CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 2 hours 7 min ago

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 7:52am
It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there. For some roads there is no alternative route, and road signs don't tell you what private citizens may be doing on all the plots of land alongside.

If landowners wish to do something on their land that is dangerous, that's up to them. If people choose to go to an event knowing those risks, that's up to them. But if someone is doing something dangerous outside that land, that can't be regarded as something that is a risk that has been accepted by people outside the landowner's area.

I think you will find that's how the law regards it. And though I personally am not against air shows, I'm not so daft as not to be able to see that the attitude that people outside the venue have taken the risk knowingly that they will be landed on by a stunt flyer just because they drove down a public road is the attitude best likely to provoke the public into wanting air shows banned.

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way, and a venue choosing to do actual stunts over roads and houses. The one risk we factor in as it is unavoidable unless we do no commercial flying. The other is avoidable without banning airshows, or even stunts.

Re: Shoreham air crash

29 August 2015 - 12:14am
Flinders wrote:
It's all about the risks we actively accept. People driving on the road had accepted the risk of driving, but not the risks of an airshow next to the road. However, I even heard one person suggest that simply by driving past an airfield they had accepted the extra risk, which is ridiculous...

ridiculous? Not at all. That is very similar to suggesting that if you drive near the sea, or over a bridge, there is no conceivable chance that your car might end up in the water, or that if you buy a house near an airport, you shouldn't have any increased risk that an aircraft is going to end up in your garden or drop 'loo ice' on your house or anything like that. Only a moron wouldn't ever think about such things, or not realise that there was some added risk.

Every time I drive past an airfield I'm looking out for planes; it is just common sense to do so. On the M25 near Heathrow you are regularly beneath 400 tonnes of aircraft that is only a few kts above its stall speed; in the event of catastrophic multiple engine failure (which can and does happen from time to time, mostly at take off or landing) it is quite likely that you will be sharing the road with a jumbo jet, and knowing that this might happen is a good start to self preservation.

If you are arguing that people driving on the A27 didn't know the airfield was there and didn't think about it, I'd argue that they perhaps should have done; its been while since I was down that way, but there are signs, right? If nothing else, if aware of aircraft motorists would then not be startled by aircraft suddenly appearing, which can and does cause accidents in its own right.

As it happens a commercial plane is liable to go in doing less than 100mph and you have a pretty good chance of seeing it coming; a military jet doing aerobatics, less so. Thus I'm not sure awareness would have made much practical difference in this event, I think that some people would have been killed in any event. But I would also suggest that there were very probably some folk who were keeping their eyes peeled, saw what was happening and took avoiding action, too.

As you say it is all about what people perceive to be 'acceptable risk' but that is not the same thing as 'no risk'. Commercial planes come down in built-up areas and squash people quite often; I think you should be aware of that possibility anytime you are near an airfield.

BTW There is a list of prangs here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities

in which there were at least fifty casualties (all types) in the crash and on this list they identify bystander casualties. Bystanders are not killed in most crashes but they do form a significant percentage of the whole. You will note that there are about 500 items on this list which means that on average there are about five crashes per year that kill enough people to make it onto the list. The actual rate is a fair bit higher than that because although people have been flying for about 100 years, the vast majority of these prangs have happened in the last 65 years, since commercial aviation 'took off' (ahem). Very few (any?) items on this list are airshow accidents.

cheers

Re: Shoreham air crash

28 August 2015 - 11:35pm
Latest update shows that the fears expressed in the OP were well-founded: at least one of the victims was a cyclist.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13633846 ... _of_crash/
RIP.

Re: Shoreham air crash

28 August 2015 - 10:54pm
Brucey wrote:1gunsalute wrote: I do object to people doing things that put third parties' lives at risk. Commercial flights really don't do that (at least not directly, let's not get onto climate change).

fair point about third party risk and that is what the recent policy changes are intended to address. But that is a matter more of perception than actual numbers.

Despite the risks being vanishingly small, commercial flights have killed far more innocent bystanders than air displays have (or ever will), and that is before you get into all the collateral damage that commercial aviation causes, which is plentiful and includes many things other than climate change.

If you wanted not to endanger others you wouldn't fly, drive a car, go out in public if you thought you might have any infectious virus, or any one of a hundred other everyday things.

Remember the law of unintended consequences? Well, I think that if vintage jets are banned from aerobatic manoeuvres, the whole attitude to maintaining and operating them is liable to become more lax. I don't care what the rules say, that is just human nature....

cheers

It's all about the risks we actively accept. People driving on the road had accepted the risk of driving, but not the risks of an airshow next to the road. However, I even heard one person suggest that simply by driving past an airfield they had accepted the extra risk, which is ridiculous.

For now, nobody knows why it happened, and the CAA seem to me to be doing exactly the right things in the interim until investigations have been completed, which can take a very long time as it's a complicated situation. They have grounded the specific aircraft in case it is structural, limited the activities of older aircraft in case that may be a factor, and are looking into airshow procedures to see if risks might be able to be better controlled.
There really isn't much else sensible to say about it until the cause(s) is/are known.

Re: Pre-ride (or pre-drive) checks.

28 August 2015 - 10:46pm
Years ago in London, where I used to have to lock my bike up in public every day, I'd check brakes, tyres, and also check no toerag had nicked the batteries in my Ever Ready lights (because they did one night ). I used to have to adjust brake cables practically once a week - these days cables don't stretch like they used to and being rural now I don't do the stop-start mileage- they go a year without needing adjustment.

Pre-run checks now are tyre pressure (by finger and thumb, and additionally by pump if in doubt) and brakes as I roll across the drive. Also I try to remember to reset the computer, but sometimes forget.

Re: Bike provision on Beeston tram route and a question

28 August 2015 - 10:34pm
I think the problem is that the people who plan and design transport networks are generally not cyclists and have no understanding of the needs of cyclists. I live 15 miles southwest of Nottingham and I have commuted from home to work but this was via Trent Lock and the canal towpath and cycle path via Attenborough and Beeston Marina then canal to the City.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 9:05pm
irc wrote:
Not at all. We frequently discuss incidents in hindsight. We can often learn by doing this. Not any different from discussing whether riding in primary might have made a crash less likely. In some organisations they have formal debriefs after serious incidents to ascertain with the benefit of hindsight whether anything might have been done better. The ones I've been involved in have not been about blaming but about learning. Better to learn from someone else's mistake than to make them all yourself.

What exactly can we learn here?

This is not a common occurance and isn't very predictable. If someone is willing to push another preson riding a bike into heavy traffic for something as minor as an alleged 'hand sign' then we are not dealing with a normally functioning individual.

You can always find something you could have done 'better' but the level of scrutiny that is sometimes given to these sorts of incidents borders on the absurd. I remember seeing a thread with the met police officer passing a cyclist really closely and many were in a debate about how early he was taking the right hand lane.

Re: Home made electrolyte solution

28 August 2015 - 9:04pm
Yes the Aldi juice I have is called double strength squash ( mines orange+pineapple flavour ) with no added sugar. I didn't want that I'd prefer to add if I felt it necessary which I don't, but at the time I bought it I also bought some honey as an alternative sweetener but have never required it. It takes very little of the concentrate to give plenty of flavour. Using Aldis mix strength( which I don't, mines weaker ) the 1.5 litre bottle makes 13.5 litres of drink, about 5p per 500ml bike bottle plus 1/2p worth of salt and 1/2 p of bicarb so 6p per 500ml serving.... most definitely cheaper than energy tabs etc. Carbs wise this wouldn't have many so you'd still need to eat but I simply need an electrolyte replacement as I sweat like a burst pipe. I know energy drinks have other super ingredients that turn us into pro peleton athletes but I can't say I've noticed any difference using SIS drink or home made as I'm not a top level athlete.

Re: Pre-ride (or pre-drive) checks.

28 August 2015 - 8:46pm
I always squeeze the tyres as I pick up the bike and touch the brakes as I climb on.

On the motorbike I usually touch the brake and check I can see the glow from the brake light illuminating the garage before I leave.

In the car I find TPMS useful, I tend to flick through to the TPMS screen and it's comforting to see the tyre pressures all equal. Beyond that I do leave it up to modern electronics to warn me of any impending doom; and even then when it does tell me something like "parking sensor failure, go to dealer" I've learnt to simply switch off and start again and they usually go away.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 8:39pm
The offender handed himself to the police, but only after the vid was released. He must have realised he could not escape, with his ugly mug all over the Internet. I'd like to think this could be a turning point, with the police taking road crime seriously, and video evidence from victims taken notice of. We'll see, although I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 8:14pm
aspiringcyclist wrote:IAny post-event discussion will be dealing with the hypothetical based on limited information and has the advantage of hindsight and not actually being in that situation, making it far easier to pass judgement.

Not at all. We frequently discuss incidents in hindsight. We can often learn by doing this. Not any different from discussing whether riding in primary might have made a crash less likely. In some organisations they have formal debriefs after serious incidents to ascertain with the benefit of hindsight whether anything might have been done better. The ones I've been involved in have not been about blaming but about learning. Better to learn from someone else's mistake than to make them all yourself.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 8:02pm
That is more annoying than the assault to me too, that he saw it was a woman and still pushed her.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 4:40pm
Flinders wrote:And to go back to the OP, I'm pretty damned certain that pedestrian would not have either tried to cross in front of the bike, or assaulted the cyclist, had the cyclist been one of the cyclists round our local army base, who tend to be big powerful blokes in combat uniforms. So it isn't about someone losing it, it's about a cowardly bully who would only 'lose it' very selectively, i.e., with someone weaker than himself.

Exactly!

Re: Home made electrolyte solution

28 August 2015 - 4:37pm
^^

Hmmm, I may try that. I have all the ingredients in to make it. I've deemed that the coconut milk solution wasn't a success as it tasted so awful. Not sure how it worked on cost either - but the coconut milk was from ALDI so I can't see it being overly expensive. High5 tablets are £2.99 for ten so, a double tablet drink costs 60p.

I do have to be careful with fruit juice mind as I unfortunately damaged my stomach many years ago by taking ibuprofen whilst ill.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 4:35pm
irc wrote:
I agree. But that is where we are. I've personally three times had to shoulder check and swerve across the road to avoid potential attacks from pedestrians in Glasgow while commuting late at night.

Being aware of your surroundings is a safety issue and for me includes what everyone in the immediate area is doing not just vehicles.

Perhaps the cyclist thought it such a trivial encounter she thought the whole thing was past,literally behind her,subsequent actions of a maniac which shows how wrong she was.
Can I put it to you that not everyone expects to be attacked for merely riding a bike on the roads,particularly in broad daylight on a busy street,of course one lady will now know differently,and possibly as a result will feel more anxious and fear being attacked in a public place.
As I said up thread,the incident says more about the state of UK society than we're prepared to consider.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 4:04pm
It seems pointless to argue about what she could have done when clearly the person who pushed her has some significant anger management issues. This sort of person seems like they could become enraged at almost anything.

Any post-event discussion will be dealing with the hypothetical based on limited information and has the advantage of hindsight and not actually being in that situation, making it far easier to pass judgement.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 3:18pm
SA_SA_SA wrote:if safe to do so, they can legally cross when it is showing.

Sure, but that's hardly the case in the discussed video.

Re: Parking in contraflow cycle lanes

28 August 2015 - 3:13pm
The notice has been uploaded as a PDF but still no order text. I'm going to County Hall next week anyway so I can get the order text then. It's so easy keeping up with these consultations, isn't it?

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 2:56pm
SA_SA_SA wrote:kuba wrote:Yes it it true the HC states....

Because its not against UK law for a pedestrian to ignore the advice offered by the display of the red man at a pedestrian road crossing:
if safe to do so, they can legally cross when it is showing. I presume the HC glosses over this due to a car centric viewpoint/ desire to control pedestrians/ the modern trend for over-simplifying information to the point of uselessness etc. If it was a legal requirement the HC would say pedestrians MUST wait at the red figure.

Of course if they step out in front of a vehicle without allowing it time to stop or even looking, and a collision ensues, I don't think a court would view them as 0% negligent in the apportioning of blame.

I say +1 to what Vorpal said.

Maybe in the UK. I can remember my German driving instructor saying that if a falling-down-drunk pedestrian all in black staggers out backwards from between two parked black vans on an unlit street at night and you hit him, you're responsible. And defying the wee red man can get you an on-the-spot fine. In 1964 this was DM 5.-, dunno what it might be now.

Re: Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

28 August 2015 - 2:49pm
kuba wrote:Yes it it true the HC states....

Because its not against UK law for a pedestrian to ignore the advice offered by the display of the red man at a pedestrian road crossing:
if safe to do so, they can legally cross when it is showing. I presume the HC glosses over this due to a car centric viewpoint/ desire to control pedestrians/ the modern trend for over-simplifying information to the point of uselessness etc. If it was a legal requirement the HC would say pedestrians MUST wait at the red figure.

Of course if they step out in front of a vehicle without allowing it time to stop or even looking, and a collision ensues, I don't think a court would view them as 0% negligent in the apportioning of blame.

I say +1 to what Vorpal said.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions