Motorists have reacted to footage of the collision which left broadcaster Dan Walker “glad to be alive” by accusing the Channel 5 presenter of “putting himself in danger” by “ignoring” a nearby cycle lane – described by local cyclists as “filled with broken glass”.
On Monday, Walker, who took up cycling last year, revealed on Twitter that he had a “bit of an accident this morning” and was “glad to be alive after getting hit by a car” while riding his bike to Sheffield Station as part of his morning commute.
The former BBC Breakfast host also shared pictures of his facial injuries, which he described as a “mess”, though he added that he does not think he suffered any broken bones in the collision.
> Dan Walker “glad to be alive” after being hit by a driver while cycling
Footage of the crash, captured by a motorist’s rear-facing camera, has since been shared by the Sun, and shows Walker cycling on a busy roundabout in Sheffield before a motorist veers across into his lane and hits him from behind, sending him clattering to the ground.
Dan Walker hit by driver on multi lane roundabout “wear a helmet!” pic.twitter.com/TrQyqzGoky
— Hackney Cyclist (@Hackneycyclist) February 22, 2023
The 45-year-old was left unconscious for 25 minutes before police and paramedics arrived, and told the Sun that he has “zero recollection” of the collision.
“I thought I was a goner to be honest,” he said. “My face is a proper mess. I might need some surgery.”
While Walker has attracted criticism since the collision from some road safety advocates after claiming on Twitter that “the helmet I was wearing saved my life” and imploring other cyclists to “get one on your head”, the publication of the crash footage has now resulted in the presenter being targeted by social media users unhappy that he seemingly “ignored” a nearby cycle lane.
Some motorists on Twitter have pointed out that Walker was riding on Moore Street roundabout, near Sheffield city centre, at the time of the collision, which is situated next to a cycle lane located on an underpass.
> Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes?
“This is insane, who attempts to cycle round a four-lane highway when there’s a completely separate cycle way especially built right beside it? Honestly, some cyclists really do not help themselves,” wrote one Twitter user.
Another claimed that they have “zero sympathy” for the presenter after watching the footage, and argued that the collision was evidence that “cyclists feel they can cycle anywhere they like with scant regard to theirs or anyone else’s safety for that matter”.
There’s a cycle path dangerous Dan should’ve used but chose to ignore, there again, cyclists feel they can cycle anywhere they like with scant regard to theirs or anyone else’s safety for that matter.
I’ve zero sympathy for him.https://t.co/3xjaRqp00u via https://t.co/X1FfHqb8by— Emma Louisa ??❤️ (@EmmaLouisaJ) February 22, 2023
“Ah, so it turns out instead of Dan Walker using the designated cycling path away from a busy roundabout, he put himself in danger and by cycling foolishly hit the car rather than the car ‘hitting’ him as he claims,” the South Coast Captured Twitter account wrote, echoing MailOnline’s rather dubious headline which claimed that Walker’s rear wheel “caught [the] car’s front wing”.
I mapped TV’s Dan Walker’s route over Moore Street roundabout from the dash cam which has sadly been made exclusive to The Sunt and The Mail, who got the geographic details and the blame wrong. He was in the correct lane at all times. The driver was not when he cut the cyclist up pic.twitter.com/xYzVOucTYw
— Ben Cockayne (@benjamincockayn) February 22, 2023
However, local cyclists have defended the Channel 5 presenter’s choice to avoid using the subway, photos of which were published by the Mail, which has been described on Twitter as a “dank tunnel”.
Moore Street’s shared use underpass
According to Arbarthista, the ‘cycle lane’ in question is actually a shared use underpass, designed for pedestrians to cross under the roundabout, with “a few bits of paint to make it shared use”.
Another cyclist who has used both the roundabout and the shared use infrastructure described the underpass as “pretty good for surfacing, sight lines out are good but not entering so you can encounter nefarious characters”.
This cycle lane has been filled with broken glass for days. It very often is. Maybe @mrdanwalker knew this, so went via the roundabout instead.
Cyclists only use lanes fit for purpose- most of them are not. We aren’t doing it just to piss off motorists. https://t.co/uFwtfEKLbY
— CyclingInASkirt (@CyclingInASkirt) February 22, 2023
“I know this road well,” added Jack. “That underpass they reference is generally filled with broken glass, hence why a lot of riders avoid it.”
Sheffield-based CyclingInASkirt also claimed that the shared use lane “has been filled with broken glass for days”.
“It very often is,” she continued. “Maybe Dan Walker knew this, so went via the roundabout instead.
“Cyclists only use lanes fit for purpose – most of them are not. We aren’t doing it just to piss off motorists.”
67 thoughts on “Motorists blame crash victim Dan Walker for not riding on underpass cycle lane – described by locals as “filled with broken glass””
Surely all the drivers
Surely all the drivers telling him to use the dedicated(ish) cycle facility, should have been using the nearby motorway.
Hear, hear!!! They they would
Hear, hear!!! They they would’t have to complain about having to share the road with non-drivers.
Welcome to the world of the
Welcome to the world of the Brexit where you are allowed to deny the facts and truth, even when it is presented to you as clearly as this video does.
Legin wrote:
Looks like you’re replying to the wrong thing, or trolling.
I think he/she uses Brexit
I think he/she uses Brexit world synonymous to post truth world. Which it is.
Not sure this is a “Brexit
Not sure this is a “Brexit benefit”. Pretty sure people were talking nonsense (never mind completely ignorant of what’s needed for cycling AND motoring-mad) from before the EEC, never mind the current union!
I also remember before Brexit
I also remember before Brexit when drivers were completely reasonable when it came to cyclists.
Jippily wrote:
The pandemic was the tipping point for me. From 2020 things sudddenly got so hostile that i had to buy a camera, and have 260 recorded incidents since then, with most being passed to police.
Even without Brexit those
Even without Brexit those blaming Dan would have been doing so as they have done so for years. The DM and others have been spinning their hate toward cyclists for years.
Before the wilfully obtuse
Before the wilfully obtuse turn up. The baseline fact here is that Dan was cycling absolutely in accordance with the law and had every right, priority or however you want to call it to be cycling on that road, at that time in that lane.
Mungecrundle wrote:
That dangerous driver should not be allowed to use that or any other roundabout until they’ve learnt how to not be a liability in a vehicle.
I dont think its unreasonable
I dont think its unreasonable to look at that roundabout and ask what in gods name is possessing you to cycle on it, if there is an alternative, because it looks flippin dangerous to me, and I dont think thats blaming from anyone at all, thats just asking a very relevant question.
Because I wouldnt ride that roundabout, even with the nice paper drawn diagram, Im not sure that helps explain the why ?
and maybe the underpass is a rubbish alternative, and Im sure people raise that with the local council regularly and encourage them to clean it up… but its got to be better than sitting in the middle of 3-4 lanes of traffic where people no doubt play bumper cars quite frequently, but a dent or a scratch of metal is much more serious when it involves you as a person.
just a quick runaround on google maps and Ive found what looks a nicer route than that roundabout that wouldnt add more than maybe half a mile, and it doesnt use the underpass, no doubt it goes through the “bad neighbourhoods” or something.
But there are always alternatives to mixing it with that kind of danger on such a busy road as a cyclist.
I tend to use big roundabouts
I tend to use big roundabouts if they’re convenient, but I understand that a lot of cyclists don’t feel comfortable doing so. To me, if a roundabout on ordinary roads (not motorways) is not safe for cyclists to use then they should be redesigned, but the issue here is atrocious driving.
In my opininion the issue
In my opininion the issue here is that the driver will get away with that standard of driving with little or no disincentive (punishment). A long driving ban for almost killing a cyclist would act as a huge deterrent to others in the future but it won’t happen. That is the problem.
hawkinspeter wrote:
100% this ^
Absolutely it should be
Absolutely it should be redesigned to be safer for cyclists, but in the meanwhile what do you do ? Put yourself constantly in a very high risk situation or seek an alternate route ?
I’d always choose the alternate route, unless there was no other option, because its just not worth the risk.
we know alot of drivers are fundamentally not focusing on cycle safety when they drive, we get ample demonstration of that through NMOTD and our own close pass experiences and rubbish we deal with constantly on relatively benign roads.
Sticking your head in the lions mouth and hoping for the best isnt likely to lead to success imo.
Strangely, I don’t have much
Strangely, I don’t have much fear of Bristolian roundabouts and the traffic. I try to be in front of other traffic as much as possible, take primary where appropriate and signal early and deliberately. Show me a steep descent, however and I get anxious.
(No subject)
hirsute wrote:
I’d be dragging my brakes down that. Luckily it’s not on any typical route I’d take – I just use the busy Wells Rd instead.
Awavey wrote:
I don’t think it is good advice nowadays to direct cyclists into an underpass that is likely filled with machete wielding bike theives.
From what I have seen on here
From what I have seen on here and elsewhere, there doesn’t seem to be a good way to navigate that junction. The roundabout looks high risk if because you will be interacting with 4 lanes of motorists. The exit from the road on to the cycle route to the underpass looks equally dodgy squeezed as it is between the end of the bus route and a four lane entry to the roundabout where car drivers will inevitably be concentrating on changing lanes and not looking for slowing cyclists preparing to mount the pavement. Then you get to the underpass which looks to be one of those horrible 1960s things that feel like you are about to be mugged for your bike, even if you aren’t, and is apparently covered in broken glass.
I guess where you internal balancing of the relative risks of those two options lies depends on the desirability of the bike you are riding, your cycling experience etc.
My gut feeling is that if I used this route regularly then I would be looking to avoid the junction completely and use an alternative even if it added a bit of time / distance though I have no idea how feasible that is in practice.
I agree that neither option
I agree that neither option is very good and looking at the video I think Dan’s positioning was excellent in his lane, sometimes you just come across a driver who seems determined to take you out and there is little you can do about it (especially when they attack from behind).
I’d accept I don’t know the
I’d accept I don’t know the area to say this is better or not, maybe those machete wielding bike thieves are just hiding in the bushes waiting for cyclists.
But I quickly found an alternate route using Google maps where you start on the road leading to that roundabout but head off before the roundabout towards the Sheffield Cat protection centre, there’s a nice toucan crossing across Hanover way, another arm of that roundabout, then you can carry on ahead and can rejoin the Moore Street exit road from the roundabout further up.
Yes it’s a diversion, it’s not direct it maybe adds 5mins more to your journey, but it looks a damn site safer.
And I’m sure that’s not the only option.
Very possible there are many
Very possible there are many alternative routes. I am not a local and tbh have no intention of ever riding in or through Sheffield (nothing against the place, just a southerner with no conceivable reason to visit it) so I didn’t go as far as looking for an alternative. If I had to cycle that roundabout, then I would be looking at other routes PDQ but that’s just my risk assessment. That said, there are several big roundabouts around Chelmsford that are not easily avoidable and I do ride round them and feel quite safe doing so, at least until some motorised moron wipes me out so I respect that it’s an individual decision influenced my many factors.
It could have been a newish
It could have been a newish commute, whenever I start a new job I tend to take the roadier route.
It will be well signposted direct and probably quicker.
He has only just started commuting. He would have driven the route and so you just ride it, I often adopt routes I had previously been driven.
Always takes me a while to start being interested in the side streets and cycle paths, and they have to offer some advantage, as they are often slower.
Maybe he was running a bit late, didn’t want to have to take the longer, less convenient and slower route. Maybe the cycle provision crosses a duel carriageway or complicated junction that you press many beg buttons in its multistage crossings that takes the best part of 5 minutes to cross.
You missed the “and it doesn
You missed the “and it doesn’t use the underpass” bit then ?
Awavey wrote:
yeah – get a Volvo, a nice big one, maybe an SUV. Then you can use the wrong lane to accelerate quickly onto the roundabout and overtake slower vehicles on their inside. You will be safe and on time! (Unfortunately, that will be the attitude of many.)
You are within your rights to choose an alternative route, but as cycling on that roundabout is permitted, any cyclist should be able to use it and feel safe. It’s the actions of drivers that need calling out here.
They should, but I’m
They should, but I’m pragmatic in that I can recognise the difference between where I can cycle and where I won’t.
And where I won’t is where the risk to me of serious injury is higher than I’m prepared to accept, crashes do hurt, alot, both mentally & physically.
I won’t put myself in harms way just to justify some almighty “I can” ride this road outlook.
Awavey wrote:
For some people, that would include cycling on _any_ road!
The question is where do you draw the line. If big roundabouts are a no-no, then what about A-roads? Three numbered ones are ok, but wouldn’t ride on a one/two number?
If this was my regular commute, I have to agree with you that I would try to avoid that roundabout and I would do my best to keep off the ring-road too. Just because of the volume of traffic, it’s not pleasant and more traffic = greater risk. However, if you are not familiar with an area, then you might find yourself on a road like this, or if you really need to take the most expedient route.
If cycling is permitted on a road, then drivers need to expect a cyclist.
there are some four numbered
there are some four numbered ones I do my best to avoid as they arent a barrel of laughs to ride, whilst absolutely some 3 numbered ones I wont ride on too. Its not a hard and fast rule, I just draw the line at the point I feel its too unsafe which is purely a risk assessment of how much danger I perceive Im exposed to.
as much as cycling might be permitted on a specific road or roundabout and we should expect drivers to be looking out for us, we all know the reality behind those words doesnt ultimately sync up with what we are likely to experience.
Awavey wrote:
I think everybody does that to some extent, the only difference is where we draw that line. I think it’s unfair to be too critical of Dan for cycling on that roundabout.
When I used to commute to work by bike, the only option to get there was to ride on unclassifed country roads. Many people at work thought that was insane – 60mph limit, winding country roads with high hedges and the way people drive! They would only consider cycling to work if they could do so on a cycle path. There was even a colleague who was so annoyed at the few who cycled to work, he complained that having to slow his car down and accelerate to pass a cyclist was causing excessive pollution! He was fully for banning bicycles from the site altogether.
I saw this on the news yesterday – made me chuckle – the thought that after cycling to work on 60/70mph roads, you get to a 20mph limit and are instructed to use the cycle paths! It’s a slippery slope.
“Cyclists feel they can cycle
“Cyclists feel they can cycle anywhere they like with scant regard to theirs or anyone else’s safety for that matter.”
Cyclist cycling legally gets wiped out by a non attentive motorist, but she comes to the conclusion that the cyclist is in the wrong. She’s allowed to breed and vote too……
It’s depressing. The
It’s depressing. The entitlement is terrifying.
Das wrote:
I mean, we literally have a right to use all of the roads (except motorways), CROW Act (2000)… but morons that should not be allowed to drive blame the person innocently going about their business doing nothing wrong.
I suspect that Dan Walker was
I suspect that Dan Walker was obscured from the driver’s view by the car’s A pillar just before they took him out. I’m not saying that to excuse the driver – they should have observed the cyclist prior to that – but to highlight how terrifyingly easily such collisions can occur. Drivers are generally looking out for other vehicles (which would have been too big to be obscured in such a way) and not for us lot on bikes. Dan Walker was doing everything right, and he nearly got killed.
AidanR wrote:
Exactly. Drivers cannot be trusted so A pillars have to be built thick enough to survive a roll over and protect . . . . the driver (& screw everyone else).
This is true. Cars have
This is true. Cars have gotten bigger, heavier, faster, yet with much worse visibility due to the increased size of A-pillars, that are getting more and more inclined for better results at crash tests. Car industry has to address this, at least until self driving cars take place.
I’m not convinced. On a
I’m not convinced. On a straight road that might have been the case, but here, the driver was behind and initially facing the rider, the A pillar only came into play later on. Any reasonably attentive driver should have seen Dan for several seconds before the A pillar obscured him – but given the final impact Dan was only slightly overlapping, the A pillar was not obscuring him at the point of impact.
My guess is our driver was distracted by phone, coffee, tuning the radio or simply wasn’t thinking about driving.
I completely agree, the A
I completely agree, the A pillar would have only been a factor for maybe 1 second before the collision, and probably not at the moment of impact. But I imagine that it happened to coincide with the one glance that the driver made. Too many drivers only look once briefly before a maneuver. To be honest, I suspect I’ve done the same thing on a bike, although obviously I generally have better sight lines than a driver, and I’m not in charge of 2 tons of metal.
The wise Daily Express www
The wise Daily Express www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1738233/dan-walker-driver-wrong-safety-campaigners-bike-car-accident-twitter-news Also talking out of the wrong end of it’s body…
“Dan Walker has been
“Dan Walker has been criticised by safety campaigners who have argued he and the driver were jointly responsible for the Channel 5 News presenter’s recent crash.”
Ah yes that well respected organisation, tirelessly campaigning for road safety *checks notes* the Alliance of British Drivers.
hutchdaddy wrote:
Even worse below the line, with swivel eyed loon brexiteers claiming Dan moved in front of the driver.
Is it any wonder that drivers don’t get convicted when there will always be jury members ready to blame the cyclist fur any collision. Even with clear video evidence of the driver changing lanes into a cyclist and hitting him from behind, they still say “cyclist cut him up”
How nasty must one be to
How nasty must one be to blame the cyclist for being hit from behind?
No LiGhTs …
No LiGhTs …
And yet, you don’t see the *back* of the bike#
# I’ve watched the version linked in the Hackney Cyclist twitter feed (above) that someone has increased the brightness on … and you still can’t see the back of the bike. No fecking way am I boosting the Fails viewing figures, and i aint too keen on the Bun either.
No front light <> no rear light.
Follow up …
The video is evidence, so how are these organisational able to publish on their international websites?
Has this now prejudiced any potential court case?
I’m not so sure that he doesn
I’m not so sure that he doesn’t have a front light, it’s difficult because the video is so dark but there is certainly a white patch at the front of the bike. From other pictures released by Mr Walker he is riding a GoCycle White electric bike which, if it’s the 2022 model, has integrated daylight running lights.
My comment is based more of
My comment is based more of the assumption by commentators that just because *they* can’t see a front light, automatically means that he wasn’t using a rear light … when in fact we never see the rear of the bike.
But I do agree, it is difficult to ascertain if the front light is on, especially as it seems to *visually*[1] have the same luminosity as the reflective detail on his gloves.
[1] to my eyes and on my viewing device.
I’ve not discussed the
I’ve not discussed the incident at work, but one of my colleagues has just posted on our team’s Teams chat:
“My other musing today is how Dan (from the telly on his bike) – has gone from poor Dan nearly died to Dan should have worn brighter clothes and used the subway under the junction.”
Steve K wrote:
I’m glad to be able to add that, following a bit more discussion, she concluded
“I know…..awful…..its completely the driver!” [to blame]
The case is super simple for
The case is super simple for me.
The roads is filled with careless, drunk, smartphone users, new, mentally challenged drivers driving 1,5 ton steel cages. In that video there is clearly one of them, fortunately the driver was going slow and fortunately wearing a helmet meant only face damage (yeah yeah I know, helmets are not good, he would still be safe without, there are studies that make them useless etc etc)
In such a dangerous environment people who want to live and commute like me and Dan should try to use their segregated infrastructure. I undestand the broken glass and muggers issues, but a flat tire or getting you bike robbed is less pain than getting killed or stuck in a wheelchair. I wear heavy urban tires and have practically inexistent punctures on correctly fitted tires, so to me punctures is more of a choice rather than a mishap. I understand the safety issues, but when in my previous work commute I had an option of a big 3-lane urban road and a night return ride at a park with drug users and other dubious people, I would definitely prefer the park option rather than having the risk of getting injured and inevitably and every time breath the diesel exhausts of motor vehicles.
So use segregated infrastucture, demand and lobby for it to be created, report and even personally try to maintain it in good working order and use it to showcase how good it works, so more of it gets constructed. Until at least all cars get fully emissions free and perfectly autonomous driving.
Damned right. Anyone who
Damned right. Anyone who leaves home with less than NCAP 5* passenger protection is their own worst enemy. 15 minute cities are a sick joke when the government should be legislating for anyone without a car to not leave their house except for arranged collection by armoured convoy which can take them to the nearest park for some traffic free exercise safe inside some sort of heavy duty truck proof fence.
Just to be clear, and despite
Just to be clear, and despite claims to the contrary, I for one, called for it.
Me too
Me too 🙂
I used to ride with a GoPro
I used to ride with a GoPro on the front but a few months ago stopped bothering as Lancashire Constabulary just simply aren’t interested in any video submissions so I thought what was the point? Nothing will happen so I am wasting my time.
Appreciate in certain circumstances video footage can be vital but I was so disillusioned with LC that any enthusiam I had for at least trying to do my bit was knocked out of me.
Keep using your go-pro. Even
Keep using your go-pro. Even if you don’t report incidents it means if something serious happens then there is some form of witness.
My normal practice over the
My normal practice over the usual unpleasant sad gits on here is to ignore any post by them, or responding to them- this works quite well and saves a lot of time. However, some of them have become so repellent that I will now step up and repeat the recommendation of others that the usual suspects are completely disregarded until they disappear and come back under another alias. It won’t take long for their habitual smell to be identified!
Yup. Apply duck typing.
Yup. Apply duck typing. Give it a little time, apply a “sympathetic reading” – but these folks can’t help themselves – as shown by the multiple returns / personas. If someone’s poking most other people for a reaction / attention you know what it is. The argument that because they’re trotting out a collage of views that other people also hold doesn’t change what the basic behaviour is.
Edit – I should add that a quick perusal of this informative article and the “see also” linked list should help distinguish “having a different opinion (especially if connected to strong emotions)” from other cases.
My perspective, and it might
My perspective, and it might just be because of an unfortunate stint in Milton Keynes, but 99% of the time I’m gonna take the road and not an underpass. Glass and debris are always going to be issues and I would be genuinely worried about who is lurking in there.
I used to have to turn right at a terrible roundabout, with truly appalling driving standards and I used to hug the outside lane exit to exit… not my proudest moments cycling but kept me alive.
Shocking, murderous level driving, I hope he fully recovers soon.
Why won’t cyclists use the
Why won’t cyclists use the underpass? Umm…
Even leaving aside the debris
Even leaving aside the debris, that path looks designed to put cyclists and pedestrians in conflict. The position of the street furnishing is going to lead to pedestrians straying into the cycle lane.
But there are two points
But there are two points there to make, firstly is anyone reporting the debris to the council so it’s a registered issue, or just treating it as someone else’s problem to deal with.
Secondly, I spent no more than 5mins on google maps and found an alternate route around that roundabout that wasnt massively of the way with no underpass, I’m sure there are far more if we knew Dans actual origin and destination points.
It is not simply a choice between the roundabout or underpass.
Well yes… and bravo, that’s
On the “personal responsibility” – yes, but some people even do voluntary maintenance. Equally, if people report stuff but it’s not obvious that anything happens – or they see the same issue continue for a long time, they stop reporting or don’t bother.
Different routes. Well yes… and bravo, that’s what many here would do (probably for variety).
The general point is we don’t have a “network” for cycling. Provision in the UK falls between the stools of “just use the roads” and “provide the odd bit of infra but only suitable for a couple of mph faster than walking – and cyclists will be happy to walk anyway”. We have a network for driving. If one road is blocked your satnav will reroute you and / or locally you get advanced notice and then there is almost always a diversion signed.
You can certainly cycle on the road network – but not even everyone on this site would cycle on the roundabout mentioned. Most people just don’t, though.
If you drive somewhere new in the UK – especially if in urban places – you normally don’t have to consider the likelihood that you might:
– suddenly go off an A-road onto a single track road
– … or a dirt track
– or pass through locations where you genuinely fear you’ll be car-jacked
– or might need to double-check you’re ready to change a wheel
– or have to get out of your car on several occasions (e.g. to open gates)
– or might suddenly be driving in an environment that feels dangerous (no real car parallel to cycling on a fast busy multi-lane road here)
– or might see a logical route between two points but know that you probably need a much more complicated, longer alternative
– or might not be able to travel companionably with a passenger, or take your children.
When cycling it’s definitely “adventure travel”. I personally like the fun of “finding a route” but most people do not. (I’ve some relatives who simply do not read maps – it’s almost “sat nav or don’t travel”).
He was hit from behind, that
He was hit from behind, that driver should have been 6 foot away from Dan at ALL times. It’s in the Highway Code, all those rules drivers are legally obliged to follow.
That said, (as car drivers are more often than not, a bunch of inconciderate morons when it comes to cyclists), I wouldn’t dare ride on that road as it’s just asking for trouble.
Poor Dan, I hope he recovers quickly.
More people in the UK are
More people in the UK are killed in cars than on bikes. F1 drivers wear crash helmets, because they save lives. Why don’t car drivers and passengers have to wear helmets? Why aren’t cars all fluorescent colours?
Because people like choice, don’t understand statistics and don’t like being told what to do. You do you, let others get on with their lives.
Pablo Montoya was very glad
Felipe Massa was very glad for his helmet.
That was one of those “helmet saved my life” stories I can really get behind.
Edited to correct my horrendous mistake, thanks Awavey.
Nomex fire suits, in
Nomex fire suits, in flouresent colours of course, to add to their safety when they leave the cocoon of the motor vehicle too.
5 point safety harnesses and HaNS for the extra weight of the helmets.
Mandatory fire extinguishers and external engine kill switches…
I mean, why wouldn’t you?
Felipe Massa ?
Felipe Massa ?
I used to live less than a
I used to live less than a mile from the site of the accident a decade ago and still cycle in Sheffield on a regular basis when up visiting friends. The cycling infrastructure in the vicinity hasn’t changed much, if at all in that time and has always been inadequate for what is an extremely well used cycling corridor in and out of the city centre, but also heading north to both the university and the Royal Hallamshire Hospital.
At the time of the incident the underpass would be thronged with pedestrians walking to work or their studies. Eccleshall Road which Dan will have cycled down to reach the roundabout is at the best of times bumper to bumper driving that walking and cycling are by far the quickest way to travel over shorter distances.
I note that some commenters think that he could easily have taken a different route to avoid the roundabout and the underpass, but the reality is that even with an E-bike this would require tackling some climbs or chancing it on other major roundabouts. They call Sheffield the Rome of the North for good reason, its built on 7 hills, resulting in both motor vehicles and cyclists being funnelled into the various valleys that offer the least gradient to move over.
Whichever route he had taken to reach his destination, Sheffield train station, would have required him to cross or join the inner ring road at some point. Unbelievably to some, the roundabout where the collision happened is probably the safest that he would have to negotiate had he chosen an alternative route.