Teenager struck by cyclist in Southend "critical but stable"

2:30pm Monday 4th February 2013 in Local News

The shared space zone The shared space zone

A TEENAGER who was struck by a cyclist in Southend’s shared space area is "critical but stable", police say.

The 16-year-old, from Benfleet, collided with the bike in Marine Parade just after 9.45pm last night.

She was taken by ambulance to Southend Hospital and then transferred to Queens Hospital, in Romford, with a serious head injury.

Police initially described her condition as life-threatening, but on Monday said she had stabilised although she remained in a severe state.

The cyclist, a man in his 20s from Leigh, was uninjured.

Anyone with information about the incident should call PC Paul Calpin, at Laindon road policing unit, on 101.

Comments (134)

10:05am Sat 2 Feb 13

InTheKnowOk says...

The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.
The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage. InTheKnowOk

10:05am Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted.

The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones).

Where in the shared space was she struck?
Was the cyclist looking where they were going?
Did the cyclist have lights?
Were they riding in a safe manner?
Were either inebriated?
Did the cyclist stop and help?
Was the cyclist questioned by police?
I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police? Shoebury_Cyclist

10:13am Sat 2 Feb 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

Wishing the girl all the best.
Wishing the girl all the best. Keptquiettillnow

11:05am Sat 2 Feb 13

reptile says...

Bloody cyclists.
Bloody cyclists. reptile

11:51am Sat 2 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted.

The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones).

Where in the shared space was she struck?
Was the cyclist looking where they were going?
Did the cyclist have lights?
Were they riding in a safe manner?
Were either inebriated?
Did the cyclist stop and help?
Was the cyclist questioned by police?
was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her?

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?[/p][/quote]was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects. Cosmo Spring

12:02pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Cosmo Spring wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted.

The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones).

Where in the shared space was she struck?
Was the cyclist looking where they were going?
Did the cyclist have lights?
Were they riding in a safe manner?
Were either inebriated?
Did the cyclist stop and help?
Was the cyclist questioned by police?
was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her?

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.
Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.
[quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?[/p][/quote]was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.[/p][/quote]Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines. Shoebury_Cyclist

12:58pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Many cyclists are a menace, they zoom along expecting pedestrians to get out thier way, prehaps it is time for all cyclists to have insurance and identity tags on their bikes in the event they knock somebody over the identity tags much like a car number plate can be noted down and the police visit the registered keepers house.
Many cyclists are a menace, they zoom along expecting pedestrians to get out thier way, prehaps it is time for all cyclists to have insurance and identity tags on their bikes in the event they knock somebody over the identity tags much like a car number plate can be noted down and the police visit the registered keepers house. Joe Wildman-Clark

1:00pm Sat 2 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Is one side shared space or both..?
the side where the amusements are where cars always seem to park (is there parking allowed there..?) is a bit tight and more pedestrians that side, so would seem daft if it was a shared space also.
i always feel pedestrians have no idea its a shared space...but cyclists do.
Is one side shared space or both..? the side where the amusements are where cars always seem to park (is there parking allowed there..?) is a bit tight and more pedestrians that side, so would seem daft if it was a shared space also. i always feel pedestrians have no idea its a shared space...but cyclists do. DogsMessInLeigh

1:21pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Is one side shared space or both..?
the side where the amusements are where cars always seem to park (is there parking allowed there..?) is a bit tight and more pedestrians that side, so would seem daft if it was a shared space also.
i always feel pedestrians have no idea its a shared space...but cyclists do.
whenever I cycle along that stretch of the 'front' I always use the road in order to avoid any accidental contact with pedestrians, unfortunately the motorists don't seem to like it when you're going at the speed limit of 20 MPH and they're much more likely to kill you in an accident than a pedestrian...
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: Is one side shared space or both..? the side where the amusements are where cars always seem to park (is there parking allowed there..?) is a bit tight and more pedestrians that side, so would seem daft if it was a shared space also. i always feel pedestrians have no idea its a shared space...but cyclists do.[/p][/quote]whenever I cycle along that stretch of the 'front' I always use the road in order to avoid any accidental contact with pedestrians, unfortunately the motorists don't seem to like it when you're going at the speed limit of 20 MPH and they're much more likely to kill you in an accident than a pedestrian... Cosmo Spring

2:17pm Sat 2 Feb 13

UKGovnor says...

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that according to the Highway Code and Government Transport Agency there is no such thing as 'shared space'.
I may be wrong but I was under the impression that according to the Highway Code and Government Transport Agency there is no such thing as 'shared space'. UKGovnor

3:18pm Sat 2 Feb 13

saarfender says...

The seafront is NOT shared space, despite the label the Coundil have put on it.

Shared space works. It relies on vehicles and pedestrians sharing the same space (the clue is in the name) and as a result is safe for all as vehicle speeds are very low. There are many very good examples of shared space.

The seafront flouts two fundamental rules of shared space.
1) it clearly isn't shared space as it is a clearly marked road with clear pavements either side.
2) The traffic volume is way too high for it to work as a true shared space.

A clear indicator of why this is not shared space and is unsafe is for a pedestrian to just walk from the beach into an amusement arcade. If it is true shared space then they will be able to do that without having to stop or put themselves at risk. Southend fails that simple test as there is a busy road that they have to cross, and cannot (hence all the calls originally for pedestrian crossings).


I wish the pedestrian a speedy recovery, and I also hope that this incident puts an end to the farce that is the seafront and the "shared space" label be recognised for the lie that it is and it be removed from this road.
The seafront is NOT shared space, despite the label the Coundil have put on it. Shared space works. It relies on vehicles and pedestrians sharing the same space (the clue is in the name) and as a result is safe for all as vehicle speeds are very low. There are many very good examples of shared space. The seafront flouts two fundamental rules of shared space. 1) it clearly isn't shared space as it is a clearly marked road with clear pavements either side. 2) The traffic volume is way too high for it to work as a true shared space. A clear indicator of why this is not shared space and is unsafe is for a pedestrian to just walk from the beach into an amusement arcade. If it is true shared space then they will be able to do that without having to stop or put themselves at risk. Southend fails that simple test as there is a busy road that they have to cross, and cannot (hence all the calls originally for pedestrian crossings). I wish the pedestrian a speedy recovery, and I also hope that this incident puts an end to the farce that is the seafront and the "shared space" label be recognised for the lie that it is and it be removed from this road. saarfender

3:24pm Sat 2 Feb 13

saddo99 says...

I wonder if the planners who perpetrated this ridiculous road layout have any regrets. An accident is inevitable at some point and this isn't the first. I regularly drive through here and always feel it was far better before, though the fountain is nice. But don't get me started on Vic Circus or Cuckoo Corner. Total madness. I think SBC work on the principle that if it's broke, don't fix it! Hope the young lady makes a speedy recovery.
I wonder if the planners who perpetrated this ridiculous road layout have any regrets. An accident is inevitable at some point and this isn't the first. I regularly drive through here and always feel it was far better before, though the fountain is nice. But don't get me started on Vic Circus or Cuckoo Corner. Total madness. I think SBC work on the principle that if it's broke, don't fix it! Hope the young lady makes a speedy recovery. saddo99

3:32pm Sat 2 Feb 13

saarfender says...

Oh dear... since I last read it this story has been updated to say her condition is "life threatening". Not good.

I have my fingers crossed for her. I really hope she pulls through.

Southend Council need prosecuting over that road layout.
Oh dear... since I last read it this story has been updated to say her condition is "life threatening". Not good. I have my fingers crossed for her. I really hope she pulls through. Southend Council need prosecuting over that road layout. saarfender

3:37pm Sat 2 Feb 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Cosmo Spring wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted.

The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones).

Where in the shared space was she struck?
Was the cyclist looking where they were going?
Did the cyclist have lights?
Were they riding in a safe manner?
Were either inebriated?
Did the cyclist stop and help?
Was the cyclist questioned by police?
was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her?

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.
Which is EXACTLY why 'shared space' does not work.
The clowns at SBC need to sort this NOW!
[quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?[/p][/quote]was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.[/p][/quote]Which is EXACTLY why 'shared space' does not work. The clowns at SBC need to sort this NOW! stopmoaning1

3:41pm Sat 2 Feb 13

ShrimperSS0 says...

There are so many facts that currently remains open to speculation. Where was the cyclist (road or footpath on either side), did they have lights, how much attention were both taking, how much time did the cyclist have to react to the presence of the pedestrian, how fast was the cyclist travelling as am shocked to read the headline that she's now "fighting for her life" as it must've been a heavy contact for injuries to be that bad. Hope she does make a good recovery.
There are so many facts that currently remains open to speculation. Where was the cyclist (road or footpath on either side), did they have lights, how much attention were both taking, how much time did the cyclist have to react to the presence of the pedestrian, how fast was the cyclist travelling as am shocked to read the headline that she's now "fighting for her life" as it must've been a heavy contact for injuries to be that bad. Hope she does make a good recovery. ShrimperSS0

4:16pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

ShrimperSS0 wrote:
There are so many facts that currently remains open to speculation. Where was the cyclist (road or footpath on either side), did they have lights, how much attention were both taking, how much time did the cyclist have to react to the presence of the pedestrian, how fast was the cyclist travelling as am shocked to read the headline that she's now "fighting for her life" as it must've been a heavy contact for injuries to be that bad. Hope she does make a good recovery.
In truth the actual collision doesn't have to be particularly serious at all, it's how a person - cyclist or pedestrian -falls that makes the difference. (You can sustain life-threatening head injuries simply from tripping in the kitchen and your head hitting the counter edge)

In this case it is likely - but I am only speculating - that her head hit the ground. I hope to high heaven she didn't hit her head on one of those ludicrous razor-sharp kerb edges that are all over the City Beach area.
[quote][p][bold]ShrimperSS0[/bold] wrote: There are so many facts that currently remains open to speculation. Where was the cyclist (road or footpath on either side), did they have lights, how much attention were both taking, how much time did the cyclist have to react to the presence of the pedestrian, how fast was the cyclist travelling as am shocked to read the headline that she's now "fighting for her life" as it must've been a heavy contact for injuries to be that bad. Hope she does make a good recovery.[/p][/quote]In truth the actual collision doesn't have to be particularly serious at all, it's how a person - cyclist or pedestrian -falls that makes the difference. (You can sustain life-threatening head injuries simply from tripping in the kitchen and your head hitting the counter edge) In this case it is likely - but I am only speculating - that her head hit the ground. I hope to high heaven she didn't hit her head on one of those ludicrous razor-sharp kerb edges that are all over the City Beach area. Shoebury_Cyclist

4:21pm Sat 2 Feb 13

whataday says...

Hope the girl survives and does not have any permanent brain damage.
Hope the girl survives and does not have any permanent brain damage. whataday

4:24pm Sat 2 Feb 13

whataday says...

I don't go to Southend very often but have driven along the seafront all the way up to Shoeburyness on a couple of occasions but have no idea where this "shared space" which has caused so many incidents actually is.
It can't be that well marked as I would have thought I would have noticed it. Hope I haven't driven through it without realising
I don't go to Southend very often but have driven along the seafront all the way up to Shoeburyness on a couple of occasions but have no idea where this "shared space" which has caused so many incidents actually is. It can't be that well marked as I would have thought I would have noticed it. Hope I haven't driven through it without realising whataday

4:34pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Cosmo Spring wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted.

The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones).

Where in the shared space was she struck?
Was the cyclist looking where they were going?
Did the cyclist have lights?
Were they riding in a safe manner?
Were either inebriated?
Did the cyclist stop and help?
Was the cyclist questioned by police?
was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her?

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.
Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.
Did the Cyclist have a bell?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?[/p][/quote]was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.[/p][/quote]Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.[/p][/quote]Did the Cyclist have a bell? Broadwaywatch

4:43pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sean4u says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Many cyclists are a menace, they zoom along expecting pedestrians to get out thier way, prehaps it is time for all cyclists to have insurance and identity tags on their bikes in the event they knock somebody over the identity tags much like a car number plate can be noted down and the police visit the registered keepers house.
I have had insurance for outdoor pursuits that covered me on my bicycle for years, a long time ago. The year after I stopped the insurance I was being a young idiot on a new bike and lost control going down a long steep hill somewhere up north, couldn't stay on my side of the road going around a bend and went into the oncoming traffic. I paid out £600 for a new bonnet, grille and valance for the first car I hit - the one I landed on did a 3-point turn and burned away, dumping me on the ground in the process. I have a dim recollection of there being too many people in it.

I've had bumps with pedestrians leaping in front of the bike - never at great speed - and if either of us has come off worse, it has been me: buckled a wheel or fallen to the ground. Wild pedestrians never give me the impression they'd be interested in exchanging insurance details.

There has to be some minimum point at which the hazard we (including pedestrians) present to other road users is simply not worth insuring for. If you're in the wrong, you can be sued for damages anyway. I'm ambivalent about cycle insurance - I see no reason why most of us on bikes shouldn't be covered by our car insurance.

If you see a cyclist "zoom along expecting pedestrians to get out thier way" and you're on a pedestrian way, stand your ground and tell them to ride in the road or ride with consideration for others. That's what I do when circumstance parts me from my bike. Some trivial wrongs should be 'policed' by all of us.

The incident sounds awful. I hope the young woman makes a speedy full recovery.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: Many cyclists are a menace, they zoom along expecting pedestrians to get out thier way, prehaps it is time for all cyclists to have insurance and identity tags on their bikes in the event they knock somebody over the identity tags much like a car number plate can be noted down and the police visit the registered keepers house.[/p][/quote]I have had insurance for outdoor pursuits that covered me on my bicycle for years, a long time ago. The year after I stopped the insurance I was being a young idiot on a new bike and lost control going down a long steep hill somewhere up north, couldn't stay on my side of the road going around a bend and went into the oncoming traffic. I paid out £600 for a new bonnet, grille and valance for the first car I hit - the one I landed on did a 3-point turn and burned away, dumping me on the ground in the process. I have a dim recollection of there being too many people in it. I've had bumps with pedestrians leaping in front of the bike - never at great speed - and if either of us has come off worse, it has been me: buckled a wheel or fallen to the ground. Wild pedestrians never give me the impression they'd be interested in exchanging insurance details. There has to be some minimum point at which the hazard we (including pedestrians) present to other road users is simply not worth insuring for. If you're in the wrong, you can be sued for damages anyway. I'm ambivalent about cycle insurance - I see no reason why most of us on bikes shouldn't be covered by our car insurance. If you see a cyclist "zoom along expecting pedestrians to get out thier way" and you're on a pedestrian way, stand your ground and tell them to ride in the road or ride with consideration for others. That's what I do when circumstance parts me from my bike. Some trivial wrongs should be 'policed' by all of us. The incident sounds awful. I hope the young woman makes a speedy full recovery. Sean4u

4:49pm Sat 2 Feb 13

1nails says...

Bicycles should be taxed and insured just like any other road using vehicle.
Bicycles should be taxed and insured just like any other road using vehicle. 1nails

5:10pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Cosmo Spring says...

ShrimperSS0 wrote:
There are so many facts that currently remains open to speculation. Where was the cyclist (road or footpath on either side), did they have lights, how much attention were both taking, how much time did the cyclist have to react to the presence of the pedestrian, how fast was the cyclist travelling as am shocked to read the headline that she's now "fighting for her life" as it must've been a heavy contact for injuries to be that bad. Hope she does make a good recovery.
yes regardless of the circumstances of this unfortunate incident I hope she makes a full recovery in time.
[quote][p][bold]ShrimperSS0[/bold] wrote: There are so many facts that currently remains open to speculation. Where was the cyclist (road or footpath on either side), did they have lights, how much attention were both taking, how much time did the cyclist have to react to the presence of the pedestrian, how fast was the cyclist travelling as am shocked to read the headline that she's now "fighting for her life" as it must've been a heavy contact for injuries to be that bad. Hope she does make a good recovery.[/p][/quote]yes regardless of the circumstances of this unfortunate incident I hope she makes a full recovery in time. Cosmo Spring

5:16pm Sat 2 Feb 13

bigmak says...

I wouldn't follow Sean4U's advice on the 'shared ' path from East Beach to the Shoebury Coastguard Station, the cyclists don't stop, they shout abuse at you if you suggest that it is shared resource and none of the Lycra-clad ' 'look at me I'm the bee's knees, I've got 50 gears for a 7 mile flat path' ever have a bell or other audible warning device. Their normal warning is to shout at you and refuse to slow down. Isn'yt a warning device still compulsory under the Highway Code?
And before Shoebury cyclist shouts me down, ask the many people like me who walk the path daily, that's the reality, we've complained to our local Councillors about defining who has he right of way, to no avail! I am not complaining about the scores of normal cyclists, family groups etc who are happy to share the path. Just those who seem to have lost their Tour de France or cyclocross team mates!
I wouldn't follow Sean4U's advice on the 'shared ' path from East Beach to the Shoebury Coastguard Station, the cyclists don't stop, they shout abuse at you if you suggest that it is shared resource and none of the Lycra-clad ' 'look at me I'm the bee's knees, I've got 50 gears for a 7 mile flat path' ever have a bell or other audible warning device. Their normal warning is to shout at you and refuse to slow down. Isn'yt a warning device still compulsory under the Highway Code? And before Shoebury cyclist shouts me down, ask the many people like me who walk the path daily, that's the reality, we've complained to our local Councillors about defining who has he right of way, to no avail! I am not complaining about the scores of normal cyclists, family groups etc who are happy to share the path. Just those who seem to have lost their Tour de France or cyclocross team mates! bigmak

5:44pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

bigmak wrote:
I wouldn't follow Sean4U's advice on the 'shared ' path from East Beach to the Shoebury Coastguard Station, the cyclists don't stop, they shout abuse at you if you suggest that it is shared resource and none of the Lycra-clad ' 'look at me I'm the bee's knees, I've got 50 gears for a 7 mile flat path' ever have a bell or other audible warning device. Their normal warning is to shout at you and refuse to slow down. Isn'yt a warning device still compulsory under the Highway Code?
And before Shoebury cyclist shouts me down, ask the many people like me who walk the path daily, that's the reality, we've complained to our local Councillors about defining who has he right of way, to no avail! I am not complaining about the scores of normal cyclists, family groups etc who are happy to share the path. Just those who seem to have lost their Tour de France or cyclocross team mates!
I cycle that path daily and always use the bell.
[quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: I wouldn't follow Sean4U's advice on the 'shared ' path from East Beach to the Shoebury Coastguard Station, the cyclists don't stop, they shout abuse at you if you suggest that it is shared resource and none of the Lycra-clad ' 'look at me I'm the bee's knees, I've got 50 gears for a 7 mile flat path' ever have a bell or other audible warning device. Their normal warning is to shout at you and refuse to slow down. Isn'yt a warning device still compulsory under the Highway Code? And before Shoebury cyclist shouts me down, ask the many people like me who walk the path daily, that's the reality, we've complained to our local Councillors about defining who has he right of way, to no avail! I am not complaining about the scores of normal cyclists, family groups etc who are happy to share the path. Just those who seem to have lost their Tour de France or cyclocross team mates![/p][/quote]I cycle that path daily and always use the bell. Shoebury_Cyclist

6:19pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

Lets hope she recovers, and thoughts are also with the cyclist.
Lets hope she recovers, and thoughts are also with the cyclist. Keptquiettillnow

6:22pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
Lets hope she recovers, and thoughts are also with the cyclist.
Indeed.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: Lets hope she recovers, and thoughts are also with the cyclist.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:21pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sean4u says...

"bell"
One's only *recommended* in rule 66.

https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82/overview-59-t
o-71

I use a horn ("parp parp") myself, which might be a bit pointless as everybody appears to decide that they couldn't possibly have heard one, it being the 21st Century and all. Sometimes when the horn is ignored several times in a row I shout "Briiinnnggg brriinnngggg!" at a safe distance and apologise for having the wrong audible warning device as I pass.

I don't wear lycra: this time of year I'm the boil-in-the-bag cyclist, complete with wellies - anything else rots away from the swill on the road. Racing gear is probably all right for fair weather cyclists.

I'm not a fan of cycle paths - a bicycle is a road vehicle. Herding cyclists onto pedestrian / leisure paths is probably politically expedient: making the roads safer would cost votes from those who want a free-for-all.

I see occasional suggestions that cycling should be made part of the national curriculum - I think that's a good idea, if only to make people aware of the Highway Code a little earlier!
"bell" One's only *recommended* in rule 66. https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82/overview-59-t o-71 I use a horn ("parp parp") myself, which might be a bit pointless as everybody appears to decide that they couldn't possibly have heard one, it being the 21st Century and all. Sometimes when the horn is ignored several times in a row I shout "Briiinnnggg brriinnngggg!" at a safe distance and apologise for having the wrong audible warning device as I pass. I don't wear lycra: this time of year I'm the boil-in-the-bag cyclist, complete with wellies - anything else rots away from the swill on the road. Racing gear is probably all right for fair weather cyclists. I'm not a fan of cycle paths - a bicycle is a road vehicle. Herding cyclists onto pedestrian / leisure paths is probably politically expedient: making the roads safer would cost votes from those who want a free-for-all. I see occasional suggestions that cycling should be made part of the national curriculum - I think that's a good idea, if only to make people aware of the Highway Code a little earlier! Sean4u

7:39pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

bigmak wrote:
pleased to hear that Shoebury Cyclist, please can you have a word with the other idiots who give you a bad name?
Why? Do you 'have a word' with bad drivers?
[quote][p][bold]bigmak[/bold] wrote: pleased to hear that Shoebury Cyclist, please can you have a word with the other idiots who give you a bad name?[/p][/quote]Why? Do you 'have a word' with bad drivers? Shoebury_Cyclist

7:53pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Elephantman2 says...

1nails wrote:
Bicycles should be taxed and insured just like any other road using vehicle.
That's sensible; tax liability zero (as with all low emission vehicles) cost of paperwork to the great British Tax Payer? Most cyclists are insured so they can sue the arse of the motorists who attempt to kill them!
[quote][p][bold]1nails[/bold] wrote: Bicycles should be taxed and insured just like any other road using vehicle.[/p][/quote]That's sensible; tax liability zero (as with all low emission vehicles) cost of paperwork to the great British Tax Payer? Most cyclists are insured so they can sue the arse of the motorists who attempt to kill them! Elephantman2

8:36pm Sat 2 Feb 13

whiskers says...

Shared space or not,the fact of the matter is cyclist and pedestrians do not mix.
Shared space or not,the fact of the matter is cyclist and pedestrians do not mix. whiskers

8:41pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Barry_Shitpeas says...

Lets hope that this leads to a balanced conversation about people (ie everyone) who uses our public highways. In the sense that we all have responsibility in how we all should look out for ourselves and each other.
Lets hope that this leads to a balanced conversation about people (ie everyone) who uses our public highways. In the sense that we all have responsibility in how we all should look out for ourselves and each other. Barry_Shitpeas

9:15pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Devils Advocate says...

All sympathy to this young lady and her family. Let's all hope she recovers fully from this trauma.

I have to say with regard to some of the comments on here, nobody is in any doubt that this area is designated as shared.

I am aware, and, when I drive through it, I drive below 20mph and, if I spot pedestrians moving to cross the road, I will stop and wait for them to cross. Hopefully, I will never cause an accident with a pedestrian. However, I do so against severe peer pressure from the motorists behind me, and many approaching choose not to give way. Yet, when you are old enough to drive a car, you are considered an adult. Why do so few motorists seem to realise this.

Having been in a near miss on the cycle track opposite the Harvester where the road leads to the slipway by the coastguards, I was in the wrong as I thought I was on the path, but the cyclist came at such a speed and made no attempt to slow and must have been aware that I hadn't seen him. I just hope all Southend's cyclists do not drive with that mindset, because if they do, their will sadly be more of this type of accident. It is surely up to the cyclist to behave in a manner that puts them above criticism, which is what I do when I cycle around Basildon (With a bell which was a legal requirement when I was 14, and yet a warning instrument is not required on a vehicle today? Unlikely!)
All sympathy to this young lady and her family. Let's all hope she recovers fully from this trauma. I have to say with regard to some of the comments on here, nobody is in any doubt that this area is designated as shared. I am aware, and, when I drive through it, I drive below 20mph and, if I spot pedestrians moving to cross the road, I will stop and wait for them to cross. Hopefully, I will never cause an accident with a pedestrian. However, I do so against severe peer pressure from the motorists behind me, and many approaching choose not to give way. Yet, when you are old enough to drive a car, you are considered an adult. Why do so few motorists seem to realise this. Having been in a near miss on the cycle track opposite the Harvester where the road leads to the slipway by the coastguards, I was in the wrong as I thought I was on the path, but the cyclist came at such a speed and made no attempt to slow and must have been aware that I hadn't seen him. I just hope all Southend's cyclists do not drive with that mindset, because if they do, their will sadly be more of this type of accident. It is surely up to the cyclist to behave in a manner that puts them above criticism, which is what I do when I cycle around Basildon (With a bell which was a legal requirement when I was 14, and yet a warning instrument is not required on a vehicle today? Unlikely!) Devils Advocate

9:53pm Sat 2 Feb 13

sophie_pearson says...

she was on the pavement outside chinnerys after having crossed the road, an the cyclist came down pier hill at a ridiculous speed even after being shouted at to slow down after nearly knocking some people over on his way down. Whether or not that area is a shared space seems irrelevant at the moment to be perfectly honest, the speed he was going was ridiculous in any area that pedestrians would be. No she was not on her phone, and yes the cyclist did have lights but was going at too fast of a speed for her to even see them and move before she was hit.
Get well soon girl, I miss you already. Love you lots xxx
she was on the pavement outside chinnerys after having crossed the road, an the cyclist came down pier hill at a ridiculous speed even after being shouted at to slow down after nearly knocking some people over on his way down. Whether or not that area is a shared space seems irrelevant at the moment to be perfectly honest, the speed he was going was ridiculous in any area that pedestrians would be. No she was not on her phone, and yes the cyclist did have lights but was going at too fast of a speed for her to even see them and move before she was hit. Get well soon girl, I miss you already. Love you lots xxx sophie_pearson

9:56pm Sat 2 Feb 13

saarfender says...

Devils Advocate said " (With a bell which was a legal requirement when I was 14, and yet a warning instrument is not required on a vehicle today? Unlikely!)"

I think the law states it has to be fitted to a bicycle at the point of sale, but there is no requirement to keep it on the bike afterwards.

Some of my bikes have bells, some have those hooters with squeezy rubber bulbs, one has a 120db air horn, and a couple have none (yes I like bicycles). They all though have the same thing in common with my motorbike and car.... in an emergency I hit the brakes/steering and not the hooter.

If I've got time to sound an audible warning, I have time to avoid a collision.

If I'm driving up behind a slower vehicle (milk float/tractor/bicycl
e) I don't sound my hooter to make them get out of the way, that's inconsiderate and rude. I do the same when cycling, if there's somebody in my way ahead I slow down and avoid them.


This is also why properly designed shared space does work. I've got some video/photos somewhere of good examples of it. It forces everybody to be considerate to each other. It's exactly the same as when traffic lights fail and drivers give way to each other (often with less congestion than when the lights are working).

So let's cut the cyclist/pedestrian/d
river bashing. We're all people and we should all be considerate to each other. Of course, that road layout doesn't help and it's no wonder there are collisions down there when it's laid out as a road and used as such by some people but as shared space by others.

We don't know the facts behind the collision. A poor girl is suffering, and our thoughts should be there.
Devils Advocate said " (With a bell which was a legal requirement when I was 14, and yet a warning instrument is not required on a vehicle today? Unlikely!)" I think the law states it has to be fitted to a bicycle at the point of sale, but there is no requirement to keep it on the bike afterwards. Some of my bikes have bells, some have those hooters with squeezy rubber bulbs, one has a 120db air horn, and a couple have none (yes I like bicycles). They all though have the same thing in common with my motorbike and car.... in an emergency I hit the brakes/steering and not the hooter. If I've got time to sound an audible warning, I have time to avoid a collision. If I'm driving up behind a slower vehicle (milk float/tractor/bicycl e) I don't sound my hooter to make them get out of the way, that's inconsiderate and rude. I do the same when cycling, if there's somebody in my way ahead I slow down and avoid them. This is also why properly designed shared space does work. I've got some video/photos somewhere of good examples of it. It forces everybody to be considerate to each other. It's exactly the same as when traffic lights fail and drivers give way to each other (often with less congestion than when the lights are working). So let's cut the cyclist/pedestrian/d river bashing. We're all people and we should all be considerate to each other. Of course, that road layout doesn't help and it's no wonder there are collisions down there when it's laid out as a road and used as such by some people but as shared space by others. We don't know the facts behind the collision. A poor girl is suffering, and our thoughts should be there. saarfender

10:53pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

whiskers wrote:
Shared space or not,the fact of the matter is cyclist and pedestrians do not mix.
To be fair this is the first cycle/pedestrian collision on Marine Parade in the two years or so the shared space has been open.
[quote][p][bold]whiskers[/bold] wrote: Shared space or not,the fact of the matter is cyclist and pedestrians do not mix.[/p][/quote]To be fair this is the first cycle/pedestrian collision on Marine Parade in the two years or so the shared space has been open. Shoebury_Cyclist

11:47pm Sat 2 Feb 13

emcee says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
whiskers wrote:
Shared space or not,the fact of the matter is cyclist and pedestrians do not mix.
To be fair this is the first cycle/pedestrian collision on Marine Parade in the two years or so the shared space has been open.
No, but it's not the first accident to happen on this part of the seafront though in those two years.
For any "shared space" to work ALL parties using it must:
1. be vigilant to the extreme
2. be considerate of ALL other users
3. SLOW DOWN
However, a lot of cars still speed and still believe the road area is for their use only. A lot of cyclists speed and weave indiscriminately in and around cars and pedestrians. Lastly, pedestrians just do not look where they are going and are oblivious to their surroundings. Is it any wonder, therefore, there will be accidents here. In its present format this space will host many more, I am sure. As will Victoria Gateway.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whiskers[/bold] wrote: Shared space or not,the fact of the matter is cyclist and pedestrians do not mix.[/p][/quote]To be fair this is the first cycle/pedestrian collision on Marine Parade in the two years or so the shared space has been open.[/p][/quote]No, but it's not the first accident to happen on this part of the seafront though in those two years. For any "shared space" to work ALL parties using it must: 1. be vigilant to the extreme 2. be considerate of ALL other users 3. SLOW DOWN However, a lot of cars still speed and still believe the road area is for their use only. A lot of cyclists speed and weave indiscriminately in and around cars and pedestrians. Lastly, pedestrians just do not look where they are going and are oblivious to their surroundings. Is it any wonder, therefore, there will be accidents here. In its present format this space will host many more, I am sure. As will Victoria Gateway. emcee

11:50pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Carnabackable says...

Another cycle loony, going for gold, which is why, in this day and age they should be taxed and insured.
They are a menace on the road, and as often the case, off the road, on the pavement.
Another cycle loony, going for gold, which is why, in this day and age they should be taxed and insured. They are a menace on the road, and as often the case, off the road, on the pavement. Carnabackable

12:29am Sun 3 Feb 13

pendulum says...

sophie_pearson wrote:
she was on the pavement outside chinnerys after having crossed the road, an the cyclist came down pier hill at a ridiculous speed even after being shouted at to slow down after nearly knocking some people over on his way down. Whether or not that area is a shared space seems irrelevant at the moment to be perfectly honest, the speed he was going was ridiculous in any area that pedestrians would be. No she was not on her phone, and yes the cyclist did have lights but was going at too fast of a speed for her to even see them and move before she was hit.
Get well soon girl, I miss you already. Love you lots xxx
That explains why she was badly injured then. An idiot could 'achieve' around 45mph hurtling down a hill as steep as Pier Hill.
[quote][p][bold]sophie_pearson[/bold] wrote: she was on the pavement outside chinnerys after having crossed the road, an the cyclist came down pier hill at a ridiculous speed even after being shouted at to slow down after nearly knocking some people over on his way down. Whether or not that area is a shared space seems irrelevant at the moment to be perfectly honest, the speed he was going was ridiculous in any area that pedestrians would be. No she was not on her phone, and yes the cyclist did have lights but was going at too fast of a speed for her to even see them and move before she was hit. Get well soon girl, I miss you already. Love you lots xxx[/p][/quote]That explains why she was badly injured then. An idiot could 'achieve' around 45mph hurtling down a hill as steep as Pier Hill. pendulum

5:20am Sun 3 Feb 13

gooner44 says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.
Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.[/p][/quote]Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them. gooner44

8:54am Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

gooner44 wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.
Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.
That whole area is designated as shared space. That means people cancycle on the 'pavement' areas.

The cyclist was not in the wrong by not being on the road section. They WERE in the wrong in riding so quickly with pedestrians in the area.

As for going 'over 30 miles an hour', that is a matter for the police to decide. Unless you were using a speed gun at the time?
[quote][p][bold]gooner44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.[/p][/quote]Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.[/p][/quote]That whole area is designated as shared space. That means people cancycle on the 'pavement' areas. The cyclist was not in the wrong by not being on the road section. They WERE in the wrong in riding so quickly with pedestrians in the area. As for going 'over 30 miles an hour', that is a matter for the police to decide. Unless you were using a speed gun at the time? Shoebury_Cyclist

10:03am Sun 3 Feb 13

Heavenwilkins says...

I would say "Shoebury Cyclist" comment about cycle haters "crawling out from under their stones" says more about his strange line of thoughts than cycle haters. I should not imagine anyone actually "hates" cyclists but manyj do find them a menace whenthey ride on pavements and show little regard for pedestrians- especially the elderly and hard of hearing. They also jump traffic lights and create dangers for oncoming cars driving in accord with the lights.Not much point commenting on the accident because we do ot know the details. The shared space system was flawed from the start but the Council would rather see a nasty accident than lose face by admitting that, as so often, they are out of touch with everyday people behaviour.
I would say "Shoebury Cyclist" comment about cycle haters "crawling out from under their stones" says more about his strange line of thoughts than cycle haters. I should not imagine anyone actually "hates" cyclists but manyj do find them a menace whenthey ride on pavements and show little regard for pedestrians- especially the elderly and hard of hearing. They also jump traffic lights and create dangers for oncoming cars driving in accord with the lights.Not much point commenting on the accident because we do ot know the details. The shared space system was flawed from the start but the Council would rather see a nasty accident than lose face by admitting that, as so often, they are out of touch with everyday people behaviour. Heavenwilkins

10:10am Sun 3 Feb 13

Heavenwilkins says...

Further to my earlier comment about it being hard to comment when we do not know the circumstances..if the comment just posted from the person who actualjy saw the accident and says the cyclist was on the pavement and speeding down pier hill then perhaps that is why there are "cyclist haters" and I wonder what second thoughts "Shoebury Cycist" migh tlike to add in light of this new information. There is no doubt many cyclists believe they have a God given right to ignore the law with total disregard for the safety of others.
Further to my earlier comment about it being hard to comment when we do not know the circumstances..if the comment just posted from the person who actualjy saw the accident and says the cyclist was on the pavement and speeding down pier hill then perhaps that is why there are "cyclist haters" and I wonder what second thoughts "Shoebury Cycist" migh tlike to add in light of this new information. There is no doubt many cyclists believe they have a God given right to ignore the law with total disregard for the safety of others. Heavenwilkins

10:20am Sun 3 Feb 13

Sean4u says...

Regardless of the wisdom or folly of shared pedestrian / anything spaces, the apparent witness accounts make it sound as though the cyclist (it's not a cult, we're not affiliated in any way) could face some hefty police charges - none of us are free to injure another. It'll be interesting to hear how the story develops - I hope the Echo will bring news of the young woman's improving condition soon.

Out of interest, does anybody know how a hypothetical reckless cyclist injuring a pedestrian might be charged? I'm guessing it would be some kind of "Offences / Assaults against the person" such as Common Assault or ABH whereas a car driver would be charged under the Road Traffic Act - is that how it works?
Regardless of the wisdom or folly of shared pedestrian / anything spaces, the apparent witness accounts make it sound as though the cyclist (it's not a cult, we're not affiliated in any way) could face some hefty police charges - none of us are free to injure another. It'll be interesting to hear how the story develops - I hope the Echo will bring news of the young woman's improving condition soon. Out of interest, does anybody know how a hypothetical reckless cyclist injuring a pedestrian might be charged? I'm guessing it would be some kind of "Offences / Assaults against the person" such as Common Assault or ABH whereas a car driver would be charged under the Road Traffic Act - is that how it works? Sean4u

10:41am Sun 3 Feb 13

j-w says...

So it looks like the fault is down the the cyclist being reckless and not the area or design of the area. Two years this has been in place and there have been a couple of serious incidents but put that into perspective, it is usually very busy with cars, cyclists and pedestrians . People were still knocked down along marine parade before the improvements and that's with crossings and a central reservation. Hope the victim gets well soon.
So it looks like the fault is down the the cyclist being reckless and not the area or design of the area. Two years this has been in place and there have been a couple of serious incidents but put that into perspective, it is usually very busy with cars, cyclists and pedestrians . People were still knocked down along marine parade before the improvements and that's with crossings and a central reservation. Hope the victim gets well soon. j-w

12:19pm Sun 3 Feb 13

saarfender says...

It's good we have some eye witnesses on here, as it can rule out speculation. It has got me confused though.

One witness says it occured "on the pavement outside Chinnerys" and the cyclists did have lights Well that's way past the Pier Hill location so the excessive speed from there would have worn off. It's also in the so called "shared space", so there is in theory no such thing as a pavement. Note, I wasn't there and am not defending the cyclist, although I can see that this comment might be taken as such.

The other witness said the cyclist was speeding on the pavement down Pier Hill without lights when the collision occurred... If so then that's not defendable.


Did this collision occur on Pier Hill, or in the shared space? Was the cyclist on the pavement or in the road on Pier Hill?

If I can't avoid going down Pier Hill, I ride it fast. It's a contraflow cycle lane and incredibly scary as it's so narrow you are at risk of a head on collision if a wide vehicle (transit van) is on the way up. It's another lethal design that shouldn't have gone in. I always slow at the bottom though.

Google streetview clearly shows the bottom of Pier Hill, and also shows how that seafront is not shared space. http://goo.gl/maps/6
dAo2 There is a clear road and cycle path layout there, yet the Council call it shared space. If is it actually shared space then not only are cyclists in the right going down the grey paved "pavement" but also so are cars!
It's good we have some eye witnesses on here, as it can rule out speculation. It has got me confused though. One witness says it occured "on the pavement outside Chinnerys" and the cyclists did have lights Well that's way past the Pier Hill location so the excessive speed from there would have worn off. It's also in the so called "shared space", so there is in theory no such thing as a pavement. Note, I wasn't there and am not defending the cyclist, although I can see that this comment might be taken as such. The other witness said the cyclist was speeding on the pavement down Pier Hill without lights when the collision occurred... If so then that's not defendable. Did this collision occur on Pier Hill, or in the shared space? Was the cyclist on the pavement or in the road on Pier Hill? If I can't avoid going down Pier Hill, I ride it fast. It's a contraflow cycle lane and incredibly scary as it's so narrow you are at risk of a head on collision if a wide vehicle (transit van) is on the way up. It's another lethal design that shouldn't have gone in. I always slow at the bottom though. Google streetview clearly shows the bottom of Pier Hill, and also shows how that seafront is not shared space. http://goo.gl/maps/6 dAo2 There is a clear road and cycle path layout there, yet the Council call it shared space. If is it actually shared space then not only are cyclists in the right going down the grey paved "pavement" but also so are cars! saarfender

12:29pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

"If I can't avoid going down Pier Hill, I ride it fast. It's a contraflow cycle lane and incredibly scary as it's so narrow you are at risk of a head on collision if a wide vehicle (transit van) is on the way up. It's another lethal design that shouldn't have gone in. I always slow at the bottom though."

Likewise, but it isn't just vans we need to be wary of on Pier Hill:

http://youtu.be/DnIN
cubYY7c
"If I can't avoid going down Pier Hill, I ride it fast. It's a contraflow cycle lane and incredibly scary as it's so narrow you are at risk of a head on collision if a wide vehicle (transit van) is on the way up. It's another lethal design that shouldn't have gone in. I always slow at the bottom though." Likewise, but it isn't just vans we need to be wary of on Pier Hill: http://youtu.be/DnIN cubYY7c Shoebury_Cyclist

12:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction.
Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.
I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction. Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone. Keptquiettillnow

12:37pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction.
Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.
It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction. Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.[/p][/quote]It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights. Shoebury_Cyclist

12:45pm Sun 3 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

'a ridiculous speed'...and '30mph' has been quoted then impacting the 16 yo girl.... how the rider didn't get injured is amazing.
'a ridiculous speed'...and '30mph' has been quoted then impacting the 16 yo girl.... how the rider didn't get injured is amazing. DogsMessInLeigh

12:46pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Keptquiettillnow wrote:
I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction.
Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.
It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.
I havent got any problem with that SC, but why is the kerb taken away at that junction in the picture? and the rest of the road, if it is shared space why is there a kerb?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction. Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.[/p][/quote]It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.[/p][/quote]I havent got any problem with that SC, but why is the kerb taken away at that junction in the picture? and the rest of the road, if it is shared space why is there a kerb? Keptquiettillnow

12:49pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Keptquiettillnow wrote:
I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction.
Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.
It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.
I havent got any problem with that SC, but why is the kerb taken away at that junction in the picture? and the rest of the road, if it is shared space why is there a kerb?
Because it is badly designed and implemented and doesn't conform to real woonerf specifications.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: I always thought the shared space area was designated with those spheres at the Hartington Road junction. Its very sad when these things happen, but isnt it best to wait for the Police to comment before people start to condemn anyone.[/p][/quote]It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.[/p][/quote]I havent got any problem with that SC, but why is the kerb taken away at that junction in the picture? and the rest of the road, if it is shared space why is there a kerb?[/p][/quote]Because it is badly designed and implemented and doesn't conform to real woonerf specifications. Shoebury_Cyclist

1:35pm Sun 3 Feb 13

jantone says...

i cannot understand how the cyclist could not see the teenager. the area is extremely well lit, so the teenager obviously was not looking properly.
there is nothing wrong at all with marine parade, but like crossing ALL roads due care & attention must be followed!! i do, however wish the person well & a speedy recovery.
i cannot understand how the cyclist could not see the teenager. the area is extremely well lit, so the teenager obviously was not looking properly. there is nothing wrong at all with marine parade, but like crossing ALL roads due care & attention must be followed!! i do, however wish the person well & a speedy recovery. jantone

1:39pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Ed in says...

I wish the girl concerned a speedy recovery.

I have been hit by cyclists on two separate occasions on the pavement and have had plenty of near misses recently. Witnessing the disregard shown by your average cyclist to every other road/pavement user I think this cartoon published in the Daily Mirror really sums it up. I always have a chuckle when I think of it.

http://i2.mirror.co.
uk/incoming/article1
349336.ece/ALTERNATE
S/s615/Tony+Parsons+
Cartoon
I wish the girl concerned a speedy recovery. I have been hit by cyclists on two separate occasions on the pavement and have had plenty of near misses recently. Witnessing the disregard shown by your average cyclist to every other road/pavement user I think this cartoon published in the Daily Mirror really sums it up. I always have a chuckle when I think of it. http://i2.mirror.co. uk/incoming/article1 349336.ece/ALTERNATE S/s615/Tony+Parsons+ Cartoon Ed in

1:43pm Sun 3 Feb 13

gooner44 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
'a ridiculous speed'...and '30mph' has been quoted then impacting the 16 yo girl.... how the rider didn't get injured is amazing.
cyclist was injured contrary to what was reported as he was taken to hospital with a spinal board and collar and clearly in some pain
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: 'a ridiculous speed'...and '30mph' has been quoted then impacting the 16 yo girl.... how the rider didn't get injured is amazing.[/p][/quote]cyclist was injured contrary to what was reported as he was taken to hospital with a spinal board and collar and clearly in some pain gooner44

3:27pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

I just had a walk along the seafront and couldnt see any of those Police boards that get put up asking for witness etc whenever there is or has been an incident. Surprised me given how serious the report sounds.
Oh and guess what, we stood on the side of road waiting to cross and did any traffic stop or slow for us.
I just had a walk along the seafront and couldnt see any of those Police boards that get put up asking for witness etc whenever there is or has been an incident. Surprised me given how serious the report sounds. Oh and guess what, we stood on the side of road waiting to cross and did any traffic stop or slow for us. Keptquiettillnow

3:46pm Sun 3 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.
it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness. asbo. just the truth

4:08pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Purple Om 89-91 says...

I was there.
The poor girl was hit at 9.37pm
The emergency services didn't arrive at the scene until 9.56pm
I was suprised how long it took.
I saw many of the young people gathered around were laughing and joking, as if they were watching some reality TV.
Grim times we are living in.
I was there. The poor girl was hit at 9.37pm The emergency services didn't arrive at the scene until 9.56pm I was suprised how long it took. I saw many of the young people gathered around were laughing and joking, as if they were watching some reality TV. Grim times we are living in. Purple Om 89-91

4:37pm Sun 3 Feb 13

saarfender says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.
If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped.

That is why the seafront is NOT shared space, and why the layout is so lethal. Some treat is as a road and pavement, others treat it as shared space. That conflict of how it can be used can lead to incidents, although maybe not relevant in this case if the cyclist was riding irresponsibly as some claim.


Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.[/p][/quote]If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped. That is why the seafront is NOT shared space, and why the layout is so lethal. Some treat is as a road and pavement, others treat it as shared space. That conflict of how it can be used can lead to incidents, although maybe not relevant in this case if the cyclist was riding irresponsibly as some claim. Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through. saarfender

4:45pm Sun 3 Feb 13

saarfender says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
Hate to say I told you so but...
Why the speculation about the cyclists speed? I used to race cycles and I know it is almost impossible for even the fittest cyclist to go over 30 mph on the flat unless they have a very strong tailwind so the accusations of speeding are irrelevant.
However, many kids don't seem to have a clue about road safety, they walk straight across the roads without looking because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them how to cross the road safely. I do not know whether this might have been the case on this occasion so I can't comment further but I do hope this young lady gets better.
so it was the parent's fault but you don't want to comment further? an insensitive post at the very best
I don't think that's an insensitive post as such. I also used to ride seriously and also know that >30mph on the flat is very hard (as I said earlier about the speed from the hill having worn off if it was outside Chinnerys).

I've been knocked off my bike in the past by a pedestrian stepping out into the road while changing tunes on their iPlod. Not my fault, and I couldn't avoid it (nor would i have rung a bell in time), and if I'd been driving I'd have hit them just as hard.

I don't know why there is so much speculation over the speed either. I wasn't there so am not going to say whether it was high or low, nor am I going to say whether it was the pedestrian's fault or not. The whole incident should have been avoided. Sometimes collisions do occur that really are true accidents, but mostly there are contributing factors. In my mind, the whole layout of that road is a major contributing factor, with the Council encouraging pedestrians down there, then labelling it as shared space and encouraging vehicles and cyclists through there too. If they wanted a true seafront promenade for tourism, they should have had the balls to close it to traffic, or they should have kept it as a clear fenced off road and cycle track with ample crossings.

As always, I'm hoping for a swift recovery of the injured.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: Hate to say I told you so but... Why the speculation about the cyclists speed? I used to race cycles and I know it is almost impossible for even the fittest cyclist to go over 30 mph on the flat unless they have a very strong tailwind so the accusations of speeding are irrelevant. However, many kids don't seem to have a clue about road safety, they walk straight across the roads without looking because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them how to cross the road safely. I do not know whether this might have been the case on this occasion so I can't comment further but I do hope this young lady gets better.[/p][/quote]so it was the parent's fault but you don't want to comment further? an insensitive post at the very best[/p][/quote]I don't think that's an insensitive post as such. I also used to ride seriously and also know that >30mph on the flat is very hard (as I said earlier about the speed from the hill having worn off if it was outside Chinnerys). I've been knocked off my bike in the past by a pedestrian stepping out into the road while changing tunes on their iPlod. Not my fault, and I couldn't avoid it (nor would i have rung a bell in time), and if I'd been driving I'd have hit them just as hard. I don't know why there is so much speculation over the speed either. I wasn't there so am not going to say whether it was high or low, nor am I going to say whether it was the pedestrian's fault or not. The whole incident should have been avoided. Sometimes collisions do occur that really are true accidents, but mostly there are contributing factors. In my mind, the whole layout of that road is a major contributing factor, with the Council encouraging pedestrians down there, then labelling it as shared space and encouraging vehicles and cyclists through there too. If they wanted a true seafront promenade for tourism, they should have had the balls to close it to traffic, or they should have kept it as a clear fenced off road and cycle track with ample crossings. As always, I'm hoping for a swift recovery of the injured. saarfender

4:48pm Sun 3 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

saarfender wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.
If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped.

That is why the seafront is NOT shared space, and why the layout is so lethal. Some treat is as a road and pavement, others treat it as shared space. That conflict of how it can be used can lead to incidents, although maybe not relevant in this case if the cyclist was riding irresponsibly as some claim.


Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.
no that is not the case. the space for cars is clear with a 20mph speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]saarfender[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.[/p][/quote]If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped. That is why the seafront is NOT shared space, and why the layout is so lethal. Some treat is as a road and pavement, others treat it as shared space. That conflict of how it can be used can lead to incidents, although maybe not relevant in this case if the cyclist was riding irresponsibly as some claim. Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.[/p][/quote]no that is not the case. the space for cars is clear with a 20mph speed limit. asbo. just the truth

4:49pm Sun 3 Feb 13

saarfender says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
saarfender wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.
If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped.

That is why the seafront is NOT shared space, and why the layout is so lethal. Some treat is as a road and pavement, others treat it as shared space. That conflict of how it can be used can lead to incidents, although maybe not relevant in this case if the cyclist was riding irresponsibly as some claim.


Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.
no that is not the case. the space for cars is clear with a 20mph speed limit.
"The space for cars is clear" - therefore proving my point that the seafront is not a shared space.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saarfender[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: it's shared space but those that created it assumed the users of that shared space have brains in their heads. any cyclist that pedals faster than walking speed on the space shared with the pedestrians should be kneecapped. cc martin mcguiness.[/p][/quote]If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped. That is why the seafront is NOT shared space, and why the layout is so lethal. Some treat is as a road and pavement, others treat it as shared space. That conflict of how it can be used can lead to incidents, although maybe not relevant in this case if the cyclist was riding irresponsibly as some claim. Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.[/p][/quote]no that is not the case. the space for cars is clear with a 20mph speed limit.[/p][/quote]"The space for cars is clear" - therefore proving my point that the seafront is not a shared space. saarfender

4:58pm Sun 3 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
gooner44 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
gooner44 wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
gooner44 wrote:
InTheKnowOk wrote:
The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.
Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.
That whole area is designated as shared space. That means people cancycle on the 'pavement' areas.

The cyclist was not in the wrong by not being on the road section. They WERE in the wrong in riding so quickly with pedestrians in the area.

As for going 'over 30 miles an hour', that is a matter for the police to decide. Unless you were using a speed gun at the time?
he was cycling on the pavement not on the cycle track provided on the other side of the road and yes speed was clocked at over 30 miles an hour get ur facts correct before u make any further stupid comments
There is no designated cycle track on Marine Parade shared use area. Cyclists and pedestrians are free to use the entire area between the pier and the Kursaal and between the arcades and the beach.

Do you have proof the 'speed was clocked at over 30 miles an hour'? Did you have a speed gun?
No. So the speed is just speculation, and not backed up with evidence at all.
u was not there so please keep quiet and get on with ur dinner u kno nothing at all on what so button it
I cycle along there several times a week. I know there is NO designated cycle path on that part of the seafront. I know cyclists can use any part of that section of seafront. I know there are no speed cameras on Pier Hill or near Chinnerys.

So unless you actually had a speed gun with you to measure the cyclist's speed there is no way at all you can possibly know what speed he was travelling at.
anyone with judgement is able to make good a estimate of speed as a pedestrian. besides we are all trained to know what 30mph is with our eyes closed. you obviously need a speedo but we already know you have zero judgement.
I notice that in your usual rush do nothing but attack other posters you have completely failed to wish the injured girl well.
it goes without saying. but yet again you are questioning and undermining credible eyewitness accounts when you were not there. any speed that is faster than pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that"'I reckon he was goin' at least firty mile 'n hour guv", will be thrown out of court as inadmissible without concrete proof that that WAS the speed he was travelling at.
let me restate. any speed that is faster than pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space. you do the cause of cyclists only harm with your posts.
As usual you jump in mouth open and eyes shut. I wrote earlier:

"The cyclist was not in the wrong by not being on the road section. They WERE in the wrong in riding so quickly with pedestrians in the area. "

You STILL have not wished the poor girl well. It seems attacking other posters is more important to you.
my best wishes to the girl. any speed above pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gooner44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gooner44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gooner44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: The whole layout is ridiculously consusing as to who can park where in the daytime let alone night, it needs changing before someone dies as there is no safety barriers like before All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.[/p][/quote]Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.[/p][/quote]That whole area is designated as shared space. That means people cancycle on the 'pavement' areas. The cyclist was not in the wrong by not being on the road section. They WERE in the wrong in riding so quickly with pedestrians in the area. As for going 'over 30 miles an hour', that is a matter for the police to decide. Unless you were using a speed gun at the time?[/p][/quote]he was cycling on the pavement not on the cycle track provided on the other side of the road and yes speed was clocked at over 30 miles an hour get ur facts correct before u make any further stupid comments[/p][/quote]There is no designated cycle track on Marine Parade shared use area. Cyclists and pedestrians are free to use the entire area between the pier and the Kursaal and between the arcades and the beach. Do you have proof the 'speed was clocked at over 30 miles an hour'? Did you have a speed gun? No. So the speed is just speculation, and not backed up with evidence at all.[/p][/quote]u was not there so please keep quiet and get on with ur dinner u kno nothing at all on what so button it[/p][/quote]I cycle along there several times a week. I know there is NO designated cycle path on that part of the seafront. I know cyclists can use any part of that section of seafront. I know there are no speed cameras on Pier Hill or near Chinnerys. So unless you actually had a speed gun with you to measure the cyclist's speed there is no way at all you can possibly know what speed he was travelling at.[/p][/quote]anyone with judgement is able to make good a estimate of speed as a pedestrian. besides we are all trained to know what 30mph is with our eyes closed. you obviously need a speedo but we already know you have zero judgement.[/p][/quote]I notice that in your usual rush do nothing but attack other posters you have completely failed to wish the injured girl well.[/p][/quote]it goes without saying. but yet again you are questioning and undermining credible eyewitness accounts when you were not there. any speed that is faster than pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space[/p][/quote]I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that"'I reckon he was goin' at least firty mile 'n hour guv", will be thrown out of court as inadmissible without concrete proof that that WAS the speed he was travelling at.[/p][/quote]let me restate. any speed that is faster than pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space. you do the cause of cyclists only harm with your posts.[/p][/quote]As usual you jump in mouth open and eyes shut. I wrote earlier: "The cyclist was not in the wrong by not being on the road section. They WERE in the wrong in riding so quickly with pedestrians in the area. " You STILL have not wished the poor girl well. It seems attacking other posters is more important to you.[/p][/quote]my best wishes to the girl. any speed above pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space asbo. just the truth

5:03pm Sun 3 Feb 13

leroyjean says...

The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/
2009/08/12/cyclist-i
s-jailed-for-killing
-by-1861-law-335527/
). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow
n.com/motorcycle-new
s--general-news/care
less-cyclist-prosecu
ted-for-injuring-bik
er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.
The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/ 2009/08/12/cyclist-i s-jailed-for-killing -by-1861-law-335527/ ). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow n.com/motorcycle-new s--general-news/care less-cyclist-prosecu ted-for-injuring-bik er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected. leroyjean

5:04pm Sun 3 Feb 13

saarfender says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
saarfender wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
Hate to say I told you so but...
Why the speculation about the cyclists speed? I used to race cycles and I know it is almost impossible for even the fittest cyclist to go over 30 mph on the flat unless they have a very strong tailwind so the accusations of speeding are irrelevant.
However, many kids don't seem to have a clue about road safety, they walk straight across the roads without looking because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them how to cross the road safely. I do not know whether this might have been the case on this occasion so I can't comment further but I do hope this young lady gets better.
so it was the parent's fault but you don't want to comment further? an insensitive post at the very best
I don't think that's an insensitive post as such. I also used to ride seriously and also know that >30mph on the flat is very hard (as I said earlier about the speed from the hill having worn off if it was outside Chinnerys).

I've been knocked off my bike in the past by a pedestrian stepping out into the road while changing tunes on their iPlod. Not my fault, and I couldn't avoid it (nor would i have rung a bell in time), and if I'd been driving I'd have hit them just as hard.

I don't know why there is so much speculation over the speed either. I wasn't there so am not going to say whether it was high or low, nor am I going to say whether it was the pedestrian's fault or not. The whole incident should have been avoided. Sometimes collisions do occur that really are true accidents, but mostly there are contributing factors. In my mind, the whole layout of that road is a major contributing factor, with the Council encouraging pedestrians down there, then labelling it as shared space and encouraging vehicles and cyclists through there too. If they wanted a true seafront promenade for tourism, they should have had the balls to close it to traffic, or they should have kept it as a clear fenced off road and cycle track with ample crossings.

As always, I'm hoping for a swift recovery of the injured.
you obviously weren't that serious. 30 mph down pier hill with a tail wind is easily achieved
> 30mph downhill is easily achievable. Retaining that speed on the flat up past Chnnerys is much less so. But I wasn't there and am not going to get het up about this. I'm just like one of the preivous posters who is surprised at thow this conversation is so focussed on whether the cyclist was exceeding 30mph or not. The cyclist's speed is irrelevant. A collision occurred and even had it been at very low speed a serious head injury could have occurred (and in fact have known to happen too even when a pedestrian just trips over).



As for the previous comment about me taking pedentry lessons from Shoebury Cyclist, not the case at all. Go and look at your comment re the road being clearly defined, which I agree it is. Now look at the signage the Concil have erected saying "share space". Now lok at the working examples of shared space in the world.

The seafront is NOT shared space. It is clearly a road with 20mph heavy traffic.

Shared space is low volumes of traffic at low speeds (20mph is too fast) and a place where it is safe for pedestrians to walk. In shared space there are no requirements for pedestrian crossings. Pedestrians can walk without having to look out for approaching vehicles, or cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saarfender[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: Hate to say I told you so but... Why the speculation about the cyclists speed? I used to race cycles and I know it is almost impossible for even the fittest cyclist to go over 30 mph on the flat unless they have a very strong tailwind so the accusations of speeding are irrelevant. However, many kids don't seem to have a clue about road safety, they walk straight across the roads without looking because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them how to cross the road safely. I do not know whether this might have been the case on this occasion so I can't comment further but I do hope this young lady gets better.[/p][/quote]so it was the parent's fault but you don't want to comment further? an insensitive post at the very best[/p][/quote]I don't think that's an insensitive post as such. I also used to ride seriously and also know that >30mph on the flat is very hard (as I said earlier about the speed from the hill having worn off if it was outside Chinnerys). I've been knocked off my bike in the past by a pedestrian stepping out into the road while changing tunes on their iPlod. Not my fault, and I couldn't avoid it (nor would i have rung a bell in time), and if I'd been driving I'd have hit them just as hard. I don't know why there is so much speculation over the speed either. I wasn't there so am not going to say whether it was high or low, nor am I going to say whether it was the pedestrian's fault or not. The whole incident should have been avoided. Sometimes collisions do occur that really are true accidents, but mostly there are contributing factors. In my mind, the whole layout of that road is a major contributing factor, with the Council encouraging pedestrians down there, then labelling it as shared space and encouraging vehicles and cyclists through there too. If they wanted a true seafront promenade for tourism, they should have had the balls to close it to traffic, or they should have kept it as a clear fenced off road and cycle track with ample crossings. As always, I'm hoping for a swift recovery of the injured.[/p][/quote]you obviously weren't that serious. 30 mph down pier hill with a tail wind is easily achieved[/p][/quote]> 30mph downhill is easily achievable. Retaining that speed on the flat up past Chnnerys is much less so. But I wasn't there and am not going to get het up about this. I'm just like one of the preivous posters who is surprised at thow this conversation is so focussed on whether the cyclist was exceeding 30mph or not. The cyclist's speed is irrelevant. A collision occurred and even had it been at very low speed a serious head injury could have occurred (and in fact have known to happen too even when a pedestrian just trips over). As for the previous comment about me taking pedentry lessons from Shoebury Cyclist, not the case at all. Go and look at your comment re the road being clearly defined, which I agree it is. Now look at the signage the Concil have erected saying "share space". Now lok at the working examples of shared space in the world. The seafront is NOT shared space. It is clearly a road with 20mph heavy traffic. Shared space is low volumes of traffic at low speeds (20mph is too fast) and a place where it is safe for pedestrians to walk. In shared space there are no requirements for pedestrian crossings. Pedestrians can walk without having to look out for approaching vehicles, or cyclists. saarfender

5:23pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Diannah says...

Such a terrible accident. My thoughts are with the poor girl and her family and hope that the Echo are able to report an improvement in her condition shortly.

Many cyclists these days attach cameras to their helmets. There could be a slim chance that this particular cyclist has done such a thing which would take away any need for speculation.
Such a terrible accident. My thoughts are with the poor girl and her family and hope that the Echo are able to report an improvement in her condition shortly. Many cyclists these days attach cameras to their helmets. There could be a slim chance that this particular cyclist has done such a thing which would take away any need for speculation. Diannah

5:26pm Sun 3 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

the space is shared but cars can only use a portion of that space. that zone has a 20mph speed limit. how difficult is that to grasp?
the space is shared but cars can only use a portion of that space. that zone has a 20mph speed limit. how difficult is that to grasp? asbo. just the truth

5:34pm Sun 3 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

cars are not permitted to plough pedestrians down on the space immediately in front of the amusements and pubs
cars are not permitted to plough pedestrians down on the space immediately in front of the amusements and pubs asbo. just the truth

5:42pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
cars are not permitted to plough pedestrians down on the space immediately in front of the amusements and pubs
No-one is 'permitted to plough pedestrians down' regardless of transport mode. But that doesn't stop motorists driving on that area right outside the arcades every night. See this video from 1.05: http://youtu.be/UM81
di0u7DU

I'll ask again, does your statement also apply to motorised traffic? Or are you only applying it to cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: cars are not permitted to plough pedestrians down on the space immediately in front of the amusements and pubs[/p][/quote]No-one is 'permitted to plough pedestrians down' regardless of transport mode. But that doesn't stop motorists driving on that area right outside the arcades every night. See this video from 1.05: http://youtu.be/UM81 di0u7DU I'll ask again, does your statement also apply to motorised traffic? Or are you only applying it to cyclists? Shoebury_Cyclist

5:46pm Sun 3 Feb 13

sophie_pearson says...

why does it matter what speed he was going? he was going faster than the cars on the road and fast enough for her not to be able to react and move out of the way, and fast enough still to give her a serious head injury. I would like to thank gooner44 on behalf of my friend, myself, and all of her friends and family for the amazing help you were on the scene.
Wishing you better soon girl, I love you loads x x x
why does it matter what speed he was going? he was going faster than the cars on the road and fast enough for her not to be able to react and move out of the way, and fast enough still to give her a serious head injury. I would like to thank gooner44 on behalf of my friend, myself, and all of her friends and family for the amazing help you were on the scene. Wishing you better soon girl, I love you loads x x x sophie_pearson

5:57pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Muttles says...

Don't blame the cyclist: don't blame the pedestrian: it takes two to cause an accident. I certainly hope the injured person makes a full recovery but before judging get the facts.

If anyone is to blame it is the Council: there should be designated areas for driving, cycling and pedestrians. It's never happened before since their crazy idea.
Don't blame the cyclist: don't blame the pedestrian: it takes two to cause an accident. I certainly hope the injured person makes a full recovery but before judging get the facts. If anyone is to blame it is the Council: there should be designated areas for driving, cycling and pedestrians. It's never happened before since their crazy idea. Muttles

5:57pm Sun 3 Feb 13

sophie_pearson says...

there was a broken light on the floor so I assumed the cyclist had a light, perhaps it was not working. She was on the pavement outside chinnerys when the cyclist came down from pier hill, therefore any road safety you may be talking about would be irrelevant, seeing as when you are walking on the pavement you do not expect to have to act as if you were crossing a busy road. it is a combination of both the council and the cyclists fault in my opinion, as the area is not marked clearly to say 'watch out for cyclists' and the cyclist should not have been going at such a speed.
there was a broken light on the floor so I assumed the cyclist had a light, perhaps it was not working. She was on the pavement outside chinnerys when the cyclist came down from pier hill, therefore any road safety you may be talking about would be irrelevant, seeing as when you are walking on the pavement you do not expect to have to act as if you were crossing a busy road. it is a combination of both the council and the cyclists fault in my opinion, as the area is not marked clearly to say 'watch out for cyclists' and the cyclist should not have been going at such a speed. sophie_pearson

6:00pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Barry_Shitpeas wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
leroyjean wrote:
The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/



2009/08/12/cyclist-i



s-jailed-for-killing



-by-1861-law-335527/



). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow



n.com/motorcycle-new



s--general-news/care



less-cyclist-prosecu



ted-for-injuring-bik



er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.
And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.
Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?
Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time:

http://www.solihulln
ews.net/news/solihul
l-news/2013/01/17/dr
iver-gets-35-fine-af
ter-cyclist-dies-in-
collision-105074-326
22442/

Here's another. Uninsured, speeding driver hits pedestrian, leaves them unable to walk or talk for life, fined £255 and 9 points. No jail time.

http://www.yorkshire
eveningpost.co.uk/ne
ws/latest-news/top-s
tories/cabbie-is-sen
tenced-for-leeds-stu
dent-collision-1-534
6826

These soft sentences are handed out time and time again to killer drivers. That's why there is now an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry into sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers:

http://allpartycycli
ng.org/2013/01/30/ju
stice-needed-for-cyc
lists-on-the-roads-s
ays-parliamentary-in
quiry-press-release/
[quote][p][bold]Barry_Shitpeas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]leroyjean[/bold] wrote: The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/ 2009/08/12/cyclist-i s-jailed-for-killing -by-1861-law-335527/ ). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow n.com/motorcycle-new s--general-news/care less-cyclist-prosecu ted-for-injuring-bik er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.[/p][/quote]And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.[/p][/quote]Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?[/p][/quote]Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time: http://www.solihulln ews.net/news/solihul l-news/2013/01/17/dr iver-gets-35-fine-af ter-cyclist-dies-in- collision-105074-326 22442/ Here's another. Uninsured, speeding driver hits pedestrian, leaves them unable to walk or talk for life, fined £255 and 9 points. No jail time. http://www.yorkshire eveningpost.co.uk/ne ws/latest-news/top-s tories/cabbie-is-sen tenced-for-leeds-stu dent-collision-1-534 6826 These soft sentences are handed out time and time again to killer drivers. That's why there is now an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry into sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers: http://allpartycycli ng.org/2013/01/30/ju stice-needed-for-cyc lists-on-the-roads-s ays-parliamentary-in quiry-press-release/ Shoebury_Cyclist

6:20pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Katiealicia says...

This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.
This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery. Katiealicia

6:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13

sophie_pearson says...

Katiealicia wrote:
This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.
thank you. This should be full of comments wishing her well, not arguing. Stay strong girly, thinking of you and your family all the time.
I love you xxx
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]thank you. This should be full of comments wishing her well, not arguing. Stay strong girly, thinking of you and your family all the time. I love you xxx sophie_pearson

6:39pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Barry_Shitpeas wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
leroyjean wrote:
The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/




2009/08/12/cyclist-i




s-jailed-for-killing




-by-1861-law-335527/




). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow




n.com/motorcycle-new




s--general-news/care




less-cyclist-prosecu




ted-for-injuring-bik




er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.
And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.
Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?
Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time:

http://www.solihulln

ews.net/news/solihul

l-news/2013/01/17/dr

iver-gets-35-fine-af

ter-cyclist-dies-in-

collision-105074-326

22442/

Here's another. Uninsured, speeding driver hits pedestrian, leaves them unable to walk or talk for life, fined £255 and 9 points. No jail time.

http://www.yorkshire

eveningpost.co.uk/ne

ws/latest-news/top-s

tories/cabbie-is-sen

tenced-for-leeds-stu

dent-collision-1-534

6826

These soft sentences are handed out time and time again to killer drivers. That's why there is now an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry into sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers:

http://allpartycycli

ng.org/2013/01/30/ju

stice-needed-for-cyc

lists-on-the-roads-s

ays-parliamentary-in

quiry-press-release/
Cyclists are a law unto themselves, many use the pavement, most go through red lights, many cycle in the middle of the road blocking traffic.

It seems you have a dislike of car drivers and enjoy posting links of cyclists being on the recieving end how about BAD cycling:

Cyclist with toddler on shoulders
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-der
byshire-20343097


What was IT thinking
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=12fMTAQyX
TI


Path & Red light crazy
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=G7ad6htxR
Ig


Dodge the bus hit the car
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=l6laj5sAN
B8


So is at always the car drivers fault or it it also the cyclist?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Barry_Shitpeas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]leroyjean[/bold] wrote: The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/ 2009/08/12/cyclist-i s-jailed-for-killing -by-1861-law-335527/ ). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow n.com/motorcycle-new s--general-news/care less-cyclist-prosecu ted-for-injuring-bik er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.[/p][/quote]And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.[/p][/quote]Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?[/p][/quote]Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time: http://www.solihulln ews.net/news/solihul l-news/2013/01/17/dr iver-gets-35-fine-af ter-cyclist-dies-in- collision-105074-326 22442/ Here's another. Uninsured, speeding driver hits pedestrian, leaves them unable to walk or talk for life, fined £255 and 9 points. No jail time. http://www.yorkshire eveningpost.co.uk/ne ws/latest-news/top-s tories/cabbie-is-sen tenced-for-leeds-stu dent-collision-1-534 6826 These soft sentences are handed out time and time again to killer drivers. That's why there is now an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry into sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers: http://allpartycycli ng.org/2013/01/30/ju stice-needed-for-cyc lists-on-the-roads-s ays-parliamentary-in quiry-press-release/[/p][/quote]Cyclists are a law unto themselves, many use the pavement, most go through red lights, many cycle in the middle of the road blocking traffic. It seems you have a dislike of car drivers and enjoy posting links of cyclists being on the recieving end how about BAD cycling: Cyclist with toddler on shoulders http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-der byshire-20343097 What was IT thinking http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=12fMTAQyX TI Path & Red light crazy http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=G7ad6htxR Ig Dodge the bus hit the car http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=l6laj5sAN B8 So is at always the car drivers fault or it it also the cyclist? Joe Wildman-Clark

6:48pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Local yachtsman says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote: knowing your history you're about the most insensitive bloke on the planet
You must be looking in the mirror. As someone else said (above), all you are interested in is attacking other posters.
shouldn't you be using the time to get up to speed with those eyewitness accounts?
No point until they have been properly assessed by the Police and a court of law. A young girl is fighting for her life so go away and bother someone else.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: knowing your history you're about the most insensitive bloke on the planet[/p][/quote]You must be looking in the mirror. As someone else said (above), all you are interested in is attacking other posters.[/p][/quote]shouldn't you be using the time to get up to speed with those eyewitness accounts?[/p][/quote]No point until they have been properly assessed by the Police and a court of law. A young girl is fighting for her life so go away and bother someone else. Local yachtsman

6:58pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Barry_Shitpeas wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
leroyjean wrote:
The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/





2009/08/12/cyclist-i





s-jailed-for-killing





-by-1861-law-335527/





). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow





n.com/motorcycle-new





s--general-news/care





less-cyclist-prosecu





ted-for-injuring-bik





er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.
And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.
Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?
Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time:

http://www.solihulln


ews.net/news/solihul


l-news/2013/01/17/dr


iver-gets-35-fine-af


ter-cyclist-dies-in-


collision-105074-326


22442/

Here's another. Uninsured, speeding driver hits pedestrian, leaves them unable to walk or talk for life, fined £255 and 9 points. No jail time.

http://www.yorkshire


eveningpost.co.uk/ne


ws/latest-news/top-s


tories/cabbie-is-sen


tenced-for-leeds-stu


dent-collision-1-534


6826

These soft sentences are handed out time and time again to killer drivers. That's why there is now an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry into sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers:

http://allpartycycli


ng.org/2013/01/30/ju


stice-needed-for-cyc


lists-on-the-roads-s


ays-parliamentary-in


quiry-press-release/
Cyclists are a law unto themselves, many use the pavement, most go through red lights, many cycle in the middle of the road blocking traffic.

It seems you have a dislike of car drivers and enjoy posting links of cyclists being on the recieving end how about BAD cycling:

Cyclist with toddler on shoulders
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-der

byshire-20343097


What was IT thinking
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=12fMTAQyX

TI


Path & Red light crazy
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=G7ad6htxR

Ig


Dodge the bus hit the car
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=l6laj5sAN

B8


So is at always the car drivers fault or it it also the cyclist?
I was asked for examples of soft sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers. I gave them.

If you want to get into a competition I'm pretty sure that for every example of a dangerous cyclist there are thousands of examples of dangerous drivers.

But that would detract from the topic at hand which is a young girl lying seriously injured in hospital. Allegedly put there by someone who was cycling dangerously.

So I am not going to enter into point scoring with someone who has chimed in solely to have a go at cyclists without saying a word about the poor girl in hospital.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman-Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Barry_Shitpeas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]leroyjean[/bold] wrote: The statute book isn't really set up for wayward cyclists, but in extreme cases the CPS can prosecute for ‘wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm’. A fatality in Dorset in 2009 led to such a prosecution, and the cyclist was jailed for 7 months (http://metro.co.uk/ 2009/08/12/cyclist-i s-jailed-for-killing -by-1861-law-335527/ ). There also appears to be an offence of careless cycling (http://www.visordow n.com/motorcycle-new s--general-news/care less-cyclist-prosecu ted-for-injuring-bik er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.[/p][/quote]And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.[/p][/quote]Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?[/p][/quote]Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time: http://www.solihulln ews.net/news/solihul l-news/2013/01/17/dr iver-gets-35-fine-af ter-cyclist-dies-in- collision-105074-326 22442/ Here's another. Uninsured, speeding driver hits pedestrian, leaves them unable to walk or talk for life, fined £255 and 9 points. No jail time. http://www.yorkshire eveningpost.co.uk/ne ws/latest-news/top-s tories/cabbie-is-sen tenced-for-leeds-stu dent-collision-1-534 6826 These soft sentences are handed out time and time again to killer drivers. That's why there is now an ongoing Parliamentary enquiry into sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers: http://allpartycycli ng.org/2013/01/30/ju stice-needed-for-cyc lists-on-the-roads-s ays-parliamentary-in quiry-press-release/[/p][/quote]Cyclists are a law unto themselves, many use the pavement, most go through red lights, many cycle in the middle of the road blocking traffic. It seems you have a dislike of car drivers and enjoy posting links of cyclists being on the recieving end how about BAD cycling: Cyclist with toddler on shoulders http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-der byshire-20343097 What was IT thinking http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=12fMTAQyX TI Path & Red light crazy http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=G7ad6htxR Ig Dodge the bus hit the car http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=l6laj5sAN B8 So is at always the car drivers fault or it it also the cyclist?[/p][/quote]I was asked for examples of soft sentencing for dangerous and killer drivers. I gave them. If you want to get into a competition I'm pretty sure that for every example of a dangerous cyclist there are thousands of examples of dangerous drivers. But that would detract from the topic at hand which is a young girl lying seriously injured in hospital. Allegedly put there by someone who was cycling dangerously. So I am not going to enter into point scoring with someone who has chimed in solely to have a go at cyclists without saying a word about the poor girl in hospital. Shoebury_Cyclist

6:59pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Moomoo2 says...

You know what, how about instead of everybody pointing fingers at what should have been done. Lets all concentrate on praying this poor young lady makes a speedy recovery rather than **** about the where's and whys. If this young lady does make a speedy recovery then yes then point fingers. But at the moment I think that all her family and friends are caring about is making sure she is fighting fit. I and all my family certainly are saying their prayers for this beautiful young lady who we have had the privilege of meeting and send all our love to her and her wonderful family.
You know what, how about instead of everybody pointing fingers at what should have been done. Lets all concentrate on praying this poor young lady makes a speedy recovery rather than **** about the where's and whys. If this young lady does make a speedy recovery then yes then point fingers. But at the moment I think that all her family and friends are caring about is making sure she is fighting fit. I and all my family certainly are saying their prayers for this beautiful young lady who we have had the privilege of meeting and send all our love to her and her wonderful family. Moomoo2

7:03pm Sun 3 Feb 13

sophie_pearson says...

Moomoo2 wrote:
You know what, how about instead of everybody pointing fingers at what should have been done. Lets all concentrate on praying this poor young lady makes a speedy recovery rather than **** about the where's and whys. If this young lady does make a speedy recovery then yes then point fingers. But at the moment I think that all her family and friends are caring about is making sure she is fighting fit. I and all my family certainly are saying their prayers for this beautiful young lady who we have had the privilege of meeting and send all our love to her and her wonderful family.
xxx
[quote][p][bold]Moomoo2[/bold] wrote: You know what, how about instead of everybody pointing fingers at what should have been done. Lets all concentrate on praying this poor young lady makes a speedy recovery rather than **** about the where's and whys. If this young lady does make a speedy recovery then yes then point fingers. But at the moment I think that all her family and friends are caring about is making sure she is fighting fit. I and all my family certainly are saying their prayers for this beautiful young lady who we have had the privilege of meeting and send all our love to her and her wonderful family.[/p][/quote]xxx sophie_pearson

7:16pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Cockle says...

Firstly, I would like to wish ALL involved a, hopefully, full and speedy recovery.

As to the speed of the cyclist involved and whether he could achieve a high speed in that area perhaps an experience I had a few weeks ago can shed some light.
I was driving along Marine Parade one evening, about level with the Olympia amusements, a cyclist passed me on my nearside on the pavement then passed between me and the car in front as I passed the Borough Hotel overtook the car in front on its offside as it passed Chinnery's and then crossed onto the pavement on the seaside of the 'road'.
I didn't have a speed gun but I can tell you that his/her speed was well in excess of mine and my sat nav was reading 19mph as he/she passed the car in front and he was still going away from me. I presume he/she had come down Pier Hill to achieve that sort of speed but was definitely maintaining a speed in excess of the limit in the area of Chinnery's.
My son was a passenger in the car that night and he actually commented that it was lucky there was no one on the pavement.... Sadly, on this occasion there was....

I won't get draw into blame about this incident because there will obviously be investigations ongoing but if someone is doing that sort of speed, in an area that most reasonable people would regard as a pavement, then I would argue that it would show a certain degree of recklessness.
Firstly, I would like to wish ALL involved a, hopefully, full and speedy recovery. As to the speed of the cyclist involved and whether he could achieve a high speed in that area perhaps an experience I had a few weeks ago can shed some light. I was driving along Marine Parade one evening, about level with the Olympia amusements, a cyclist passed me on my nearside on the pavement then passed between me and the car in front as I passed the Borough Hotel overtook the car in front on its offside as it passed Chinnery's and then crossed onto the pavement on the seaside of the 'road'. I didn't have a speed gun but I can tell you that his/her speed was well in excess of mine and my sat nav was reading 19mph as he/she passed the car in front and he was still going away from me. I presume he/she had come down Pier Hill to achieve that sort of speed but was definitely maintaining a speed in excess of the limit in the area of Chinnery's. My son was a passenger in the car that night and he actually commented that it was lucky there was no one on the pavement.... Sadly, on this occasion there was.... I won't get draw into blame about this incident because there will obviously be investigations ongoing but if someone is doing that sort of speed, in an area that most reasonable people would regard as a pavement, then I would argue that it would show a certain degree of recklessness. Cockle

8:36pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Sean4u says...

I get my hopes dashed every time I see the 'UPDATED' in the title. It'd be good to hear some positive news about the injured young woman.

Speed is irrelevant: speed limits don't apply to cyclists. It's one of the reasons I don't agree with Sustrans' push for 20mph speed limits: it'd take an exceptionally sanguine driver to accept being overtaken by cyclists on a clear road. 30mph over several hundred metres is well in reach on a good surface with a slight down grade for me.

I guess that's why the measure is "wanton or furious" for the applicable law (thanks for the links - didn't know that) rather than anything physical. If hypothetically speaking a cyclist in such a position were to have been shouted at several times about their behaviour before a similar incident, a charge of "wanton" would seem reasonable.

I'm guessing the police haven't charged yet: won't we all be erased when it becomes a police matter?
I get my hopes dashed every time I see the 'UPDATED' in the title. It'd be good to hear some positive news about the injured young woman. Speed is irrelevant: speed limits don't apply to cyclists. It's one of the reasons I don't agree with Sustrans' push for 20mph speed limits: it'd take an exceptionally sanguine driver to accept being overtaken by cyclists on a clear road. 30mph over several hundred metres is well in reach on a good surface with a slight down grade for me. I guess that's why the measure is "wanton or furious" for the applicable law (thanks for the links - didn't know that) rather than anything physical. If hypothetically speaking a cyclist in such a position were to have been shouted at several times about their behaviour before a similar incident, a charge of "wanton" would seem reasonable. I'm guessing the police haven't charged yet: won't we all be erased when it becomes a police matter? Sean4u

8:56pm Sun 3 Feb 13

EssexBoy1968 says...

My thoughts & prayers are with the young lady & her family & friends at this time. Hopefully she will make a full recovery.
There is no point speculating about this tragic event here, let us hope that the authorities can ascertain what did happen, & that any measures that are deemed necessary are imposed.
My thoughts & prayers are with the young lady & her family & friends at this time. Hopefully she will make a full recovery. There is no point speculating about this tragic event here, let us hope that the authorities can ascertain what did happen, & that any measures that are deemed necessary are imposed. EssexBoy1968

9:23pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Moomoo2 says...

I completely agree EssexBoy1968. Lets all send the injured young lady lots of prayers for a full and speedy recovery. All the politics of this matter can be dealt with once we all know she is making a full recovery
I completely agree EssexBoy1968. Lets all send the injured young lady lots of prayers for a full and speedy recovery. All the politics of this matter can be dealt with once we all know she is making a full recovery Moomoo2

9:37pm Sun 3 Feb 13

harry6 says...

Known this girl and her family for the whole of my life and am absolutely distraught at this devastating news! I know she is a very strong young woman an will pull through and make a full recovery!
Known this girl and her family for the whole of my life and am absolutely distraught at this devastating news! I know she is a very strong young woman an will pull through and make a full recovery! harry6

10:20pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Heavenwilkins says...

Nuff said on the subject now?
Nuff said on the subject now? Heavenwilkins

1:50am Mon 4 Feb 13

msw_116 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted.

The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones).

Where in the shared space was she struck?
Was the cyclist looking where they were going?
Did the cyclist have lights?
Were they riding in a safe manner?
Were either inebriated?
Did the cyclist stop and help?
Was the cyclist questioned by police?
I too wish the girl a full and speedy recovery.

I'm certainly no cycle hater. It does seem that you have now discovered a requirement for more information to enable an informed view. Is this coincidence because a cyclist was involved here and actually has caused harm, as opposed to "incidents" involving vehicles that might hurt school children outside a Leigh school?

Either way, I welcome your call to seek the truth :).
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?[/p][/quote]I too wish the girl a full and speedy recovery. I'm certainly no cycle hater. It does seem that you have now discovered a requirement for more information to enable an informed view. Is this coincidence because a cyclist was involved here and actually has caused harm, as opposed to "incidents" involving vehicles that might hurt school children outside a Leigh school? Either way, I welcome your call to seek the truth :). msw_116

1:52am Mon 4 Feb 13

msw_116 says...

Heavenwilkins wrote:
Nuff said on the subject now?
Apologies - only just got to the bottom and agree :).
[quote][p][bold]Heavenwilkins[/bold] wrote: Nuff said on the subject now?[/p][/quote]Apologies - only just got to the bottom and agree :). msw_116

8:24am Mon 4 Feb 13

Sean4u says...

"There is no point"
"this matter can be dealt with once"
"Nuff said"
I learned at least one new thing ('wanton or furious') in the comments below this article. Censorship keeps us all ignorant.
"There is no point" "this matter can be dealt with once" "Nuff said" I learned at least one new thing ('wanton or furious') in the comments below this article. Censorship keeps us all ignorant. Sean4u

10:12am Mon 4 Feb 13

InTheKnowOk says...

Katiealicia wrote:
This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.
EXACTLY !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY !!!! InTheKnowOk

11:18am Mon 4 Feb 13

stopmoaning1 says...

sophie_pearson wrote:
there was a broken light on the floor so I assumed the cyclist had a light, perhaps it was not working. She was on the pavement outside chinnerys when the cyclist came down from pier hill, therefore any road safety you may be talking about would be irrelevant, seeing as when you are walking on the pavement you do not expect to have to act as if you were crossing a busy road. it is a combination of both the council and the cyclists fault in my opinion, as the area is not marked clearly to say 'watch out for cyclists' and the cyclist should not have been going at such a speed.
EXACTLY. Everybody’s suddenly an expert yet few people who have posted were actually there. SBC and the Police need to investigate the actual cause and take any actions necessary as a result. We all have our opinions on cyclists and shared space, and we’ve all had a go at speculating what happened and proportioning blame. NOW LEAVE IT
[quote][p][bold]sophie_pearson[/bold] wrote: there was a broken light on the floor so I assumed the cyclist had a light, perhaps it was not working. She was on the pavement outside chinnerys when the cyclist came down from pier hill, therefore any road safety you may be talking about would be irrelevant, seeing as when you are walking on the pavement you do not expect to have to act as if you were crossing a busy road. it is a combination of both the council and the cyclists fault in my opinion, as the area is not marked clearly to say 'watch out for cyclists' and the cyclist should not have been going at such a speed.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY. Everybody’s suddenly an expert yet few people who have posted were actually there. SBC and the Police need to investigate the actual cause and take any actions necessary as a result. We all have our opinions on cyclists and shared space, and we’ve all had a go at speculating what happened and proportioning blame. NOW LEAVE IT stopmoaning1

12:15pm Mon 4 Feb 13

crowny says...

Bl00dy cyclists
Bl00dy cyclists crowny

12:21pm Mon 4 Feb 13

echoforum says...

This forum underlines the confusion created when a council creates a shared space that implies that toddlers and range rovers can happily play together.
On top of this is the fact that many visitors to Southend won't even note the sign saying shared space let alone understand it,i don't know if the speed cameras are nicking people but many travel at 30mph simply because 95% of the seafront has maintained this as the speed limit.
This forum underlines the confusion created when a council creates a shared space that implies that toddlers and range rovers can happily play together. On top of this is the fact that many visitors to Southend won't even note the sign saying shared space let alone understand it,i don't know if the speed cameras are nicking people but many travel at 30mph simply because 95% of the seafront has maintained this as the speed limit. echoforum

1:32pm Mon 4 Feb 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do. DogsMessInLeigh

1:38pm Mon 4 Feb 13

foxy108 says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Cosmo Spring wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?
was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.
Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.
I think it's best to leave all these questions to the police as I'm sure they'll be looking at all the angles. Let's not speculate and wish her speedy recovery.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cosmo Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: I hope the girl makes a swift and full recovery. And if the cyclist was riding illegally or dangerously they should be prosecuted. The story is a bit bare on facts. (Though I doubt that will stop the cycle haters from crawling out from under their stones). Where in the shared space was she struck? Was the cyclist looking where they were going? Did the cyclist have lights? Were they riding in a safe manner? Were either inebriated? Did the cyclist stop and help? Was the cyclist questioned by police?[/p][/quote]was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.[/p][/quote]Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.[/p][/quote]I think it's best to leave all these questions to the police as I'm sure they'll be looking at all the angles. Let's not speculate and wish her speedy recovery. foxy108

2:19pm Mon 4 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.[/p][/quote]the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers asbo. just the truth

3:29pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Biker One says...

Thank god the young lady is now in a stable non-life threatening condition according to the Echo's latest update.
Let's all hope she makes a full recovery.
.
This topic deserves further debate on the ridiculous shared space!!
Thank god the young lady is now in a stable non-life threatening condition according to the Echo's latest update. Let's all hope she makes a full recovery. . This topic deserves further debate on the ridiculous shared space!! Biker One

3:52pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Local yachtsman says...

The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.
The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt. Local yachtsman

4:22pm Mon 4 Feb 13

whiskers says...

Look to your local authority!
Look to your local authority! whiskers

4:28pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Local yachtsman wrote:
The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.
Coventry:

http://youtu.be/i4LZ
iWZvLfk

Exhibition Road, London:

http://youtu.be/DQI_
LUDIiIk
[quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.[/p][/quote]Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk Shoebury_Cyclist

4:29pm Mon 4 Feb 13

firedog says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers
well said Asbo.I hope the lady recovers,and whoever was in the wrong gets their just desserts.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.[/p][/quote]the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers[/p][/quote]well said Asbo.I hope the lady recovers,and whoever was in the wrong gets their just desserts. firedog

5:04pm Mon 4 Feb 13

stopmoaning1 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
What makes a ‘genuine’ cyclist. One would assume that if the man was on the bike riding it at the time of the accident, he would be a ‘genuine’ cyclist. However, if he were playing a computer game where he was on a bike, he might be a ‘cyber’ cyclist
Time to leave this now and let the police sort out the facts and deal with it accordingly.
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.[/p][/quote]What makes a ‘genuine’ cyclist. One would assume that if the man was on the bike riding it at the time of the accident, he would be a ‘genuine’ cyclist. However, if he were playing a computer game where he was on a bike, he might be a ‘cyber’ cyclist Time to leave this now and let the police sort out the facts and deal with it accordingly. stopmoaning1

5:07pm Mon 4 Feb 13

The__Truth says...

Local yachtsman wrote:
The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.
You may wish to look at the Ashford Ring Road project.
[quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.[/p][/quote]You may wish to look at the Ashford Ring Road project. The__Truth

5:11pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Local yachtsman says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.
Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk
There has been a fatality in the Coventry shared space and Exhibition Road is just a side road off Cromwell Road so it's not really a main road which is why it was considered in the first place. We have been keeping traffic on roads and pedestrians on pavements for a very long time for a very good reason, they don't mix.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.[/p][/quote]Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk[/p][/quote]There has been a fatality in the Coventry shared space and Exhibition Road is just a side road off Cromwell Road so it's not really a main road which is why it was considered in the first place. We have been keeping traffic on roads and pedestrians on pavements for a very long time for a very good reason, they don't mix. Local yachtsman

5:14pm Mon 4 Feb 13

andy:) says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
Katiealicia wrote:
This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.
EXACTLY !!!!
I agree mostly, but if the layout of the seafront is somehow to blame then surely it is right for us Southend taxpayers to express concern, as we all know, the shared space has been questioned since the begining and Southend council have been forced to make changes due to previous incidents.

I also find it strange that people say the cyclist was going way to fast at 30mph but it is deemed perfectly acceptable for cars weighing a hundred times as much to travel 30mph as a minimum.

I wish a speedy recovery to all concerned and an end to the pathetic bickering and cyclist bashing, its the same old ill informed comments about red light jumping and the ultimate dumb comment about 'road tax' which as we all know would be £0 for bikes !
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiealicia[/bold] wrote: This arguing is ridiculous. There is a young girl fighting for her life in hospital, do you think her family and friends want to read all your silly comments people? Stop trying to guess what's happened and stop moaning about how layout on the seafront is. My thoughts are with the young girl & her family and I hope she makes a full, speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY !!!![/p][/quote]I agree mostly, but if the layout of the seafront is somehow to blame then surely it is right for us Southend taxpayers to express concern, as we all know, the shared space has been questioned since the begining and Southend council have been forced to make changes due to previous incidents. I also find it strange that people say the cyclist was going way to fast at 30mph but it is deemed perfectly acceptable for cars weighing a hundred times as much to travel 30mph as a minimum. I wish a speedy recovery to all concerned and an end to the pathetic bickering and cyclist bashing, its the same old ill informed comments about red light jumping and the ultimate dumb comment about 'road tax' which as we all know would be £0 for bikes ! andy:)

5:16pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Alekhine says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
DogsMessInLeigh wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
What makes a ‘genuine’ cyclist. One would assume that if the man was on the bike riding it at the time of the accident, he would be a ‘genuine’ cyclist. However, if he were playing a computer game where he was on a bike, he might be a ‘cyber’ cyclist Time to leave this now and let the police sort out the facts and deal with it accordingly.
Trick cyclist?
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.[/p][/quote]What makes a ‘genuine’ cyclist. One would assume that if the man was on the bike riding it at the time of the accident, he would be a ‘genuine’ cyclist. However, if he were playing a computer game where he was on a bike, he might be a ‘cyber’ cyclist Time to leave this now and let the police sort out the facts and deal with it accordingly.[/p][/quote]Trick cyclist? Alekhine

5:21pm Mon 4 Feb 13

The__Truth says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers
Maybe you are confused too. My understanding is that the sea side of the promenade is a shared cycle way/footway but the amusement side is for pedestrians only. Well that's what Southend Council put in a notice in the Echo in March 2011. "The Borough of Southend-on-Sea, Seafront (Western Esplanade/Marine Parade/Eastern Esplanade) (Section 3) Cycleway" notice which describes the south footway but not the north.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.[/p][/quote]the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers[/p][/quote]Maybe you are confused too. My understanding is that the sea side of the promenade is a shared cycle way/footway but the amusement side is for pedestrians only. Well that's what Southend Council put in a notice in the Echo in March 2011. "The Borough of Southend-on-Sea, Seafront (Western Esplanade/Marine Parade/Eastern Esplanade) (Section 3) Cycleway" notice which describes the south footway but not the north. The__Truth

5:25pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Local yachtsman wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.
Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk
There has been a fatality in the Coventry shared space and Exhibition Road is just a side road off Cromwell Road so it's not really a main road which is why it was considered in the first place. We have been keeping traffic on roads and pedestrians on pavements for a very long time for a very good reason, they don't mix.
There are fatalities on roads every day all over the country, by your logic that means roads don't work full stop.
[quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.[/p][/quote]Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk[/p][/quote]There has been a fatality in the Coventry shared space and Exhibition Road is just a side road off Cromwell Road so it's not really a main road which is why it was considered in the first place. We have been keeping traffic on roads and pedestrians on pavements for a very long time for a very good reason, they don't mix.[/p][/quote]There are fatalities on roads every day all over the country, by your logic that means roads don't work full stop. Shoebury_Cyclist

5:31pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Local yachtsman says...

SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison. Local yachtsman

5:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Almeda11 says...

reptile wrote:
Bloody cyclists.
A Prediictable comment from you!.
Although l agree there are cyclists that annoy the hell out of me by jumping red lights and going all over the place, l would point out that there are also bad car drivers too, and careless pedestrians!

l am 66, and have been cycling since the age of 7. l passed my cycling proficiency test at the age of 11, and have never been involved in any accidents, although a couple of times some idiot car driver did not check before opening his car door.
Luckilly for me, once it was in a secluded place, the other time the road wasn`t busy so it was not meant to be!

Also, l am continually AMAZED at the number of truly stupid people who will simply step out right in front of my bike whilst l am cycling, either that or they are blind, and have also seen mobility scooters on THE ROAD AND ON THE WRONG SIDE of the road!! Do these people have a death wish or something?
So please don`t tar all cyclist with the same brush, ( SO easy to do with a one word comment!! ) we ARE NOT all the same! and the government should bring this country into line with most of Europe and provide safe cycle tracks, unfortunately there is nothing they can do for stupid people, be they cyclists, car drivers, scooter users or pedestrians!
[quote][p][bold]reptile[/bold] wrote: Bloody cyclists.[/p][/quote]A Prediictable comment from you!. Although l agree there are cyclists that annoy the hell out of me by jumping red lights and going all over the place, l would point out that there are also bad car drivers too, and careless pedestrians! l am 66, and have been cycling since the age of 7. l passed my cycling proficiency test at the age of 11, and have never been involved in any accidents, although a couple of times some idiot car driver did not check before opening his car door. Luckilly for me, once it was in a secluded place, the other time the road wasn`t busy so it was not meant to be! Also, l am continually AMAZED at the number of truly stupid people who will simply step out right in front of my bike whilst l am cycling, either that or they are blind, and have also seen mobility scooters on THE ROAD AND ON THE WRONG SIDE of the road!! Do these people have a death wish or something? So please don`t tar all cyclist with the same brush, ( SO easy to do with a one word comment!! ) we ARE NOT all the same! and the government should bring this country into line with most of Europe and provide safe cycle tracks, unfortunately there is nothing they can do for stupid people, be they cyclists, car drivers, scooter users or pedestrians! Almeda11

5:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Local yachtsman wrote:
SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.
[quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.[/p][/quote]It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space. Shoebury_Cyclist

5:38pm Mon 4 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

The__Truth wrote:
asbo. just the truth wrote:
DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.
the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers
Maybe you are confused too. My understanding is that the sea side of the promenade is a shared cycle way/footway but the amusement side is for pedestrians only. Well that's what Southend Council put in a notice in the Echo in March 2011. "The Borough of Southend-on-Sea, Seafront (Western Esplanade/Marine Parade/Eastern Esplanade) (Section 3) Cycleway" notice which describes the south footway but not the north.
no i agree 100% with your description. got to be a first time for everything i guess!
[quote][p][bold]The__Truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: yes most don't know its a shared space..but a genuine cyclist will, just like many people don't know the green cycle lane's purpose so they just stand in it or walk along it or just step on to it without a care in the world...but genuine cyclists do.[/p][/quote]the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers[/p][/quote]Maybe you are confused too. My understanding is that the sea side of the promenade is a shared cycle way/footway but the amusement side is for pedestrians only. Well that's what Southend Council put in a notice in the Echo in March 2011. "The Borough of Southend-on-Sea, Seafront (Western Esplanade/Marine Parade/Eastern Esplanade) (Section 3) Cycleway" notice which describes the south footway but not the north.[/p][/quote]no i agree 100% with your description. got to be a first time for everything i guess! asbo. just the truth

5:38pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Almeda11 says...

reptile wrote:
Bloody cyclists.
A Prediictable comment from you!.
Although l agree there are cyclists that annoy the hell out of me by jumping red lights and going all over the place, l would point out that there are also bad car drivers too, and careless pedestrians!

l am 66, and have been cycling since the age of 7. l passed my cycling proficiency test at the age of 11, and have never been involved in any accidents, although a couple of times some idiot car driver did not check before opening his car door.
Luckilly for me, once it was in a secluded place, the other time the road wasn`t busy so it was not meant to be!

Also, l am continually AMAZED at the number of truly stupid people who will simply step out right in front of my bike whilst l am cycling, either that or they are blind, and have also seen mobility scooters on THE ROAD AND ON THE WRONG SIDE of the road!! Do these people have a death wish or something?
So please don`t tar all cyclist with the same brush,( SO easy to do with a one word comment!! ) we ARE NOT all the same! and the government should bring this country into line with most of Europe and provide safe ctcle tracks, unfortunately there is nothing they can do for stupid people, be they cyclists, car drivers, scooter users or pedestrians!
[quote][p][bold]reptile[/bold] wrote: Bloody cyclists.[/p][/quote]A Prediictable comment from you!. Although l agree there are cyclists that annoy the hell out of me by jumping red lights and going all over the place, l would point out that there are also bad car drivers too, and careless pedestrians! l am 66, and have been cycling since the age of 7. l passed my cycling proficiency test at the age of 11, and have never been involved in any accidents, although a couple of times some idiot car driver did not check before opening his car door. Luckilly for me, once it was in a secluded place, the other time the road wasn`t busy so it was not meant to be! Also, l am continually AMAZED at the number of truly stupid people who will simply step out right in front of my bike whilst l am cycling, either that or they are blind, and have also seen mobility scooters on THE ROAD AND ON THE WRONG SIDE of the road!! Do these people have a death wish or something? So please don`t tar all cyclist with the same brush,( SO easy to do with a one word comment!! ) we ARE NOT all the same! and the government should bring this country into line with most of Europe and provide safe ctcle tracks, unfortunately there is nothing they can do for stupid people, be they cyclists, car drivers, scooter users or pedestrians! Almeda11

5:43pm Mon 4 Feb 13

asbo. just the truth says...

the end of the cycle lane at the bottom of pier hill is the clue. cyclists are not guided onto the north side.
the end of the cycle lane at the bottom of pier hill is the clue. cyclists are not guided onto the north side. asbo. just the truth

6:15pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Nebs says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.
There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.[/p][/quote]It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.[/p][/quote]There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison. Nebs

6:32pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Joe Wildman-Clark says...

If anyone thinks Southend is bad go and take a look at oxford shared space.

It is what they the "High Street" whilst cars are not permitted double decker buses are the only way to spot where the road starts and the path ends is a drain cover, which is mostly obscured by people walking about on it, there is no diffrence between the materials use don the path and road.
If anyone thinks Southend is bad go and take a look at oxford shared space. It is what they the "High Street" whilst cars are not permitted double decker buses are the only way to spot where the road starts and the path ends is a drain cover, which is mostly obscured by people walking about on it, there is no diffrence between the materials use don the path and road. Joe Wildman-Clark

6:39pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Local yachtsman says...

Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.
There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.
Motorways are actually much safer per mile travelled than most other roads whereas rural roads are statistically the most dangerous. As you, and I, said the seafront is a major A road.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.[/p][/quote]It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.[/p][/quote]There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.[/p][/quote]Motorways are actually much safer per mile travelled than most other roads whereas rural roads are statistically the most dangerous. As you, and I, said the seafront is a major A road. Local yachtsman

6:41pm Mon 4 Feb 13

ShrimperSS0 says...

Glad to hear the young lady's condition has improved a bit. Alas an incident like this was inevitable. Only today I had a near miss with a speeding cyclist in dark clothes and no lights at the junction of Southchurch Road and Sutton Road in the last hour. Add to that the number of times have only seen them at night as a front seat passenger only at the last minute or as a ghostly shadow as again they're in dark clothes with no lights am suprised there aren't more of them knocked down.
Glad to hear the young lady's condition has improved a bit. Alas an incident like this was inevitable. Only today I had a near miss with a speeding cyclist in dark clothes and no lights at the junction of Southchurch Road and Sutton Road in the last hour. Add to that the number of times have only seen them at night as a front seat passenger only at the last minute or as a ghostly shadow as again they're in dark clothes with no lights am suprised there aren't more of them knocked down. ShrimperSS0

6:41pm Mon 4 Feb 13

ScaffoldPlank says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.
Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk
Exhibition road is awful. Here's one blog about it:

http://crapwalthamfo
rest.blogspot.co.uk/
2012/09/exhibition-r
oad-revisited-with-f
ootnote.html

There is a small bit south of the main road that works, as the road doesn't go anywhere, and there are very few cars. Most of the road, however, is intimidating and not really any better than it used to be before they spent gazillions of pounds on it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: The shared space concept seems to work in a few other places but I cannot find a single example where the shared space is a busy main road and therein lies the problem. Having pedestrains share a space with occasional traffic is one thing but along a main road where the traffic is often bumper to bumper is a completely different kettle of fish. This always was a daft idea, novelty for the sake of novelty. Bring back the pedestrian crossings before someone else is hurt.[/p][/quote]Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk[/p][/quote]Exhibition road is awful. Here's one blog about it: http://crapwalthamfo rest.blogspot.co.uk/ 2012/09/exhibition-r oad-revisited-with-f ootnote.html There is a small bit south of the main road that works, as the road doesn't go anywhere, and there are very few cars. Most of the road, however, is intimidating and not really any better than it used to be before they spent gazillions of pounds on it. ScaffoldPlank

7:32pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

asbo. just the truth wrote:
the end of the cycle lane at the bottom of pier hill is the clue. cyclists are not guided onto the north side.
I cross the road and continue in the road until the gasworks jetty.
[quote][p][bold]asbo. just the truth[/bold] wrote: the end of the cycle lane at the bottom of pier hill is the clue. cyclists are not guided onto the north side.[/p][/quote]I cross the road and continue in the road until the gasworks jetty. Shoebury_Cyclist

7:35pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.
There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.
My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.[/p][/quote]It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.[/p][/quote]There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.[/p][/quote]My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them. Shoebury_Cyclist

8:06pm Mon 4 Feb 13

shoeburyden says...

another selfish maniac cyclist, they have no regard for anyone,hope he is charged under the nrw cycle law. wishing the youngster a full recovery, i will say one for her.
another selfish maniac cyclist, they have no regard for anyone,hope he is charged under the nrw cycle law. wishing the youngster a full recovery, i will say one for her. shoeburyden

8:43pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Nebs says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.
There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.
My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.
Yes. I appreciate that. My point was to try and put your statistics into a form that are comparable with similar incidents in shared spaces. It may well be that motorways are more dangerous, or it may be that they are less dangerous, but simply saying there are more accidents on Motorways compared to shared spaces does not really cut it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.[/p][/quote]It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.[/p][/quote]There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.[/p][/quote]My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.[/p][/quote]Yes. I appreciate that. My point was to try and put your statistics into a form that are comparable with similar incidents in shared spaces. It may well be that motorways are more dangerous, or it may be that they are less dangerous, but simply saying there are more accidents on Motorways compared to shared spaces does not really cut it. Nebs

8:48pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Local yachtsman wrote:
SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.
It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.
There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.
My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.
Yes. I appreciate that. My point was to try and put your statistics into a form that are comparable with similar incidents in shared spaces. It may well be that motorways are more dangerous, or it may be that they are less dangerous, but simply saying there are more accidents on Motorways compared to shared spaces does not really cut it.
I didn't say more accidents, I said more deaths. There are no 'accidents' on the roads, that's why the police refer to incidents or collisions.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Local yachtsman[/bold] wrote: SC, by your logic the shared spaces should be safer but the fatality in Coventry disproves that doesn't it? As for Ashford, this is a much smaller town than Southend and they still have pedestrian crossings in place so no comparison.[/p][/quote]It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.[/p][/quote]There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.[/p][/quote]My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.[/p][/quote]Yes. I appreciate that. My point was to try and put your statistics into a form that are comparable with similar incidents in shared spaces. It may well be that motorways are more dangerous, or it may be that they are less dangerous, but simply saying there are more accidents on Motorways compared to shared spaces does not really cut it.[/p][/quote]I didn't say more accidents, I said more deaths. There are no 'accidents' on the roads, that's why the police refer to incidents or collisions. Shoebury_Cyclist

8:53pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Salty0103 says...

I have known this girl for many years and am appalled by the petty arguing I'm seeing on this page. This young lady is in a very bad state and all these people can do is blame her or the cyclist. Instead of pointing the finger about this freak incident, could people show more respect for the family and friends of the girl who is laying in hospital.
I have known this girl for many years and am appalled by the petty arguing I'm seeing on this page. This young lady is in a very bad state and all these people can do is blame her or the cyclist. Instead of pointing the finger about this freak incident, could people show more respect for the family and friends of the girl who is laying in hospital. Salty0103

8:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Devils Advocate says...

I have already said I am a cyclist myself, so have my view on this argument, especially regarding the polite use of the bell when nearing pedestrians, but, I think I recall Southend high street having extra Police put on duty to try to stamp out the cyclists that were riding dangerously along the pedestrian precinct.
If I remember correctly that debate turned into a fracas in these columns, with some of those very cyclists arguing the toss about their rights and how they don't stop if a police officer asks them to, and would not give their name to a Police Officer as "He has no right to ask" and so on and so on. The one thing that became patently obvious was that, among some of Southend cyclists, there is a very anti-social and anti-law and order attitude. Considering they were sharing (possibly illegally) the pedestrian's space, I think the need to bring in the Police for safety actually points at a certain selfish minority among Southend's cyclists. Oh, and I am aware that there are many, many motorists who treat the car as a high-speed thrill maker, sadly, all to often at the expense of the pedestrian.

I am very relieved to read that the young lady is showing improvements and hope she and her family will all fully recover from this dreadful incident.
I have already said I am a cyclist myself, so have my view on this argument, especially regarding the polite use of the bell when nearing pedestrians, but, I think I recall Southend high street having extra Police put on duty to try to stamp out the cyclists that were riding dangerously along the pedestrian precinct. If I remember correctly that debate turned into a fracas in these columns, with some of those very cyclists arguing the toss about their rights and how they don't stop if a police officer asks them to, and would not give their name to a Police Officer as "He has no right to ask" and so on and so on. The one thing that became patently obvious was that, among some of Southend cyclists, there is a very anti-social and anti-law and order attitude. Considering they were sharing (possibly illegally) the pedestrian's space, I think the need to bring in the Police for safety actually points at a certain selfish minority among Southend's cyclists. Oh, and I am aware that there are many, many motorists who treat the car as a high-speed thrill maker, sadly, all to often at the expense of the pedestrian. I am very relieved to read that the young lady is showing improvements and hope she and her family will all fully recover from this dreadful incident. Devils Advocate

9:24pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Sean4u says...

"show more respect"
I believe the Echo website is refreshingly light-handed when it comes to comment moderation. Light censorship isn't to everyone's taste, but I urge all those attempting to suppress discussion to extend the benefit of the doubt to those commenting here. Almost all have expressed their concern and best wishes towards the injured young woman and those most anxious about her. It would be churlish to impugn their motives.
"show more respect" I believe the Echo website is refreshingly light-handed when it comes to comment moderation. Light censorship isn't to everyone's taste, but I urge all those attempting to suppress discussion to extend the benefit of the doubt to those commenting here. Almost all have expressed their concern and best wishes towards the injured young woman and those most anxious about her. It would be churlish to impugn their motives. Sean4u

11:27pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Salty0103 says...

With the words "show more respect" I intended to ask people not to ask such disgusting questions such as 'Was she drunk?' and 'Was she not concentrating?' The girl in question is one of the most kind-hearted, intelligent and hard-working people I know. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs and for people to ask such hurtful questions is quite annoying. Im sure the cyclist will also be quite upset with what has happened and I believe debating over who is to blame is disrespectful. So I believe suppressing discussion is possibly the best course of action considering people close to this girl are deeply offended some of the comments on this story.
With the words "show more respect" I intended to ask people not to ask such disgusting questions such as 'Was she drunk?' and 'Was she not concentrating?' The girl in question is one of the most kind-hearted, intelligent and hard-working people I know. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs and for people to ask such hurtful questions is quite annoying. Im sure the cyclist will also be quite upset with what has happened and I believe debating over who is to blame is disrespectful. So I believe suppressing discussion is possibly the best course of action considering people close to this girl are deeply offended some of the comments on this story. Salty0103

2:05am Tue 5 Feb 13

madmark50484 says...

I am a cyclist. car driver and bus driver.

These "shared spaces" are not they governed by a law which only includes road as far as I see it thats what they are.

Someone has suggested bikes should have tax ins etc why ? tax is free and if you are responsible you dont need insurance I have never had an accident involving a third party on my bike.

I can't comment on the seafront too much I drove down there once that was bad enough but I can Victoria Gateway an accident waiting to happen people walk in front of buses with little regard as I pointed earliar its a road and would be the pedestrians fault but as a responsible driver you don't want to plough someone down !! As far as I am concerned Southend Council really screwed this one up.

As for the story in hand it does seem the cyclist was to blame going by the witness reports regardless of speed you should always be prepared for a situation such as this. If riding on footpath I always use courtesy and appropiate speed. I do wish all parties a full recovery.

Now in my book the important part would be trying to prevent this kind of incident from happening again but unfortunately this council seem hell bent they have it right shame they dont just venture out of their offices and see the mess they have made
I am a cyclist. car driver and bus driver. These "shared spaces" are not they governed by a law which only includes road as far as I see it thats what they are. Someone has suggested bikes should have tax ins etc why ? tax is free and if you are responsible you dont need insurance I have never had an accident involving a third party on my bike. I can't comment on the seafront too much I drove down there once that was bad enough but I can Victoria Gateway an accident waiting to happen people walk in front of buses with little regard as I pointed earliar its a road and would be the pedestrians fault but as a responsible driver you don't want to plough someone down !! As far as I am concerned Southend Council really screwed this one up. As for the story in hand it does seem the cyclist was to blame going by the witness reports regardless of speed you should always be prepared for a situation such as this. If riding on footpath I always use courtesy and appropiate speed. I do wish all parties a full recovery. Now in my book the important part would be trying to prevent this kind of incident from happening again but unfortunately this council seem hell bent they have it right shame they dont just venture out of their offices and see the mess they have made madmark50484

9:15am Tue 5 Feb 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Salty0103 wrote:
With the words "show more respect" I intended to ask people not to ask such disgusting questions such as 'Was she drunk?' and 'Was she not concentrating?' The girl in question is one of the most kind-hearted, intelligent and hard-working people I know. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs and for people to ask such hurtful questions is quite annoying. Im sure the cyclist will also be quite upset with what has happened and I believe debating over who is to blame is disrespectful. So I believe suppressing discussion is possibly the best course of action considering people close to this girl are deeply offended some of the comments on this story.
Distressing as it all is, there are always two sides to a story. ‘Questions asked’ is a reasonable reaction. ‘Accusations made’ is not.
Regardless of how each person involved was behaving, the fact of the matter is that as a ‘shared space’ it doesn’t work and SBC need to see that and put it right with the most utmost urgency.
[quote][p][bold]Salty0103[/bold] wrote: With the words "show more respect" I intended to ask people not to ask such disgusting questions such as 'Was she drunk?' and 'Was she not concentrating?' The girl in question is one of the most kind-hearted, intelligent and hard-working people I know. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs and for people to ask such hurtful questions is quite annoying. Im sure the cyclist will also be quite upset with what has happened and I believe debating over who is to blame is disrespectful. So I believe suppressing discussion is possibly the best course of action considering people close to this girl are deeply offended some of the comments on this story.[/p][/quote]Distressing as it all is, there are always two sides to a story. ‘Questions asked’ is a reasonable reaction. ‘Accusations made’ is not. Regardless of how each person involved was behaving, the fact of the matter is that as a ‘shared space’ it doesn’t work and SBC need to see that and put it right with the most utmost urgency. stopmoaning1

2:46pm Tue 5 Feb 13

sophie_pearson says...

Salty0103 wrote:
With the words "show more respect" I intended to ask people not to ask such disgusting questions such as 'Was she drunk?' and 'Was she not concentrating?' The girl in question is one of the most kind-hearted, intelligent and hard-working people I know. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs and for people to ask such hurtful questions is quite annoying. Im sure the cyclist will also be quite upset with what has happened and I believe debating over who is to blame is disrespectful. So I believe suppressing discussion is possibly the best course of action considering people close to this girl are deeply offended some of the comments on this story.
agreed
[quote][p][bold]Salty0103[/bold] wrote: With the words "show more respect" I intended to ask people not to ask such disgusting questions such as 'Was she drunk?' and 'Was she not concentrating?' The girl in question is one of the most kind-hearted, intelligent and hard-working people I know. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs and for people to ask such hurtful questions is quite annoying. Im sure the cyclist will also be quite upset with what has happened and I believe debating over who is to blame is disrespectful. So I believe suppressing discussion is possibly the best course of action considering people close to this girl are deeply offended some of the comments on this story.[/p][/quote]agreed sophie_pearson

1:20am Wed 6 Feb 13

madmark50484 says...

In todays hard copy it was revealed this happened on the path not the shared space which leads me to question whats shared and whats not ? the whole scheme is flawed.
In todays hard copy it was revealed this happened on the path not the shared space which leads me to question whats shared and whats not ? the whole scheme is flawed. madmark50484

6:07pm Wed 6 Feb 13

boyracer21 says...

First of all I want to wish the girl a speedy recovery. Whats the point of arguing here, this was an accident, and whoever was at fault did not mean to cause this collision. What has happened has happened.
First of all I want to wish the girl a speedy recovery. Whats the point of arguing here, this was an accident, and whoever was at fault did not mean to cause this collision. What has happened has happened. boyracer21

2:21pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Nebs says...

Whats with all the filming in the shared space today.
Whats with all the filming in the shared space today. Nebs

8:41pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Devils Advocate says...

Don't know, but I stopped to let two ladies cross, and they were standing by the kerb not wanting to cross, just waiting to be filmed! Good job I don't suffer from peer pressure! I noticed the film cameras on the railway tracks there too. It must have been for some film?
Don't know, but I stopped to let two ladies cross, and they were standing by the kerb not wanting to cross, just waiting to be filmed! Good job I don't suffer from peer pressure! I noticed the film cameras on the railway tracks there too. It must have been for some film? Devils Advocate

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree