Dogs again

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,203
30,604
Should an evaluation have been carried out regarding the safety of the skies in that region of the world? This is a classic chain of events leading to a catastrophe.

Intended route passes through area of conflict >>> evaluation of situation >>> weaponry available >>> likelihood of attack >>> aircraft identification skills of those in possession of weapons >>> consider alternative routes >>> consider flight cancelation

Anyone of those links being broken could have prevented that aircraft from being brought down. I'm not saying that it is possible to achieve or negate all of them, but they are some of the elements which contributed to the incident.
British Airways and some others got it right, they've been flying well to the south and north of the conflict area, once again proving how a little rational thought prevents accidents.

There's no excuse for Malaysian Airways or the others like Lufthansa who've continued to fly directly over that conflict zone. It was simply stupid, and I wonder if any of Malaysian's pilots made representations to the airline about the possible danger. If they did, Malaysian Airways could be in very serious legal trouble.
 

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,252
3,197
You are right of course, dog owners do have a responsibility to keep them under control and there are laws to enforce this. We could have even more laws with even harsher penalties as well, but I don't believe that would make cyclists any safer or any less susceptible to incidents such as the one you have experienced. People will always break those laws through either a deliberate act or a moments negligence.

We can't rely on laws and safety equipment to protect us. Those things are a last resort, a fall back when all else fails.

I note that you do hold the dog and it's owners responsible for your accident. I don't know the circumstances or the layout of the cycle path relative to the camper van, but is there anything that you would do differently next time? Is passing a parked camper van at 20 mph so close that you can't stop if something suddenly emerges from it a safe thing to do? Could you have given it a wider clearance? Could you have eased off the speed a bit? Could you have anticipated something emerging from the van suddenly and watched the door like a hawk as you approached? When I read reports like yours, I think of the times when the same could have happened to me and these sorts of questions go through my mind and hopefully I learn from them and make myself a bit safer. That's the purpose of the occasionally derided CHIRP and GASIL.

In an attempt to kill people, my local council has constructed a death trap cycle lane sandwiched between two lanes of traffic at a set of traffic lights. Once you have crossed the junction, the cycle lane disappears and the road suddenly narrows thanks to a huge central reservation. This results in traffic squeezing you into the left hand kerb. Quite simply, I refuse to use it. It's far to dangerous. I prefer to take up an assertive road position in the middle of the car lane and stay there until I am clear of the junction and the road widens. Just because the council construct something doesn't mean you have to use it regardless of the danger. The planners are just as susceptible to errors as we are, but it's our safety at stake.

It's up to you, but I would say that your approach to this incident makes you susceptible to having another and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense.
 
Last edited:

D8ve

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 30, 2013
2,142
1,294
Bristol
Tillson you may not mean it as an insult but it reads rather unkindly.
 

SRS

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 30, 2012
847
347
South Coast
Ahh! Brighton, the city that really knows how to create a cycle lane of unique qualities!
You have to sympathize with SRS, I'm not sure any form of safety evaluation would necessarily prevent 'incidents'.

http://weirdcyclelanes.co.uk

Stan
I feel very lucky that out of my 12 mile commute, almost all is on cycle lanes and private roads and paths. Means minimal traffic filtering.

What does strike me as odd is why there are what seem to be homeless shelters right next the paths, steel posts in middle of the paths.
Bus stops that drop passengers off on the cycle lane.

It was not many years ago that the cycle lane led directly to a flight of steps. Sure, you were meant to go around the steps but I took a dead cyclist before the council re routed it.

Sure, you won't get killed by a car but your are far more likely to get injured by something or someone.

Why does it need to be this way?
 

SRS

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 30, 2012
847
347
South Coast
I note that you do hold the dog and it's owners responsible for your accident. I don't know the circumstances or the layout of the cycle path relative to the camper van, but is there anything that you would do differently next time? Is passing a parked camper van at 20 mph so close that you can't stop if something suddenly emerges from it a safe thing to do? Could you have given it a wider clearance? Could you have eased off the speed a bit? Could you have anticipated something emerging from the van suddenly and watched the door like a hawk as you approached? When I read reports like yours, I think of the times when the same could have happened to me and these sorts of questions go through my mind and hopefully I learn from them and make myself a bit safer.

It's up to you, but I would say that your approach to this incident makes you susceptible to having another and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense.
The centre of the cycle lane is around 2 metre from the road. It is the quietest section of the entire lane and a spot where I turn my motor off and blast my lungs back home.

The norm is that a car or van door may open and perso/s get out next to the cycle lane. Some step into the lane but this can be anticipated as actions are relatively slow. Any cyclist can ding the bell and move over in good time. I do this every day.

This particular camper was UK registered and panelled in such a way that the door was practically invisible. Coupled with this, the door, unusually opened inwards and was also on the continental (our O/S)

The door was invisible to me at my angle of approach and as such, I had assumed it to be the other side of the vehicle.

Numerous roadies had just passed me on their way to their local meeting spot some 100 metres ahead.

I had passed the rear of the campers when, the invisible door must have opened and a dog excitedly jumped out, directly in front of me. Like 500mm from my front wheel.

I did not even touch the brakes, just braced for impact. Sure riding slower would have reduced the impact and severity of my injuries but the impact would have still been inevitable. ( in my opinion )

It was the dog owner and not the dog that responsible for the accident. It was not my fault in any way shape or form.

In answer to your question, no, I would not do anything different next time.

I travel that path 5 days a week, I look for doors ajar, eyeball people in their mirrors. Slow my pace if people are walking on or near to the path. All the usual.

This was an unfortunate accident of life. I do not seek money for my repairs or hold a grudge against the dog owner. I just hope that he will hang onto the dog in a similar location next time.

Have I learn't anything. Yes, hit the tarmac at 20mph and it will seriously hurt.

Will it make me slow my commute each day. I doubt it. The incident has however given me food for thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tillson and Geebee

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,252
3,197
Thanks for reporting your incident and your thoughts. It has certainly made me think about a stretch of road that I use (a long down hill 30 MPH easily) which has cars parked nose to nose on both sides, hence poor visibility onto the pavements.

Perhaps we should have a Crash forum for reporting and discussing accidents.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SRS

jackhandy

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 20, 2012
1,820
323
the Cornish Alps
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
There's always some smart chap who's ready to tell you how you should have reacted & how it wouldn't have happened to him.
"There, but for the grace ...."

Too many on here know what's best for the rest of us - Like those who reckon you only need to use the front brake & efficiency of the back one's irrelevant:
Try that on some of the lanes & trails down here & your face'll be in intimate contact with the ground, quick-smart.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,203
30,604
Are accidents avoidable or do they just happen? Here's some annual UK figures:

1960s - 8 million vehicles - 7500 killed - 400,000 killed and injured

2012 - 33 million vehicles - 1754 killed - 195,000 killed and injured

So in rough terms and after thought and effort, four times the number of vehicles produced a quarter of the deaths and half the injured.

Accidents don't just happen, they are avoidable.

QED
 
  • Like
Reactions: tillson

Geebee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Mar 26, 2010
1,256
227
Australia
Are accidents avoidable or do they just happen? Here's some annual UK figures:

1960s - 8 million vehicles - 7500 killed - 400,000 killed and injured

2012 - 33 million vehicles - 1754 killed - 195,000 killed and injured

So in rough terms and after thought and effort, four times the number of vehicles produced a quarter of the deaths and half the injured.

Accidents don't just happen, they are avoidable.

QED
Does that take into account increased car safety, handling and brakes etc. and safer infrastructure?
I remember a car magazine having a retrospective "good old days" and of the Morris Minor, how it would survive accidents with little damage but the occupants would be dead.
 
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
Yes, you can prove any point with the right statistics. Unfortunately your statistics are the wrong ones. You've given the consequences of accidents, not the actual number of accidents. Air bags, seat-belts and helmets saved an awful lot of injuries and deaths but they don't stop accidents..

I'm not saying that there's not proportionally less accidents now, just that we need the right figures to show it.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,203
30,604
Does that take into account increased car safety, handling and brakes etc. and safer infrastructure?
I remember a car magazine having a retrospective "good old days" and of the Morris Minor, how it would survive accidents with little damage but the occupants would be dead.
Of course, it includes every factor, but still demonstrates accidents are avoidable. Many of the actions by the authorities were within the individual's capability though, one can do one's own traffic calming and one can drive within one's vehicle's safe capabilities.
 
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
It shows that injuries and deaths can be reduced, but not accidents.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,203
30,604
Yes, you can prove any point with the right statistics. Unfortunately your statistics are the wrong ones. You've given the consequences of accidents, not the actual number of accidents. Air bags, seat-belts and helmets saved an awful lot of injuries and deaths but they don't stop accidents..

I'm not saying that there's not proportionally less accidents now, just that we need the right figures to show it.
The historical record is too incomplete for good enough comparative figures, but as your closing comment implies, they too have proportionally reduced. The source and type of all reductions related to road accidents is almost entirely due to human actions, still proving the point that we have a high degree of control.
 

Advertisers