- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Tooting Broadway collision Picture @Gracie_HTwitterCyclist in collision with lorry on cycle superhighway in South London
Police are appealing for witnesses after a collision involving a cyclist and a lorry on a cycle superhighway in Tooting Broadway in London.
The man in his late 40s, was treated for "a range of injuries" at the scene and taken to St George's Hospital in South London, where he is in a stable condition.
The collision happened yesterday afternoon in South London at the junction of Tooting High Street and the A217, a busy high street and part of Cycle Superhighway 7, which runs from Southwark to Colliers Wood.
A police spokesperson said: "Police were called to Tooting Broadway at 1515hrs on Monday, 15 June to reports of a lorry and cyclist in collision.
"The cyclist, a man in his late 40s, was taken to a south London hospital where he is in a stable condition.
Scary when it's on a regular route, just rode past the scene. Fingers crossed the cyclist is ok http://t.co/N2JqoM60PU
— Louise Mahé (@Team_Louise) June 15, 2015
Police say the driver stopped at the scene and has spoken to them. No arrests were made, and the Serious Collision Investigation Unit at Merton is now investigating.
Anyone who saw the collision is asked to contact officers on 0208 543 5157 or 101.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 1 hour 56 min ago
Stick it in the road.
- Hirsute 2 hours 55 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 13 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 3 hours 42 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 3 hours 48 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- quiff 7 hours 52 min ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 8 hours 55 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
- Doug_D 10 hours 30 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
Add new comment
33 comments
While we are debating the finer points of the English language, this happened this morning in the real world:
"Cyclist seriously injured after being hit by skip lorry on London Bridge in rush hour" - the Evening Standard has some details at:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-seriously-injured-after-be...
It's one way of arguing, I suppose: rather than just expressing your point of view, condemn the people who disagree with you by calling them 'the language police'.
If you think I condemned them, you're also finding meaning in words that isn't there. I mocked them, some of this sensitivity over language is plain silly and deserves a bit of mocking.
I think I remember ones of the site's writers being somewhat blunter in his response a little while ago. Probably fed up of comments such as having "gone native", as above.
Road.cc, please keep using the word collision correctly. The language Police are trying to find hidden offense in ordinary words again.
Cyclist in collision with lorry?
No, I see a bike under a lorry, so..
Lorry driver in collision with cyclist.
See also person hits wall, car collides with bollard, hand touches face. I suspect it is very unusual for the cyclist to collide with the lorry, just as for the wall to hit the person, the bollard to hit the car, the face to touch the hand, and yet in EVERY story here it's the bike that collides with the lorry. You road.cc guys have gone native.
I'd thought people were being over sensitive but your analogies hold; the only recent story which really was 'cyclist in collision with lorry' was the recent one where a bloke rode into the back of a [em]stationary[/em] lorry. All others are some variation on 'motor vehicle in collision with bicycle'.
Both fine, using the noun collision to describe an event involving two parties.
The journalism here is an example of getting it wrong - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/University-Cambridge-student-Rebecca-Lon...
"Rebecca Long, 21, of Brighton, was walking along Huntingdon Road, near to Girton College, at about 1.30am on Thursday when SHE COLLIDED with a red Mazda 6."
She collided (verb, her action). Not fine.
"Police are appealing for witnesses"
For a country with around 1.9m CCTV cameras, I'm surprised they need more than a pause button.
This "collision" bollocks really boils my piss (as they say).
A child was run over recently, and the Press described her as being in collision with the car.
[Press described her as being in collision with the car.]
I think its the lawyer speak.
I don't like the way this is reported as 'a collision involving a cyclist and a lorry.' In my personal opinion, a collision suggests two roughly equal size people or objects (two rugby players, two cars).
When a truck and a person on a bike are involved, I would say that the truck knocked the cyclist over, hit him, or ran him over.
I'm sure the usual comments will start appearing in the press about the danger of left turning lorries, but as someone who uses this junction regularly, I often run into problems with RIGHT turning vehicles there.
Last time was on Sunday evening, another impatient driver trying to push through a gap that wasn't there, because the gap was actually occupied by me! No airzound on that bike, so Mk1 lungs were used to stop him.
I actually once saw a car trying the same aggressive maneuver against a Policeman on a bike, who was extremely unamused. Unfortunately I had to ride on, but I really would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall to that conversation.
As usual, I wish a full recovery to the victim.
A quick peek at Streetview reveals two CCTV cameras - one on the street and one on top of Halifax building. Hopefully (a) one or both were working, (b) they were pointing in a useful direction at the time and (c) the police bother to gather the footage.
When I got mashed by a truck a few years ago, there was a private CCTV camera pointing at the scene but Messrs Plod didn't bother to try and gather the footage and the proprietors wouldn't give it to me either.
Changing key junctions to have an additional light that allows cyclists to advance through the junction in advance of the motorised traffic would cut out a lot of left hook instances. Of course this could have been a 'mobile' situation and this wouldn't have helped, but it could save lives for some.
Left turning lorry again, awful that we keep seeing these!!!! The hospital is just round the corner so that was lucky for the cyclist.
Probably not. I found out that ambulances don't park up near hospitals, because that's not likely to be where they are going to (first).
Your headline states - "Cyclist in collision with lorry on cycle superhighway in South London".
Now, I don't know if the cyclist was in collision with the lorry OR the lorry in collision with the cyclist, but it annoys me that every collision involving a cyclist suggests that the cyclist was at fault by being in collision with, "pedestrian", "cyclist", "car", "van", "lorry", etc., (delete as applicable).
Rant over, hoping the cyclist makes a full and speedy recovery.
Cyclist in... is used because the next sentence talks about the cyclist. In the article text the police reference it the other way around talking about the driver. Its good use of english.
Damn. On a cycle superhighway. How *did* that HGV manage to break through the protective blue paint?
If it were a "segregated cycle lane" then it would be exactly the same situation: bicycles shoved into a weird flow of traffic which funnels us through on the inside of traffic. Bicycles are either in the usual flow, accorded the respect, rights and duties of other traffic, or they are in some sort of parallel system.
All the data from Copenhagen shows that collisions are displaced onto intersections when physical segregation is provided.
Those intersection collisions can be reduced by installing traffic signals. I will let you guess whether those signals will be timed to favor the motorised traffic or the bicycles.
So, although I share your scorn for blue paint, I fear that the cries for "proper segregation" are also misplaced.
Time to start seriously reducing the use of motorised vehicles in cities.
And how do you encourage people out of cars? Which is the easy part? I would argue that by providing cycle lanes, by making people FEEL safer they are more likely to get out of their cars. The other part of the solution is to make cars unattractive, which in part means phasing the traffic lights against the cars.
Buses and Lorries are other issues, which in some respects are far harder to deal with.
Um, well, if you basically remove the chance collisions outside of intersections due to segregation - where else do you think the collisions are going to occur ? .. are you arguing that the number of collisions are essentially the same but shifted in location ?
Why ?
That is a good thing to aim for too, i'm just not sure I agree with it being the only practical measure we employ now.
In fact some studies show that they can actually increase[1]. But yes, that's what I meant by "displaced". I was trying to be kind to the segregationist position and not overstate my case.
It appears that it might be possible to overcome this with designs in which cars are seriously inconvenienced in their ability to turn across segregated lanes. I severely doubt that will happen as it would require e.g. bulb-outs placed on the inside lanes to force traffic to make 270 degree turns etc.
It is inevitable that any segregation will lead to one of two things happening at intersections: 1) they will be dangerous; 2) they will have lights timed to the disadvantage of cyclists.
1. http://trafitec.dk/sites/default/files/publications/bicycle%20tracks%20a...
This is a busy junction with lots of pedestrian and motorised traffic in addition to cyclists. The picture accompanying the article hints at a left hook situation - motorised vehicle turning left without checking / seeing a cyclist on the inside. There is an advanced stop line on that crossing. Many cyclists are able to get in front of vehicles on that crossing and get noticed.
There are many cyclists using this route on a daily basis with increasing numbers based on anecdotal evidence. Frightening that these kind of accidents keep occurring on dedicated and well used cycle routes.
I hope for a full recovery of the cyclist and a fair and full investigation of the incident.
Well used - yes.
Dedicated - no.
It's got some blue paint down one side of it but have a look at that junction on Google Streetview
The incident was in front of Halifax Building Society. Not exactly a welcoming junction to ride across is it, not really what you'd call "dedicated cycling infrastructure"...
Best wishes to the rider
"No arrests were made"
Here, allow me to correct that for you:
"No arrests were made, and no arrests will be made, even if the lorry driver was completely at fault. However, we will start a campaign aimed at cyclists informing them of the dangers of wearing headphones"
Yup, that just about sums it up. Yet another HVG driver gets to continue about there daily life as if nothing has happened, safe in knowledge mutipal driving bands and drink diving convictions will do thing to stop them from having the God given right to be able to kill and injury with as many people as they fancy with their 40ton metal box.
Right - never let unknown facts get in the way of concluding that the cyclist isn't at fault anymore than the lorry driver apparently is.
Of course my comment was tongue-in-cheek. But statistically, I'm probably right.
How do you drive something the size of a lorry, at low speed, over the size of a 6ft x 3ft lump of meat and metal, and not expect to be implicated at the very least as partly at fault?
Because (quite often) the 6ft lump of meat is an absolute moron. I don't want to make any assumptions in this case as I do not know the facts, but I cycle along CS7 every day (I was there during this incident) and the stupid things I see cyclists do in traffic makes my blood run cold...
Pages