2009-08-10 - Rider Down, Southwark Bridge, North side

Also think cargo bike would be easier to store / lock up. Hmm...think this is going to be my next bike.

Justmouse; you know, maybe, that I work at a shop that sells them. contact me if you want more info or to test ride/hire one.

And to Mandy and her mother: what a relief to hear (relatively) good news on one of these threads. Hope you heal up quickly.

I love the christianna, and having used it for flower delivery I can say that it is very useful for more than just the kids.
The most thrilling thing about it is that when it rains, you don't have to think about stopping distance or sliding.
The cars also treat you like a small car, and give you allot more space.

BTW, christianna is now doing a two wheeled cargo bike as well.

thank f*** for that ending.

I wish you Godspeed with your recovery

I really don't want to have to do this in this thead (apologies Mandy), but as you've asked a general question, I will answer it:

1) If the cyclist suddenly changes lane without indicating, leaving the lorry no time to slow down.

2) If the cyclist is riding at night without lights, and the lorry can't see them.

There are always corner cases, you've even listed one yourself, which is why I am against a one-size-fits-all "the lorry driver is guilty unless proven otherwise". The laws can be changed to make it easier for the lorry driver to be prosecuted, but guilt should still be proven.

In the analysis that I referred to my original post, if the cyclist had changed lane immediately before the collision, this would NOT have been recorded as both vehicles proceeding in same direction.

And I just want to clear up something relating the proposed law changes that have been mentioned above: the proposal that everyone seems to be referring, relates to a change in the way that motor vehicles are insured, ie regarding civil liability, NOT a change in the way that guilt of criminal offence, or otherwise, is assessed.

From the LCC's briefing

"It simply means that the current legal position stays the same (eg a cyclist involved in a crash where the car was at fault has to show the car was at fault), but that the driver has to have a certain amount of insurance to cover this potential liability."

"We would want motor vehicles to have no fault liability in relation to personal injuries sustained by pedestrians and cyclists and a presumption that where there has been a collision, the larger or faster vehicle is to blame."

I also want to add that I find it incredibly distasteful that, in the aftermath of a serious, or fatal, collision, that so many people find it appropriate to post on the thread, their views on, or advice relating to, the collision and its causes.

This is wrong for two reasons:

First: very few, if any, of the posters, will have any real idea of what actually happened.

Second: those few who were involved, either actively, or passively, as witnesses, will sometimes be dead, so not actually able to contradict any misapprehensions, or, given that a criminal investigation is likely to be in progress in the immediate aftermath, bound by law not give their story to anyone apart from the investigators or, later, in court.

So, please, if you have any thoughts, post them to some other thread, or just keep them to yourself.