Driver of HGV that killed Sebastian Lukomski found guilty & sentenced
Buffalo Bill
Terence Mark Fallows, driver of the HGV that killed London bicycle
messenger & LBMA member Sebastian Lukomski, today pleaded guilty of
driving without due care & attention.
He received a sentence of 6 endorsement points on his driving license.
A total of 12 points results in disqualification. In addition, he was
fined £1000 and ordered to pay £230 costs.
More details to follow.
---
Buffalo Bill, Chair, London Bicycle Messenger Association
Upcoming events check www.londonmessengers.org
Latest on the LBMA's campaign to get HGVs to stop killing cyclists see
http://www.londonmessengers.org/hgv.html
Buffalo Bill
London Bicycle Messenger Association & Brixton C.C.
Fat Lad
Life seems cheap in teh smoke.
--
Fat Lad
Just zis Guy, you know?
Bill) wrote:
>He received a sentence of 6 endorsement points on his driving license.
>A total of 12 points results in disqualification. In addition, he was
>fined £1000 and ordered to pay £230 costs.
Nice to know the driver won't be inconvenienced in any way as a result
of his behaviour. Gives you a lovely warm feeling, doesn't it?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Paul - xxx
> A total of 12 points results in disqualification.
Not necessarily. I was driving for a while with 20 points, all separate
offences, but 'got away' with the totting up disqualification twice ... ;)
My licence is once again clean.
--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
The Oldfellow
> 22nd November, City of London Magistrates Court
>
> Terence Mark Fallows, driver of the HGV that killed London bicycle
> messenger & LBMA member Sebastian Lukomski, today pleaded guilty of
> driving without due care & attention.
>
> He received a sentence of 6 endorsement points on his driving license.
> A total of 12 points results in disqualification. In addition, he was
> fined £1000 and ordered to pay £230 costs.
>
> More details to follow.
and was imprisoned for how long? Save lives, kill judges.
R.
Buffalo Bill
> 22nd November, City of London Magistrates Court
>
> Terence Mark Fallows, driver of the HGV that killed London bicycle
> messenger & LBMA member Sebastian Lukomski, today pleaded guilty of
> driving without due care & attention.
>
> He received a sentence of 6 endorsement points on his driving license.
> A total of 12 points results in disqualification. In addition, he was
> fined £1000 and ordered to pay £230 costs.
>
> More details to follow.
>
> ---
>
22nd November 2004, City of London Magistrates Court.
I had arrived expecting a 2 day trial. As I sat down at the back of the
court with Seb's dad, brother & best friend, I could see a uniformed police
officer fiddling with a laptop. The screen of the laptop showed cctv
footage. I guessed that it was cctv footage of the collision that killed
Seb.
The footage on that laptop, and the diligence of the policeman who was
fiddling with it, PC John Sudbury, Senior Collision Investigator of the City
of London Police, led to Terence Mark Fallows changing his plea of 'not
guilty' to the charge of driving without due care and attention to 'guilty'.
So the Crown's version of events, and the witnesses, 6 civil & 3 police, was
not challenged by the defence.
The sequence of events as put by the Crown's barrister (lawyer) was as
follows. At 0855 on 23rd February 2004, Fallows, driving Scania 32 tonne
Large Goods Vehicle reg mark X418 NHJ, stopped at a red light (she called it
'an automatic traffic signal') westbound on Upper Thames Street, at the
junction with Queen Street Place. He was signalling left, and continued to
signal left up all the way through his subsequent left turn. Shortly after
this, Sebastian filtered up on the left, and stopped behind the stop line,
on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on the lorry.
Just in front, and possibly preventing Seb from moving out in front of the
lorry is a motorbike. Seb was stationary alongside Fallows' LGV for a
period of no less than 10 seconds. Then the lights changed.
Fallows said in a statement that he looked in his nearside mirrors but saw
nothing. The motorbike pulled away, and Fallows moved off and started to
turn left. Seb also pulled away, and apparently tried to go straight ahead
(according to a statement from his controller at Anderson Young) when he
realised that the lorry was going to collide with him. At this point he
appeared to put his arm up again to fend off the lorry, and the lorry driver
reported that he had heard a shout, other witnesses said it could have been
'no' or 'stop'. There is a collision, and Seb was killed almost instantly.
(I turned down the opportunity to view the cctv footage and I'm not going
into more detail here.)
Fallows realised that he had run something over and stopped. The emergency
services are called and Seb is pronounced dead at the scene of the
collision.
After hearing the Crown's version, the defending barrister made what is
called a plea of mitigation. This was less than entirely coherent, and
amounted to 'it happens all the time'. The Crown handed up Fallows' driving
license, and it turns out that he has a previous conviction for driving
without due care & attention, for which he received 7 points and £500 fine.
It may be that the magistrates were given more detail on this conviction
when they retired to consider their sentence; I can't say.
After 30 mins, the magistrates (1 female, 2 male, all over 45, if not 50
years of age) return to pronounce sentence. The presiding magistrate, Mr
Morrison, describes the collision as 'a tragic accident', caused by 'a
momentary lapse', having checked the mirrors but failed to notice the
cyclist. However, he said that Fallows was a professional driver on a busy
road on which he knew there to be motorcyclists and cyclists.
Against that, he said, 'the cyclist contributed to the accident by cycling
up inside of vehicle signalling left, and continued straight on.'
He then passed a sentence of 6 endorsement points, £1000 fine & £230 costs.
In my view, and I'm sure the majority of people reading this account, the
sentence is not adequate. A ban of at least a year, the obligation to be
retested before driving again and a much heavier fine would have satisfied
me. All of these options were open to magistrates. They obviously didn't
think that not looking in the mirrors is all that serious. In another 5
years, the points will be off, and Fallows can do it again without losing
his license.
The only consolation is that Fallows no longer drives and lives in Mallorca.
Credit where credit is due: the CPS handled the case competently, and PC
Sudbury's handling of the blind spot claim (the defence had been preparing
an expert witness backed defence that there was a blind spot - this has
worked before in the RMC/Barlow case) with the cctv evidence led directly to
the defence changing its plea 10 minutes before the case was heard.
What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
Clive George
news:e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com...
> Bi...@LondonMessengers.org (Buffalo Bill) wrote in message
news:<e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com>...
> The sequence of events as put by the Crown's barrister (lawyer) was as
> follows. At 0855 on 23rd February 2004, Fallows, driving Scania 32 tonne
> Large Goods Vehicle reg mark X418 NHJ, stopped at a red light (she called
it
> 'an automatic traffic signal') westbound on Upper Thames Street, at the
> junction with Queen Street Place. He was signalling left, and continued
to
> signal left up all the way through his subsequent left turn. Shortly
after
> this, Sebastian filtered up on the left, and stopped behind the stop line,
> on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on the lorry.
...
> What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
What will it take to get the message across to even experienced cyclists
that the inside of a left turning lorry is a lethal place to be?
If the events as detailed by the Crown are accurate, then Sebastian was a
complete and utter fuckwit.
clive
David Martin
George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Absolutely.
Lesson 1 of riding in traffic (I grew up cycling in London and rode there
year in year out for 14 years before moving abroad. So I do have more than a
modicum of experience)
NEVER stop alongside another vehicle in the same lane. ALWAYS be in the
middle of the lane, in front or behind other vehicles.
It was a stupid mistake to make, a very costly mistake. But I think in this
case the penalty is appropriate, if not a little harsh. Had the HGV not been
signalling and then turned, it would have been a different matter, but to
deliberately stop on the left side of a lorry signalling to turn left
beggars belief, especially as he would have been below the mirrors and
possibly in the blind spot.
..d
..d
Mitch Haley
> <snip lengthy details>
If I understand it correctly, the lorry driver was stopped at a
red light, signaling a left turn, when the cyclist came up from
behind and tried to pass him on the left and go straight?
Sounds like suicide to me.
Under UK law, the lorry driver is at fault for not suspecting
that someone might pass him on the left while he was signaling
a left turn?
If you changed "left" to "right", you would get a fairly common
cause of cyclist injury in the USA. Here, the truck (lorry) driver
must simply claim that the cyclist, not the driver, was making the
improper pass. The impropriety of the pass is not in question,
so the only argument is whether the cyclist is overtaking
the truck or vice versa. When a motor vehicle overtakes a
cyclist on the left while turning right, we call it a
'right hook'. When a cyclist passes a right signaling motor
vehicle on the right, we call it natural selection.
Mitch.
Nick Kew
Bi...@LondonMessengers.org (Buffalo Bill) writes:
> The sequence of events as put by the Crown's barrister (lawyer) was as
> follows. At 0855 on 23rd February 2004, Fallows, driving Scania 32 tonne
> Large Goods Vehicle reg mark X418 NHJ, stopped at a red light (she called it
> 'an automatic traffic signal') westbound on Upper Thames Street, at the
> junction with Queen Street Place. He was signalling left, and continued to
> signal left up all the way through his subsequent left turn. Shortly after
> this, Sebastian filtered up on the left, and stopped behind the stop line,
> on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on the lorry.
Seems to me that in this instance the cyclist was *more* at fault than
the HGV driver, and that the charge and penalty were indeed at least
relatively appropriate.
That's in sharp contrast to the other current cyclist-killed story,
on this newsgroup, where the motorist was, by his own admission, at
serious fault twice over.
> Credit where credit is due: the CPS handled the case competently, and PC
Is this coincidence, or evidence of higher standards being applied to
HGVs than to private cars?
--
Nick Kew
Richard
<snip description of tragic incident>
At this junction, are there railings at the edge of the pavement which
would have prevented the cyclist from bailing out sideways?
R.
Paul - xxx
> At 0855 on 23rd February 2004, Fallows, driving Scania 32 tonne
> Large Goods Vehicle reg mark X418 NHJ, stopped at a red light (she called
> it 'an automatic traffic signal') westbound on Upper Thames Street, at the
> junction with Queen Street Place. He was signalling left, and continued
> to signal left up all the way through his subsequent left turn.
Sounds fine to me.
> Shortly after this, Sebastian filtered up on the left, and stopped behind
> the
> stop line, on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on the
> lorry.
Oh dear .. Maybe he was not being observant enough and didn't see the
lorries indicators, but which every other witness appears to agree were on
throughout the duration of events. Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.
> Against that, he said, 'the cyclist contributed to the accident by cycling
> up inside of vehicle signalling left, and continued straight on.'
Precisely.
> They obviously didn't
> think that not looking in the mirrors is all that serious.
But you just said that he did look in his mirrors. The cyclist not being
visible in the mirrors is an entirely different thing.
> What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
But you said he did look in his mirrors. What will it take to stop cyclists
filtering when lorries are already signalling to turn left?
Sincere Condolences to the family of the deceased, but it seems to me that
the Lorry Driver acted quite responsibly, stopping as soon as he knew
something was wrong. Unfortunately, the cyclist didn't act responsibly. To
continue filtering then stopping next to the lorry waiting to turn sounds
incredibly stupid and naive, or simply foolhardy, to me. The cyclist
unfortunately paid the ultimate price for his lack of judgment, or
recklessness.
GeoffC
>
> Credit where credit is due: the CPS handled the case competently, and
> PC
> Sudbury's handling of the blind spot claim (the defence had been
> preparing
> an expert witness backed defence that there was a blind spot - this
> has
> worked before in the RMC/Barlow case) with the cctv evidence led
> directly to
> the defence changing its plea 10 minutes before the case was heard.
>
> What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
>
Maybe a mirror that actually covers that area?
http://www.dobli.com/talen/english.html
--
Geoff
Just zis Guy, you know?
Bill) wrote:
>What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
Overly simplistic. Have you ever driven a goods vehicle? The
restricted visibility of goods vehicles is no secret, and the possible
outcome of riding up the inside of goods vehicles - turning or not -
is also well documented.
There is also this: if you cannot make eye contact with the driver
then the driver cannot see you. A bike messenger should be doubly
aware of this. NEVER stop alongside a goods vehicle, and NEVER ride
up the inside of one unless you are absolutely certain you can get out
in front before it starts moving. And even then don't. In fact, just
don't even think about it.
As to leaning on the side of a left-turning truck - well, words fail
me. This sounds like a clipped-in fixie rider not wanting to stop and
put a foot down, using the truck as a leaning post. If that is not
the case then I apologise to his memory, but if it was the case the
coroner should have recorded a verdict of suicide.
Colin Blackburn
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
>>was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.
>
>
> the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
> mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
> were did the driver use them?
Most HGVs are fitted with three mirrors, I'm not sure what the
legislation is regarding additional mirrors. One is long distance, one
is close and one points downwards from the door. Even with these three
there is reportedly a blind spot. The father of a woman killed in a
similar case to the above made a film as part of his campaign to have
HGVs barred from central London. I think the film is available on some
website (and was probably mentioned here a year or two ago.)
Colin
JLB
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>
>>was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.
>
>
> the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
> mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
> were did the driver use them?
>
>
that the driver saw the cyclist and still drove over him, which is going
further than anyone else so far in trying to suggest it was the driver's
fault.
I am not aware of any amount of mirrors that can give the driver of a
HGV a comprehensive view of all areas around the vehicle. Even if extra
mirrors were fitted, they would be there to assist the driver, not to
provide an excuse for a cyclist to try getting through any gap close by
the lorry's left side, while the lorry indicated a left turn. As these
events show, that is an extremely dangerous manoeuvre.
I'm surprised to find that on this occasion I find it difficult to see
why the court was as hard as it was on the driver. Perhaps the CCTV,
which apparently persuaded the driver to plead guilty, gave a different
perspective to the one conveyed by the write-up posted here.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
Velvet
I think I'd have to agree with those who say the cyclist seems to have
brought this very much upon himself (sad indeed).
However, the CCTV may have shown the driver did not look properly in his
mirrors, and thus whether he would have seen the cyclist or not is a
moot point - and as such, the driver may have decided since he did not
quite do absolutely everything in his power to ensure there wasn't a
cyclist beside him when he started making the turn, that he should plead
guilty.
It may just be that the driver, instead of being the stereotypical tw*t
behind the wheel, is utterly guilt-ridden that if only he had looked
*better* in his mirrors, *perhaps* he would have seen the cyclist - even
if in actual fact the cyclist was slap bang in a blind spot.
There are some people who will always question whether they did
everything they could have in such a situation, and will put their hands
up and say they should have done it differently, instead of insisting
they did everything and being blind to the fact that they didn't do enough.
--
Velvet
Paul - xxx
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>> was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.
>
> the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
> mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
> were did the driver use them?
What would be any different if the lorry had them?
There are still blind spots on a lorry no matter what they're fitted with.
If it was fitted with them it is still highly likely that the driver, as was
reported, could have checked the mirrors and still wouldn't have been able
to see a cyclist 'hanging on' to the side of the lorry.
Buffalo Bill
>
>
> As to leaning on the side of a left-turning truck - well, words fail
> me. This sounds like a clipped-in fixie rider not wanting to stop and
> put a foot down, using the truck as a leaning post. If that is not
> the case then I apologise to his memory, but if it was the case the
> coroner should have recorded a verdict of suicide.
>
> Guy
Seb rode a freewheel. The coroner will open the inquest tomorrow.
Buffalo Bill
> ...
> > What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
>
> What will it take to get the message across to even experienced cyclists
> that the inside of a left turning lorry is a lethal place to be?
>
> If the events as detailed by the Crown are accurate, then Sebastian was a
> complete and utter fuckwit.
>
Cheers. I'll make sure to pass that on to his family.
I agree that lorries kill which is why we (the London Bicycle
Messenger Assoc.) have been trying to raise awareness of the danger
from lorries.
Buffalo Bill
> At this junction, are there railings at the edge of the pavement which
> would have prevented the cyclist from bailing out sideways?
>
> R.
No.
Buffalo Bill
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
> >was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.
>
> the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
> mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
> were did the driver use them?
The police evidence proved that whilst there may have been a blind
spot, Seb was not in it, and was visible in the mirrors. The driver
claims to have used them, but failed to see Seb, hence pleaded guilty
to driving without due care & attention.
Buffalo Bill
>
> Is this coincidence, or evidence of higher standards being applied to
> HGVs than to private cars?
I'm not sure. But given that if you are a cyclist killed in London,
it is very likely (40%) that it will be a lorry that kills you, I
think it's appropriate.
Clive George
news:e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com...
news:<30gmukF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > ...
> > > What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?
> >
> > What will it take to get the message across to even experienced cyclists
> > that the inside of a left turning lorry is a lethal place to be?
> >
> > If the events as detailed by the Crown are accurate, then Sebastian was
a
> > complete and utter fuckwit.
> >
>
> Cheers. I'll make sure to pass that on to his family.
Ok, in what way do you think that he wasn't being completely stupid then?
It is very sad that he paid the price for that stupidity with his life, but
that doesn't somehow make any contribution he made to the situation
irrelevant.
We're talking about people getting killed unnecessarily here. Denying the
facts to protect people's feelings isn't going to help others learn from
this.
You should be saying "Sebastian was a complete fuckwit for being there, and
so is anybody else who does the same".
[all this is provided that the events detailed by the Crown are accurate]
clive
soup
said
> Buffalo Bill vaguely muttered something like ...
> > behind the
> > stop line, on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on
> > the lorry.
WHY? I believe in assertive riding but leaning on an HGV
strikes me as asking for trouble
> But you said he did look in his mirrors. What will it take to stop
> cyclists filtering when lorries are already signalling to turn left?
Brother drives a "gully" (gutter) sweeping motor and it has two
rear ward facing mirrors one too take in general traffic movement
behind him and one that is angled in such a way as to "see" the side
of his lorry and a third one which "looks" straight down so he can
actually observe where his brushes are and as such he has no blind
spots can other HGVs not be fitted with the same sort of system ?
Wouldn't imagine it was that expensive to have a "third" mirror
fitted certainly cheaper than having a wagon and driver of the
road as they had a court appearance.
> Sincere Condolences to the family of the deceased, but it seems to me
> that the Lorry Driver acted quite responsibly, stopping as soon as he
> knew something was wrong. Unfortunately, the cyclist didn't act
> responsibly. To continue filtering then stopping next to the lorry
> waiting to turn sounds incredibly stupid and naive, or simply
> foolhardy, to me. The cyclist unfortunately paid the ultimate price
> for his lack of judgment, or recklessness.
--
yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione
JohnB
I hope that that includes advice that to filter up the inside of a lorry
is just plain suicidal.
Do members of the LBMA take any form of cycle training?
Perhaps it should be compulsory before becoming a member?
John B
the.Mark
Use a car.
--
Mark
1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.
James Annan
I sometimes wonder if my cycling is a bit on the risky side - I run red
lights when they are clear, hop on a couple of bits of pavement
(although that is specifically to _avoid_ a couple of rather nasty right
turn junctions, on roads where basically evey other cyclist is already
using the pavement). I even "undertake" traffic queues. But I cannot
recall ever doing anything anywhere near as stupid as stopping on the LH
side of a lorry that I knew to be turning left. If I don't know I can
get right up to the front and beyond, I wait behind it (in fact I often
wait behind the front vehicle in the queue and fit in the gap behind it
- this seems to be a reliable way of ensuring a space and that no-one
can turn on top of you).
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Tim Woodall
Just zis Guy, you know? <norfolk...@dev.null> wrote:
> As to leaning on the side of a left-turning truck - well, words fail
> me. This sounds like a clipped-in fixie rider not wanting to stop and
> put a foot down, using the truck as a leaning post. If that is not
> the case then I apologise to his memory, but if it was the case the
> coroner should have recorded a verdict of suicide.
>
lights. Given that I assume they are reasonably aware of the length of
their vehicles, I can only assume that they seriously misjudge the speed
of cyclists.
I don't know anything about this case but I've had 40+ foot left
indicating lorries overtake me where it would be impossible for me to
stop behind the lorry. I ride well out from the curb which generally
means that if there is room for the lorry to cut me off then I've got
time to brake hard and pass on the other side. But only last week I was
catching up with a slower cyclist who literally got trapped up the side
of a lorry (not left turning) because the lorry overtook and cut in when
the cyclist was less than the lorry length from the lights (that cyclist
just went up onto the pavement and around the front of the lorry and
back onto the road)
Only today I had a bus driver try to overtake me about two bus lengths
from a bus stop. It hadn't occurred to me that the bus (that I could
hear) was intending to stop at the bus stop that I was approaching at
20-25mph (guess) and I had assumed it wasn't stopping until I saw it's
indicators. It hadn't got a chance of making it without deliberately
hitting me and yet the driver still tried before he realised he hadn't
got a chance.
I've also once had a bus driver "overtake" and "stop" at a bus stop and
open his doors while I'm still on the inside of the bus.
There was a strong head wind and so I was cycling much slower than I
usually do - normally I think I would be going too fast to allow busses
to actually stop and open their doors. It's quite a bizarre feeling when
you have stopped because people are about to step off a bus in front of
you and the people won't step of the bus because they've seen you
cycling along and assume you are going to run them down. I would guess
the delay to the bus because people were hesitant getting off was at
least as long as the delay the bus would have suffered waiting for me to
struggle past the bus stop.
Tim.
Rich
"Buffalo Bill" <Bi...@LondonMessengers.org> wrote in message
>
> follows. At 0855 on 23rd February 2004, Fallows, driving Scania 32 tonne
> Large Goods Vehicle reg mark X418 NHJ, stopped at a red light (she called
> it
> 'an automatic traffic signal') westbound on Upper Thames Street, at the
> junction with Queen Street Place. He was signalling left, and continued
> to
> signal left up all the way through his subsequent left turn. Shortly
> after
> this, Sebastian filtered up on the left, and stopped behind the stop line,
> on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on the lorry.
>
> Just in front, and possibly preventing Seb from moving out in front of the
> lorry is a motorbike.
I can only echo the sympathy expressed by so many other people, but wish to
raise a point which no-one else seems to have picked up on: Sebastian's
forward movement appears to have been blocked by a motorcycle. No excuses
for riding inside of a vehicle indicating left, but he may have thought that
he could get in front of it before the lights changed, only to find his path
blocked by the motorcycle.
I'm not familiar with the junction, so I don't know if there was an ASL or
feeder lane, but a v common problem, in Bristol at least, is for
motorcyclists to use the ASLs and feeder lanes. There have been instances
when I have been unable to access the ASL because it is full of motorcycles
and the feeder lane has been blocked by motorcycles. This may be more
prevalent in Bristol as the LA, with no consultation with cyclists, allowed
motorcycles into bus lanes.
Buffalo Bill
> I'm surprised to find that on this occasion I find it difficult to see
> why the court was as hard as it was on the driver. Perhaps the CCTV,
> which apparently persuaded the driver to plead guilty, gave a different
> perspective to the one conveyed by the write-up posted here.
The cctv footage proved that Seb was visible in Fallows mirrors, not
in the so-called 'blind spot'. The Senior Collision Investigator was
able to prove this because he had made a detailed examination of
vehicle, in particular the angle of vision provided by the mirrors.
Therefore the cctv showed that Seb was visible because it showed where
Seb was in relation to the lorry
Jon Senior
> Brother drives a "gully" (gutter) sweeping motor and it has two
> rear ward facing mirrors one too take in general traffic movement
> behind him and one that is angled in such a way as to "see" the side
> of his lorry and a third one which "looks" straight down so he can
> actually observe where his brushes are and as such he has no blind
> spots can other HGVs not be fitted with the same sort of system ?
> Wouldn't imagine it was that expensive to have a "third" mirror
> fitted certainly cheaper than having a wagon and driver of the
> road as they had a court appearance.
A common arrangement on a number of large vehicles that I've seen.
Jon Senior
> What would be any different if the lorry had them?
>
> There are still blind spots on a lorry no matter what they're fitted with.
> If it was fitted with them it is still highly likely that the driver, as was
> reported, could have checked the mirrors and still wouldn't have been able
> to see a cyclist 'hanging on' to the side of the lorry.
Your lorry may vary! When I first drove a 7.5T truck, I had the person
who was supervising me walk around the vehicle while I watched in the
mirrors. There was only one real blind spot (Other than immediately
behind the truck!), and someone would have to try very hard to fit
themselves and a bike into it.
That is not a good reason to filter up the left hand side of a
stationary lorry, indicating left, right or otherwise!
Jon
Buffalo Bill
> There are some people who will always question whether they did
> everything they could have in such a situation, and will put their hands
> up and say they should have done it differently, instead of insisting
> they did everything and being blind to the fact that they didn't do enough.
The driver wasn't shown the cctv footage. He changed his plea after
his brief was shown the footage. The brief asked for a delay, then
when out of court to talk to his client, and when they came back in,
Fallows changed his plea. His brief would have advised him that his
defence, which was that Seb was in the blind spot (apparently located
by the insurance company specialist who managed to get the Barlow
driver off - a former policeman), would not stand up to Crown
evidence.
Buffalo Bill
>
> I hope that that includes advice that to filter up the inside of a lorry
> is just plain suicidal.
> Do members of the LBMA take any form of cycle training?
> Perhaps it should be compulsory before becoming a member?
>
I have covered these deaths in this past and have given advice about
lorries (they kill - stay away from them) often. Since Seb's death we
have included specific advice about passing on the left. In the year
before Seb's death we twice went to all 6 spots where London bicycle
messengers have been killed by lorries, and we passed a resolution at
our October 2003 General Meeting to take action to reduce the fatal
threat from lorries to cyclists.
We are currently talking to TfL about a range of actions, one of which
is training for bicycle messengers.
some of of the details are here:
http://www.londonmessengers.org/hgv.html
thanks for your kind words
David Hansen
<J...@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>> While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
>> the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
>> mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
>> were did the driver use them?
>>
>To ask that last question you seem to be considering the possibility
>that the driver saw the cyclist and still drove over him,
Not when I typed my earlier posting. However, now that you have
raised it one must consider all possibilities.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
James Annan
> I can only echo the sympathy expressed by so many other people, but wish to
> raise a point which no-one else seems to have picked up on: Sebastian's
> forward movement appears to have been blocked by a motorcycle. No excuses
> for riding inside of a vehicle indicating left, but he may have thought that
> he could get in front of it before the lights changed, only to find his path
> blocked by the motorcycle.
I certainly noticed that, but it would have to be a very tight gap
indeed for me to not squeeze beside the motorbike, which must in any
case have been visible when Sebastian started his undertake.
JLB
> Rich wrote:
>
>
>> I can only echo the sympathy expressed by so many other people, but
>> wish to raise a point which no-one else seems to have picked up on:
>> Sebastian's forward movement appears to have been blocked by a
>> motorcycle. No excuses for riding inside of a vehicle indicating
>> left, but he may have thought that he could get in front of it before
>> the lights changed, only to find his path blocked by the motorcycle.
>
>
> I certainly noticed that, but it would have to be a very tight gap
> indeed for me to not squeeze beside the motorbike, which must in any
> case have been visible when Sebastian started his undertake.
Also, he was not helping himself at all by holding onto the lorry. If he
had found himself unexpectedly unable to exit and recognised his
vulnerability at all, he still had options at this point that he did not
take.
David Hansen
<notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
>was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.
While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
were did the driver use them?
Tony Raven
>
> I can only echo the sympathy expressed by so many other people, but wish to
> raise a point which no-one else seems to have picked up on: Sebastian's
> forward movement appears to have been blocked by a motorcycle. No excuses
> for riding inside of a vehicle indicating left, but he may have thought that
> he could get in front of it before the lights changed, only to find his path
> blocked by the motorcycle.
>
I suspect that's a red herring. There was at least a strip as wide as
the gap between the truck and the pavement clear at the front or he
would have seen the motorbike sitting in it blocking his way before he
started down the side of the truck. If it was wide enough for him to
cycle down it was wide enough for him to cycle into the gap in front.
Unless he either saw and ignored or didn't notice the motorbike blocking
his way or he decided to stop alongside the truck because it provided
something to lean on without unclipping. Just my $0.02
Tony
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
>raise a point which no-one else seems to have picked up on: Sebastian's
>forward movement appears to have been blocked by a motorcycle. No excuses
>for riding inside of a vehicle indicating left, but he may have thought that
>he could get in front of it before the lights changed, only to find his path
>blocked by the motorcycle.
It is incredibly sad that this cyclist was killed. However, it is a very
graphic illustration of whey a cyclist should never, but never go up the inside
of a vehilce at a LH turn... it's a basic no-no for the simple reason it's one
of the easiest ways to get yourself killed :-(
My condolences to the family of the cyclist killed, but I cannot blame the
driver of the HGV for this one on the description of circumstances as given
here.
helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
Velvet
Interesting.
I've done a LOT of miles the last two days, and been taking more notice
than normal of lorries wing mirrors.
An awful lot of them still only have one 'normal' mirror on each side,
which leaves a LOT of blind spot. Then again, having loads of mirrors
is only any use if a) they're adjusted properly, and b) they're actually
looked in.
Now, what strikes me, is that Sebastian was on the left of the lorry,
and presumably it was a standard UK lorry, with driver sat on the right.
I'm also assuming it was a bigger variety of lorry, rather than a
small sub-7.5er or something (though they can be just as dangerous).
Now, either lorry had full compliment of all mirrors (inc the one that
shows you more of down the side, and also the area/kerb by the door) or
Seb still could well have been in a blind spot.
Neither of us'll know I guess, since that's only something that would be
shown on the cctv footage - seb's position being critical as to if he
was in a blind spot or not, even if the lorry had both a full compliment
of mirrors covering the entire area said mirrors need to have been
correctly adjusted to avoid blind spots remaining.
I still tend to think that while the accident may have been avoidable
(hence driver changing to guilty plea) seb should have known that
sitting at the side of a left-turning lorry was asking for trouble,
unless he was absolutely sure the lorry driver knew he was there. I can
see how, if he was blocked from entering the AST, a situation like this
could have happened, but I do agree it is courting fate to filter up the
side of a lorry turning left in this situation.
It sounds like you are doing all you can to spread the word about the
dangers in this sort of situation. Terrible though it is,
seeing/hearing of an incident like this can sometimes drive home the
point of just how deadly it can be to those who might otherwise think it
only happens to other people and never them.
Me, I've seen a car driver fail to read the situation correctly and
assume the lorry who they were following had mis-applied indicators, and
that they would be able to nip up the left hand side (which was a
filter-left-lane) and turn left. Lorry, who pulled over to the right
hand lane (but still with wheels in the left lane) and was indicating
left, at a tight left turn junction with traffic lights (which were all
green for both filter and straight on).
It was obvious the lorry needed the extra space to make the turn. It
seems the car had no idea how much space an artic needs - nor how fast
the space can vanish when they start the turn. Car ended up squashed
between barriers (which gave) and lorry (which stopped before too much
damage was done to occupants of car).
Now, I know the lorry used his mirrors, because I was behind him
(heading for straight on) and watched him use them. I knew he was
turning left. Car came up from behind me. Credit to the lorry, he
didn't just use the mirrors the once, but several times, and was being
very careful about what he was doing. It takes next to no time for a
car to bomb up the inside of a lorry when the lorry's going that slowly
though, and once the cab starts turning, the blind spots are a whole lot
bigger.
Me, I don't filter up the side of any queues. Between doors and turning
vehicles, it doesn't seem worth the potential hassle/danger, to be
honest. I've seen too many people change their mind about where they're
going just as the lights change, and forget there's cyclists there
(*how* do people have such short attention spans?) cos cyclists are
small and easily missed when your brain is programmed for looking for
cars-upwards sized things.
--
Velvet
Tony Raven
>
> I've done a LOT of miles the last two days, and been taking more notice
> than normal of lorries wing mirrors.
>
> An awful lot of them still only have one 'normal' mirror on each side,
> which leaves a LOT of blind spot. Then again, having loads of mirrors
> is only any use if a) they're adjusted properly, and b) they're actually
> looked in.
>
A not quite correct rule of thumb that errs on the safe side is that if
you cannot see the lorry driver in one of his mirrors, he cannot see you.
Tony
Velvet
Indeed, and is one I use regularly. If I look in HIS mirror and see him
looking at ME, then I assume he has seen me. If I just see him, but
he's not looking at his mirror, then it's a case of I'll do whatever I'm
doing (usually overtaking) but with one eye on him and his lorry, and
with an escape route in case he suddenly does something unexpected.
This skill was learnt in my car, I have to say. Not on a bike. If I'd
not driven a car as much as I have, I doubt I'd have realised this is a
necessary precaution.
--
Velvet
Clive George
> This skill was learnt in my car, I have to say. Not on a bike. If I'd
> not driven a car as much as I have, I doubt I'd have realised this is a
> necessary precaution.
I tend to learn things the other way round - bike skills transfer to car.
Obviously I was biking first, and I spend more time cycling than driving, so
this probably isn't entirely surprising.
cheers,
clive
Velvet
Thinking about it, it's probably whatever-you-learn-first will have
skills you'll transfer to the later mode of transport :-)
In my case, cycling on the road came a very long time after driving a
car on the road, though actually learning to ride a bike happened a long
time before the car...
You don't learn to mingle with other traffic if the parents only let you
ride the bike on the pavement of a very quiet cul-de-sac road :-(
--
Velvet
James Annan
A better one (that errs ever so slightly more on the safe side) is
that even if you can see him in the mirrors, he won't be using them
:-)
James
Buffalo Bill
> Now, what strikes me, is that Sebastian was on the left of the lorry,
> and presumably it was a standard UK lorry, with driver sat on the right.
> I'm also assuming it was a bigger variety of lorry, rather than a
> small sub-7.5er or something (though they can be just as dangerous).
> Now, either lorry had full compliment of all mirrors (inc the one that
> shows you more of down the side, and also the area/kerb by the door) or
> Seb still could well have been in a blind spot.
>
> Neither of us'll know I guess,
No. We DO know that Seb was visible in Fallows' mirrors because the
Senior Collision Investigator proved it beyond doubt in court, using
the details of the examination of the vehicle that was made after the
accident, and the cctv footage.
Who are you, Fallows' insurance company loss adjuster?
Dave Larrington
[details snipped]
Coincidentally, I walked past this junction on the way back to the Nut Mines
from Thee Pubbe last night. Has the layout been changed since this incident
took place?. There's a cycle lane leading up to an ASL at the lights which,
if it /was/ there at the time of the incident, begs the questions:
a. how come the cyclist wasn't able to get ahead of the wagon, and
b. what the fsck was a motorcycle doing there?
I'd be interested in knowing whether the VW showroom on the inside of the
junction was plastered with scffolding back then as well. The points where
the scaffolding rests on the ground are boxed in with sturdy wooden
structures, which /would/ prevent a cyclist from escaping onto the pavement.
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
Buffalo Bill
> Buffalo Bill wrote:
>
> [details snipped]
>
> Coincidentally, I walked past this junction on the way back to the Nut Mines
> from Thee Pubbe last night. Has the layout been changed since this incident
> took place?. There's a cycle lane leading up to an ASL at the lights which,
> if it /was/ there at the time of the incident, begs the questions:
>
> a. how come the cyclist wasn't able to get ahead of the wagon, and
> b. what the fsck was a motorcycle doing there?
>
> I'd be interested in knowing whether the VW showroom on the inside of the
> junction was plastered with scffolding back then as well. The points where
> the scaffolding rests on the ground are boxed in with sturdy wooden
> structures, which /would/ prevent a cyclist from escaping onto the pavement.
The layout of the junction has been changed, the bike lane & the ASL
have been added since Seb was killed.
The VW showroom did not have scaff all over it, and there was other
obstacles on the pavement.
I have no idea what the m/c was doing there, apart from waiting for
the lights to change.
Those of you that subscribe to the 'Seb was a complete fuckwit' school
of thought might like to check this out:
Clive George
>
> Those of you that subscribe to the 'Seb was a complete fuckwit' school
> of thought might like to check this out:
>
> http://www.londoncyclecouriers.com/Sebastian.html
Yup, done so. Hasn't changed my opinion one bit.
Look, you're taking this the wrong way. It's very important that you realise
the mistake he made was incredibly stupid, hence the strong language. It's
important that other people know of what he did, and that it was an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
It's vital that people don't just blame the lorry driver, or bad luck - as a
rider, you can't influence these, but what you can do is avoid getting in
the situation in the first place.
It's sad that he died, yes, but that doesn't change the way it happened.
I know you say you're spreading the word - but denying that he made an
incredibly stupid mistake is not spreading that vital bit of knowledge.
clive
Gonzalez
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Buffalo Bill" <Bi...@LondonMessengers.org> wrote in message
>news:e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Those of you that subscribe to the 'Seb was a complete fuckwit' school
>> of thought might like to check this out:
>>
>> http://www.londoncyclecouriers.com/Sebastian.html
>
>Yup, done so. Hasn't changed my opinion one bit.
The truck driver has a responsibility to make sure that all is clear
before manoeuvering. Seb by no means carried the sole responsibility
for his death to his grave.
Clive George
news:dh4fq0tgrct13qhj0...@4ax.com...
Maybe not sole, but since we have known for years (yes, I mean that - it
isn't exactly recent knowledge) that lorries turning left are bad places to
be, what was Seb doing there? He made an incredibly stupid mistake.
Analogy : Armed robber turns up. Do you a) rely on him not actually using
the gun, because in real life he knows he shouldn't, or b) take as much
avoiding action as possible, in the assumption that he will try and shoot
you.
Seb chose a). It cost him his life. I do not want to see this happen to
others. I want everybody to know that what he did was monumentally stupid,
in an effort to prevent others trying to do the same.
This doesn't excuse the lorry driver from not checking mirrors. But killing
ourselves under their wheels is not the way to persuade them to start
looking - it may work, one driver at a time, but it's a somewhat wasteful
tactic.
clive
James Annan
> Those of you that subscribe to the 'Seb was a complete fuckwit' school
> of thought might like to check this out:
>
> http://www.londoncyclecouriers.com/Sebastian.html
I don't think anyone was saying "Seb was a complete fuckwit", but many
people were pointing out that, according to the evidence, that
particular manouvre he pulled was incredibly stupid and dangerous.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Annan) wrote in message
<c96ea403.04112...@posting.google.com>:
>A better one (that errs ever so slightly more on the safe side) is
>that even if you can see him in the mirrors, he won't be using them
>:-)
Funny you should say that. I was waiting behind a lorry in a traffic
queue today, rather than sitting alongside him, and the driver looked
at me in his mirror, wound down his window, stuck his head and arm out
and beckoned me round. He waited until I was past before starting
off. I gave him a cheery thumbs up and shouted thanks as I went past.
Top man!
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Just zis Guy, you know?
Bill) wrote in message
<e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com>:
>Those of you that subscribe to the 'Seb was a complete fuckwit' school
>of thought might like to check this out:
Was he a fuckwit? I never said so. Did he do a stupid thing?
Absolutely. Left-hooks from goods vehicles are the number one cause
of cyclist fatalities in London, and he *must* have known that.
Clive George
news:30pqdsF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Buffalo Bill wrote:
>
>
> > Those of you that subscribe to the 'Seb was a complete fuckwit' school
> > of thought might like to check this out:
> >
> > http://www.londoncyclecouriers.com/Sebastian.html
>
> I don't think anyone was saying "Seb was a complete fuckwit", but many
> people were pointing out that, according to the evidence, that
> particular manouvre he pulled was incredibly stupid and dangerous.
Actually I used almost those very words, but they did refer to the manouvre
he did. I could rephrase it as 'at that point Seb was being a complete
fuckwit' but since he messed up on what appears to have been the most
important decision in his sadly curtailed life it's hard not to generalise.
cheers,
clive
James Annan
Oh yes, I see what you mean. "Was in life, generally", vs "was being at
that time".
Hate the sinner, not the sin, or something like that.
Clive George
> > Actually I used almost those very words, but they did refer to the
manouvre
> > he did. I could rephrase it as 'at that point Seb was being a complete
> > fuckwit' but since he messed up on what appears to have been the most
> > important decision in his sadly curtailed life it's hard not to
generalise.
>
> Oh yes, I see what you mean. "Was in life, generally", vs "was being at
> that time".
>
> Hate the sinner, not the sin, or something like that.
Just in case there remains any confusion, I was talking about the specific
incident, not life in general up to that point.
cheers,
clive
James Annan
> Just in case there remains any confusion
Oh yes, I forgot it was x-posted to r.b.s. Sorry to all confused readers
for the lack of smileys and footnotes[1].
Velvet
Har bloody har.
No, I'm a cyclist and a driver, and was offering some thoughts on the
whole thing from my perspective.
I'm sorry, but your posting came across as wishing the driver had got a
much more severe penalty than he did, which is at odds with my views on
the situation as described.
It *is* foolish indeed to cycle up the inside of a lorry as seb did, and
to be perfectly blunt, if Seb was aware the lorry was turning left
(indicators lit on the lorry, after all), why the hell did he stay where
he was, leaning against the lorry? It's well known not everyone checks
their mirrors like they should, why didn't he scramble off and on to the
pavement rather than stay there, leaning against it? It beggars belief,
quite frankly.
Happily enough, I don't need convincing such behaviour around a large
lorry is foolhardy. It seems unfortunately others still need the
education. That education won't be accomplished if the view is taken
that the whole fault is that of the lorry drivers. Cyclists can do a
lot to keep themselves safe, and putting themselves where Seb did is NOT
safe.
You obviously have the advantage of having more facts at your disposal
than I on this. I'm just offering some ideas on the possibilities.
That in itself may provide food for thought for cyclists and drivers
here, and accomplish an increase in safety for all concerned.
--
Velvet
Buffalo Bill
> Look, you're taking this the wrong way. It's very important that you realise
> the mistake he made was incredibly stupid, hence the strong language. It's
> important that other people know of what he did, and that it was an
> incredibly stupid thing to do.
> It's vital that people don't just blame the lorry driver, or bad luck - as a
> rider, you can't influence these, but what you can do is avoid getting in
> the situation in the first place.
>
> It's sad that he died, yes, but that doesn't change the way it happened.
>
> I know you say you're spreading the word - but denying that he made an
> incredibly stupid mistake is not spreading that vital bit of knowledge.
Look mate, I already said what we were doing, and what I have done
personally in terms of advising people about the dangers of passing
lorries on the left. I don't see how adding to what the magistrate
said in summing up (which I thought was fair) before the sentence
(which I thought was not fair) is going to add to people's knowledge
one way or another. The lesson is clear without people saying
unhelpful stuff : oh what an idiot, it was suicide etc etc. He did
what he did and now he's dead.
I would also point out that I am using my real name on this list, not
hiding behind a mickey mouse email address, and that I have been
reasonably polite to you despite the fact that you have twice been
unnecessarily and grossly offensive about someone's whose family I was
with earlier on in the week in the most trying of circumstances ie
watching their son/brother dying on cctv.
Clive George
news:e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com...
news:<30pdk1F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > Look, you're taking this the wrong way. It's very important that you
realise
> > the mistake he made was incredibly stupid, hence the strong language.
It's
> > important that other people know of what he did, and that it was an
> > incredibly stupid thing to do.
> > It's vital that people don't just blame the lorry driver, or bad luck -
as a
> > rider, you can't influence these, but what you can do is avoid getting
in
> > the situation in the first place.
> >
> > It's sad that he died, yes, but that doesn't change the way it happened.
> >
> > I know you say you're spreading the word - but denying that he made an
> > incredibly stupid mistake is not spreading that vital bit of knowledge.
>
> Look mate, I already said what we were doing, and what I have done
> personally in terms of advising people about the dangers of passing
> lorries on the left. I don't see how adding to what the magistrate
> said in summing up (which I thought was fair) before the sentence
> (which I thought was not fair) is going to add to people's knowledge
> one way or another. The lesson is clear without people saying
> unhelpful stuff : oh what an idiot, it was suicide etc etc. He did
> what he did and now he's dead.
No, you miss the point. This mistake has killed more than just Sebastian.
The lesson is apparently not clear enough. People need to be aware of what
he did wrong. I want this lesson rammed down people's throats so they don't
forget. I want them to realise how completely and utterly stupid he was
being - not 'he made a mistake', but 'he made a completely fuckwitted
mistake that you should be embarassed to even think about'.
It is _not_ unhelpful to say 'oh what an idiot'. It's pretty much entirely
why he died.
It is grossly irresponsible to deny that he was being an idiot - which is
what you appear to be doing.
> I would also point out that I am using my real name on this list, not
> hiding behind a mickey mouse email address
Giggle. Mr and Mrs Bill named their son Buffalo? I'm the one using my real
name, not you. Fwiw my email address as posted has been real in the past -
obviously I spam trap for use here. If you want my real mail address, ask -
but do give a reason.
> and that I have been
> reasonably polite to you despite the fact that you have twice been
> unnecessarily and grossly offensive about someone's whose family I was
> with earlier on in the week in the most trying of circumstances ie
> watching their son/brother dying on cctv.
I'm also being polite. I'm being a lot more polite than my anger at his
needless death is tempting me to be.
I dont think I'm being unnecessarily or grossly offensive about this. I'm
not the one trying to understate the magnitude of his error.
If I was trying to say something to his family it would be about his life -
celebrate the positive bits. But don't pretend that the way he died was
anything other than stupid.
I've just been to your website. It's a start. But what I want to see there
at the top in 50pt bright red text is "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GOING UP THE
LEFT SIDE OF LORRIES - SEBASTIAN DIED DOING THIS AND YOU WILL BE NEXT".
FFS look at the death toll on that very page. People just aren't getting the
message - you need to shout AN AWFUL LOT LOUDER THAN YOU ARE DOING NOW.
Your campaign to ban HGVs is admirable - but that's not enough. At best, it
will take years to happen - that's more than 10 more DEAD PEOPLE. I expect
nothing will come of it - that's even more. (worst case is they say 'yes,
they can't mix', and ban bikes).
So even with this campaign, you should be SHOUTING the message out that
dying in the way that Sebastian did is the mark of a complete fuckwit.
(I'm not hopeful. The next death will come in a couple of months time. And
again, and again. Like so many things, people will get away with this
behaviour enough times that they believe it is safe - or a risk worth
taking. So they'll carry on doing it, and a small proportion will carry on
dying.)
clive
Gonzalez
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>No, you miss the point. This mistake has killed more than just Sebastian.
>The lesson is apparently not clear enough. People need to be aware of what
>he did wrong. I want this lesson rammed down people's throats so they don't
>forget. I want them to realise how completely and utterly stupid he was
>being - not 'he made a mistake', but 'he made a completely fuckwitted
>mistake that you should be embarassed to even think about'.
I suspect "Buffalo Bill" is doing a lot more than you are to keep
cyclists informed of the dangers of undertaking a left turning lorry.
I may be mistaken, and if I am, please enlighten.
Simon Brooke
('cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk') wrote:
>> Look mate, I already said what we were doing, and what I have done
>> personally in terms of advising people about the dangers of passing
>> lorries on the left. I don't see how adding to what the magistrate
>> said in summing up (which I thought was fair) before the sentence
>> (which I thought was not fair) is going to add to people's knowledge
>> one way or another. The lesson is clear without people saying
>> unhelpful stuff : oh what an idiot, it was suicide etc etc. He did
>> what he did and now he's dead.
>
> No, you miss the point. This mistake has killed more than just
> Sebastian. The lesson is apparently not clear enough. People need to
> be aware of what he did wrong. I want this lesson rammed down people's
> throats so they don't forget. I want them to realise how completely
> and utterly stupid he was being - not 'he made a mistake', but 'he
> made a completely fuckwitted mistake that you should be embarassed to
> even think about'.
>
> It is not unhelpful to say 'oh what an idiot'. It's pretty much
> entirely why he died.
Errr... guys, calm down. You're both (at least partly) right and I'd be
surprised if you really disagree that much.
People make stupid mistakes every day. Usually we get away with them. If
Sebastian had not made a stupid mistake he would not be dead. But
Sebastian was not the only person who made a stupid mistake that day.
The driver of the wagon also made a stupid mistake. It's the
combination of those mistakes which is '...pretty much entirely why he
died...', not either mistake in isolation.
When considering the culpability of those mistakes, consider this:
Sebastian's mistake endangered no-one but himself, and I am very much
of the opinion that people have a right to knowingly put themselves in
danger. The Wagon driver's mistake did not put himself in danger, but
it did put other people (specifically Sebastian) in danger. I think we
have to expect a much higher degree of care and responsibility from
people who are in charge of deadly machinery than people who are not.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
'graveyards are full of indispensable people'
Clive George
news:e3dd2687.04112...@posting.google.com...
> I accept that it was in part a failure, as we had started to campaign
> on the issue before Seb died, and obviously Seb didn't take the
> information in, as he did not act on it on that day
>
> I'm sorry that you feel my efforts were inadequate. I can only assure
> that I care more about this single issue than anything else that I do.
> I have devoted considerable resources, personal and those of the LBMA
> to it, gathering information & trying to work out an effective
> strategy, given that I am only one person, and the LBMA had an income
> of less than £1000 this year.
>
>
> And what are you doing on this issue, apart from calling dead
> messengers 'complete fuckwits'?
Hooray, I think we're getting somewhere.
Mostly I'm getting angry and posting on newsgroups. My initial posting
deliberately used strong language, as I wanted to make it clear to everybody
who read it that his mistake was quite as stupid as it was.
My suggestion as to what to do with your website wasn't in jest. I think you
campaign should be bigger and stronger than it currently is. I also worry
that you're concentrating your effort on trying to ban lorries - I think you
need to have the cyclist education side of things separate from this, and
also be ready for nobody to listen to you wrt a ban.
[much as I respect the profession of cycle-courier, I realise that you're
not the most popular of groups in the city, and consequently almost
certainly lack political clout.]
The only idea I have is for a pile of leaflets for people to carry around
and give to people they seem making that mistake. Something strong - eg
pictures of people who died doing this, and a short phrase saying something
like 'These people died doing what you just did. Don't join them' + an
explanation on the back in more normal print.
I'm afraid I'm not in a useful position to help, living as I do in the
dales, quite a long way from the city. I'll be spreading the word - but I
don't meet many other riders in Real Life.
FWIW I don't think he deserved to die, even slightly, no matter what the
magnitude of his error.
cheers,
clive
Buffalo Bill
>
> If I was trying to say something to his family it would be about his life -
> celebrate the positive bits. But don't pretend that the way he died was
> anything other than stupid.
They already had that explained to them by the investigating officer
and the magistrate. I don't think they could have any doubt about it.
I certainly do not disagree with what the magistrate said: 'the
cyclist contributed to the accident by cycling up inside of vehicle
signalling left, and continued straight on.'
> I've just been to your website. It's a start. But what I want to see there
> at the top in 50pt bright red text is "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GOING UP THE
> LEFT SIDE OF LORRIES - SEBASTIAN DIED DOING THIS AND YOU WILL BE NEXT".
> FFS look at the death toll on that very page. People just aren't getting the
> message - you need to shout AN AWFUL LOT LOUDER THAN YOU ARE DOING NOW.
>
So distributing fliers to messengers with the names and circumstances
of all 6/7 dead london messengers on 4 different occasions, painting
their names on the road 3 times, first in yellow paint, and then in
red paint, in letters 1 foot high, on top of all the other stuff on
the website wasn't effort enough on mine and the LBMA part?
Buffalo Bill
> Mostly I'm getting angry and posting on newsgroups.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not in a useful position to help,
>
> FWIW I don't think he deserved to die, even slightly, no matter what the
> magnitude of his error.
Hmm.
As to what you suggest with respect to literature, the tone & style
can be debated, but we (the LBMA) have already been distributing
literature which includes advice about not passing lorries on the
left. TfL have distributed something that was aimed at cyclists and
lorry drivers.
But more needs to be done, without question. To get access to bigger
budgets we (the LBMA) have engaged with TfL, but not everything that
seems like a good idea will work. Training for couriers, for
instance, is a good idea, but what will the take up be if it is
voluntary? Making it mandatory would mean regulation of the entire
industry, which would hugely expensive and would be resisted by the
owners.
Jeremy Parker
"Buffalo Bill" <Bi...@LondonMessengers.org> wrote
[snip]
> But more needs to be done, without question. To get access to
bigger
> budgets we (the LBMA) have engaged with TfL, but not everything
that
> seems like a good idea will work. Training for couriers, for
> instance, is a good idea, but what will the take up be if it is
> voluntary? Making it mandatory would mean regulation of the entire
> industry, which would hugely expensive and would be resisted by the
> owners.
What's the opinion among cycle couriers of the various books:
Franklin's "Cyclecraft", Forester's "Effective Cycling", Allen's
"Street Smarts", Glowacz's "Urban Bikers' Tricks and Tips", and so
forth?
When TfL started their anti lorry-left-hook campaign, I was shocked
by how many cycling officers seemed surprised by the news about the
hazard. I'm also rather cynical about the reaction of London's road
safety officers. After TfL started invading their territory, they
have developed a rival poster, and stuff, not as good as TfL's, in my
opinion, but have no budget for getting the material distributed.
Ignorance is very widespread, so you can't call people who don't know
about the hazard idiots. However, the laws of nature are like the
laws of Great Britain. Ignorance of the law does not exempt you from
punishment.
Regarding training, we can see what has happened at the Post Office.
People have been telling the Post Office for several years that the
Health and Safety Reg's meant that they should give posties training.
What has the PO's reaction been? No training at all, just helmet
compulsion.
If you have a black enough sense of humour, I suppose the whole thing
is pretty funny.
Jeremy Parker
Buffalo Bill
> Regarding training, we can see what has happened at the Post Office.
> People have been telling the Post Office for several years that the
> Health and Safety Reg's meant that they should give posties training.
> What has the PO's reaction been? No training at all, just helmet
> compulsion.
Yes, the precedents are not great. However, there has been some talk
of offering police cycle training to messengers. That would be
interesting and it would be worthwhile, not least from the point of
view of breaking down social barriers ('scoff laws' meeting
'copsicles') , but as I said above, the difficulty is in trying to get
a decent take up.
The post office example is mirrored by working practices at San
Francisco messenger companies, where helmets have been mandatory for
some years. This was entirely brought about by the insurance
companies that provide SF messengers companies with Workers Comp, the
US version of Statutory Sick Pay.
Buffalo Bill
> Franklin's "Cyclecraft", Forester's "Effective Cycling", Allen's
> "Street Smarts", Glowacz's "Urban Bikers' Tricks and Tips", and so
> forth?
>
I skimmed 'Effective Cycling'. As I read it once I had quit being a
messenger (4th quit after 14 years messengering) I found it
interesting but not useful. I would be surprised if more than 10% of
the messenger population in London had undergone ANY sort of training
(I'm including reading a book about cycling as well as formal
training) at all, even though some are now trainers working for Cycle
Training. Which is not to say that most messengers are bad cyclists,
although there are some very bad cyclists who are messengers.
Seb wasn't one of the crazy guys, and always kept a tidy, clean bike.
Mitch Haley
>
> The post office example is mirrored by working practices at San
> Francisco messenger companies, where helmets have been mandatory for
> some years. This was entirely brought about by the insurance
> companies that provide SF messengers companies with Workers Comp, the
> US version of Statutory Sick Pay.
I'm not sure about workman's comp insurers, but in the vast majority
of cases where some dolt says something like "our insurance carrier
requires helmets for invitational rides" or "our insurance prohibits
bicycles in the drive-thru service lane", checking with the insurer
shows that the insurance company has no such requirement.
Mitch
Clive George
I suspect he is too, and this is a good thing. Doesn't detract from my
point.
(remember I live some hundred miles from the city, so I'm not exactly best
placed to do on the spot campaigning).
clive