1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. uk.rec.cycling

  • =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20And=20this=20was=20on=20a=20shared?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20path=E2=80=A6?=

    From Spike@aero.spike@mail.com to uk.rec.cycling on Tue Apr 9 08:08:10 2024
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cycling

    Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

    Keep in mind that this serious collision took place on a path. It would therefore not have been recorded in the Stats19 data, even if a fatality
    had occurred. This is one reason why the deaths of pedestrians who have
    been killed in a collision with a cyclist are under-reported.

    rCLSpeedingrCY cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules

    According to the judge, both cyclists rCLcompletely failed, for no good reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other until the collision was inevitablerCY

    by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56

    Two cyclists who were involved in a serious collision on a National Cycle Route, which left one of the riders requiring resuscitation after his heart stopped, have been found equally to blame for the crash by a judge, who
    said the cyclists were rCLtravelling at twice the safe speedrCY and were oblivious to each otherrCOs presence when the rCLinevitablerCY crash took place.

    [rCa]

    <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>
    --
    Spike
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Spike@aero.spike@mail.com to uk.rec.cycling on Tue Apr 9 15:41:07 2024
    From Newsgroup: uk.rec.cycling

    Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
    Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

    rCLSpeedingrCY cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules

    According to the judge, both cyclists rCLcompletely failed, for no good
    reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
    until the collision was inevitablerCY

    by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56

    <snip>

    <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>

    QUOTE
    Avatar
    stonojnr replied to Fl|oneur | 1 day ago
    3 likes

    very interesting, cheers.

    and it nicely documents the speeds, 13.4mph and 20.1mph, though Im not sure Im fully on board with their accuracy.

    the judge is saying then a safe speed is 7-10mph. I doubt the majority of cyclists who use shared paths to get around, even with a junction like
    this, ride at those speeds.

    Log In or Register to post comments UNQUOTE

    That last comment tells you all you need to know about the attitude of cyclists with regard to cycling speed. But they know exactly how fast motor vehicles should be going.

    They also totally ignore the message from an anti-car article published on the road.cc web site which noted that Professor Scarlett McNally, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and who authored a piece published in the
    BMJ titled 'Enabling active travel can improve the UK's health', mentions that the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture clinics" that get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed".

    That is, cars must slow down, but not cyclists. This tale of two colliding cyclists strongly suggests otherwise.

    Over the period 2018-2022 official data states that there were some 872 casualties caused by cycle/cycle collisions, some of which resulted in fatalities.

    Note that that as there is no obligation to report cycle/cycle collisions
    to the police, this figure of 872 casualties can only be an underestimate.
    --
    Spike
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2