Death by design

Death by design

A 14-year-old boy who was cycling home from school in Weymouth yesterday was killed by the driver of an articulated lorry.

It’s far too early to establish the precise circumstances of the collision, but of two things we can be certain: Not only will the boy’s family and friends be suffering unimaginable grief, but nothing will happen to mitigate the factors that contributed to the crash. It’s the reason we are in such dire need of a systematic approach to road danger reduction.

According to the Road Danger Reduction Forum: “The road danger reduction approach to achieving safer roads seeks to reduce danger at source.  This calls for a recognition of the fact that the principal source of danger on the road is motor vehicles. Traditional approaches to road safety have taken casualty reduction as a measure of achievement. Initiatives, particularly in highway engineering, have been justified on the basis of predicted casualty savings.”

Death by design

For example, take a look at the photograph above showing the scene of yesterday’s crash. It’s a shocking indictment of British streets today. Nothing short of death by design.

Let’s start with the road itself. The speed limit is 30 mph and yet its width and absence of traffic calming measures means a car could comfortably do 60. With regards to the pavement, it’s more than wide enough for a segregated cycle path and yet no such provision exists. In fact, it’s being used as parking by drivers – even though the road is more than wide enough to accommodate them.

Engineering the highway in order to dramatically reduce road danger might seem like a radical idea in the context of Britain’s streets, but elsewhere in Europe it’s an approach that has shown massive dividends and saved countless lives. We are already 40 years behind The Netherlands in this regard. Let’s not squander any more time, or lives, before we follow in their footsteps.

Comments

  1. trevor cole

    Reply

    so sorry for the boys family, however the article is very condescending, the roads are and were built to carry vehicles so no surprise that accidents involve them. as in life some people don’t obey the rules and then things go wrong and surprise surprise sometimes its not the vehicle drivers fault.

    traffic calming methods are crude and only ramp up the noise and pollution level what would be of a major use was if all people thought a little about the other road users and concentrated on what they are doing instead of catching up on the social media crap that so dominates everybody lives

    once again my total sympathy for the child’s family

  2. Nigel Cory

    Reply

    See my earlier comments about the urban myth: i.e. that helmets provide protection. If a lorry is going to squash you a helmet will afford no protection at all, and wearing a helmet may well – probably will -increase the likelihood of your collision with a motor vehicle, particularly due to the false sense (on the part not only of the cyclist but also the motorist) that a helmet will protect you against all threats. There is no substitute for commonsense. This has been demonstrated again and again, but parents still assume that if their children wear helmets they will be safe. WRONG WRONG WRONG! How many more lives must be sacrificed to the helmet delusion???? Cyclists must be trained to keep their wits about them.

    • David Wharton

      Reply

      Neither a helmet nor your wits will do you much good if you happen to encounter a pothole just as a lorry passes you at high speed giving you two inches of room. It’s drivers who need to be educated, far more than cyclists. They are in control of lethal weapons and often don’t recognise that, or they proceed under the delusion that they have a ‘right’ to endanger vulnerable road users’ lives to save themselves a few seconds of journey time. All the defensive riding in the world is no match for a few tons of high-velocity steel.

  3. John Fletcher

    Reply

    When are we going to wake up and realise that there is no such thing as an “acceptable” death toll arising from our love affair with the motor vehicle?

  4. edmund white

    Reply

    I agree 100% with the two comments above, helmets just create a false sense of security, an deaths on the roads should be seen an dealt with for what they are, manslaughter.
    One other point, going back to the photo again, two cars are committing a criminal offense by parking on the footpath, with all the police around did they get pinched ? I bet not

  5. Tony Williams

    Reply

    A death like this is very sad, but that isn’t a reason why we should accept your comments about it.

    You say that the boy was killed by the driver of the lorry. It seems more likely that the lorry killed him. I doubt that you know the circumstances. You actually state that “it’s far too early to establish the precise circumstances”, yet you assert that “nothing will happen to mitigate the factors that contributed to the crash”.

    “Nothing short of death by design” is also exaggerated. Yes, a cycle track would reduce the danger to cyclists. It might also transfer some of the danger to pedestrians. When some road users have some kind of machinery which enables them to travel much faster than those on foot, there will be some accidents.

    A comment on Nigel Cory’s post: obviously you have a problem with helmets, but the suggestion that when I’m driving I make a different assessment about the risks relating to a cyclist depending on whether or not they’re wearing a helmet is completely unrealistic.

    • David

      Reply

      Not as ridiculous as you might think. The subconscious is a strange thing. For example I used to keep me ears warm in the winter by tucking a scarf through the straps of my helmet, which had the effect of making it look like I just had a lot of hair! After I replaced the scarf with a balaclava (which was much more effective for the ears) I was surprised to find I was getting less space from passing vehicles. It’s not just helmets – as cycle lights have improved over the years it is noticable that the better the cycle lights, the less room you get from motorists. I can’t believe this is deliberate – most motorists are careful and considerate. I think it is that the more competent a cyclist appears, the less risk the subconscious attributes to him or her..

    • The ETA

      Reply

      It’s sometimes hard to know whether people are being obtuse by accident or design, but we’ll address your points nonetheless:
      “It seems more likely that the lorry killed him” – the lorry is not using driverless technology so the driver is responsible
      “nothing will happen to mitigate the factors that contributed to the crash” – 6,000 children are killed or seriously injured on British roads every year and yet very little is done to redress the situation
      “there will be some accidents” – it’s not appropriate to describe any death on the road as an accident
      “the suggestion that when I’m driving I make a different assessment about the risks relating to a cyclist depending on whether or not they’re wearing a helmet is completely unrealistic.” – search the internet for the research carried out by Dr Ian Walker at Bath University. His research looked at the psychology of drivers and specifically whether they react differently to cyclists wearing helmets.

  6. Vincent Edwards

    Reply

    With reference to the above comments:
    First, cycle helmets. Of course they won’t stop your head from being crushed if a lorry drives over it. But if you fall/are knocked off your bike and hit your head, it may give you some protection from the worst consequences. I do accept, however, that, like seat belts, they can lull the user into a false sense of safety and their benefits should not be over-stated.
    Second, parking on pavements. It is not in itself illegal. It is an offence to obstruct the highway, of which the pavement is a part, but there is no definition of “obstruct”. In broad terms, Police can book vehicles causing an obstruction but are reluctant to do so, partly because it seems virtually everyone does it (including Police) and partly because the law is so vague there is little chance of success if a motorist takes it to court hearing – I have seen magistrates acquit motorists who were parked with four wheels on the pavement. Local authority wardens can only book cars on pavements if they are also parked alongside yellow lines. Successive governments have resisted efforts to bring in legislation to deal with the blight of pavement parking, and their failure to act has led to the situation we find ourselves in now, where many pavements have become impassable. Apparently the Westminster government is currently considering legislation, but I am not holding my breath. The Scottish government is a little ahead in this matter, but again I anticipate the motorist lobby, led by the tabloids, will resist, and all governments are scared stiff of the motorist lobby.
    None of the vehicles in the photograph above “needs” to be parked on the pavement. The road is wide enough and it looks like the type of suburban street where people can park in their front gardens if they can be bothered to do so.

  7. Bob Longhurst

    Reply

    Whilst I am driving my car, I consider it to be MY responsibility to be aware of ALL other road users. Whoever or whatever they are. Daily, I see all manner of silly incidents and near misses due to Road users making mistakes.
    When cycling, It really does hit home that as cyclists we have NO protection in the event of an accident. The high number of Pot-Holes encountered on every Road I cycle along, means extra vigilance on my part when deciding if I have enough time and space between following traffic to move out and avoid them. Wearing HI Vis clothing and having flashing lights makes me feel slightly safer. The onus is on us ALL to use our Roads safely.

  8. Julia

    Reply

    You already seem to be willing to blame the lorry driver or motorists in general for this tragedy when it seems that none of you have any knowledge of the situation at all. The story I have heard from someone who was in Weymouth that day is that the boy and another boy were cycling on the pavement. The second boy called out something to his friend who turned his head to answer and crashed in to a tree or lamp post and fell INTO the road under the wheels of the passing lorry. .Nothing to do with the safety or condition of the road or the awareness of the driver. If this is the case it is a totally freak accident from a moments inattention by two young boys. had the driver had time to jam on his brakes he might have jack-knifed his lorry and there might have been a great deal higher number of deaths.

    • The ETA

      Reply

      We’re not ready to ascribe the crashes that kill or injure more than 6,000 children in Britain every year to “freak accidents”. Every death on the roads is unacceptable and preventable.

  9. Brian

    Reply

    I believe it is still a motoring offence to drive on the footpath except to access premises at the side of the footpath. How come people park on the pavement then?

    • The ETA

      Reply

      You are right. There is widespread ignorance of, or a disregard for, the law.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Your name and email are required.