London's killer roundabout claims another cyclist as woman dies at Bow

They don't fail me; CS2 is fundamentally broken West from Bow. Some of the huge expanse of road and pavement should be dedicated to cycling, before more people die. When Boris said he was going to “go Dutch”, that is what I thought he meant — now
I expect him to finally follow through and implement it.

Ironically the new kerb separating cyclists from traffic on the approach to the flyover Westbound makes it much harder to merge. I am not a slow cyclist (very proud of my Eastbound KOM), but I don't like that manoeuvre much.

I'll cycle with my family on the new East (Stratford side of the roundabout) bit of CS2, but no way on the roundabout or the Bow — Mile End section. As for Whitechapel/Aldgate… emphatically no. It is not as if there isn't enough space to do it properly, there just isn't the political will. Boris Johnson wouldn't commute like that, and he would surely not let his family either.

Neil753 wrote:

Actually, the BBC didn't report that, "a female cyclist in her mid-20s has died after being hit by a lorry at London's Bow roundabout this morning". What this BBC article actually said was that, "a cyclist has been killed in a crash with a lorry".

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Do you sense a pattern here? You've only got to search the BBC archives and this becomes even more noticeable. Even cyclists who are hit from behind, or even stationary, are described as colliding with, or in collision with, the vehicle.

Sure, once the driver goes to court, the vehicle is described as hitting the cyclist but, in the initial reports before the true facts are known, the BBC do seem to have a propensity to report that it is the cyclist who is doing the colliding.

I think it could be highly prejudicial to report that the driver of a lorry crashed into a cyclist when the actual circumstances are unknown. For that reason, the only description that I object to, of the ones you cited, is the "crashing into" one. That definitely seems to suggest that the cyclist is more to blame.

I think it is wise and fair for a news organisation to impartially report the facts, as known at the time. Accounts from shocked eyewitnesses can be notoriously misleading.

Unless we are prepared to demolish London and start again, it is never going to be Amsterdam or Copenhagen. After 20+ years, I have just about given up on cycling as a means of transportation in London. Leisure only from now on.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

Actually, the BBC didn't report that, "a female cyclist in her mid-20s has died after being hit by a lorry at London's Bow roundabout this morning". What this BBC article actually said was that, "a cyclist has been killed in a crash with a lorry".

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Do you sense a pattern here? You've only got to search the BBC archives and this becomes even more noticeable. Even cyclists who are hit from behind, or even stationary, are described as colliding with, or in collision with, the vehicle.

Sure, once the driver goes to court, the vehicle is described as hitting the cyclist but, in the initial reports before the true facts are known, the BBC do seem to have a propensity to report that it is the cyclist who is doing the colliding.

I think it could be highly prejudicial to report that the driver of a lorry crashed into a cyclist when the actual circumstances are unknown. For that reason, the only description that I object to, of the ones you cited, is the "crashing into" one. That definitely seems to suggest that the cyclist is more to blame.

I think it is wise and fair for a news organisation to impartially report the facts, as known at the time. Accounts from shocked eyewitnesses can be notoriously misleading.

Unless we are prepared to demolish London and start again, it is never going to be Amsterdam or Copenhagen. After 20+ years, I have just about given up on cycling as a means of transportation in London. Leisure only from now on.

I agree with you. Reporting a vehicle crashing or coliding with a cyclist would be equally as wrong, and certainly not what I'm suggesting.

What I'm pointing out is the consistent bias in the BBC's reporting (check their archive if you don't believe me). It's virtually impossible to find any instance of a vehicle colliding with, or crashing into, a cyclist, unless they're reporting on a case that has been through court. It's all the intitial reports that I'm talking about, ie the one's where the facts are not yet known.

Neil753 wrote:

I agree with you. Reporting a vehicle crashing or coliding with a cyclist would be equally as wrong, and certainly not what I'm suggesting.

What I'm pointing out is the consistent bias in the BBC's reporting (check their archive if you don't believe me). It's virtually impossible to find any instance of a vehicle colliding with, or crashing into, a cyclist, unless they're reporting on a case that has been through court. It's all the intitial reports that I'm talking about, ie the one's where the facts are not yet known.

I don't have a problem with the word collision. It takes two to collide and the correct usage shouldn't imply fault on either side. "Crash into" is definitely loaded and suggests the blame lies with the crasher and should be avoided at all costs until the facts have been established.

Maybe the headline is usually reported as "Cyclist seriously injured in collision with tipper truck..." because the injured cyclist is the most important information and should come first?

The other way round doesn't really work for me.

PS. I really appreciate your contributions to this forum, Neil. You talk a lot of sense and I very much admire your ability to remain calm even when provoked by some of the less even-tempered members who post here. Cheers.

Neil753 wrote:

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Agreed.

The Beeb constantly gives the impression that the cyclist was the active participant and the HGV was the passive.

That isn't impartial reporting.

Neil753 wrote:

Actually, the BBC didn't report that, "a female cyclist in her mid-20s has died after being hit by a lorry at London's Bow roundabout this morning". What this BBC article actually said was that, "a cyclist has been killed in a crash with a lorry".

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Do you sense a pattern here? You've only got to search the BBC archives and this becomes even more noticeable. Even cyclists who are hit from behind, or even stationary, are described as colliding with, or in collision with, the vehicle.

Sure, once the driver goes to court, the vehicle is described as hitting the cyclist but, in the initial reports before the true facts are known, the BBC do seem to have a propensity to report that it is the cyclist who is doing the colliding.

I pointed out something very similar somewhere else the onus is alway son the cyclist who just happened to ride under the wheels of a lorry.

I don't know if it comes from them trying to be 'unbiased' in their reporting or whether they are bound by law to write what the Police reported at the scene?

William Black wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

Actually, the BBC didn't report that, "a female cyclist in her mid-20s has died after being hit by a lorry at London's Bow roundabout this morning". What this BBC article actually said was that, "a cyclist has been killed in a crash with a lorry".

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Do you sense a pattern here? You've only got to search the BBC archives and this becomes even more noticeable. Even cyclists who are hit from behind, or even stationary, are described as colliding with, or in collision with, the vehicle.

Sure, once the driver goes to court, the vehicle is described as hitting the cyclist but, in the initial reports before the true facts are known, the BBC do seem to have a propensity to report that it is the cyclist who is doing the colliding.

I pointed out something very similar somewhere else the onus is alway son the cyclist who just happened to ride under the wheels of a lorry.

I don't know if it comes from them trying to be 'unbiased' in their reporting or whether they are bound by law to write what the Police reported at the scene?

It's a legal thing. If charges are about to be or have been laid then biased reporting could prejudice a subsequent trial. That's why the format is to say "x was in collision with" rather than "y hit x". If it has been widely reported that y hit x then y could, quite reasonably, claim that a fair trial would be impossible because of the biased reporting. No newspaper or media outlet would traditionally have wanted to be sued for contempt. Frustrating for a cyclist, I know, but that's why it's couched in such a way.

Meaulnes wrote:

It's a legal thing. If charges are about to be or have been laid then biased reporting could prejudice a subsequent trial. That's why the format is to say "x was in collision with" rather than "y hit x". If it has been widely reported that y hit x then y could, quite reasonably, claim that a fair trial would be impossible because of the biased reporting. No newspaper or media outlet would traditionally have wanted to be sued for contempt. Frustrating for a cyclist, I know, but that's why it's couched in such a way.

Exactly but when its written "cyclist collided with a lorry" that intimates a degree of fault, if the BBC (insert any news channel here) wrote "cyclist was involved in a road traffic accident with a lorry" that might balance the issue, I just wonder who is supplying the information. The trouble is there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of consistency across the board.

The trouble to me is that instead of seeing the tragedy of some bloke dying his daughters not having a dad a mum losing a son, a brother losing his best friend it's brought down to a cyclist VS a vehicle. A cyclist is not a "vehicle" it is not "involved in a collision" it's a human being being hit by over one of metal... I still can't understand that when some people get behind a wheel they seem to see a person on bicycle as just another car rather than some very very real flesh and bones which break very easily.

Some roadie rider once wore a skin suit which was just flesh and bones...i'd love to track that kit down and ride it I wonder if it would make the general public think about the damage a car would do to a person.

William Black wrote:

Some roadie rider once wore a skin suit which was just flesh and bones...i'd love to track that kit down and ride it I wonder if it would make the general public think about the damage a car would do to a person.

It was Mario Cipollini, as shown here: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2001/may01/giro1/AFPcipo_muscle_su...

It could work. Research from the university of bath a few years ago showed dressing as a woman, and wearing a wig of long female hair and no helmet made drivers give the rider a wider berth too... I'll leave that to you though. Sadly that didn't work for the victims in London recently.

Meaulnes wrote:

William Black wrote:

Neil753 wrote:

Actually, the BBC didn't report that, "a female cyclist in her mid-20s has died after being hit by a lorry at London's Bow roundabout this morning". What this BBC article actually said was that, "a cyclist has been killed in a crash with a lorry".

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Do you sense a pattern here? You've only got to search the BBC archives and this becomes even more noticeable. Even cyclists who are hit from behind, or even stationary, are described as colliding with, or in collision with, the vehicle.

Sure, once the driver goes to court, the vehicle is described as hitting the cyclist but, in the initial reports before the true facts are known, the BBC do seem to have a propensity to report that it is the cyclist who is doing the colliding.

I pointed out something very similar somewhere else the onus is alway son the cyclist who just happened to ride under the wheels of a lorry.

I don't know if it comes from them trying to be 'unbiased' in their reporting or whether they are bound by law to write what the Police reported at the scene?

It's a legal thing. If charges are about to be or have been laid then biased reporting could prejudice a subsequent trial. That's why the format is to say "x was in collision with" rather than "y hit x". If it has been widely reported that y hit x then y could, quite reasonably, claim that a fair trial would be impossible because of the biased reporting. No newspaper or media outlet would traditionally have wanted to be sued for contempt. Frustrating for a cyclist, I know, but that's why it's couched in such a way.

if a cyclist crashed into a lorry they wouldnt be dead, they would simply bump it (maybe quite hard!) and fall on the floor, getting grazed knees/elbows/hands and maybe a bump on the head!

lorry/motor vehicle crashing into cyclist - thats completely different. thats when the cyclist goes under the wheels and ends up dead

Neil753 wrote:

What this BBC article actually said was that, "a cyclist has been killed in a crash with a lorry".

Is it just me, or do other cyclists feel that the BBC seems keen to report cylists as being in a crash with, crashing into, in collision with, or colliding with, a vehicle?

In the very same piece, the BBC reports other recent incidents, thus:

"a male cyclist suffered life threatening injuries after in a crash with a lorry"

"a cyclist in his 40s died after a crash with a bus"

"a cyclist died after a collision with a tipper lorry"

Do you sense a pattern here? You've only got to search the BBC archives and this becomes even more noticeable. Even cyclists who are hit from behind, or even stationary, are described as colliding with, or in collision with, the vehicle.

It's just you. They're talking from the point of view of the cyclist because that's what the article is about. A crash or collision has taken place and the cyclist has died, therefore "a cyclist has died after a collision/crash with a lorry" is correct. If the lorry driver had been injured and the article was about him, it would be "a lorry driver has died after being in a collision with a cyclist", it's got absolutely nothing to do with blame and the BBC would be wrong to even speculate on blame.

I think most of these collisions have happened in daylight and clear conditions, so while I wouldn't dream of riding without lights at this time of year, I wouldn't say that it's always going to be a deciding factor - a picture of one chap's mangled bike yesterday showed clearly that he had lights on.

brackley88 wrote:

Terrible news.

Interesting to consider why so many in the last week, some thoughts:

1) a sudden surge in cycling - doubt it
2) a sudden surge in large vehicles - doubt it
3) a change in road rules - not that I know
4) a change in cycling behaviour - unlikely
5) a change in visibility - aha....I wonder. Things have just got darker and wetter, both of which can reduce visibility. I would think that low down lights are harder to see for a large vehicle driver than a head in daylight which will be perhaps 2 feet higher up....purely conjecture, but worth considering.

What does this tell me:

1) Make sure all our lights are working
2) Wear hi-viz and reflective clothing
3) ...and most importantly, be even more careful and warry of big vehicles in the dark

What do others think?

I don't really agree about the visibility. This crash in this case was around 9:00am which would mean daylight visibility. It could be that low sunshine blinded the cyclist or driver.

The shocking incident in Croydon was mid-day, so there would be no question of visibility.

And the architect got hit in the evening - which means that this would fit your causality, but it is hardly shows any trend for the time of die.

Statistics can sort of lie with these sorts of things. Just because they happen close together does not mean the streets of London are any more dangerous, it is rather the case that this unfortunate incidents happen so close together.

Perhaps the only link is that these people seem to have used cycling to commute. I wonder if they used their bike for more diverse purposes they may have put themselves out of harms way (i.e. made themselves more experienced).

In my experience riding in London is all about knowing what is going on around you and making sure you don't put yourself in a silly position. In all of these cases it should be noted that the drivers are not reported to have been driving noticeably recklessly. There is some evidence that the cyclists were, perhaps, not in the best positions.

Better infrastructure will help, but we need to get people educated asap as unless someone here has a spare billion sitting in their pants to change London's roads.

Agree with your comments that stats can lie and this may be a coincidence; a tragic coincidence. Also agree it's a lot about riding in the 'right way' to stay safe. Good points re: these specific accidents and their time of day. That said, I would be really interested to see research that made a full open minded analysis of accidents:

- time
- weather and light conditions
- vehicles involved
- type of cyclist
- position of cyclist in road/ road situation etc

..etc...

Would be very interesting to understand the pattern to inform further changes in infrastructure, vehicle rules and training, cyclist training.

...my only other 'what has changed point' is:

1) Low bright light. I have become very aware the last few weeks how having a bright low sun right behind me makes me more vulnerable. It's part oft he visibility point and another thing to be aware of when cycling defensively.

Nonetheless, all your points on infrastructure are well made. But whatever changes are made people are still going to be hurt, and we should continue to analyse the causes and consider what other interventions can help keep us all safe.

Safe riding everyone!

Yes, we should definitely keep an open mind on the causes. I imagine a report into the causes and of the death with be written up in a coroners report, and only then can we truly reflect on the reasons.

Someone above was lamenting about the 'lack' of a response on these deaths. The fact is nothing meaningful can be done until a considered report on them has been done. You only end up making rash decisions about perceived causes…..which does no one any good.

The latest death (today) was the result of an accident at 23:30, again, no particular correlation with the time of day and none with the place it happened.

If I were to pre-empt anything, it would be that we need to improve cycle safety on the streets of London by educating riders. Though the problem is that many will not do so because they don't feel the need to, and I can understand that. Since passing my cycling proficiency aged 9 I haven't done any road safety education in a formal sense.

brackley88 wrote:

Terrible news.

Interesting to consider why so many in the last week, some thoughts:

1) a sudden surge in cycling - doubt it
2) a sudden surge in large vehicles - doubt it
3) a change in road rules - not that I know
4) a change in cycling behaviour - unlikely
5) a change in visibility - aha....I wonder. Things have just got darker and wetter, both of which can reduce visibility. I would think that low down lights are harder to see for a large vehicle driver than a head in daylight which will be perhaps 2 feet higher up....purely conjecture, but worth considering.

What does this tell me:

1) Make sure all our lights are working
2) Wear hi-viz and reflective clothing
3) ...and most importantly, be even more careful and warry of big vehicles in the dark

What do others think?

You've hit three good nails on the head. I don't want to bang on about hi-viz cos I've got three broken spokes to sort out at the moment, but what you're saying is good advice for everyone at this time of year.