaty rate in the EU (cunningly disguised within overall good statistics).
We treat pedestrians and lesser road users almost as if they did not exist. This is if we do not find them crossing at one of the very few, and very expensive, crossings - so few that they are virtually useless.
Our attitudes are prehistoric and until a sea change in them comes we will remain the proud owners of a dubious distinction.
[quote][p][bold]ON THE RIVET[/bold] wrote: It is very sad that this has turned into a helmet debate. No amount of polystyrene wrapped around your head is going to save your life while falling from a bicycle if there are inconsiderate drivers like in this instance diving you off the road. It sounds to me like these cyclist had a lucky escape. When you over take cyclists or horse riders you should take extreme care and think of theirs and your saftey. SLOW DOWN is the first step. The last step (read highway code for in between steps) should be to check in your mirrors and make sure that you have carried out your manoeuvre safely . Making out that the person in the car in this instance didn't know what they have done is ridiculous. This incident sounds like it could of been a lot worse than a broken collar bone and bad concussion for the cyclist and bring up the helmet debate really doesn't help. What should be done is sorting out people that really shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle, at the very least they should be banned for a year and forced to use other transport like a bicycle. I am a cyclist, motor cyclist and a car driver I know the real problem here is inconsiderate sometimes irrational irate people that think that other people should get out of there way when they are in their metal boxes on wheels. These people probably don't barge people out of the way when they walk down the street or push people over that walk slowly infront of them. But put these people in a metal box on wheels and they feel they have a right to barge and harass or dare I say it run people off the road ! These car drivers with closed minds and very little more in those minds than getting to their destination as quickly as possible, with out due care and attention to other road users need to be taken off our roads. They are the cause of death of other car drivers, motor cyclist children playing in or by the street as well as cyclists and other road users. They could be the cause of death of your loved ones as well as mine and should not get away with it. If you know the driver that caused this incident please tell the police. Yes people make mistakes WE ALL DO, but to drive away without stopping is unforgivable. If you are that driver and you have got away with it on this occasion please please think about your actions. If you can wonder for one moment what it is like to be those cyclist you have mowed down so indiscriminately maybe then you will show some sort of humanity and compassion and turn yourself in to the police ![/p][/quote]In France and Belgium and other countries where they had very high fatality rates they have changed the emphasis on safety. Once the rules and regs were plainly geared towards priority for motor vehicles; now changed to priority in favour of the most vulnerable, pedestrians and upwards. In this country we have not yet adapted this change of attitude and have the highest off crossing pedestrain casulaty rate in the EU (cunningly disguised within overall good statistics). We treat pedestrians and lesser road users almost as if they did not exist. This is if we do not find them crossing at one of the very few, and very expensive, crossings - so few that they are virtually useless. Our attitudes are prehistoric and until a sea change in them comes we will remain the proud owners of a dubious distinction. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment.
Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen.
Volvo have done this for decades.
However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off.
As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.
Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment. Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen. Volvo have done this for decades. However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off. As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 12 Dec 12

D5 says...

If they were not on bikes,this would be called a "hit and run"

Because they are cyclists, people want to justify psychopathic behaviour involving cars and people.

This was deliberate and quite demonstrative of peoples completley selfish attitudes towards other people.

I experience these sometimes when cycling to work.
If they were not on bikes,this would be called a "hit and run" Because they are cyclists, people want to justify psychopathic behaviour involving cars and people. This was deliberate and quite demonstrative of peoples completley selfish attitudes towards other people. I experience these sometimes when cycling to work. D5
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Old Ladys Gin says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment.
Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen.
Volvo have done this for decades.
However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off.
As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.
Indeed HiViz jackets may do that; nevertheless bright colours attract the human eye which is drawn to them and once seen we are inclined towards and not away from them - 'once seen'.
A case of what you use to protect yourself can also work against you perhaps?

The situation will become more complex as electric, hence quiet, vehicles become more popular.
I can see no other way than to give the most vulnerable priority in that kind of case.
It happens in France, Canada and many other countries and we lag sadly behind.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment. Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen. Volvo have done this for decades. However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off. As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.[/p][/quote]Indeed HiViz jackets may do that; nevertheless bright colours attract the human eye which is drawn to them and once seen we are inclined towards and not away from them - 'once seen'. A case of what you use to protect yourself can also work against you perhaps? The situation will become more complex as electric, hence quiet, vehicles become more popular. I can see no other way than to give the most vulnerable priority in that kind of case. It happens in France, Canada and many other countries and we lag sadly behind. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Wed 12 Dec 12

D5 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment.
Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen.
Volvo have done this for decades.
However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off.
As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.
Max,
Why wouldnt you expect to see non drivers on these types of roads?

Looking out across from where i live - we have these things called horses with people on them. And people with dogs.

And tractors,land rovers and a lot of cross country riders

Badgers,chucks etc

Ie -rural traffic.

Come on dude, this idiotic maniac was probably half pi$$ed, if they wernt then i'm afraid they were obviously some fox hunting type landowner out knocking off the hoi polloi etc.

Sad story though.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment. Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen. Volvo have done this for decades. However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off. As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.[/p][/quote]Max, Why wouldnt you expect to see non drivers on these types of roads? Looking out across from where i live [very rural, think duelling banjos] - we have these things called horses with people on them. And people with dogs. And tractors,land rovers and a lot of cross country riders [cyclo cross] Badgers,chucks etc Ie -rural traffic. Come on dude, this idiotic maniac was probably half pi$$ed, if they wernt then i'm afraid they were obviously some fox hunting type landowner out knocking off the hoi polloi etc. Sad story though. D5
  • Score: 0

5:08am Thu 13 Dec 12

graham_Seagull says...

D5 wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment.
Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen.
Volvo have done this for decades.
However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off.
As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.
Max,
Why wouldnt you expect to see non drivers on these types of roads?

Looking out across from where i live - we have these things called horses with people on them. And people with dogs.

And tractors,land rovers and a lot of cross country riders

Badgers,chucks etc

Ie -rural traffic.

Come on dude, this idiotic maniac was probably half pi$$ed, if they wernt then i'm afraid they were obviously some fox hunting type landowner out knocking off the hoi polloi etc.

Sad story though.
When's the last time you saw a driver slow down when going around a corner on a country road, to the extent the driver could stop within the road space they can see?

Exactly.

Most drivers go around corners in the expectation there is nothing there which would require them to stop, and the cornering capabilities of modern cars do help to give that 'I'll be fine' attitude.

So I'm with the maxwell on this one
[quote][p][bold]D5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment. Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen. Volvo have done this for decades. However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off. As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.[/p][/quote]Max, Why wouldnt you expect to see non drivers on these types of roads? Looking out across from where i live [very rural, think duelling banjos] - we have these things called horses with people on them. And people with dogs. And tractors,land rovers and a lot of cross country riders [cyclo cross] Badgers,chucks etc Ie -rural traffic. Come on dude, this idiotic maniac was probably half pi$$ed, if they wernt then i'm afraid they were obviously some fox hunting type landowner out knocking off the hoi polloi etc. Sad story though.[/p][/quote]When's the last time you saw a driver slow down when going around a corner on a country road, to the extent the driver could stop within the road space they can see? Exactly. Most drivers go around corners in the expectation there is nothing there which would require them to stop, and the cornering capabilities of modern cars do help to give that 'I'll be fine' attitude. So I'm with the maxwell on this one graham_Seagull
  • Score: 0

7:47am Wed 26 Dec 12

ScaredAmoeba says...

Mr Murdoch wrote:
Key question: were they both wearing helmets? Yes, the driver is at fault for not stopping. But as they are mentioned as both hitting their heads this is yet another example of why wearing helmets should be compulsory, especially as a shared road user. I say this as a cyclist who firmly believes that wearing a helmet, along with obeying the road laws and having appropriate lighting, should be strictly enforced for the safety of all cyclists.
Since helmets are NOT compulsory, and DO NOT deflect motor vehicles, and there is ample evidence that shows that cycle helmets are NEITHER designed to protect from motor vehicle impact, NOR is their clear evidence of their efficacy in providing useful protection in any such a collision.
Furthermore there is NO EVIDENCE that helmets PREVENT collisions.

On the contrary, there is evidence that since motorists drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, so there is very probably an increased likelihood of a collision for cyclists wearing a helmet.

Therefore one has to wonder at the mentality and motivation of someone who raises such a question.

I have to ask: Are you a cyclist hater?

If you investigated the effectiveness of cycle helmets, you would realise that such helmets can cause certain injuries (e.g. neck), worsen some brain injuries (e.g. rotational). The subject is much more complex. The simple answer is for motorists to drive competently and safely.

Blaming the victim, is the habit of the ignorant and the bigoted.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: Key question: were they both wearing helmets? Yes, the driver is at fault for not stopping. But as they are mentioned as both hitting their heads this is yet another example of why wearing helmets should be compulsory, especially as a shared road user. I say this as a cyclist who firmly believes that wearing a helmet, along with obeying the road laws and having appropriate lighting, should be strictly enforced for the safety of all cyclists.[/p][/quote]Since helmets are NOT compulsory, and DO NOT deflect motor vehicles, and there is ample evidence that shows that cycle helmets are NEITHER designed to protect from motor vehicle impact, NOR is their clear evidence of their efficacy in providing useful protection in any such a collision. Furthermore there is NO EVIDENCE that helmets PREVENT collisions. On the contrary, there is evidence that since motorists drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, so there is very probably an increased likelihood of a collision for cyclists wearing a helmet. Therefore one has to wonder at the mentality and motivation of someone who raises such a question. I have to ask: Are you a cyclist hater? If you investigated the effectiveness of cycle helmets, you would realise that such helmets can cause certain injuries (e.g. neck), worsen some brain injuries (e.g. rotational). The subject is much more complex. The simple answer is for motorists to drive competently and safely. Blaming the victim, is the habit of the ignorant and the bigoted. ScaredAmoeba
  • Score: 0

8:24am Wed 26 Dec 12

ScaredAmoeba says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment.
Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen.
Volvo have done this for decades.
However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off.
As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.
If drivers cannot see cyclists in broad daylight, then they were probably either driving with defective eyesight, or distracted, such as by a mobile phone.
Of course, there is a high probability in a hit & run collision that they have a very strong reason for not waiting for the Police, which strongly suggests they may have been driving under the influence, or with an obscured windscreen, no licence, no insurance, etc.

The fact is that many drivers treat driving as a casual, inconsequential activity, when their actions may have serious consequences including life and death for others.

It's about time that the consequences for drivers properly reflected the degree of their life and death responsibilities. There needs to be the same consequences as causing death or serious injury as would be the case were a vehicle not involved. There needs to be a very strong chance of a lengthy custodial sentence and a very heavy fine. Also, bearing in-mind the Public danger involved, causing death by driving needs to mean automatic and permanent loss of driving licence. Only then will drivers' eyesight improve. I rather suspect that such a change will occur, and when it does, drivers' eyesight and driving will improve very substantially.

I am a driver too.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Old Lady's Gin, wearing high viz and having lights on in the daytime is a safety choice of many motorcyclists and cyclists as it sets you apart from road and street furniture, more so in a rural environment. Also many cars now have daylight safety lights as it's proven that they can ensure a vehicle is seen. Volvo have done this for decades. However, this driver, purely carried out an unsafe manoeuvre, and then drove off. As others state, rural cycling and walking is perilous as motorists just don't expect to see non drivers on these roads.[/p][/quote]If drivers cannot see cyclists in broad daylight, then they were probably either driving with defective eyesight, or distracted, such as by a mobile phone. Of course, there is a high probability in a hit & run collision that they have a very strong reason for not waiting for the Police, which strongly suggests they may have been driving under the influence, or with an obscured windscreen, no licence, no insurance, etc. The fact is that many drivers treat driving as a casual, inconsequential activity, when their actions may have serious consequences including life and death for others. It's about time that the consequences for drivers properly reflected the degree of their life and death responsibilities. There needs to be the same consequences as causing death or serious injury as would be the case were a vehicle not involved. There needs to be a very strong chance of a lengthy custodial sentence and a very heavy fine. Also, bearing in-mind the Public danger involved, causing death by driving needs to mean automatic and permanent loss of driving licence. Only then will drivers' eyesight improve. I rather suspect that such a change will occur, and when it does, drivers' eyesight and driving will improve very substantially. I am a driver too. ScaredAmoeba
  • Score: 0

9:44am Wed 26 Dec 12

Mr Murdoch says...

ScaredAmoeba wrote:
Mr Murdoch wrote:
Key question: were they both wearing helmets? Yes, the driver is at fault for not stopping. But as they are mentioned as both hitting their heads this is yet another example of why wearing helmets should be compulsory, especially as a shared road user. I say this as a cyclist who firmly believes that wearing a helmet, along with obeying the road laws and having appropriate lighting, should be strictly enforced for the safety of all cyclists.
Since helmets are NOT compulsory, and DO NOT deflect motor vehicles, and there is ample evidence that shows that cycle helmets are NEITHER designed to protect from motor vehicle impact, NOR is their clear evidence of their efficacy in providing useful protection in any such a collision.
Furthermore there is NO EVIDENCE that helmets PREVENT collisions.

On the contrary, there is evidence that since motorists drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, so there is very probably an increased likelihood of a collision for cyclists wearing a helmet.

Therefore one has to wonder at the mentality and motivation of someone who raises such a question.

I have to ask: Are you a cyclist hater?

If you investigated the effectiveness of cycle helmets, you would realise that such helmets can cause certain injuries (e.g. neck), worsen some brain injuries (e.g. rotational). The subject is much more complex. The simple answer is for motorists to drive competently and safely.

Blaming the victim, is the habit of the ignorant and the bigoted.
Am I "cyclist hater"? No, actually a keen cycling enthusiast and also a driver who wants to ensure the safety of both. I only wish drivers and cyclists both obeyed the law and also used safety devices such as helmets and seat belts.

Your argument against a safety device designed to protect the head is peripheral and illogical. I guess you never wear a seat belt in a car or wear a hard hat on a construction site either as that would increase the chance of an accident? You use a lot references to evidence or lack thereof but if you could please provide some actual references and quotations that would be great.

Mine is this: I was hit by a driver who went through a give way without giving way. Lying in hospital I was told by the doctors that the helmet saved my life :-) And it also seems the gentlemen in this article were also wearing helmets and I hope it also protected their heads from serious injury during this terrible collision. Anyone who does not want to protect their head or for others to do the same clearly has nothing inside to protect.
[quote][p][bold]ScaredAmoeba[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Murdoch[/bold] wrote: Key question: were they both wearing helmets? Yes, the driver is at fault for not stopping. But as they are mentioned as both hitting their heads this is yet another example of why wearing helmets should be compulsory, especially as a shared road user. I say this as a cyclist who firmly believes that wearing a helmet, along with obeying the road laws and having appropriate lighting, should be strictly enforced for the safety of all cyclists.[/p][/quote]Since helmets are NOT compulsory, and DO NOT deflect motor vehicles, and there is ample evidence that shows that cycle helmets are NEITHER designed to protect from motor vehicle impact, NOR is their clear evidence of their efficacy in providing useful protection in any such a collision. Furthermore there is NO EVIDENCE that helmets PREVENT collisions. On the contrary, there is evidence that since motorists drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, so there is very probably an increased likelihood of a collision for cyclists wearing a helmet. Therefore one has to wonder at the mentality and motivation of someone who raises such a question. I have to ask: Are you a cyclist hater? If you investigated the effectiveness of cycle helmets, you would realise that such helmets can cause certain injuries (e.g. neck), worsen some brain injuries (e.g. rotational). The subject is much more complex. The simple answer is for motorists to drive competently and safely. Blaming the victim, is the habit of the ignorant and the bigoted.[/p][/quote]Am I "cyclist hater"? No, actually a keen cycling enthusiast and also a driver who wants to ensure the safety of both. I only wish drivers and cyclists both obeyed the law and also used safety devices such as helmets and seat belts. Your argument against a safety device designed to protect the head is peripheral and illogical. I guess you never wear a seat belt in a car or wear a hard hat on a construction site either as that would increase the chance of an accident? You use a lot references to evidence or lack thereof but if you could please provide some actual references and quotations that would be great. Mine is this: I was hit by a driver who went through a give way without giving way. Lying in hospital I was told by the doctors that the helmet saved my life :-) And it also seems the gentlemen in this article were also wearing helmets and I hope it also protected their heads from serious injury during this terrible collision. Anyone who does not want to protect their head or for others to do the same clearly has nothing inside to protect. Mr Murdoch
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree