I nearly killed a cyclist tonight.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD!

This. Being in the right won’t make you any less dead.

“Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD! “
You right in your sentiment but WRONG, you can’t in this case.

“This is all down to personal responsibility … Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD!“

What, like driving into space you can’t see without the ability to stop?

There’s a lot of it about;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-24518094

Except, actually, motorways and fast DCs tend to be well illuminated when busy, whether by overhead lighting or by other vehicles – and when they’re not busy enough for other light to fall, you can use main beam at least intermittently. It’s very rare that you simply cannot see the road beyond a dipped beam envelope – and if you genuinely can’t then should you really be doing 70?

So you slow down to 30 for oncoming traffic on the motorway? Overhead lighting’s usualy only arround junctions, and even then it’s often turned off after midnight.

I used to drive Reading to Teeside almost weekly at some ungodly hours, the number of times when I was either not folloing another car or had an oncoming car (i.e. could put main beams on) but wasn’t close enough to the car infront to iluminate all the space between me and them (and that would probably be within the 2 second rule anyway?), was probably precicely ZERO.

So either I’m a crap driver (I’d not claim to be above average, but that was another thread), or it’s reasnoble to expect drivers to be doing 70mph with dipped beams on motorways and comparable DC’s.

Yes Bez, spot on.
which in this the OP has demonstrated that he clearly was driving in a safe manner.
When he saw a hazard ahead he was able to react in good time.
The Rangie however, possibly only looking as far as the bumper of the car infront.

For cookeaa[/url]

Speshpaul – Member

“Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD! “
You right in your sentiment but WRONG, you can’t in this case.
I never stated he could ride on the A55, stop being so pedantic.

Bez – Member

“This is all down to personal responsibility … Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD!”

What, like driving into space you can’t see without the ability to stop?
Oh FFS, so if its dark and he’s on an unlit section of motorway (for example the M6 in the Lune Gorge) he should drive a 30mph on the off chance there is someone doing something they shouldn’t? You’re just being ridiculous for the sake of it.
*edit* Being driving in such a manner you’re far more likely to cause an accident than prevent (an unlikely) one.

“So you slow down to 30 for oncoming traffic on the motorway? Overhead lighting’s usualy only arround junctions, and even then it’s often turned off after midnight.“

Well, we’re not talking about motorways, where cyclists, horses and pedestrians are prohibited.

Also we seem to have latched onto a figure of 30mph which someone has (unless there’s a citation waiting in the wings) pulled out of thin air and is seemingly based on the idea that what’s in your beam you can see and what isn’t you can’t, which is rarely actually the case.

So, I’m not sure I can answer your question. I’ll try some others.

Do I drive at 30 on the motorway? No. Do I drive such that I could avoid a completely unexpected inanimate object in the middle of a dual carriageway? Hopefully, but I confess I wouldn’t want to guarantee it. Do I drive such that I could avoid a legitimate vehicle with a significantly slower speed than me? I sincerely hope so, and I believe I do. Am I perfect? No. Do I sometimes make mistakes? Yes. Do I first and foremost consider my own behaviour if and when something bad nearly happens? Absolutely.

It’s the last one that’s key. I don’t think enough people can truthfully answer yes to it.

Like I say, we’re all capable of deciding that the most important thing is not to kill someone today.

I would have thought it was about taking REASONABLE steps to prevent killing someone.
You can’t mitigate for EVERY possible scenario.
I would suggest that trying to avoid a poorly visible cyclist on an unlit road where they shouldn’t have been in the first place (if indeed cyclists are not permitted) is one scenario.

“Tis true I’d forgotten that – guess the cyclist was lucky didn’t collected by an irish trucker trying to catch the ferry ”

– With a magnet on the Tackograph and half asleep!!

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/half-lorries-tested-a55-north-2799139

“Oh FFS, so if its dark and he’s on an unlit section of motorway (for example the M6 in the Lune Gorge) he should drive a 30mph on the off chance there is someone doing something they shouldn’t? You’re just being ridiculous for the sake of it.

I’m not being so ridiculous as to suddenly decide to base the discussion on motorways or accept the figure of 30mph from An Internet Reckon.

Some interesting points of view here.

To be fair I will take it on the chin re my helmet comment, I was probably still in shock writing it!

The stretch of the A55 in question (for those that know it) was heading east about 3/4 of a mile before the Abergwyngregyn (Aber)turn off just before Llanfairfechan, it’s unlit and narrow.

To be fair on the Range Rover driver he wasnt hammering it, he cant have been doing much more than me. I dont know why he decided to call the Police, I didnt see the need because I was in a position to stop the cylist for a chat. There is a cycle route that satelites the A55, it has a bit of a climb in it and would add a bit to your journey but better than that chosen route.

It all kind of happened in a split second, his single LED light was on but fitted to the seat stay so facing up a bit rather than straight out to the rear, maybe that’s why it wasnt seen in time, I dont know.

Im not sure if that perticular stretch of the A55 is restricted for cyclists but I certainly wouldnt want to ride it.

Also we seem to have latched onto a figure of 30mph which someone has (unless there’s a citation waiting in the wings)

Source: my old driving instructor, but backed up but the folowing. 30m is the minimum distance they project up/allong the road.

And then some pious individuals try and suggest that, actually, its the motorist’s fault for driving to fast on a fast dual carriageway road?

I think Bez argued it better than I possibly could here and he didn’t seem to be getting all pious.

But then kicking off the OP with a helmet dig didn’t help.

There’s a special road near us, I used to ride it, since has had some subtle signs stating cycles aren’t allowed but have seen 1 rider either not see them or ignore them.

Does that actually hold true, though? No beam pattern I’ve ever used looks anything like that drawing; the left side projects much further than the central part does, and there’s no way things suddenly become completely unilluminated at 30m.

Part of the problem is that car is driving on the wrong side of the road!

Bez
“Well, we’re not talking about motorways, where cyclists, horses and pedestrians are prohibited.”

No, again you are right on that point.
However we are talking about an A road where cyclists are prohibited.

Ah, indeed. I assumed it was a DC but the solid line is a giveaway.

So we can agree that according to that diagram and data, driving at 50mph would be enough to theoretically avoid a collision through braking alone – even if everything outside of that beam pattern was completely invisible – and we can put this silly “30mph on the motorway” straw man to bed?

And What if he can’t read English of Klingon?

this had so much potential

“However we are talking about an A road where cyclists are prohibited.“

Are they? There’s no mention of an “(M)” designation, which would prohibit them. And without that it’s exceptional for cyclists to be restricted (normally only tunnels). I don’t know the road personally.

It’s kind of an incidental point, though. People on bicycles aren’t the only thing that people may want to avoid on a large A-road.

Bez, im not sure why, but you seem to revel in nitpicking for the sake of it.
30mph was an exaggerated figure for illustrative purposes only, im sure you got that really and 50mph is probably correct.

Are they?

For a large stretch of it yes they are, by explicit signs rather than an M designation.

Well, I do 60 on motorways/DCs when it’s chucking it down. I don’t think I’ve ever done 30. 50 hardly seems unreasonable if the conditions demand it.

So if you’re saying the difference between 30 and 50 is unimportant, you’re going to stand by your statement that “driving at 50mph is just being ridiculous for the sake of it and by driving in such a manner you’re far more likely to cause an accident than prevent one”…?

With the 30 in there, I’d probably agree with you. With 50 in there I probably don’t (I still dispute the idea that a light beam suddenly goes black at 60m and nothing beyond that is visible). The 30/50 difference seems rather significant to me; no less significant than a 50/70 difference.

You’re just backpedalling badly. If you’d thought 50 was right all along, you’d have said 50, but you chose hyperbole because your argument doesn’t really hold up that well when you actually start plugging real numbers and facts in.

Bez, I hear what you are saying and if I was driving down an unlit country road (which I do frequently) I drive according to the conditions. I “expect” to see at some point a walker or a cyclist coming the other way, or even going the same way, even if I never meet anyone on the road. If its broad daylight then I expect to meet a walker / cyclist / horse rider / car, etc around the corner or where a road narrows and I slow down and anticipate that meeting.

But if I’m on an unlit dual carriageway, especially one where the speed limit is 70mph and its laid out to accommodate that speed then I don’t expect to meet a hiker / cyclist / horse in the middle of the carriageway – and if I do meet them then I fully expect them to make themselves as visible as possible as they know its that traffic will be moving at speed.

So yes, I agree that we should ALL take responsibility for not killing our fellow man on the road.

I don’t see why the helmet issue is being flagged up. Let’s say the OP saw the cyclist a fraction later, or the Range Rover rear ended him whilst braking. The cyclist got hit at 10, 20, maybe 30mph. It’s not so irrelevant now is it?

“So yes, I agree that we should ALL take responsibility for not killing our fellow man on the road.“

I agree fully, and – just for the record – I’ll reiterate the fact that personally I think riding on that type of road with poor lighting is insane.

But most people are still sticking to this “yes, we should all take responsibility” idea in the same breath as “ah, but I don’t expect X/Y/Z”.

Surely we’d all agree that we really don’t want X/Y/Z to result in fatality, yet “taking responsibility” for most people doesn’t appear to extend to accepting that such fatalities can be wholly avoided by a unilateral change of behaviour on the part of those who have the heavy, fast vehicles from which the fatality arises.

Cheers for the clarifications Speshpaul and Trampus…
It looks like this cyclist may have had another strike against him, for riding on a section of road where he had no right of way and had signs telling him so…

I’ve learned a little bit today, I was not aware of the “Special Road” designation before, the reason for them makes sense, the fact that many don’t seem to be fully signed is a little concerning, but we’ve rubbed along like this for ~60 years or so and barely anyone has died as a result…

And What if he can’t read English of Klingon?

this had so much potential

[/quote]

I’ll admit to attempting a slight derailment with that one… But There were just no biters… Everyone seems a might serious today…

This exact same argument was had two and a half years ago when I first went upto Teesside, which involved driving up the A19 (linking the M1 to Middlesborough, another ‘motorway in all but name’ type road where you can legaly ride a bike. It was foggy and there was a TT on.

Back then someone else said the cyclists had every right to be there, veichles should watch out for them etc etc.

Since then I think there’s been at least two cycling deaths and a paralysis (not just in the fog) on that stretch, and they’re still holding TT’s there.

There comes a point where you’ve got to admit Bez that being right and dead are not mutualy exclusive. And that riding down NSL DC’s that look like motorways and encourage drivers to drive as such, is a very bad idea. Because however perfect your driving standard is, by being on your bike the average has obvioulsy dropped a bit and you’re enirely at the mercy of that. So maybe be a bit more sensible on the roads the cyclist in the OP chose to ride on and wear bight lights/reflective clothing/reflectors.

“There comes a point where you’ve got to admit Bez that being right and dead are not mutualy exclusive.“

I think I’ve said at least twice now that I think riding on a road like that with poor lights and no reflectors is insane.

I wouldn’t ride on a road like that, and I ride with a light 24/7. Though I have, once that I can recall, had a rear light stop working without having a backup. Funnily enough, that was on a 70mph dual carriageway (it’s a very quiet one, because it’s been bypassed by a much larger one now).

But none of that means that I think it’s ok for me to drive a car in a way that would kill someone who was exercising their legal right (ok, it now seems debatable as to whether they had it in this case, but most roads like that aren’t restricted to cyclists), or didn’t know how much difference good lighting makes because they’d never actually driven a car on a road like that, or whose light had failed. I’ve decided not to kill someone. If that means I go 5mph slower that’s ok. I’m not going to use “I didn’t expect them” as an excuse. If we’re repeatedly having to point out that we don’t expect them, surely we kind of expect them?

Dunno, it just seems a reasonable bottom line to me: rather than making excuses, drive so you’re sure you won’t kill anyone. Not even an idiot.

It was foggy and there was a TT on.
…
Since then I think there’s been at least two cycling deaths and a paralysis (not just in the fog) on that stretch, and they’re still holding TT’s there.

not sure what you are saying there it reads like car drivers can’t be trusted so TTs shouldn’t take place*.

A well behaved TT rider is just a bloke riding down the road, same as anyone else, just a bit quicker. Bit of a worrying direction your comment seems to be headed in.

Is the A19 a special road or is it “just” a DC? DCs are scary places to be and given an alternative I’d normally take one, but there are places in this country where you’re stuck with a section of DC or staying home. Making DCs look like motorways and promoting unsafe driving is bad road planning, drivers driving like cars are the only traffic on the road is bad driving, transferring the onus of all that onto cyclists is not really on.

but yeah really good lights (as opposed to “standard”) and visible clothes are a good idea

just a point, this talk of good lights, you do realise that most good lights are actually illegal! and lights that are legal are often crap.
And dynamos that have no standlight are legal!

Thought I should make this clear!

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

aye, I’d take good over legal anytime, thing is good illegal lights could land you in trouble same as crap legal ones and personal experience tells me all the lights in the world wont stop some numpties from (nearly) smearing you on the road. would be interesting to know if OP cyclists lights were legit (and whether that section of road was for bikes or not)

Bez, I’m in agreement with you mate

“you do realise that most good lights are actually illegal! and lights that are legal are often crap.“

It’s a pretty grey (ahem) area. Generally, within the EU (that’s us) the policy applies that an equivalent standard from another EU country should be acceptable.

Germany/Netherlands have easily the best-defined lighting standards and legislation, AFAIK, and most front and rear dyno lighting (obvious exceptions include the USE and Supernova lights) complies with that, as do some battery lights eg the Philips Saferide.

But yeah, technically you’re on slightly unsure footing with a lot of Japanese/Chinese/British lights. The legislation is way out of date. That said, I’ve not heard of a case where “high quality but questionable legality” lights have proven an issue in court or for the insurers. Would be interested to know of any.

not sure what you are saying there it reads like car drivers can’t be trusted so TTs shouldn’t take place*.

A well behaved TT rider is just a bloke riding down the road, same as anyone else, just a bit quicker. Bit of a worrying direction your comment seems to be headed in.

Is the A19 a special road or is it “just” a DC?

Yup that’s exactly what I’m getting at.

It’s ‘just’ a DC (hence you can hold TT’s on it). But it’s also the link between the M1 and Middleborough (Wilton, Billingham, British Steel, TATA, Seal Sands etc) and therefore designed to shift huge volumes of trafic quickly and efficnently.

Some laws protect us from other people, others from our own stupidity. On the latter basis I’d be in favour of a ban on bikes (and horses, horse deawn carriges, kids havign a kick about and pedal go-karts and everything else similalry curently legal on them), on NSL DC’s. Not a worrying thought IMO, just common sense!

@thisisnotaspoon

Time and place, plenty of dual carriageways where there isn’t an option, plenty of others where there is an option.

I think for most people if there is a sensible option then they will take it, but to be honest, I feel safer on some dual carriageway than on some single carriageway roads. eg got lost riding back from Abergavenny and ended up on the A40/48? dual carriageway, the one that goes through the tunnel into Monmouth. Not a pleasant road, but not actually that bad! There is Space in which to cycle. Compare this with the A46 Teddington to Evesham single carriageway road I ride most days, which is narrow, fast and unpleasant and far more IMO dangerous.

FWIW I’m comfortable with at least the idea of banning bicycles from busy DCs on the strategic network (the devil’s in the detail: many don’t have viable alternatives for cycling).

But I’m massively uncomfortable with anyone adopting the frame of mind that that’s already happened.

But yeah, technically you’re on slightly unsure footing with a lot of Japanese/Chinese/British lights. The legislation is way out of date. That said, I’ve not heard of a case where “high quality but questionable legality” lights have proven an issue in court or for the insurers. Would be interested to know of any.

I haven’t heard of any, but the way the courts seem to treat cyclist deaths, being blinded by the lights of the person you run down seems a fair excuse!

On the latter basis I’d be in favour of a ban on bikes (and horses, horse deawn carriges, kids havign a kick about and pedal go-karts and everything else similalry curently legal on them), on NSL DC’s.

All NSL DCs? I can think of several I have and will happily cycle on. As pointed out already, in some cases there isn’t a good alternative.

More importantly though can we put to bed the idea that cyclists aren’t allowed on the A55. There’s only a relatively short stretch where they’re banned, and it doesn’t include the point where the incident in question happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A55_road#Colwyn_Bay_Bypass

Not that I’d choose to ride on the bit in question, given there is a viable alternative.