City of London police have confirmed to road.cc that a cyclist involved in a collision with a coach on Bishopsgate this lunchtime has died. It is the first fatality of a cyclist in the capital during 2012.
A spokesperson for City of London police said: “ City of London Police was contacted at 1305 on Friday 3rd February 2012 following a collision between a cyclist and a coach at the junction of Wormwood Street and Bishopsgate.
“City of London Police attended the scene, as did the London Ambulance Service.
“Sadly the cyclist, a man believed to be around 60 years old, was pronounced dead at the scene by the London Ambulance Service.
“Witnesses should contact the City of London Police on 020 7601 2222.
“A 61-year-old man from Essex has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
The Times reports that the victim, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, is the tenth cyclist to die in Britain this year. The newspaper also said that the vehicle involved was an airport shuttle coach belonging to the company Terravision.
It added that an eyewitness had described seeing a police cordon around a bicycle "broken in two."
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
7 thoughts on “Cyclist killed in collision with coach in City of London”
What a waste.
What a waste.
There it is again, that awful
There it is again, that awful weasel word “collision”. Earlier today City Plod tweeted that a cyclist had “collided” with a coach. I tackled them about the use of the word – how can a cyclist, perhaps 2 metres from end to end, half a metre wide, weighing less than 100kg, and travelling at perhaps 15mph tops, “collide” with a coach more than 15 metres by 3, weighing several tons and travelling at 30 or maybe more? the truth is the coach ran him down.
Pedantic this may sound, but the word implies that the cyclist in a “collision” is an equal party with equal blame. That simply isn’t so, and the fact that the “Terror vision” coach driver has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving confirms that.
Needless to say, City Plod gave me short change on my complaint.
Paul M wrote:how can a
I can think of a few ways. Can you genuinely not?
Your assumption is that the coach ran him down.
I suggest if you have information that indicates the driver is at fault then you should probably share it with the police; and if you don’t then you should probably avoid making assumptions.
As The Times reports, it is “standard procedure for fatal accidents of this kind” and confirms nothing.
Quite right too. Their job is to investigate and establish culpability, not to listen to people on the Internet who think they can establish culpability on the basis of a tweet.
Paul, yes, use of the word
Paul, yes, use of the word ‘collision’ is emotive, but until facts are established it is really the only word we can use that is neutral (and it should be pointed out, ‘in a collision’ is entirely neutral, ‘collided with’ is not).
We know nothing of what happened here other than the bare facts that a cyclist died and a coach was involved.
So, for example, we can’t say ‘a cyclist died when he was hit by a coach’ because we just don’t know (there have been fatalaties involving cyclists riding into lorries that weren’t moving, for instance).
‘Collision’ is defined by the Oxford Compact as ‘violent impact of moving body against another or fixed object.’
There is no connotation that the objects involved are of equal size.
It’s neutral, and doesn’t impart a judgment that cannot in any event be made when we do not have the facts, which is in most, if not all, cases such as this when they are first reported.
Likewise, we in common with many other media outlets and other organsiations use ‘incident’ rather than ‘accident’ – the latter imparts a judgment on the event being reported upon that very often does not reflect the facts, whereas ‘incident’ again is neutral.
Hopefully the foregoing explains why we use the words we do in reports of this nature.
I believe the police used to
I believe the police used to call things “accidents” and changed to “collision” as a result of campaigning, because accident implies no fault or blame when clearly there often is in these cases. An accident is when a branch drops off a tree and hits you on the head. A collision is when someone pulls out right in front of you because they didn’t look properly. Collision is a good term.
@ OutOfPhase
That’s
@ OutOfPhase
That’s incorrect. ‘Accident’ was campaigned against because it implied ‘chance,’ something that couldn’t be avoided.
“Incident’ is the word that has replaced it, not ‘collision.’
Use of ‘collision’ *does not* NOT imply fault, nor does it bestow a judgment as you seem to be trying to do.
It’s entirely neutral.
Read my post above.
Such a shame. Cycling into
Such a shame. Cycling into the City not long ago I good feel something was wrong with my rear wheel. Looking back I found out the cause – a coach had just started pushing me round the corner. Luckily I managed to steer out of the coach’s path. A slightly damaged Bianchi but an unhurt Coleman
There are good drivers and bad drivers. There are also coach drivers hammering in and out of the City every morning and evening.