Kid is riding with his freind on the back of the bike, almost gets doored, they go down under a truck, who then runs over him and kills him. The freind was just injured. It's an 'accident.'
Some quotes that stood out to me:
"I had seen two lads skylarking about on a bike and had thought that there could be an accident. I then pulled up in the parking area to the left of Abbey Road and parked my car.
"I have gone through it a thousand times in my head and I honestly could not say whether the boys were past me or not when I opened my car door.
"I saw them lose control of the bike then I saw one of the boys lying under the back wheels of the lorry."
So the car driver was concerned about there being an accident, but still didn't look before opening the door?
I only hope that lads hearing of this incident will be minded of the dangers in carrying their pals on the back of their bikes.
Yeah, his freind on the back of the bike was the dangerous thing here. Not the innatentive motorists.
I wish there was more info in the article. It sounds like he must have been a smart kid - he was enrolled in college at 15...
Grr.
Helmet Head
04-28-06, 10:13 AM
Yeah, his freind on the back of the bike was the dangerous thing here. Not the innatentive motorists.
Certainly riding in the door zone is a more significant contributory factor than having his friend on the back of the bike as well.
Note: Yes, dooring collisions could be eliminated if cyclists did not ride in door zones. That does not mean it's the cyclist's fault. It is the responsibility of the driver to look for traffic before he opens the door, and his fault that he did not. Never-the-less, for those cyclists who learn of incidents like this... it's just another reminder that the best antitode for avoiding collisions with suddenly opening doors is to ride no closer than about 5 feet to the edge of parked or stopped cars.
bluebottle1
04-28-06, 10:22 AM
- he was enrolled in college at 15...
Actually, "college" in the UK generally doesn't refer to university. I realize that's nitpicking, but I just thought I'd se the record straight. Doesn't detract from this being a real tragedy.
trackhub
04-28-06, 05:35 PM
Most American drivers simply do not look before opening their doors. It's just something they do not do. I don't think this is likely to change any time soon.
dobber
04-28-06, 05:58 PM
What would the charge be? Inattentive door manipulation?
It's a tragic accident brought about by a series of events. Mucking about trying to lay blame when none is clearly evident won't accomplish much.
Helmet Head
04-28-06, 06:10 PM
Most American drivers simply do not look before opening their doors. It's just something they do not do. I don't think this is likely to change any time soon.
This happened in the U.K. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say, "Most human drivers simply do not look before ..."
What would the charge be? Inattentive door manipulation?
I don't know about the U.K., but in CA drivers are required by law to check for traffic before opening a door. Violating this law which results in a death could be considered negligence. And negligence that leads to death can be punitive, in civil court.
It's a tragic accident brought about by a series of events. Mucking about trying to lay blame when none is clearly evident won't accomplish much.
Trying to lay blame is one thing. Assessing what went wrong so it could be avoided in the future is another.
John E
05-01-06, 08:00 PM
... Trying to lay blame is one thing. Assessing what went wrong so it could be avoided in the future is another. Yes. This is what defensive driving or bicycling is all about -- maximizing your odds of survival in the presence of the incompetent and the inattentive.
merlinextraligh
05-02-06, 08:37 AM
Certainly riding in the door zone is a more significant contributory factor than having his friend on the back of the bike as well.
Having a passenger on a bike meant for one certainly didn't help the rider's ability to keep the bike stable and stop or avoid the door without falling under the truck. There's a very easy argument that riding double was a more significant factor and more blameworthy. Choosing to ride double was a conscious planned decision that set up a host of risks. Opening the door was a moment's lapse of attention. The latter could happen to a careful person with a slight lapse of attention. The former is a calculated decision to assume a multitude of risks.
joejack951
05-02-06, 09:21 AM
Having a passenger on a bike meant for one certainly didn't help the rider's ability to keep the bike stable and stop or avoid the door without falling under the truck. There's a very easy argument that riding double was a more significant factor and more blameworthy. Choosing to ride double was a conscious planned decision that set up a host of risks. Opening the door was a moment's lapse of attention. The latter could happen to a careful person with a slight lapse of attention. The former is a calculated decision to assume a multitude of risks.
How is riding in the door zone not a "calculated decision to assume a multitude of risks?" The driver opening the door had the mental lapse; the cyclist put themselves in a position where they were forced to deal with that mistake. Another 2 feet or so left and it's a non-issue.
Helmet Head
05-02-06, 11:06 AM
Certainly riding in the door zone is a more significant contributory factor than having his friend on the back of the bike as well.
Having a passenger on a bike meant for one certainly didn't help the rider's ability to keep the bike stable and stop or avoid the door without falling under the truck. There's a very easy argument that riding double was a more significant factor and more blameworthy. Choosing to ride double was a conscious planned decision that set up a host of risks. Opening the door was a moment's lapse of attention. The latter could happen to a careful person with a slight lapse of attention. The former is a calculated decision to assume a multitude of risks.
My point had nothing to do with the driver's actions and choices, only the cyclist's. He chose to ride with a friend onboard. He also chose to ride in the door zone.
Choosing to ride double is a not a typical signfiicant contributory cause to fatalities, so far as I know. Choosing to riding in door zones is. In particular, swerving in front of a passing vehicle in order to avoid a suddenly opening door has caused all too many cyclist deaths. This is the first one I've heard about that involved riding double, and I have no reason to believe the fatality would have been avoided had the cyclist not been riding double.
It is possible, of course, that riding double is what caused him to lose control and fall in front of the passing vehicle after swerving to avoid the opening door. B ut we don't know that he would not have not been hit if he had not fallen (just swerving in front of a vehicle, without falling, can easily be fatal). We do know that the chain of events that lead to the collision started with the car door opening, which would not have been a factor if they had been riding outside of the door zone.
chephy
05-02-06, 01:10 PM
Yes, in short: Had he ridden single and in the door zone, this accident might or might not have been fatal. But had he ridden double and kept out of the door zone, this accident just would not have happened (another might've, but that's a completely different matter).
baiskeli
05-03-06, 10:38 AM
What would the charge be? Inattentive door manipulation?
It's a tragic accident brought about by a series of events. Mucking about trying to lay blame when none is clearly evident won't accomplish much.
By law in Massachusetts you are required to look before opening the door, especially if you are parked adjacent to a bike lane. A few years back a driver opened a door without looking, doored a cyclist and sent her under the wheels of a bus (she died). If I remember correctly the driver was charged with negligence.
EricDJ
05-03-06, 03:29 PM
I see kids riding on the back of BMX bikes all the time, they stand on the rear pegs. LA drivers are bad here.
Helmet Head
05-03-06, 03:50 PM
Yes, in short: Had he ridden single and in the door zone, this accident might or might not have been fatal. But had he ridden double and kept out of the door zone, this accident just would not have happened (another might've, but that's a completely different matter).
Precisely. Once again, Chephy proves her ability to get to the point concisely.
SamHouston
05-03-06, 03:56 PM
How is riding in the door zone not a "calculated decision to assume a multitude of risks?" The driver opening the door had the mental lapse; the cyclist put themselves in a position where they were forced to deal with that mistake. Another 2 feet or so left and it's a non-issue.
Over there it'd be another 2 feet to the right. The description is lacking, but I think that is where the lorrie would have been, 2-3 feet away.
Helmet Head
05-03-06, 05:01 PM
Over there it'd be another 2 feet to the right. The description is lacking, but I think that is where the lorrie would have been, 2-3 feet away.
You're assuming the lorrie driver would just plow into the cyclists riding straight down the street in his path, an almost unheard of type of collision.
What normally happens when cyclists ride outside of the door zone of parked cars, in the vehicular traffic lane in the path of faster traffic, is the faster traffic slows down, or adjusts to pass the cyclists. So, if the cyclists were 2 feet to the right (remembering this is England), then the lorrie driver would be further to the right too. And since the cyclist would be outside of the door zone, he would have no need to swerve when the door of the parked car suddenly opened, and, so, he would probably would not have ended up in the lorrie's path, and would almost for sure be alive today.