Motorists blame crash victim Dan Walker for not riding on underpass cycle lane – described by locals as “filled with broken glass”

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 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 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.

It's depressing. The entitlement is terrifying.

Das wrote:

"Cyclists feel they can cycle anywhere they like with scant regard to theirs or anyone else's safety for that matter.

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.

Awavey wrote:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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't use the underpass" bit then ?

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 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:

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.

100% this ^

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 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.

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:

But there are always alternatives to mixing it with that kind of danger on such a busy road as a cyclist.

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 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:

I won't put myself in harms way just to justify some almighty "I can" ride this road outlook.

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 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:

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.

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.

Mungecrundle wrote:

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.

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.

Legin wrote:

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.

Looks like you're replying to the wrong thing, or trolling.