Another cyclist killed in London - and again, a lorry is involved

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I'm not commenting on this incident, but it helps no one if we gain no understanding as to what happened and why it happened. This is determined at an inquest. I think it is more appropriate to then report events because a dispassionate and impartial view of events can take place. Too many talk about victim blaming and then talk about how dangerous tipper trucks are....the problem is that in some cases cyclist are to blame and sometimes truck drivers (or whatever vehicle) are. But the impartial statement about it all means that cycling means death - this is not true. It's not inherently safe, but it is something that can be done without being fatal. Many cyclists live a full life and it is usually because their experience skill and understanding of the road has allowed them to cruise around the streets untrammelled. But in some cases luck and happenstance do not allow that, and this is tragic, as in this case. But understanding as best we can tells us more.

A lorry is an inherently unsafe vehicle in an urban environment. Whether the driver or the cyclist is eventually determined to be at fault, I guarantee the terrible visibility from the lorry's cab will be the ultimate cause of the accident.

Bikebikebike wrote:

A lorry is an inherently unsafe vehicle in an urban environment. Whether the driver or the cyclist is eventually determined to be at fault, I guarantee the terrible visibility from the lorry's cab will be the ultimate cause of the accident.

This is a very limited approach which does not really take things forward. Cyclists also get caught in accidents with pedestrians, cars, buses and other cyclists too. Undoubtably the size and weight of tipper trucks make them inherently dangerous vehicles to tangle with, but it doesn't take the situation forward.

Swimming with sharks can also be deemed dangerous but that is something I have done because given some understanding has found that they are not all dangerous and not every encounter is fatal. The same with lorries. If all road users improved their understanding then things would be safer out there..

And in respect of that analogy, cyclists are perfectly capable of harming themselves without a vehicle in sight. So there are always inherent risks with cycling.

Simon_MacMichael wrote:

In reply to some comments above:

"Following a collision with a lorry" is certainly not victim blaming, it is neutral, every bit as much as "following a collision involving a lorry."

The Met press release, by the way (which they ask us not to link), says "after a cyclist was killed following a collision with a truck" - we haven't spun it all from what the police said.

You will see plenty of references in other media however to a cyclist who "collided" with a vehicle, which isn't neutral, because it's a verb, not a noun.

You will never read that here.

As for road.cc trying to create an "us vs them" mentality, well, no; there are plenty of stories on here where we point out that most adult cyclists hold driving licences, and many motorists ride bikes.

And if you have a problem with what anyone says on Twitter, maybe take it up with them there?

Final thing - as StoopidUserName says, RIP to the victim; if you want to discuss other issues, maybe opening a comment thread on the forum might be a more appropriate place to discuss wider issues such as these?

Nicely put...and as you rightly make out sadness is the right focus here, not pedantry

Gus T wrote:

My commiserations to the young ladies family, yet another tragic and unnecessary death on Britains roads

But Road CC get it right, as per the Police request for witnesses, the full details are not known so why are you blaming her for the incident by stating "A 25-year-old female cyclist has been killed following a collision with a lorry in Central London on Friday evening." it should read "A 25-year-old female cyclist has been killed following a collision involving a lorry in Central London on Friday evening."
Victim blaming a cyclist on a cycling website must be one of the lowest and lazy forms of journalism going and seeks to exonerate the driver of the lorry before full facts are known to the investigating officers.

Your right, the langue used by road.cc to describe these types of stories is dreadful. I think they they just copy an paste directly from the daily mail.

What the hell are you two on about?!?

RIP to the victim.

Gus T wrote:

Victim blaming a cyclist on a cycling website must be one of the lowest and lazy forms of journalism going and seeks to exonerate the driver of the lorry before full facts are known to the investigating officers.

Fully agree - all cycling journalists seem to want to achieve an "us vs them" mentality instead of trying to raise a need for education for both parties. John Stevenson being a prime example on Twitter.

Municipal Waste wrote:

More deaths in London are caused by female cyclists than anything else... Ban female cyclists!!!

If you're trying to wind us up, it isn't funny. If you're serious, you're a moron...

Municipal Waste wrote:

More deaths in London are caused by female cyclists than anything else... Ban female cyclists!!!

How can you even make a joke out of this? Just as messed up attitude.