Such a meaningless waste of life. Not happy with the last paragraph though from that Cycling UK spokesperson…
"Duncan Dollimore, from Cycling UK, said: “Our view is that wearing headphones is inadvisable, particularly if listening at high volumes or with headphones that completely shut out sound, but the idea that headphone wearing cyclists are any more of a problem than headphone wearing pedestrians is not borne out by any evidence we have seen.”
Such a crass way to try and shift the blame.
Radar19:
Such a meaningless waste of life. Not happy with the last paragraph though from that Cycling UK spokesperson…"Duncan Dollimore, from Cycling UK, said: “Our view is that wearing headphones is inadvisable, particularly if listening at high volumes or with headphones that completely shut out sound, but the idea that headphone wearing cyclists are any more of a problem than headphone wearing pedestrians is not borne out by any evidence we have seen.”
Such a crass way to try and shift the blame.
Or,
"Duncan Dollimore, from Cycling UK, said: “not the cyclists fault, always the truck drivers fault.”
An accident that’s torn 2 familys apart. No winners, just losers…
duncan dollimore wants booted in the balls whilst being stood at any inner city main road crossroads till it dawns on him that he is a lying treehugger fanny and admits he has ample evidence…same as tesco,sainsbury,asda repeating constantly that when they open up and ■■■■ the life out of every town they are close to,theres never any evidence to support it,apart from the masses of closed shops,for sale,to let,and kebeb vendors within 5 years of them opening…
and lets not forget beverly condescending bell with no evidence apart from a 15 min video nasty…
dress him in lycra,spray him with baby oil and fake tan,take him to central london and make him watch as he bends over and takes his medicine…though would that be a punishment or not?
It has to be said, that lives can be saved in the future once more coroner’s courts start bringing in verdicts like this.
“If you’re daft, you’ll get killed” is going to make at least some people wise-up a bit.
"It’s always the trucker’s fault", so if you get killed, “there’s no need to change cyclist standard unsafe practices” - saves no one though.
Radar19:
Such a meaningless waste of life. Not happy with the last paragraph though from that Cycling UK spokesperson…"Duncan Dollimore, from Cycling UK, said: “Our view is that wearing headphones is inadvisable, particularly if listening at high volumes or with headphones that completely shut out sound, but the idea that headphone wearing cyclists are any more of a problem than headphone wearing pedestrians is not borne out by any evidence we have seen.”
Such a crass way to try and shift the blame.
The Shiny mouthpieces know better than anyone, including the courts. Oh, unless the courts do what they want, then they agree with the courts. Nob heads
There is quite a few assumptions in the report, and there is no evidence to say that she was definitely listening to music let alone listening to music loud enough to drown out all other traffic noise. And even if she was why would that cause her to join a roundabout when there is already a lorry on it ? It mentions a ‘fitting fault’ in her front brake that could have caused her front brake to fail - that seems a more likely reason to me why she joined the roundabout when possibly she shouldn’t of. The way I read it, she has got to close to the wagon, tried to correct herself had what otherwise was a minor fall with horrible consequences.
Nobody is trying to blame the lorry driver.
I don’t think Dolliemore is trying to point the finger towards the lorry, he seems to be merely trying to dismiss some of the exaggerated myths that surround wearing earpieces whilst cycling. I personally don’t listen to music on the bike but I doubt quite music would drown out much noise (and certainly would not reduce what you can see ahead of you).
In any case why do you need to be able to hear well when cycling ? I listen intently as I cycle on quiet roads and I like to be aware when someone is approaching from behind and the attitude of their driving. I never cycle in busy towns but if there is constantly vehicles passing what exactly would you be listening for? surely a deaf person should be able to cycle in perfect safety.
The reason a deaf person cannot truly ride or drive safely, is simply because others around them do not realize that this person is hard-of-hearing.
From a distance, there’s no ear equivalent of a “white stick” to see, maybe just a cochlea implant only visible from close up.
Looking at the increasingly discrete nature of such implants these days, - I’m not even sure I could identify someone I’m shaking hands with as being “Deaf” on the spur of the moment at least…
When you realize someone is deaf - be they a cyclist, pedestrian, or even sitting down in a chair - you, as approaching party are going to make allowances for their disability.
‘Such allowances’ are a huge part of keeping everyone safe.
Winseer:
The reason a deaf person cannot truly ride or drive safely, is simply because others around them do not realize that this person is hard-of-hearing.From a distance, there’s no ear equivalent of a “white stick” to see, maybe just a cochlea implant only visible from close up.
Looking at the increasingly discrete nature of such implants these days, - I’m not even sure I could identify someone I’m shaking hands with as being “Deaf” on the spur of the moment at least…When you realize someone is deaf - be they a cyclist, pedestrian, or even sitting down in a chair - you, as approaching party are going to make allowances for their disability.
‘Such allowances’ are a huge part of keeping everyone safe.
What allowances would you make if you knew the cyclist you were about to pass was deaf ?. If you are intending to make a careful pass does it matter if they can or can not hear you? Their hearing should only come into play if they need to take some last second avoidance measures to avoid someone driving poorly who they can’t see, like someone who is about to pass them too closely. All this “it was their own stupid fault for listening to music” is basically saying they should ave predicted my poor driving better. (and non of that has any relevance to the case in the OP, as far as I understand the lorry never over took her and should have always been in her vision)
Presumably whether or not the truck driver had the radio on was considered to unimportant to mention, cos radios only ever distract cyclists.
This case sums up the legal attitude toward cyclists. The circumstances of the incident are unclear, Emily was ALONGSIDE the truck and the driver admitted he never saw her. Then the police don’t even bother to check the open apps on her device to establish whether she was even listening to music. Then they pore over her bike and declare that her “front reflector was loose”. Again, mechanical defects on the truck are not even mentioned. What in the name of left-handed Greek buggery has a loose front reflector got to do with anything?
I use earphones. They reduce wind noise so I can hear traffic better. It’s like having a tailwind. Some devices are designed to improve hearing, so any rider who has earphones and, unlike me, listens to music hears about 10 dbs better than drivers do. There are no earphones that entirely block traffic noise, you can hear engines just fine. Here we see an unseemly desperation to find ANYTHING wrong with the bike, no matter how irrelevant.
Logically, if one was to argue that the loss of ability to hear sounds was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that deaf and partially deaf people would have to be banned from cycling.
Secondly, one has to consider cars. Cars have stereos in, and therefore, logically, if one was to argue that loss of concentration through listening to music or speech was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that car stereos would have to be banned.
So, whilst the questions above are well worth asking, if the answers to them are to be used as arguments in favour of prohibiting the use of headphones there are some pretty hefty logical implications if that argument is to avoid hypocrisy.
roaduser66:
This case sums up the legal attitude toward cyclists. The circumstances of the incident are unclear, Emily was ALONGSIDE the truck and the driver admitted he never saw her.
So are you saying that just the fact of a cyclist being ‘along side’ a truck and then crashing proves beyond reasonable doubt that the truck driver over took her too closely causing her to fall off while also not observing her in the mirrors.Which is realistically what it would take to make any case against him.
As opposed to a cyclist undertaking a truck in whatever circumstances while the driver is looking elsewhere and then crashing for reasons either connected,let alone totally unconnected,with the truck.
As said before the burden is on the prosecution to prove any case beyond reasonable doubt in that regard.Even the politically favoured cyclist lobby isn’t ( shouldn’t be ) above the law in that regard.
Look, for instance, at the police investigation. Can you see anywhere where the police offer in mitigation for the CYCLIST the fact that the driver failed to see her. The police rigorously apply this even-handed approach to all KSIs? Say, for instance, a truck driver who fails to notice a mother and child on a crossing and fails to notice that his traffic light is red?
Police concluded that he had “a very high cognitive load” when making the sharp turn left into Stanley Street. “He’s got fixated on the car to the right and the vehicle to the front and missed the traffic lights turning from green to red,” Mr Galloway said.
yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/hgv … -1-8276296
Poor HGV driver. He’s got to look for CARS and TRAFFIC LIGHTS and PEOPLE. And that’s what the police did with Emily. They sympathised with her “high cognitive load”. Oh, they didn’t. They pointed out that her front reflector was loose.
roaduser66:
Look, for instance, at the police investigation. Can you see anywhere where the police offer in mitigation for the CYCLIST the fact that the driver failed to see her. The police rigorously apply this even-handed approach to all KSIs? Say, for instance, a truck driver who fails to notice a mother and child on a crossing and fails to notice that his traffic light is red?Police concluded that he had “a very high cognitive load” when making the sharp turn left into Stanley Street. “He’s got fixated on the car to the right and the vehicle to the front and missed the traffic lights turning from green to red,” Mr Galloway said.
yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/hgv … -1-8276296
Poor HGV driver. He’s got to look for CARS and TRAFFIC LIGHTS and PEOPLE. And that’s what the police did with Emily. They sympathised with her “high cognitive load”. Oh, they didn’t. They pointed out that her front reflector was loose.
So exactly what is the connection between that and a cyclist crashing and falling off their bicycle.Or then trying to pin the blame for that on a truck driver who just happens to be alongside the cyclist when they do it.Bearing in mind that ‘if’ you do want to pin the blame for that on the truck driver you’ll need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did something wrong directly being the cause of the accident.
roaduser66:
Presumably whether or not the truck driver had the radio on was considered to unimportant to mention, cos radios only ever distract cyclists.This case sums up the legal attitude toward cyclists. The circumstances of the incident are unclear, Emily was ALONGSIDE the truck and the driver admitted he never saw her. Then the police don’t even bother to check the open apps on her device to establish whether she was even listening to music. Then they pore over her bike and declare that her “front reflector was loose”. Again, mechanical defects on the truck are not even mentioned. What in the name of left-handed Greek buggery has a loose front reflector got to do with anything?
I use earphones. They reduce wind noise so I can hear traffic better. It’s like having a tailwind. Some devices are designed to improve hearing, so any rider who has earphones and, unlike me, listens to music hears about 10 dbs better than drivers do. There are no earphones that entirely block traffic noise, you can hear engines just fine. Here we see an unseemly desperation to find ANYTHING wrong with the bike, no matter how irrelevant.
Logically, if one was to argue that the loss of ability to hear sounds was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that deaf and partially deaf people would have to be banned from cycling.
Secondly, one has to consider cars. Cars have stereos in, and therefore, logically, if one was to argue that loss of concentration through listening to music or speech was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that car stereos would have to be banned.
So, whilst the questions above are well worth asking, if the answers to them are to be used as arguments in favour of prohibiting the use of headphones there are some pretty hefty logical implications if that argument is to avoid hypocrisy.
First of all I think you should step back from implying any blame towards the lorry driver in this case - there appears to not be one shred of evidence that his driving was relevant.
But I do agree that the reporting of the incident does seem quite anti-cyclists, particularly the Daily Mail pointing out that her bell wasn’t correctly secured!
I’m not sure what my thoughts are regarding listening to music on a push bike, I accept you can still hear traffic noise above the music and I do see the hypocrisy in listening to music whilst in a vehicle with the windows closed. But considering how much crap driving there is at the moment and the impatience shown towards cyclists by a significant minority of drivers, then it seems wise to me to make as much use of my hearing as possible - a scape or nudge by a moron in a car overtaking a lorry where they shouldn’t will have far less serious consequences then if i’m on the bike where a slight nudge may put me in hospital for a very long time. I like to hear them as far back as possible and I like to hear them come onto the over-run then I know they have probably seen me (too many tw4ts on facebook)
You make an interesting comment regarding ear pieces and reducing wind noise without reducing traffic noise, did nt know that was possible. One of my big concerns over wearing a helmet is that over a certain speed (15mph) turbulence around the ears starts to drown out my ability to hear properly, and the one I hate the most is pushing into a strong wind, the wind noise drowns out anything coming from behind - I wish drivers on very quiet country roads especially when going into the wind would give a beep on the horn when a few hundred yards behind so as I was more aware of them. (and I don’t mean blasting cyclists off the road with your air horns from 5 paces - lol)
roaduser66:
Presumably whether or not the truck driver had the radio on was considered to unimportant to mention, cos radios only ever distract cyclists.This case sums up the legal attitude toward cyclists. The circumstances of the incident are unclear, Emily was ALONGSIDE the truck and the driver admitted he never saw her. Then the police don’t even bother to check the open apps on her device to establish whether she was even listening to music. Then they pore over her bike and declare that her “front reflector was loose”. Again, mechanical defects on the truck are not even mentioned. What in the name of left-handed Greek buggery has a loose front reflector got to do with anything?
I use earphones. They reduce wind noise so I can hear traffic better. It’s like having a tailwind. Some devices are designed to improve hearing, so any rider who has earphones and, unlike me, listens to music hears about 10 dbs better than drivers do. There are no earphones that entirely block traffic noise, you can hear engines just fine. Here we see an unseemly desperation to find ANYTHING wrong with the bike, no matter how irrelevant.
Logically, if one was to argue that the loss of ability to hear sounds was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that deaf and partially deaf people would have to be banned from cycling.
Secondly, one has to consider cars. Cars have stereos in, and therefore, logically, if one was to argue that loss of concentration through listening to music or speech was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that car stereos would have to be banned.
So, whilst the questions above are well worth asking, if the answers to them are to be used as arguments in favour of prohibiting the use of headphones there are some pretty hefty logical implications if that argument is to avoid hypocrisy.
Here we ■■■■■■■ go! cue twenty pages of meaningless drivel quoted about every collision involving a cyclist since Adam was a boy, but total evasion of any awkward questions.
Bluey Circles:
First of all I think you should step back from implying any blame towards the lorry driver in this case there appears to not be one shred of evidence that his driving was relevant.
That the driver was completely unaware of the cyclist comes from the driver’s own evidence. It would have been interesting to see if any defects on his vehicle or mirrors contributed to the fatality but the police seem to have been busy with a loose front reflector on the victim’s bike.
About 3 or 5 times a year I ride with a tail wind that matches my speed. It’s spooky. You hear EVERYTHING. There is no wind noise so you hear perfectly. You get the same effect with in-ear 'phones. They help you hear better, and there are no earphones on the market that drown out the noise of an HGV. Can you still hear trucks in your car with the windows up? Cyclists WITH earphones who ARE listening to music hear better than drivers do who are listening to nothing.
Lorries are big, dangerous and hurt when they hit you.
If you are sad enough to enjoy riding bicycles-stay away from them. Simples.
You’re a [zb] nutcase
Who is?