Updated: Police name cyclist killed in crash (From Echo)

Yet another cycling fatality in Southend.
There seem to an inordinately high number in this (3rd most car friendly in the country)town.

Thoughts are with the family at this sad time.

My condolences to the family.

This is why many cyclists these days, myself included, ride with bike or helmet mounted video cameras. We can record any dangerous driving or other hazards, and also in the unfortunate event of a collision we have the perfect evidence recorded in camera. Many post the videos and registration numbers of dangerous drivers to the police and also upload them to youtube.

With no details to this incident as yet I sincerely hope they were riding legally, in the road, with lights on the bike etc.

My thoughts go out to His family , as a cyclist myself i consider it to dangerous to ride my bike on the Road. we need more bike paths
Looks like another case of Kids In cars again.. Throw the book atthe car driver.!

How nasty. I hope they caught the right boy and he gets what's deserved. My condolences to the family.
Just a small quibble- the problem with the police closing Lifstan Way from Woodgrange Drive to the White Horse pub is that the residents of the Pegasus estate can't go anywhere if they are driving, but it is probably needed so forensics get all the information they require.

Sid Rotton wrote:
My thoughts go out to His family , as a cyclist myself i consider it to dangerous to ride my bike on the Road. we need more bike paths Looks like another case of Kids In cars again.. Throw the book atthe car driver.!

I sincerely hope you are not saying you will illegally ride your bicycle on the pavemnt.

Very sad news, my thoughts & condolences are offered to the deceased's family & friends.

Sid Rotton wrote:
My thoughts go out to His family , as a cyclist myself i consider it to dangerous to ride my bike on the Road. we need more bike paths
Looks like another case of Kids In cars again.. Throw the book atthe car driver.!

Riding on the pavement is illegal and dangerous. All it does is get the majority of responsible cyclists a bad name.

The more cyclists who ride in the road, the safer it becomes. Because more drivers are likely to be cyclists themselves, and more drivers become cycle aware.

This is why the CTC are running the 'safety in numbers' campaign. Read more here:

http://www.ctc.org.u
k/desktopdefault.asp
x?tabid=5225

Regarding your belief that cycle paths are safer. This is not true of the cycle path on Southend seafront between Shoebury Common Beach and the Sealife Centre. This cycle path is so full of pedestrians, dog walkers, roller skaters, skateboarders, children playing etc. that it is actually safer to ride in the road beside it!

Sid Rotton did NOT say he rides on footpaths!

Sid Rotton did NOT say he rides on footpaths!

Thames Gateway wrote:
Sid Rotton did NOT say he rides on footpaths!

But isn't the purpose of the "comments" section of this website to criticise others regardless of the facts?

this road is a death trap for cyclists.
they can gain great speed going down the hill. my heart goes out to his family.

Thames Gateway wrote:
Sid Rotton did NOT say he rides on footpaths!

'Sid Rotton wrote "'as a cyclist myself i consider it to dangerous to ride my bike on the Road..."


If 'Sid' is not riding his bike on the road, because he considers it 'too dangerous', where IS he riding it?

How stupid it is to comment about if it's OK or not to cycle on the path, for goodness sake how many people are killed by cyclists. If this poor man had been on the path he wouldn't have been killed. I live close by and have seen the skid marks on the road, I'm no expert but I doubt he was within the speed limit. I would prefer to stay alive than be killed by drivers on phones, drunk drivers, speeders, inexperienced drivers etc.

Many years ago I worked with a young man whose teenage friends had knocked down a couple of cyclists, one of whom died. They had no remorse whatsoever, in fact they blamed the cyclists for "being in the road - the road is for cars". I would like to see schools teaching road safety and social awareness, because some parents are obviously not bothering.

magoric wrote:
How stupid it is to comment about if it's OK or not to cycle on the path, for goodness sake how many people are killed by cyclists. If this poor man had been on the path he wouldn't have been killed. I live close by and have seen the skid marks on the road, I'm no expert but I doubt he was within the speed limit. I would prefer to stay alive than be killed by drivers on phones, drunk drivers, speeders, inexperienced drivers etc.

Actually it is not stupid to comment on that at all.

In 2008 there were 572 pedestrians killed by cars.

In 2008 there were 115 cyclists killed. That is a drop of 15% compared to cyclist deaths in 2007, even though there was a 12% increase in the amount of people cycling.

Despite what the newspapers with their scaremongering would have you believe, cycling in the road is safer than walking (or cycling) on the pavement.


Don't take my word for it, all the facts and figures are in this Department For Transport pdf: http://www.dft.gov.u
k/adobepdf/162469/22
1412/221549/227864/4
79748/rcgbmainresult
s08.pdf

CMac wrote:
Many years ago I worked with a young man whose teenage friends had knocked down a couple of cyclists, one of whom died. They had no remorse whatsoever, in fact they blamed the cyclists for "being in the road - the road is for cars". I would like to see schools teaching road safety and social awareness, because some parents are obviously not bothering.

I now that attitude from drivers. They all fail to realise that Road Tax was abolished in the 1930s. Money to maintain the roads comes out of council tax and income tax. That means that nearly all adult cyclists do in fact pay for the roads.

Vehicle Excise Duty is a fee paid to license vehicles. It must be paid on all vehicles used on the public roads, and it is sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'road tax'. The money raised by VED goes into central government revenues, and is not ring-fenced for spending on roads.

Cyclists do minimal damage to the roads, in comparison to cars and other motorised vehicles.

this maynot be the car drivers fault just because hes yound .... the ammount of cyclists with no lights on their bike amazes me yet if they got hurt whos fault would it be??? .... be nice to have a full story from the police on this 1 !!!!

Winston Smith wrote:

magoric wrote: How stupid it is to comment about if it's OK or not to cycle on the path, for goodness sake how many people are killed by cyclists. If this poor man had been on the path he wouldn't have been killed. I live close by and have seen the skid marks on the road, I'm no expert but I doubt he was within the speed limit. I would prefer to stay alive than be killed by drivers on phones, drunk drivers, speeders, inexperienced drivers etc.

Actually it is not stupid to comment on that at all. In 2008 there were 572 pedestrians killed by cars. In 2008 there were 115 cyclists killed. That is a drop of 15% compared to cyclist deaths in 2007, even though there was a 12% increase in the amount of people cycling. Despite what the newspapers with their scaremongering would have you believe, cycling in the road is safer than walking (or cycling) on the pavement. Don't take my word for it, all the facts and figures are in this Department For Transport pdf: http://www.dft.gov.u k/adobepdf/162469/22 1412/221549/227864/4 79748/rcgbmainresult s08.pdf

I haven't checked the link, but it strikes me as misleading statistics, if you are trying to use them to prove that cycling in the road is safer than walking on the pavement. Because, obviously, there are considerably more pedestrians out and about than there are cyclists.

RIP Nigel. For those that have left messages for the family thank you, they are appreciated.

Then I would suggest that instead surmising you read the DfT pdf I posted the link to.

The point is some people are using this poor man's death to claim cycling is dangewrous. Nothing could be further rom the truth. Bad drivers are dangerous, speeding drivers are dangerous, cycling is not dangerous.

Winston Smith wrote:
Then I would suggest that instead surmising you read the DfT pdf I posted the link to. The point is some people are using this poor man's death to claim cycling is dangewrous. Nothing could be further rom the truth. Bad drivers are dangerous, speeding drivers are dangerous, cycling is not dangerous.

OK I have humoured you, and checked the pdf which you refer to. It merely confirms my earlier impression that the statistics that you quote do not back up your previous contention that "cycling in the road is safer than walking (or cycling) on the pavement".

As it happens, I am myself a keen cyclist (often cycling more than 100 miles a week), and my natural instinct is to encourage cycling (on the road, as opposed to the pavement). I just prefer to stick to the facts, rather than disingenuous use of statistics!

NOTORIOUS wrote:
this maynot be the car drivers fault just because hes yound .... the ammount of cyclists with no lights on their bike amazes me yet if they got hurt whos fault would it be??? .... be nice to have a full story from the police on this 1 !!!!

I agree. It's so easy to blame the motorist at whatever age but I have seen some appauling riding by cyclists that I wonder if they ever had any consideration for anyone else!
Whilst I don't condone dangerous driving, it may be safe to assume that this particular accident was a matter of two halves. Perhaps it will be resolved in time, but to go for the easy target (the motorist as usual) is playing into the hands of the 'safety camera partnerships' and just asking for more CCTV/Gatso's/Mobile scammeras etc.

As a 2 wheeled user I do find the mindset of 4 wheelers to be in the clouds most times, however, I will be interested to hear the outcome of the investigation and how the 19 year old cyclist was involved or not! Perhaps riding abreast or racing? It remains to be seen.

In any case, my thoughts are with the family, and at aged 43 he may be leaving a growing family!!

Biker One, cycling two abreast is perfectly legal.

http://www.bikeradar
.com/fitness/article
/technique-road-posi
tioning-197

Here is another study which shows cycling is actually safer today than it was in the 1950s, even though traffic volumes have increased.

In the 50s there was one cycling fatality for every 25 million kilometres cycled. Today that figure is one cycling fatality for every 30 million kilometres cycled.

http://www.ctc.org.u
k/resources/Campaign
s/Cycling_Statistics
.pdf

I realise this is no consolation for the bereaved family, however perhaps it will help dispell the 'cycling is dangerous' myth for others.

i happen to know this family very well and i cant belive that people are arguing about statistics when a familys life has been torn apart by an idiot doing double the speed limit. im just so glad there were witneses to prove the man was speeding. please stop leaving stupid mesages. the family need support in these times of need and my family will be there for them every step of the way.
my heart felt wishes go out to the family concerned. much love xxxxxx

go and do it somewhere else!!!!its no ones buisiness why he was cycling on the road at that time of night, maybe he was coming home from work to see his family??? not that he will ever be again

Winston Smith wrote:
Here is another study which shows cycling is actually safer today than it was in the 1950s, even though traffic volumes have increased. In the 50s there was one cycling fatality for every 25 million kilometres cycled. Today that figure is one cycling fatality for every 30 million kilometres cycled. http://www.ctc.org.u k/resources/Campaign s/Cycling_Statistics .pdf I realise this is no consolation for the bereaved family, however perhaps it will help dispell the 'cycling is dangerous' myth for others.

That maybe so, but Lifstan way has several bends and it's not advised to ride abreast through bends or narrow stretches of road, so until you know the full facts your argument is flawed!

sorry wrong quote!!

Winston Smith wrote:
Biker One, cycling two abreast is perfectly legal. http://www.bikeradar .com/fitness/article /technique-road-posi tioning-197

That maybe so, but Lifstan way has several bends and it's not advised to ride abreast through bends or narrow stretches of road, so until you know the full facts your argument is flawed!

Biker One wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:
Biker One, cycling two abreast is perfectly legal. http://www.bikeradar .com/fitness/article /technique-road-posi tioning-197

That maybe so, but Lifstan way has several bends and it's not advised to ride abreast through bends or narrow stretches of road, so until you know the full facts your argument is flawed!

It wasn't an argument. I was responding to your questioning people cycling two abreast, where you said:

"however, I will be interested to hear the outcome of the investigation and how the 19 year old cyclist was involved or not! Perhaps riding abreast or racing? It remains to be seen."

Which implied riding two abreast is illegal. As I stated, it is perfectly legal. So, no flaw there.

perini wrote:
Stop trying to save the Planet and get back in your car! If you want to cycle go and do it somewhere else.
Another tragedy but if you try the road you are likely to get killed. Why 0330 hrs though - you know that's the drunken prat time!

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

soose80 wrote:
You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

It should read "Petty row" thought I would just say before someone comments on spelling.

again another stream of pathetic arguments from a man who thinks the roads are his!! winston i think you have been affected by testing at foulness. The echo article has once again given very limited facts and we wil have to wait for a update before any more facts are known. The standard of cycling in southend is very poor and idiots who state they dont use cycle paths when they are provided are even worse.

Thought I must write in after reading some of the comments about this awful accident. Does it not occur to anybody how the driver must be feeling, who will have to live with this for the rest of his life. Until the facts of the accident are fully disclosed why does everybody assume that the driver was to blame. Is this because he was only young. If the he had been say, over 50, would reactions have been the same. I doubt it. He was not drunk, drugged up and not necessarily excessively speeding, maybe the cyclist didn't have the lights on on his bike and came off the path into the road in front of the driver! Maybe the cyclist was driving carelessly. Take a minute to think how you would react - nobody is prepared every second of the time spent in a vehicle waiting for an accident to happen. People are too quick to assume that the driver is responsible. Unless you saw the accident happen, how can anybody know what occurred? Assumptions & rumours do not help either family. It was a tragic accident and condolences go the bereaved family of the cyclist and our thoughts are with the driver and his family also.

soose80 wrote:
You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

Maybe you should read the thread before opening your mouth. Before your post I count at least NINE people, myself included, who expressed their condolences to the family of this poor man.

You might also want to consider that this is called 'Your Say'. It is not a funeral parlour or memorial service, and as such is here for the public to discuss the story and issues surrounding the story. Issues surrounding this story are road/bicycle/car safety.

jaybell wrote:
i happen to know this family very well and i cant belive that people are arguing about statistics when a familys life has been torn apart by an idiot doing double the speed limit. im just so glad there were witneses to prove the man was speeding. please stop leaving stupid mesages. the family need support in these times of need and my family will be there for them every step of the way. my heart felt wishes go out to the family concerned. much love xxxxxx

what a sick society.. just give a thought to the family and freinds like jaybell...my thouhgts are with them ...there for the grace of God etc.

southendmechanic wrote:
again another stream of pathetic arguments from a man who thinks the roads are his!! winston i think you have been affected by testing at foulness. The echo article has once again given very limited facts and we wil have to wait for a update before any more facts are known. The standard of cycling in southend is very poor and idiots who state they dont use cycle paths when they are provided are even worse.

"and idiots who state they dont use cycle paths when they are provided are even worse."

From that it appears it is you who thinks he owns the road, not me. The use of cycle paths is NOT compulsory, and cyclists are free to choose whether they use them or not. I suggest you brush up on your Highway Code, particularly the section dealing with rules for cyclists. Rule 61 clearly states:

"Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. USE OF THES FACILITIES IS NOT COMPULSORY and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_069837

Winston Smith wrote:

soose80 wrote: You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

Maybe you should read the thread before opening your mouth. Before your post I count at least NINE people, myself included, who expressed their condolences to the family of this poor man. You might also want to consider that this is called 'Your Say'. It is not a funeral parlour or memorial service, and as such is here for the public to discuss the story and issues surrounding the story. Issues surrounding this story are road/bicycle/car safety.

Winston ...I don't actually type with my mouth open, I have checked with my family and they have confirmed this, as I am not going to get embroiled in another one of your pointless threads all that is left to say is do one you saddo!

as this traggic accident happened out side our house ,before we all start the blame game ,we are all thinking of the family of the man you lost his life , & the family of the young man , who will see this accident happen every time he closes his eyes . A spilt second in a life time has changed their worlds for ever . The police will find the truth . Mean while try & think how the families are feeling.

Ironic how many posts there are, when cyclists are involved.

Other subjects being totally ignored.

soose80 wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

soose80 wrote: You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

Maybe you should read the thread before opening your mouth. Before your post I count at least NINE people, myself included, who expressed their condolences to the family of this poor man. You might also want to consider that this is called 'Your Say'. It is not a funeral parlour or memorial service, and as such is here for the public to discuss the story and issues surrounding the story. Issues surrounding this story are road/bicycle/car safety.

Winston ...I don't actually type with my mouth open, I have checked with my family and they have confirmed this, as I am not going to get embroiled in another one of your pointless threads all that is left to say is do one you saddo!

If you don't like being criticised I would suggest you don't make false accusations.
You jumped in, made a false statement that only three people had offered condolences, when in actual fact quite a few had.
In fact my very first sentence was to offer my condolences to the family, whereas you preferred to attack other posters and only added a comment for the family as an afterthought. Take a look at your own priorities before criticising others'.

Your most recent post demonstrates quite adequately your level of mentality.

Winston Smith wrote:

soose80 wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

soose80 wrote: You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

Maybe you should read the thread before opening your mouth. Before your post I count at least NINE people, myself included, who expressed their condolences to the family of this poor man. You might also want to consider that this is called 'Your Say'. It is not a funeral parlour or memorial service, and as such is here for the public to discuss the story and issues surrounding the story. Issues surrounding this story are road/bicycle/car safety.

Winston ...I don't actually type with my mouth open, I have checked with my family and they have confirmed this, as I am not going to get embroiled in another one of your pointless threads all that is left to say is do one you saddo!

If you don't like being criticised I would suggest you don't make false accusations. You jumped in, made a false statement that only three people had offered condolences, when in actual fact quite a few had. In fact my very first sentence was to offer my condolences to the family, whereas you preferred to attack other posters and only added a comment for the family as an afterthought. Take a look at your own priorities before criticising others'. Your most recent post demonstrates quite adequately your level of mentality.

Apologies if I offended anyone in miscounting the amount of condolences despite what Winston said I wasn't attacking any posters simply sitting in my living room typing...Yes clearly Winston you are always right yes it was an afterthought I had thought nothing about how the mans family would feel coming on here possibly expecting to see messages of condolence and reading a sad argument about statistices. My priorities my dear do not include the like of you and your opinions, I simply think that there is a time and place for airing your view and when a person loses their life for whatever reason usually people would maintain a certain decorum and be sensitive to the feelings of the families involved. Right I am off to get my priorities in order.

soose80 wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

soose80 wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

soose80 wrote: You should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, I find it absolutely astonishing that in all 32 comments made only 3 people have spared a thought for this poor man's family, is it any wonder society is the way it is today and you would all blame youths for it's demise.... why don't you all get over yourselves and think about someone else but yourselves for a change if you want to argue about stupid statistics and have little tit for tat rows join the council or organise yourselves a weekly debate, stop using fatality stories to have a petit row. I hope this Man's family can one day move on from this senseless and avoidable tragedy my thoughts are with them. XX

Maybe you should read the thread before opening your mouth. Before your post I count at least NINE people, myself included, who expressed their condolences to the family of this poor man. You might also want to consider that this is called 'Your Say'. It is not a funeral parlour or memorial service, and as such is here for the public to discuss the story and issues surrounding the story. Issues surrounding this story are road/bicycle/car safety.

Winston ...I don't actually type with my mouth open, I have checked with my family and they have confirmed this, as I am not going to get embroiled in another one of your pointless threads all that is left to say is do one you saddo!

If you don't like being criticised I would suggest you don't make false accusations. You jumped in, made a false statement that only three people had offered condolences, when in actual fact quite a few had. In fact my very first sentence was to offer my condolences to the family, whereas you preferred to attack other posters and only added a comment for the family as an afterthought. Take a look at your own priorities before criticising others'. Your most recent post demonstrates quite adequately your level of mentality.

Apologies if I offended anyone in miscounting the amount of condolences despite what Winston said I wasn't attacking any posters simply sitting in my living room typing...Yes clearly Winston you are always right yes it was an afterthought I had thought nothing about how the mans family would feel coming on here possibly expecting to see messages of condolence and reading a sad argument about statistices. My priorities my dear do not include the like of you and your opinions, I simply think that there is a time and place for airing your view and when a person loses their life for whatever reason usually people would maintain a certain decorum and be sensitive to the feelings of the families involved. Right I am off to get my priorities in order.

As I said previously, this is a NEWS website. As such people are free to discuss the NEWS and ISSUES SURROUNDING THE NEWS.
This is not a memorial site. So take your fake 'Jade Goody' style concerns elsewhere.

Without wishing to become directly embroiled in the Winston/Soose discussion, I think people should either offer their condolences or not on this site, whatever they personally feel comfortable with.

Just because a person doesn't offer condolences on this site does not mean that they don't care about the tragic accident, or that they don't feel compassion for the victim.

As a parallel, I often listen to BBC Radio 5 live phone-ins in the aftermaths of tragedies, which discuss the issues surrounding it. In these discussions, most people do not offer their condolences, and no-one would dream of vilifying them for it. It's just taken for granted that they feel sorry for the victims.

Condolences to the friends and family of the man killed.

As a cyclist myself and a car driver (15k miles per year) I am constantly appalled at the attitude of many drivers to vulnerable road users.

The bottom line is that when drivers of motorised vehicles get it wrong there is a good chance if they hit a cyclist or pedestrian there will be a serious injury or fatality.

Some of the fatuous comments made on this thread just confirm my view that the sooner this country follows many others around Europe, where the assumption is that the motorist is at fault unless they can prove otherwise, the better.

If this law existed motorists might just realise their responsibilities to other road users.

It might encourage them to follow the highway code and leave the same amount of room for horses and cyclist that they leave for other motor vehicles.

In this country we are far too lenient on car crime, I didn't see them is too often the excuse given by car drives and without witnesses they get away with it.

In saying what I have said, no excuses for no lights and jumping red lights. But as always it is a minority of cyclist and motorists who behave badly not the majority.

I drove past where it happened last night and i'm slightly confused as to why the skid marks on the road are on the wrong side? The skid marks go about 200yrds down the road and come to a stop at a tree at the side of the road. Surely this means the driver was on the wrong side of the road? Why? My thoughts go to the family.

some of you people are going into so much depth about statistics etc

and only using this page to argue about whether it was the cyclists fault or the drivers, when his family are trying to deal with their loss.

how quite low.

love and blessing to his family, r.i.p

I have sign up merely to write a comment on this "your Say".
As a very close friend of the family, I can only say that I am ashamed to read some of these comments that have been made here.

On behalf of one of Nigel's youngest sisters, Nigel was the sweetest man with the biggest of hearts, he loved his family and friends very much and was a very talented DJ, he's a man that should have had the brightest of future in front of him and no words can describe the pain that has now be left after this tragic accident. Nigel your family and your friends miss you terrible and pray for you everyday, there is a new star in the sky and may you shine there forever.

I will be advising the family not to read any of your insensitive comments and petty arguments, but for those who have left there condolences, it is much appreciated.

Nigel may you RIP and watch over your family.

xxx

Sincere condolences to Nigels family & friends at this very sad time. Please, I wish people would stop using this site as a way to start arguments, this site was set up so that peole could leave messages of sympathy or congratulations etc depending on the story involved but all some people seem to do is want to start some sort of debate about facts that we do not always know to be true or not. Please, please, for the sake of all those people affected by such tragic events, stop it now!!!!

djfitzo wrote:
Sincere condolences to Nigels family & friends at this very sad time. Please, I wish people would stop using this site as a way to start arguments, this site was set up so that peole could leave messages of sympathy or congratulations etc depending on the story involved but all some people seem to do is want to start some sort of debate about facts that we do not always know to be true or not. Please, please, for the sake of all those people affected by such tragic events, stop it now!!!!

This is a newspaper's website. It was set up so people could discuss the news. It is NOT a memorial or remembrance site.

So yes, people DO want to debate facts surrounding the news. That is what people do. If we didn't the whole world would be populated with Jade Goodies and Peter Andres who couldn't read the back of a cornflakes packet and can't point to England on a map.

Everything I have said in this discussion relating to cycling safety and fatalities I have backed up with links to government Department for Transport studies and figures. It is not guesswork or supposition.

I for one do not want to see this website censored because a few don't want the news debated.

The assumptions being made here regarding the driver are quite out of order.

Here's a fact for you all: The driver had not been drinking however the cyclists had.

Now whether that was a contributory factor or not I cannot tell you, and it's not my place to speculate.

Was the driver speeding? Undoubtably, as the accident occurred right at the bottom of the hill where 95% of drivers will be speeding due to natural acceleration. This is why the speed camera van sites himself at this exact spot.

The reason the skid marks are on the wrong side of the road? The driver who wasn't in a good condition stated at the time that he had swerved across the road to avoid him when he saw him indicating that the cyclist was either unlit in the dark area under the bridge or had entered the road abruptly.

Not all of the skid marks seen are from the accident itself. The police carried out skid testing to ascertain facts at the scene.

There are other facts relating to this accident, pertinent or otherwise, that serve no added value in posting, so I won't.

A combination of events has left one cyclist dead, another without his good friend and a driver who has to live with the horror of the event for the rest of his life.

And with a scant article written by a reporter not in possession of all the facts, it would appear that several posters have managed to ascertain the cause and and dish out condemnations to suit. That should save the accident investigators a few hours.

My sympathies to all who are affected by this tragic event.

Winston Smith wrote:

livelyred wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

djfitzo wrote:
Sincere condolences to Nigels family & friends at this very sad time. Please, I wish people would stop using this site as a way to start arguments, this site was set up so that peole could leave messages of sympathy or congratulations etc depending on the story involved but all some people seem to do is want to start some sort of debate about facts that we do not always know to be true or not. Please, please, for the sake of all those people affected by such tragic events, stop it now!!!!

This is a newspaper's website. It was set up so people could discuss the news. It is NOT a memorial or remembrance site.

So yes, people DO want to debate facts surrounding the news. That is what people do. If we didn't the whole world would be populated with Jade Goodies and Peter Andres who couldn't read the back of a cornflakes packet and can't point to England on a map.

Everything I have said in this discussion relating to cycling safety and fatalities I have backed up with links to government Department for Transport studies and figures. It is not guesswork or supposition.

I for one do not want to see this website censored because a few don't want the news debated.

Oh grow up wont you no one wants to hear your crap on here have some respect

No. YOU grow up. This NOT a memorial garden,. It is a NEWS site. Provided for people to discuss tge NEWS.

If you are too thick to comprehend that, then that is your problem, not mine.

thought you would come back with some thing pathetic what a child

I would add that the only people being disrespectful are those coming here and attempting to censor the website. Is that how the deceased would want to be remembered? As the friend of people who want to stop others discussing the issues surrounding this tragedy?

If I was the deceased's family I would want these events thoroughly discussed, because that is the only way to understand them.

livelyred wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

livelyred wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

djfitzo wrote:
Sincere condolences to Nigels family & friends at this very sad time. Please, I wish people would stop using this site as a way to start arguments, this site was set up so that peole could leave messages of sympathy or congratulations etc depending on the story involved but all some people seem to do is want to start some sort of debate about facts that we do not always know to be true or not. Please, please, for the sake of all those people affected by such tragic events, stop it now!!!!

This is a newspaper's website. It was set up so people could discuss the news. It is NOT a memorial or remembrance site.

So yes, people DO want to debate facts surrounding the news. That is what people do. If we didn't the whole world would be populated with Jade Goodies and Peter Andres who couldn't read the back of a cornflakes packet and can't point to England on a map.

Everything I have said in this discussion relating to cycling safety and fatalities I have backed up with links to government Department for Transport studies and figures. It is not guesswork or supposition.

I for one do not want to see this website censored because a few don't want the news debated.

Oh grow up wont you no one wants to hear your crap on here have some respect

No. YOU grow up. This NOT a memorial garden,. It is a NEWS site. Provided for people to discuss tge NEWS.

If you are too thick to comprehend that, then that is your problem, not mine.

thought you would come back with some thing pathetic what a child

Do you have something constructive to add? Or are you just here to stir up trouble?

Winston Smith wrote:

livelyred wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

livelyred wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

djfitzo wrote:
Sincere condolences to Nigels family & friends at this very sad time. Please, I wish people would stop using this site as a way to start arguments, this site was set up so that peole could leave messages of sympathy or congratulations etc depending on the story involved but all some people seem to do is want to start some sort of debate about facts that we do not always know to be true or not. Please, please, for the sake of all those people affected by such tragic events, stop it now!!!!

This is a newspaper's website. It was set up so people could discuss the news. It is NOT a memorial or remembrance site.

So yes, people DO want to debate facts surrounding the news. That is what people do. If we didn't the whole world would be populated with Jade Goodies and Peter Andres who couldn't read the back of a cornflakes packet and can't point to England on a map.

Everything I have said in this discussion relating to cycling safety and fatalities I have backed up with links to government Department for Transport studies and figures. It is not guesswork or supposition.

I for one do not want to see this website censored because a few don't want the news debated.

Oh grow up wont you no one wants to hear your crap on here have some respect

No. YOU grow up. This NOT a memorial garden,. It is a NEWS site. Provided for people to discuss tge NEWS.

If you are too thick to comprehend that, then that is your problem, not mine.

thought you would come back with some thing pathetic what a child

Do you have something constructive to add? Or are you just here to stir up trouble?

Think you have done that all ready dont u think ?

I posted in support of cycling, and posted the evidence to show cycling is a safe form of transport.

What have you contributed? Nothing. I bet you haven't even read through the discussion have you? You just decided to start having a go for no reason.

i again am at a loss to understand why the echo has these forums????? because every single one is just a load of arguments etc...how does it help in any way????

I am a friend of the driver of this terrible accident. I have read of all your comments and am shocked the way everyone, without the whole story is blameing the driver. He is a good, kind careing lad who doesnt drink and wasnt only any drugs. He did everything he could that nite to avoid a collition with the cyclist. That why skid marks are on the opposite side of the road. In all of the shock and horror of what had happend it was he who called 999 and frantically tried to find and help the cyclist. And yes if he was over 50 half the things said wouldnt of been. There are alot of good lads out there, aged under 20. There not all boy racers. This lad has got the rest of his life to live with what happend that nite and the visions when he closes his eyes.
My condolences the Nigels family but also to the family of my friend. This was a terrible accident and until the police do their report on the circumstances, i think we should all think of two families whose lives have changed terribly. And not make assumptions on blame.

My condolences go out
to the family and the friend who has lost his friend nigel
let him r.i.p.

The 19-year-old driver of the Astra was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. He has been bailed until October 18 pending further enquires.

Possible not his fault.
But if found was and also if he had no insurance mot etc throw the book at him.

A measly fine is of no good at all.

Best wishes the the poor mans family.

A really sad state of affairs here. But a reflection of the callousness of the "Englishman" of today. I passed my driving test in 1962 and, at that time, you would not pass your test if you did not give the cyclist enough room nor expect him to suddenly swerve or turn without warning. We were also taught then to clearly signal to other road users that we were going to move to the right and then to only move out when we could leave enough space for the cyclist even if he were to fall off! Nowadays you can see many motorists practically scraping the pedal of a cyclist to get by, with no thought of giving a right turn signal to warn following motorists of the hazard ahead! What in life can be so urgent as to require a marked lack of consideration for other, less well defended road users?

One prime example of this is at the zig zag lines approaching a zebra crossing. How many know-it-all motorists understand the prime rule that "At the crossing, the vehicle that was closer to the crossing than you when you arrived, has priority. You MUST not pass or attempt to pass, that vehicle until you cross the exit studs of that crossing." Not rocket science but, stand and watch a crossing sometime. See how many drivers break that law. Then the law that applies to who has priority on the crossing. How many know that it is up to the motorist to ensure that a pedestrian cannot step onto the crossing before the driver crosses the studs. The pedestrian steps onto the crossing to establish his right of way, but if he can do this before you cross the studs, you must be able to stop for him!
Finally with regard to cycling on the path, how many of you considered the vehicles that drive on the path. Outside my house is a footpath that shares with a cycleway. We photograph cars and vans that use this pathway to access properties further along the way, sometimes just to unload some shopping. And you would have a go at the cyclist? A steady slow cyclist giving every priority to the pedestrians will cause little problem. Young tearaways always do. Something familiar about that is there?
Finally, Winston Smiffy, you are wrong when you state all (motor) vehicles must pay the "licence fee" (stealth tax). Age exempt vehicles, as the name implies, are exempt!

Will you listen to yourselves.

As I posted above there is more to this than has been reported.

Have you considered for one second that it is likely that the car was driving down a clear road and the cyclist pulled straight between parked cars directly into his path?

The cyclists had been drinking but the car driver had not so where is the condemnation of the drink driver i.e. the cyclist?

The cyclists were riding seemingly without lights in dark clothing but no, it's so much easier to condemn the poor lad driving because someone has mentioned his age and therefore we conclude he must be one of these chavs with no insurance no mot etc driving recklessly.

As I said above this is an unfortunate combination of events that has resulted in tragedy for the three people involved and their relatives but we seem to have a set of web warriors here that want to make the comments into their own personal mission.

lifstan man wrote:
Will you listen to yourselves.

As I posted above there is more to this than has been reported.

Have you considered for one second that it is likely that the car was driving down a clear road and the cyclist pulled straight between parked cars directly into his path?

The cyclists had been drinking but the car driver had not so where is the condemnation of the drink driver i.e. the cyclist?

The cyclists were riding seemingly without lights in dark clothing but no, it's so much easier to condemn the poor lad driving because someone has mentioned his age and therefore we conclude he must be one of these chavs with no insurance no mot etc driving recklessly.

As I said above this is an unfortunate combination of events that has resulted in tragedy for the three people involved and their relatives but we seem to have a set of web warriors here that want to make the comments into their own personal mission.

I'm sure that there is more to this sad event than has been reported.

The fact that the police have arrested the driver on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving implies that the police believe that the driver may be in the wrong.

Where as I do not agree with the tone of many of the posts on this thread the report clearly indicates there may be wrong doing on the part of the driver. Correct or not most readers will draw their own conclusions from the report.

Just as that may be unfair on the driver it is equally unfair for you to make statements that the cyclists had been drinking (as most people on here will interpret that as drunk), had no lights and rode out from between parked cars.

If you were there and saw all of this then you should give your evidence to the police. However if you are recounting some gossip or someone else's view of what happened, that is as irrelevant as many of Winstons' statistics.

The only fact that matters is sadly, yet again, a vulnerable road user has died. It is up to the police and CPS to decide culpability if there is any.

LocalBoy wrote:

lifstan man wrote:
Will you listen to yourselves.

As I posted above there is more to this than has been reported.

Have you considered for one second that it is likely that the car was driving down a clear road and the cyclist pulled straight between parked cars directly into his path?

The cyclists had been drinking but the car driver had not so where is the condemnation of the drink driver i.e. the cyclist?

The cyclists were riding seemingly without lights in dark clothing but no, it's so much easier to condemn the poor lad driving because someone has mentioned his age and therefore we conclude he must be one of these chavs with no insurance no mot etc driving recklessly.

As I said above this is an unfortunate combination of events that has resulted in tragedy for the three people involved and their relatives but we seem to have a set of web warriors here that want to make the comments into their own personal mission.

I'm sure that there is more to this sad event than has been reported.

The fact that the police have arrested the driver on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving implies that the police believe that the driver may be in the wrong.

Where as I do not agree with the tone of many of the posts on this thread the report clearly indicates there may be wrong doing on the part of the driver. Correct or not most readers will draw their own conclusions from the report.

Just as that may be unfair on the driver it is equally unfair for you to make statements that the cyclists had been drinking (as most people on here will interpret that as drunk), had no lights and rode out from between parked cars.

If you were there and saw all of this then you should give your evidence to the police. However if you are recounting some gossip or someone else's view of what happened, that is as irrelevant as many of Winstons' statistics.

The only fact that matters is sadly, yet again, a vulnerable road user has died. It is up to the police and CPS to decide culpability if there is any.

I have already given my statement and you will note that I have been careful to have only stated here possibilities that need to be looked at.

You will also note that the driver is only under suspicion not proved guilty as stated by some posters. This is I understand is fairly standard practice by the police in a situation such as this.

The fact is this young driver was not drunk, was in poor state of mind at the scene but had the wits to phone the emergency services and does not deserve hanging here by a load of people who have acted as judge and jury based on a report with fleeting facts.

I would only ask that we wait for the results of an inquiry before we throw the rope over a branch.

I'm not going to bleet on about facts and statistics when it's not really the issue here.What is the issue here is that a family's pointlessly and tragically lost a loved one and maybe those who have obviously got nothing else better to do than to go and on about traffic incidents and statistics and like to use this forum to air their opinions as no-one else will actually listen to them,should actually be thinking about how distraught the family are,how empty they feel and how the last thing they need is idiots using their awful,helpless situation to make a point that no-one really cares about.God forbid but maybe one day they'll lose someone close and realise statistics really don't matter!My love and thoughts go out to all the family,1 of you in particular who is such s special person, in this terrible time.x x x

djfitzo wrote:
Sincere condolences to Nigels family & friends at this very sad time. Please, I wish people would stop using this site as a way to start arguments, this site was set up so that peole could leave messages of sympathy or congratulations etc depending on the story involved but all some people seem to do is want to start some sort of debate about facts that we do not always know to be true or not. Please, please, for the sake of all those people affected by such tragic events, stop it now!!!!

agree, sounds like most people on these sites are experts in everything..........