Driver "didn't see" cyclist crossing road before "completely avoidable" fatal collision

srchar wrote:

. . . Enforce it. . . 

I think I detect a flaw in your argument.

Morgoth985 wrote:

srchar wrote:

Enforce it

I think I detect a flaw in your argument.

Indeed. There may well be technological solutions for enforcement, rather than human ones, such as mandating facial recognition technology in new cars, linked to the DVLA database. Banned face tries to drive? Car won't start. Perhaps allied with fingerprint sensors or a microphone for spoken-word identification. Probably wouldn't even be that expensive, given the economies of scale involved, and the fact that a hundred quid smartphone contains all the componentry required for implementation.

I won't hold my breath though, given that easy wins like GPS-based speed limiters could be legislated tomorrow, for sod all cost, but haven't been.

srchar wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

srchar wrote:

Enforce it

I think I detect a flaw in your argument.

Indeed. There may well be technological solutions for enforcement, rather than human ones, such as mandating facial recognition technology in new cars, linked to the DVLA database. Banned face tries to drive? Car won't start. Perhaps allied with fingerprint sensors or a microphone for spoken-word identification. Probably wouldn't even be that expensive, given the economies of scale involved, and the fact that a hundred quid smartphone contains all the componentry required for implementation.

I won't hold my breath though, given that easy wins like GPS-based speed limiters could be legislated tomorrow, for sod all cost, but haven't been.

Every workable solution is killed by a combination of privacy outrage and the motor lobby. We should have mandatory black boxes and dashcams in every car, with speed limiters which work from inbuilt maps. A car would require authentication in order to start, with mediation managed by the black box over mobile Internet, and the vehicle's actions are the responsibility of the person whose auth was used - no more "don't know who was driving it" bollocks. Use an auth that is not yours? Jail. Tamper with the box? Tamper signal sent, authorization rejected for that vehicle until rectified, and vehicoe flagged as tampered for ANPR. Link cameras on legitimate vehicles into the system to automatically report sightings of that vehicle's plate. If you succeed in driving with a tampered vehicle, jail.

But it'll never happen. Remember, driving is a Human Right.

Regarding earlier point about vehicle power: I'm not sure there is much in it for private cars with regards to acceleration. 0 to 60 time is not relevant on city roads. 0 to 10 and 0 to 20 would be better indicators.

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Behindtheshed.

You last comment makes no sense. Cars don’t kill, people kill. Limiting the power of cars will not stop drivers from not looking. If anything it will add to the problem as many drivers see their license as a right to get from A-B as quickly as possible, not a responsibility to get from A-B as safely as possible. Therefore they will take more risk as not to slow down.

No, he's right, and his comment, I think, is not targeted at this case, but at reducing accident statistics in general. Look at the proliferation of more powerful versions of the Volkswagen Golf among certain younger, recently passed drivers, and the way they are driven. Golfs driven aggressively by young people are the single biggest private car threat I notice on the roads, regardless of mode of transport I use - even above the Dark Triad (Merc, BMW, Audi) and Land/Range Rover. The tempation to drive like crap for the thrill factor is there. Those who have yet to learn responsible driving have no business driving vehicles with any kind of power.

Luca Patrono wrote:

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Behindtheshed.

You last comment makes no sense. Cars don’t kill, people kill. Limiting the power of cars will not stop drivers from not looking. If anything it will add to the problem as many drivers see their license as a right to get from A-B as quickly as possible, not a responsibility to get from A-B as safely as possible. Therefore they will take more risk as not to slow down.

No, he's right, and his comment, I think, is not targeted at this case, but at reducing accident statistics in general. Look at the proliferation of more powerful versions of the Volkswagen Golf among certain younger, recently passed drivers, and the way they are driven. Golfs driven aggressively by young people are the single biggest private car threat I notice on the roads, regardless of mode of transport I use - even above the Dark Triad (Merc, BMW, Audi) and Land/Range Rover. The tempation to drive like crap for the thrill factor is there. Those who have yet to learn responsible driving have no business driving vehicles with any kind of power.

I don't think it's entirely young people.  You also get the occasional decrepit old duffer driving a vehicle that is unecessarily powerful, and accelerating into a shop window or something.

The higher the acceleration the less time there is likely to be to look.  There's no need for it in urban areas, it just feeds stupid fantasies of being a getaway or F1 driver.

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Behindtheshed.

You last comment makes no sense. Cars don’t kill, people kill. Limiting the power of cars will not stop drivers from not looking. If anything it will add to the problem as many drivers see their license as a right to get from A-B as quickly as possible, not a responsibility to get from A-B as safely as possible. Therefore they will take more risk as not to slow down.

I'm with BTBS on this one. In urban areas with traffic lights and roundabouts everybody expects to be able to reach 30+ mph in the 200 metres before the next thing that stops them. With less acceleration everybody might chill out a little bit more and the differential between different vehicles would be lessened.

From an enviromental point of view imagine the change if suddenly small family hatchbacks did not need 2.3l engines.

bobbypuk wrote:

From an enviromental point of view imagine the change if suddenly small family hatchbacks did not need 2.3l engines.

Slightly OT, but I'm still trying to work out why there's a noticeable increase in large sports cars tooling around city centres.

Anecdotally - I work in Bristol city centre, 20 mph posted speed limit, and I have started noticing at least two veeeeery large Lamborghini type cars passing by my office window every day (really wide, really long, about two feet tall and looking like an excitingly sculpted cheese wedge  ).  Yes, I'm aware of confirmation bias, but I hadn't noticed either until maybe a year ago.

These things have zero luggage space, and I cannot believe that their working at their best efficiency running below 20 mph, so what on earth is their point?  Why would ANYONE need something like that for driving around any urban area??  

brooksby wrote:

bobbypuk wrote:

From an enviromental point of view imagine the change if suddenly small family hatchbacks did not need 2.3l engines.

Slightly OT, but I'm still trying to work out why there's a noticeable increase in large sports cars tooling around city centres.

Anecdotally - I work in Bristol city centre, 20 mph posted speed limit, and I have started noticing at least two veeeeery large Lamborghini type cars passing by my office window every day (really wide, really long, about two feet tall and looking like an excitingly sculpted cheese wedge  ).  Yes, I'm aware of confirmation bias, but I hadn't noticed either until maybe a year ago.

These things have zero luggage space, and I cannot believe that their working at their best efficiency running below 20 mph, so what on earth is their point?  Why would ANYONE need something like that for driving around any urban area??  

Generally caused by TPS (tiny penis syndrome).

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

bobbypuk wrote:

From an enviromental point of view imagine the change if suddenly small family hatchbacks did not need 2.3l engines.

Slightly OT, but I'm still trying to work out why there's a noticeable increase in large sports cars tooling around city centres.

Anecdotally - I work in Bristol city centre, 20 mph posted speed limit, and I have started noticing at least two veeeeery large Lamborghini type cars passing by my office window every day (really wide, really long, about two feet tall and looking like an excitingly sculpted cheese wedge  ).  Yes, I'm aware of confirmation bias, but I hadn't noticed either until maybe a year ago.

These things have zero luggage space, and I cannot believe that their working at their best efficiency running below 20 mph, so what on earth is their point?  Why would ANYONE need something like that for driving around any urban area??  

Generally caused by TPS (tiny penis syndrome).

That's body-shaming.

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Behindtheshed.

You last comment makes no sense. Cars don’t kill, people kill. Limiting the power of cars will not stop drivers from not looking. If anything it will add to the problem as many drivers see their license as a right to get from A-B as quickly as possible, not a responsibility to get from A-B as safely as possible. Therefore they will take more risk as not to slow down.

You fail to understand basic human psychology. lower power/slower acceleration means that drivers adapt more often to the gaps they can go for so less pulling out at junctions as they cannot accelerate into so easily, there is a still an element of hazard even if it's a person on a bike/foot.

Lack of power dampens the urge to 'push on', if you look at why people on e-bikes have more incidents than on normal bikes as a rate, why in NL the death rate jumped significantly in only the grouos that were buying e-bikes in massive numbers and talk to people who ride e-cycles and the exhilaration they experience both in the speed they can maintain and the acceleration, it's clear that 'power' and easy speed attained has a detrimental effect on behaviour.

Cycling using your own power is different, you might well be able to accelerate quickly and go at a decent speed but the fact there is an element of danger to you presented by similar groups such as pedestrians and most of all motorists plus the effort itself means for the most part the sensation is not the same. Obviously helmet wearing distorts that risk factor as having a chunky safety cell of a car does. Reduce the power and the motor has to reduce in size or you lose top speed and acceleration.

Have you ever driven something like an Allegro knowing there is no crash cell, no gadgets, no airbags, no power steering, drum brakes that seem to take an age to slow you (comparatively to a modern car)? Trust me, you drive it and feel different to something that has more power and acceleration.

srchar wrote:

If a fifth of drivers have a crash in their first year, the testing methodology is totally unfit for purpose.

I can't think of any other field where such a high incidence of potential lethality would be considered acceptable.

It's completely inadequate. First night after I passed my test at 18 I took three mates out (funnily enough, also in an Allegro BTBS) and almost stacked it into a telephone box driving like I thought I was Ayrton Senna. So close to a major tragedy. Few weeks later I close-passed a cyclist on Shoreham Road at about 70mph (it was a 50 limit then), no idea how I missed him. I had three collisions in the first 4 years, all my fault. My brother wrote off three cars (one his own) in three separate collisions in the first 6 months of driving, and that was in a 950cc Pop Plus Fiesta. He had zero time off the road, just got another banger to drive around in.

It's not necessarily the power of the car, its the lack of testing rigour and risk of enforcement of standards.

kil0ran wrote:

srchar wrote:

If a fifth of drivers have a crash in their first year, the testing methodology is totally unfit for purpose.

I can't think of any other field where such a high incidence of potential lethality would be considered acceptable.

It's completely inadequate. First night after I passed my test at 18 I took three mates out (funnily enough, also in an Allegro BTBS) and almost stacked it into a telephone box driving like I thought I was Ayrton Senna. So close to a major tragedy. Few weeks later I close-passed a cyclist on Shoreham Road at about 70mph (it was a 50 limit then), no idea how I missed him. I had three collisions in the first 4 years, all my fault. My brother wrote off three cars (one his own) in three separate collisions in the first 6 months of driving, and that was in a 950cc Pop Plus Fiesta. He had zero time off the road, just got another banger to drive around in.

It's not necessarily the power of the car, its the lack of testing rigour and risk of enforcement of standards.

Did you go from cycling to driving?

I was lucky in many regards, I didn't need a car in my youth and it was all bike and then I joined the army after college so still didn't need to drive. Wasn't until I was 23 that I decided I should seeing as my son was a year old and I needed to transport him between mine and his mothers, for me driving was easy compared to cycling. The Allegro was a good way to learn though didn't have it for long. I did 6 proper lessons in a Metro 1.1 then two lessons in a 205 TD incl one of them on the morning of my test. I didn't actually drive for another 3 months and my first solo drive was 185 miles from East Yorkshire back to Herts in the rain after buying my grandpops old car.

I guess the cycling for quite a few years beforehand, my age and also having the squid in the car for virtually all journeys (I still cycled to work.shops etc) meant I was probably not your average 'new' driver. That's not to say I haven't driven like a bit of a dick at times but it's true that experience and age generally does make you a better driver but understanding the road and the dangers you present to others is a huge factor as well as the power under your right foot.

I also did an advanced driving course/test about 12 years ago which was interesting, some of it I didn't agree with from a cyclist POV and I did have some lengthy chats with the course instructor regarding that but it was a positive even though by that time my driving was only about 3k/year. Certainly don't miss the commute into/around London and SE and now the only driving I do is once a week for work in a tracked Ford Van where we get naughty points for even very minor indiscretions (the tracking device is pants at times)

Maybe if all vehicles had these fitted and you had money taken straight from your bank account and/or took minutes/data/text away from your phone for each indiscretion that would change your driving habits pretty damn quickly!

hirsute wrote:

Is thsi really the state we are in with regards to driving ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49029665

One in five new motorists are involved in an accident during their first year behind the wheel, figures suggest.

In an effort to address this, the government has announced it is considering a ban on new drivers in England, Scotland and Wales travelling at night.

 

 

 

Problem is how are they going to enforce it? There aren't enough traffic police to enforce the mobile phone ban and speed limits. The only solution would be a compulsory black box recorder. Might be a good idea for all drivers.

Also limit new drivers to very small cars for a few years, nothing too powerful.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Is thsi really the state we are in with regards to driving ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49029665

One in five new motorists are involved in an accident during their first year behind the wheel, figures suggest.

In an effort to address this, the government has announced it is considering a ban on new drivers in England, Scotland and Wales travelling at night.

 

 

 

Problem is how are they going to enforce it? There aren't enough traffic police to enforce the mobile phone ban and speed limits. The only solution would be a compulsory black box recorder. Might be a good idea for all drivers. Also limit new drivers to very small cars for a few years, nothing too powerful.

45bhp for ALL vehicles and nothing that can accelarate greatern than 0-60 in 15seconds, why would a motorist need anything more?

My very first car was an Austin Allegro 1.1, could do 90mph at a pinch and had a wheezy 45bhp motor. The only reason that probably wouldn't be enough now is down to the bloated tanks that infest our roads!

Housecathst wrote:

Perhaps the next cyclist that kills a pedestrian should try the  “I didn’t see” defence as it’s as it seams like a guarantee get out of jail free card. 

Won’t work.  The “I didn’t see” defence only applies to drivers.  Cyclists are required to predict the unpredictable.  Drivers are excused from having to predict the predictable.

Perhaps the next cyclist that kills a pedestrian should try the  “I didn’t see” defence as it’s as it seams like a guarantee get out of jail free card. 

That'll work well

In terms of looking first, I have to say pedestrians worry me more than drivers these days. God knows how they'll cope when electric vehicles are more common. I'm one of those odd people who looks very hard before crossing a road. I trust no one. I was hit by a car as a child and know how much it hurts.

This incident, the one being reported on, really hits home, doesn't it? Sometimes, no matter how careful you are, how hard you look, they're still gonna get you.  Take care out there.