ADUK Archive

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:42 pm**

You may have seen or heard about the recent case about a driver who killed a cyclist while texting (and speeding apparently)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 222690.stm

I heard Sgt West of Hampshire police speaking on the radio and she said words to the effect of "This should send out a message to road users not to use their mobile phones"

All well and good - I don't in any way condone the use of a mobile while driving, but might she have also pointed out that the cyclist would still be alive if he hadn't ignored a red light?

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:24 pm**

Its a fair point.

Each day in London around 800'000 cyclists tear through red lights. It is something such as this tragedy that hits home why they shouldn't.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:27 pm**

Another good point which we were discussing at work is that if driving whilst using a mobile phone in itself defines dangerous driving, then surely we should be summonsing offenders to caught for both offences rather than just issuing enorsable FPN's on the street.

Careless or inconsiderate driving maybe, dangerous - well surely it is a matter of fact based on the cicrcumstances...

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:21 pm**

James wrote:Each day in London around 800'000 cyclists tear through red lights.

800,000?

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:59 pm**

crr003 wrote:
James wrote:Each day in London around 800'000 cyclists tear through red lights.

800,000?

Wow, has the 0 key stuck there... seriously though i commute through Hull every day and in a year I can count the number of cyclists who have stopped at a red light on one hand with a couple of amputated fingers.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:36 pm**

Angus wrote:You may have seen or heard about the recent case about a driver who killed a cyclist while texting (and speeding apparently)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 222690.stm

I heard Sgt West of Hampshire police speaking on the radio and she said words to the effect of "This should send out a message to road users not to use their mobile phones"

All well and good - I don't in any way condone the use of a mobile while driving, but might she have also pointed out that the cyclist would still be alive if he hadn't ignored a red light?

just to stir a bit..........
Do we regard cyclists as akin to motor vehicles or pedestrians ? If it was a pedestrian who ran out, would we have the same view?
........ puts away wooden spoon and hides :lol:

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:14 am**

As apersonal view I count anyone who uses or crosses a road as the same. Be it a young child, a cyclist or a seasoned advanced driver or rider. If you are on the black stuff you need to be prepared for what may happen. (at whatever level that may be) I know that if i had children my biggest overwhelming objective would be to protect them by educating them on the whole dangers of the road. Unlike my dad who spotted me riding my 250LC like a (insert expletive) and took my keys off me for a month. But actually I learnt a lot by that. So maybe good old fashioned parenting works! well it did 25 years ago.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:02 am**

Angus wrote:but might she have also pointed out that the cyclist would still be alive if he hadn't ignored a red light?

The culture of personal responsibility is so out of fashion.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:17 am**

Unlike my dad who spotted me riding my 250LC like a (insert expletive) and took my keys off me for a month. But actually I learnt a lot by that. So maybe good old fashioned parenting works! well it did 25 years ago.

I don't think that would be PC these days and may be against human rights :shock:

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:58 pm**

crr003 wrote:
James wrote:Each day in London around 800'000 cyclists tear through red lights.

800,000?

That number wouldn't surprise me. I don't know of many cyclists in London that stop at red lights. Probably much less than half of all cyclists.

But it does show that it's not such a dangerous activity. Indeed a recent report suggested that those cyclists who were less likely to red light jump were more likely to be killed on the road. It could be argued that (while saving time) they are also taking positive steps to ensure their own safety against a selfish bunch of motorists revving up behind them. (Not all selfish, but from experience a fair percentage are. :wink:

)

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:52 pm**

Was aware of this debate as I stopped by the Penton Street traffic lights in London the other week. About a dozen cyclists all stopped in the cyclist only advance stop box. Two 'sneaked' through while red showed to all traffic (pedestrian phase I assume) while the other ten waited for the green, a few seconds later, to proceed. Just one junction, but most of my observations in London that day didn't show a massive amount of RLJ. I think (or hope) that criticism from within the cycling community has finally got through and it is becoming less-and-less accaptable to engage in what 'proper' cyclists view as anti-social behaviour.

As for this case, two people made huge mistakes. One has paid the ultimate price for his, the other was engaged in her own brand of anti-social behaviour while behind the wheel of one ton of car. It is not missing the point to simply state that if she had given the road the full attention, and been within the speed limit a life would have been spared

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:43 am**

Søren wrote:
crr003 wrote:
James wrote:Each day in London around 800'000 cyclists tear through red lights.

800,000? :shock:

That number wouldn't surprise me.

If we turn it into the number of times any one red light is run by any one cyclist at any one time, then that number is surely easily obtainable.

Going from home to the centre of Leicester, I can easily cycle through fifteen sets of traffic lights without any deviation of a straightish run - and that's on only four miles. Now, put that into context of London and that could be thirty lights. That's about 26.6 thousand cyclists in London - perfectly imaginable.

I do admit to having run red lights on a bike in the past - but that was a long time ago and very early in the morning on a clear junction when nobody was to be seen.

Nowadays (although currently I don't have a bike in roadworthy condition) I would slow down for the red light and aim to cycle through when it turns to green - or in heavy traffic just 'fit in' to the traffic and not worry about the stop/start nature of the journey.

However, I do feel that there is no excuse for trying to handle a mobile phone (or do anything else, for that matter) whilst driving. I hesitate to even alter heater/blower settings in the car whilst moving (not that my own car currently has any functional blower system anyway - air conditioning and demisting is called opening a side window or front vent).

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:40 pm**

I really can't see the need to run red lights, any more on a bicycle than in a car. When I'm on a bike, I observe the law just as I would in a car, and so should everybody.

While as advanced drivers we would hope we might anticipate the actions of light-jumping cyclists, I fail to see why we should be responsible for them if they choose to cycle straight into our cars.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:47 pm**

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:
While as advanced drivers we would hope we might anticipate the actions of light-jumping cyclists, I fail to see why we should be responsible for them if they choose to cycle straight into our cars.

No of course not, but you do if you drive through a junction, green light showing or not, well above the speed limit while texting on your mobile phone! With, I should add, previous for speeding.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:58 pm**

the BBC wrote:A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed a cyclist has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries after he went through a red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas's car in Southampton in February 2007.

Coultas, 25, who pleaded not guilty, has been released on bail and will be sentenced at the end of February.

The judge at Southampton Crown Court warned her she may be jailed.

Laura Wickington wrote:We are pleased with the outcome of this trial and hope Jordan's death will prevent or deter others from using their mobile phones whilst driving

Following the crash Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, who had not been wearing a helmet, was taken to Southampton General Hospital where he later died.

His sister, Laura, said the past year had been "extremely hard".

"The loss of Jordan is a pain that will stay with us for ever," she said.

"He was a bright, intelligent and beautiful person who will be sorely missed by everyone who knew him.

"We are pleased with the outcome of this trial and hope Jordon's death will prevent or deter others from using their mobile phones whilst driving."

Sgt Alison West, of Hampshire Constabulary's road death investigation team, recommended drivers switched off their mobile phones during journeys.

"It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards involved," she said.

"In this particular incident, it transpired from a phone analysis that there was phone use close to the time of the incident."

Where in there does it say "well above the speed limit"?
Where do the court or the Police say she was touching the phone at the time of the incident?
On the other hand it DOES say "went through a red light".

Don't get me wrong. I'm a cyclist, some of the time. However the press, and the courts, and some here, seem to be adding 2 and 2 and getting 15!!

ADUK Archive

Missing the point

Missing the point

Re: Missing the point

Re: Missing the point