- 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
news
Broken bike (CC licensed image by garryknight, www.flickr.com)Cyclist killed by Olympic bus: witness accounts and Wiggins's input
A 28-year-old male cyclist was last night killed by a bus transporting members of the media between two Olympic venues. The cyclist has been named this afternoon as Dan Harris from Wanstead.
The fatal incident took place at 7.33pm at the junction of the Eastway and the A12 East Cross Route, a little to the west of where the latter swings south to form the Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach Road.
That junction is close to the northwestern corner of the Olympic Park, where the Main Press Centre is located, and it is understood that the bus was heading from there to the ExCel Arena at the Royal Docks.
A Metropolitan police spokesman said a man in his mid-60s was arrested just outside the Olympic Park at 9.28pm on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
A date for a postmortem examination is yet to be fixed.
A Reddit user who claimed to have been a witness to the incident wrote an account online, which he has since taken down.
He said:
As I was cycling home from work tonight a guy, maybe in his late 20's, was cycling level with me and as we approached a bus he went inside while I held back. The lights changed as he was in the buses blind spot and as he was attempting to go straight the bus turned left. He didn't really have anywhere to go and no time to do anything anyway...
It is so dangerous out there guys. But for a single choice that poor guy would have made it home tonight. Don't skip at lights when they look clear, don't try to squeeze past heavy vehicles to save a few seconds. Never be afraid to live your life to the fullest, but be careful and be aware of the dangers around you. Be safe everyone.
Meanwhile Bradley Wiggins stoked the helmet debate a little more by saying at a press conference when he heard of the tragedy:
"Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.
"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘well, I have done everything to be safe."
"It is dangerous and London is a busy city. There is a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes."
Many interpreted Wiggins' comments as being his being supportive of compulsory helmet laws, but he took to Twitter this afternoon to clarify them, saying: "Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I [sic] involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought."
On Sky Sports News at lunchtime, world champion Mark Cavendish was asked whether he believed helmets should be made compulsory. He declined to provide a straight answer to that question, but outlined that he certainly wouldn't ride without one.
Cavendish however repeated comments he made earlier this year that the UK should consider implemeting no-fault liability for road traffic incidents involving vulnerable users such as cyclists, similar to rules in some continental countries, and also said ""We've got to increase the infrastructure for cyclists."
The collision is being investigated by the Met's Police's road death investigation unit.
Latest Comments
- kingleo 6 sec ago
Did commuting to and from work on my bike for 46 years in the London traffic increase the number of my red blood cells? - my breathing is superb, ...
- Rendel Harris 8 min 14 sec ago
Can you also imagine refusing to answer police questions on the matter and then when you went to court pleading guilty to a serious criminal...
- Bungle_52 17 min 35 sec ago
I am afraid you won't be able to stop close passes but you can play your part in trying to hold drivers to account which may reduce the problem in...
- Hirsute 15 min 43 sec ago
I made a complaint within an hour of the story being published. I have zero faith that they will amend anything....
- chrisonabike 33 min 53 sec ago
Especially children, near a school, one might imagine? By a bus driver driving children to school?...
- chrisonabike 37 min 32 sec ago
TBF I think that's before she saw the light and got on her bike. Not so great if her views have been informed by Mr. Briggs though.
- Saracen888 1 hour 16 min ago
That's a great price. Just bear in mind Import duty and handling charges will be applied pre delivery.
- Griff500 2 hours 38 min ago
Yep, I appreciate your problem. I wouldn't buy a bike without at least sitting on the same frame configuration on a trainer in the shop, something...
- Secret_squirrel 3 hours 52 min ago
One less thing to clutter up your jersey pockets no? Though difficult to retrieve in a hurry...
- David9694 4 hours 44 min ago
was it one of these? https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202411246675771?
Add new comment
81 comments
Cannot agree more.
On a side note, I've decided to travel myself to the olympic park recently and found the whole route quite dangerous. I wrote an account of my experience here: http://montonero.co.uk/cycling-to-the-greenest-olympics-ever
But nothing new there, really: lack of infrastructure is appalling.
NB First has contract for public bus shuttles but buses from far & wide and drivers from all bus operators contracted to First.
I cycled along Eastway past the Media centre and the whole road layout there has been compromised to accommodate the media centre traffic. Eastway was 1-way with contra flow cycling but I think canal bridge not suitable for coaches & buses, so they have had to create 2-way with narrow lanes to get out.
Stagecoach does have the contract for Games Family coaches/buses, so it is likely to be Stagecoach driver if not Stagecoach bus/coach.
The description is of the 180 degree full lock hairpin turn to join the A12 Westbound - the Junction is East of where the A12 turns South to join A102(M)there is a VERY confusing junction arrangement with 2 Games lanes which suddenly appear as you cycle East on Eastway, a direction originally contra-flow to all motorised traffic, but a seriously compromised arrangement has been put in place to get the intensive flow of coaches 7 buses through the media centre/games family 'bus station' and car park access at this point.
To head straight on safely here you should be cycling in the offside Games lane and the nearside lane was I think (but not clearly) signed for the left turn on to the A12.
Should really get a camera so I could have recorded my route through. On Eastbound pass I think I had to make coach driver turning right (up same slip road from other direction) aware of my presence with theoretical priority to go forwards here.
Only picture I took was the daft bollard - too busy staying alive perhaps to take pictures of road layout - and if I had been I'd probably have been chased as a terrorist.
Shall we press charges against Brad and his kids for riding helmetless during his recent celebrations?
Crass, stupid comments from Wiggins.
Why on Earth did Wiggins have to say that? That poor bloke was crushed under a bus and Bradley has to mention helmets?
Utterly terrifying account from the witness. Well done for trying to comfort the victim. I'm not sure I would be the composed.
Such a sad thing to happen.
It's the culture he's grown up in - blame the victim.
A helmet won't stop you getting crushed by a bus! Better driver training, better enforcement and, most importantly, a sea change in drivers' attitudes towards vulnerable road users. THAT is what Bradley should be arguing for.
It has been demonstrated (among other things) that helmet compulsion doesn't work and that wearers may indulge in risk compensation.
Did a helmet 'save' this cyclist? No.
From this article by Joe Dunckley.
Very sad story on the day of a triumph.Eyewitness account isnt a contempt as there are no proceedings yet and no one can guess the outcome.Very useful reminder not to pass inside heavy vehicles at junctions,and for all drivers to check their mirrors.
Would have been handy for Brad to say that cyclists and traffic need to be separated by barriers but I guess he was doing his best on the spot to protect cycling from criticism.
There's two ways to look at Wiggo's comments.
1) Common sense - Cycling can be dangerous and cyclists should do everything to keep themselves safe including the use of lights in the dark (which is mandatory), high-vis clothing and wearing safety gear like helmets. Once we do everything to keep ourselves safe then the responsibility is on motorists etc.
2) Damaging 'the cause' - Making helmets compulsary would re-enforce the image of cycling as dangerous and put people off riding, likewise if motorists see a cyclist in a helmet they may feel that they can pass closer and generally not worry as much about safety.
Putting aside the fact that cycling is dangerous in London I still think that Wiggins has a common sense point. Helmet's can help keep you safe, why wouldn't you wear one?
gosh, you still haven't figured that one out? Right. How about: the same reason you don't wear a helmet when walking or driving?
There's still a risk of head injury when walking or driving as well, a helmet may keep you safe then. You don't wear one because the perceived disadvantages of inconvenience, cost, discomfort and looking silly outweigh the perceived safety advantage. My perception includes placing a great deal of importance on the convenience of cycling short journeys (vastly lessened if I have to cart bike stuff around after arriving), looking normal, and being suspicious of the safety benefits, so on short journeys I don't.
What's hard to understand about that? You might not agree, but surely you can understand that the decision is not based on a binary thought process. Why don't you wear elbow pads? Full motorcycle leathers? They could help...
Firstly, calm the f#*k down, secondly, you're wrong.
You cycle along busy roads surrounded by traffic, if you're driving you're in a vehicle which has to be extensively crash tested and pass certain safety tests to ensure that if you are involved in ANY kind of collision you are safe. Amongst other things there are airbags within cars to lessen the impact of a crash and people in cars are legally obliged to wear seatbelts. Basically, every precaution has to be taken BY LAW to ensure the safety of those in the car. The use of any and all reasonable precaution's to protect the driver is enshrined in law, your point of 'oh let's make drivers wear helmets just in case' is pointless and you're extending a sensible argument to absurd levels because it's suits your 'helmets are the devil' stance.
Again, you're entirely missing the point, the reason helmets are not worn while driving is that there are sufficient other protections in place. Adding a helmet would not improve the safety of the driver in any way because of all the other elements. And before you even say it, this does not apply to cyclists are there are very limited (or no) other protections in place to protect them in the instance of a cyclist/vehicle accident.
Furthermore, the risk of a vehicle on pedestrian collision is low due to the safety measures in place (pedestrian crossings, bridges over motorways, subways etc) which mean that every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure that no pedestrian needs to come into contact with a car at speed.
Yes, they could help and if someone wants to wear them then they should. The argument about helmets though is that the most severe (and easily protected) injuries are generally head injuries. A helment won't protect you if you get dragged under a bus but if you get knocked off and hit a wall/car/lamp post/floor head first it will protect you from the worst of the damage. Brain injuries can also be the longest lasting and in some cases are permanent. Convenience is something you value highly, that's fair enough, I value my life and my ability to function more so I wear a helmet.
Helmets really do not help in collisions with third parties. They are not designed to and they simply don't so please don't trot out the myth that a substantial part of your injury would be prevented. They will protect you in low speed accidents not involving another vehicle. Compulsory use of helmets in other countries has not saved lives it has only reduced bicycle use and thereby increased the bigger health risks associated with a less active lifestyle
Despite all your infrastructure that protects pedestrians there are still a couple of thousand killed every year by motor vehicles. In fact 200 are killed on the pavements alone. Compulsory pedestrian helmet use would help in many of these cases. After all being a pedestrian is not a high energy sport and a more substantial helmet could easily be worn, no real need for air vents for example.
I'm just going to let the colossal stupidity of that statement stand for itself. Your definition of 'sufficient' is different from mine and neither of us have a completely objective basis for deciding 'sufficient', but one of us is too imbecilic to understand that. Please understand I don't call someone an imbecile lightly, even on the internet, so that's quite an honour you've won.
Now watch me win this argument by going down a waterslide.
.
Can you provide evidence to prove that?
Helmets do not "keep you safe", nor do they provide any kind of protection in oblique, rotational, or even linear impacts. It is merely the illusion of safety they provide.
I am slightly concerned that this thread includes a witness statement which may prejudice any fair investigation of this incident. Were a trial be in progress then I imagine that this would count as contempt of court and make the owners of this site liable to criminal prosecution.
I suggest you remove it and stick to reportable basic facts.
Hi Andy
Until there are any criminal charges there is nothing to worry about re. contempt of court.
Sarah, you are wrong.
Criminal proceedings become active as soon as someone has been arrested (which the driver has) and reporting restrictions then apply.
This witness statement if read by a witness could be considered as prejudicial to that witnesses testament to the incident.
BBC News report this morning showed a clip of Wiggins being asked about the incident and whether he thought it was safe to ride around London.
He respondend by stating that he thinks helmet wearing should be compulsary under law and that use of iPod's/phones while cycling made illegal.
Expect the Daily Fail to jump on this now that Wiggins has got involved even though from the sound of it the poor cyclist in question was dragged under the bus and a helmet would probably have made little difference.
He respondend by stating that he thinks helmet wearing should be compulsary under law and that use of iPod's/phones while cycling made illegal.
Gosh, that tarnishes my opinion of Wiggo. Then again, I love him for his legs, not his brains.
Thoughts with the family at this time. RIP
Stagecoach are doing most of the team and media buses. So I'm guessing that would be right.
Sad story, just heard Lineker reading it out, declared dead on the scene around 7.45
Pages