Inquest into cyclistDavid Irving's death on Mountbatten Way in Southampton

Daily Echo: David Irving David Irving

AN inquest will be held today into the death of a cyclist killed in a rush hour road smash in Southampton.

David Irving died when he was knocked off his bike on the A33 Mountbatten Way on the way to work.

The 48-year-old father-of-two from Wimborne, fell from his red Giant bike onto the three-lane dual carriageway after being clipped by a white Ford Transit minibus.

Moments later he was ran over by a Mercedes and died at the scene from multiple head and body injuries.

As previously reported minibus driver Steven Petterson walked free from court after being cleared of killing the rider.

Mr Petterson, 38, claimed bright sunlight causing a glare on the wet road meant he simply did not see Mr Irving before hitting him.

Mr Irving, who was one of triplets, was on his was on his way to work as an IT consultant at Carnival Cruise Lines on the morning of December 17, 2012.

The inquest takes place at Southampton Coroners Court in Hulse Road.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:27am Thu 15 May 14

SotonNorth says...

Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.
Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix. SotonNorth
  • Score: -3

7:53am Thu 15 May 14

Marchwoodlocal says...

As a cyclistwho rides into Southampton daily I have to agree with the above....however, have you used the cycle path? It's awful. The surface is terrible and nobody looks after it. It could be so useful if somebody just spent a bit of time and effort.
As a cyclistwho rides into Southampton daily I have to agree with the above....however, have you used the cycle path? It's awful. The surface is terrible and nobody looks after it. It could be so useful if somebody just spent a bit of time and effort. Marchwoodlocal
  • Score: 15

8:06am Thu 15 May 14

fishter says...

This is a full report from the trial of Mr Petterson. It also included a document describing the alternative routes Mr Irving could have taken. None of them are without problems. http://www.southampt
oncyclingcampaign.or
g.uk/2014/news/1888/
This is a full report from the trial of Mr Petterson. It also included a document describing the alternative routes Mr Irving could have taken. None of them are without problems. http://www.southampt oncyclingcampaign.or g.uk/2014/news/1888/ fishter
  • Score: 6

9:28am Thu 15 May 14

Forest Resident says...

If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug
hters/sons/sisters/b
rothers.
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers. Forest Resident
  • Score: 18

9:32am Thu 15 May 14

camerajuan says...

What should be in place (according to a few people) and what is in place, are totally different things.

If a cyclist caused the death of a pedestrian, I would not want to even look on these boards.
What should be in place (according to a few people) and what is in place, are totally different things. If a cyclist caused the death of a pedestrian, I would not want to even look on these boards. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

10:07am Thu 15 May 14

southamptonadi says...

SotonNorth wrote:
Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.
Alternative routes is irelevent. mr Irving took the route he took. He was legally allowed to use that route and was doing nothing wrong.are you suggesting that any accident involving cyclists is the cyclists fault for being there in the first place because there is ALLWAYS an alternative route.

It's only a 50 limit it's much safer than some 60 mph A roads which are only single carriage way.

Don't know why they need an inquest, driver allegedly could not see due to alleged low sun, although he could see car in front. Experts say mr Irving's cycling was to a. high standard.

So I know let's just ban cyclists from that road instead of trying to get drivers to keep windows clean, use sunglasses, and drive appropriately to conditions coz a ban is much easier and makes mr Irving sound guilty. By the way no road is safe for cyclists, due to speeding cars, close overtakes, left hooking and blatant. Disregard for a cyclists life,( for the record I'm not suggesting any of these fit Mr Patterson as he was cleared of any fault.) Manu cyclists are killed on 30mph roads.

Would you prefer a ban on all duel carriageways and roads over 40mph because we don't want cars being delayed now do we.

This was an unfortunate and sad event for mr Irving and his family. I think that's more important than any argument over where cyclists should or shouldn't cycle.
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.[/p][/quote]Alternative routes is irelevent. mr Irving took the route he took. He was legally allowed to use that route and was doing nothing wrong.are you suggesting that any accident involving cyclists is the cyclists fault for being there in the first place because there is ALLWAYS an alternative route. It's only a 50 limit it's much safer than some 60 mph A roads which are only single carriage way. Don't know why they need an inquest, driver allegedly could not see due to alleged low sun, although he could see car in front. Experts say mr Irving's cycling was to a. high standard. So I know let's just ban cyclists from that road instead of trying to get drivers to keep windows clean, use sunglasses, and drive appropriately to conditions coz a ban is much easier and makes mr Irving sound guilty. By the way no road is safe for cyclists, due to speeding cars, close overtakes, left hooking and blatant. Disregard for a cyclists life,( for the record I'm not suggesting any of these fit Mr Patterson as he was cleared of any fault.) Manu cyclists are killed on 30mph roads. Would you prefer a ban on all duel carriageways and roads over 40mph because we don't want cars being delayed now do we. This was an unfortunate and sad event for mr Irving and his family. I think that's more important than any argument over where cyclists should or shouldn't cycle. southamptonadi
  • Score: 7

10:41am Thu 15 May 14

bigfella777 says...

There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help.
The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him.
Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.
There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help. The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him. Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

10:47am Thu 15 May 14

FreemantleJamez says...

SotonNorth wrote:
Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.
Yes I agree In reality the council should ban bikes salong the whole A35/A33 route along Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road and Mountbatten Way. There is a perfectly adequate cycle route which cyclists can use instead.
[quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree In reality the council should ban bikes salong the whole A35/A33 route along Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road and Mountbatten Way. There is a perfectly adequate cycle route which cyclists can use instead. FreemantleJamez
  • Score: 1

10:49am Thu 15 May 14

southamptonadi says...

bigfella777 wrote:
There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help.
The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him.
Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.
Yes, I believe the route your on about is. Being used to lay extra railway track on.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help. The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him. Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.[/p][/quote]Yes, I believe the route your on about is. Being used to lay extra railway track on. southamptonadi
  • Score: 3

10:52am Thu 15 May 14

Forest Resident says...

FreemantleJamez wrote:
SotonNorth wrote:
Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.
Yes I agree In reality the council should ban bikes salong the whole A35/A33 route along Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road and Mountbatten Way. There is a perfectly adequate cycle route which cyclists can use instead.
Your definition of perfectly adequate is wildly erroneous. That cycle route does not meet Department for Transport design recommendations and standards, it is in a terrible state of disrepair and places cyclists at greater risk than cycling in the road.
[quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree In reality the council should ban bikes salong the whole A35/A33 route along Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road and Mountbatten Way. There is a perfectly adequate cycle route which cyclists can use instead.[/p][/quote]Your definition of perfectly adequate is wildly erroneous. That cycle route does not meet Department for Transport design recommendations and standards, it is in a terrible state of disrepair and places cyclists at greater risk than cycling in the road. Forest Resident
  • Score: 6

10:55am Thu 15 May 14

southamptonadi says...

FreemantleJamez wrote:
SotonNorth wrote:
Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.
Yes I agree In reality the council should ban bikes salong the whole A35/A33 route along Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road and Mountbatten Way. There is a perfectly adequate cycle route which cyclists can use instead.
I would never cycle between redbridge and mill rook roundabouts due to the sheer volume of traffic merging on and off the motorway and slip roads. But mountbatton way is no more dangerous than any other road in southampton.

Maybe drivers should pay a little attention to what's happening in front of them and react accordingly.

A ban only moves the issue onto other roads, I find Shirley road more dangerous due to side roads and people rushing around
[quote][p][bold]FreemantleJamez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonNorth[/bold] wrote: Accidents involving cyclists on Mountbatten Way could easily be solved by implementing a ban on cyclists using this busy section of "new build" road, with cyclists forced to use the signed cycle route along the old road, Millbrook Road East. A 50mph dual three lane traffic artery is no place for vulnerable road users, yet Southampton City Council permits this unsafe mix.[/p][/quote]Yes I agree In reality the council should ban bikes salong the whole A35/A33 route along Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road and Mountbatten Way. There is a perfectly adequate cycle route which cyclists can use instead.[/p][/quote]I would never cycle between redbridge and mill rook roundabouts due to the sheer volume of traffic merging on and off the motorway and slip roads. But mountbatton way is no more dangerous than any other road in southampton. Maybe drivers should pay a little attention to what's happening in front of them and react accordingly. A ban only moves the issue onto other roads, I find Shirley road more dangerous due to side roads and people rushing around southamptonadi
  • Score: 2

11:08am Thu 15 May 14

cliffwalker says...

bigfella777 wrote:
There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help.
The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him.
Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.
My experience of driving on Mountbatten Way is very different from bigfella777's. Even when higher speeds are possible, the 50 mph limit is mostly observed. When you do, rarely, see people exceeding the limit it's usually by only a few mph. I've never seen anyone at all driving at 65 or 70 - perhaps I've just been lucky.

I agree with those saying that cycling there is inadvisable but it is perfectly legal. If the alternative cycle route is in a poor state, this sad affair should be notice to the Council that urgent work is needed.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help. The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him. Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.[/p][/quote]My experience of driving on Mountbatten Way is very different from bigfella777's. Even when higher speeds are possible, the 50 mph limit is mostly observed. When you do, rarely, see people exceeding the limit it's usually by only a few mph. I've never seen anyone at all driving at 65 or 70 - perhaps I've just been lucky. I agree with those saying that cycling there is inadvisable but it is perfectly legal. If the alternative cycle route is in a poor state, this sad affair should be notice to the Council that urgent work is needed. cliffwalker
  • Score: 7

12:04pm Thu 15 May 14

bigfella777 says...

cliffwalker wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help.
The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him.
Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.
My experience of driving on Mountbatten Way is very different from bigfella777's. Even when higher speeds are possible, the 50 mph limit is mostly observed. When you do, rarely, see people exceeding the limit it's usually by only a few mph. I've never seen anyone at all driving at 65 or 70 - perhaps I've just been lucky.

I agree with those saying that cycling there is inadvisable but it is perfectly legal. If the alternative cycle route is in a poor state, this sad affair should be notice to the Council that urgent work is needed.
Perhaps as a result of the inquest that may come about, at least that would be best all round and his family would know that something positive came out of this.
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help. The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him. Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.[/p][/quote]My experience of driving on Mountbatten Way is very different from bigfella777's. Even when higher speeds are possible, the 50 mph limit is mostly observed. When you do, rarely, see people exceeding the limit it's usually by only a few mph. I've never seen anyone at all driving at 65 or 70 - perhaps I've just been lucky. I agree with those saying that cycling there is inadvisable but it is perfectly legal. If the alternative cycle route is in a poor state, this sad affair should be notice to the Council that urgent work is needed.[/p][/quote]Perhaps as a result of the inquest that may come about, at least that would be best all round and his family would know that something positive came out of this. bigfella777
  • Score: -1

12:35pm Thu 15 May 14

Zexagon says...

cliffwalker wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help.
The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him.
Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.
My experience of driving on Mountbatten Way is very different from bigfella777's. Even when higher speeds are possible, the 50 mph limit is mostly observed. When you do, rarely, see people exceeding the limit it's usually by only a few mph. I've never seen anyone at all driving at 65 or 70 - perhaps I've just been lucky.

I agree with those saying that cycling there is inadvisable but it is perfectly legal. If the alternative cycle route is in a poor state, this sad affair should be notice to the Council that urgent work is needed.
Not many do 65 or 70 by the speed camera stretch
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: There was a recent letter from somebody who said that some of the cycle paths along Mountbatten Way are being shut as they fall on dock land, that's never going to help. The only person who really knows what happened is the driver that hit him. Personally I would never ride along there, 50mph would be a minimum, it's more like 65-70 from what I see.[/p][/quote]My experience of driving on Mountbatten Way is very different from bigfella777's. Even when higher speeds are possible, the 50 mph limit is mostly observed. When you do, rarely, see people exceeding the limit it's usually by only a few mph. I've never seen anyone at all driving at 65 or 70 - perhaps I've just been lucky. I agree with those saying that cycling there is inadvisable but it is perfectly legal. If the alternative cycle route is in a poor state, this sad affair should be notice to the Council that urgent work is needed.[/p][/quote]Not many do 65 or 70 by the speed camera stretch Zexagon
  • Score: 2

1:00pm Thu 15 May 14

808 says...

As I keen cyclist I would welcome a ban on riding any part of the Millbrook dual carrigeway, it's simply not safe enough regardless of saving a few minutes journey time. It only takes a couple of lorries travelling behind each other to cause a cyclist to wobble. Whenever I see someone riding I want to grab them and take them onto the cycle path, yes the condition is rubbish is rubbish but its better to get a puncture than end up in A&E.

Perhaps a ban may not happen but even if signs were putting up recommending the cycle route it would be something.

As riding becomes increasingly popular the council need to maintain cycle routes as they would roads, rubbish & glass need to be routinely removed, broken signs need fixing, etc....
As I keen cyclist I would welcome a ban on riding any part of the Millbrook dual carrigeway, it's simply not safe enough regardless of saving a few minutes journey time. It only takes a couple of lorries travelling behind each other to cause a cyclist to wobble. Whenever I see someone riding I want to grab them and take them onto the cycle path, yes the condition is rubbish is rubbish but its better to get a puncture than end up in A&E. Perhaps a ban may not happen but even if signs were putting up recommending the cycle route it would be something. As riding becomes increasingly popular the council need to maintain cycle routes as they would roads, rubbish & glass need to be routinely removed, broken signs need fixing, etc.... 808
  • Score: 9

2:05pm Thu 15 May 14

Torchie1 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug

hters/sons/sisters/b

rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels? Torchie1
  • Score: -1

2:31pm Thu 15 May 14

southamptonadi says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug


hters/sons/sisters/b


rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity. southamptonadi
  • Score: -4

2:46pm Thu 15 May 14

southamptonadi says...

808 wrote:
As I keen cyclist I would welcome a ban on riding any part of the Millbrook dual carrigeway, it's simply not safe enough regardless of saving a few minutes journey time. It only takes a couple of lorries travelling behind each other to cause a cyclist to wobble. Whenever I see someone riding I want to grab them and take them onto the cycle path, yes the condition is rubbish is rubbish but its better to get a puncture than end up in A&E.

Perhaps a ban may not happen but even if signs were putting up recommending the cycle route it would be something.

As riding becomes increasingly popular the council need to maintain cycle routes as they would roads, rubbish & glass need to be routinely removed, broken signs need fixing, etc....
What because you feel is unsafe. Me I don't go that way anyway. But I might go use it and see for myself.

A lot of people say cycling should be banned on the A30 through Devon and Cornwall but I found it an amazing road to cycle very fast down the hills and there's a nice wide bit to safely go out of traffic.

It also only takes one speeding car to kill a cyclist or pedestrian on ANY road.

Good signs offering on and off road routes would be a good idea and a few signs warning motorists of cyclists on mount baton way would be good too. Give people the choice of whatever legal route they wish to choose.

We as cyclists should be campaigning for better and safer access to all legal roads not banning cyclists because of one incident. How far to do go Mark died at Ipley crossroads should we ban cycling there too.

I'm sure a better way of remembering loved ones would be an improvement in attitudes of ALL road users to ensure safety on all roads and a start to improving road infrastructure by including cycle safety on all roads current and new.
[quote][p][bold]808[/bold] wrote: As I keen cyclist I would welcome a ban on riding any part of the Millbrook dual carrigeway, it's simply not safe enough regardless of saving a few minutes journey time. It only takes a couple of lorries travelling behind each other to cause a cyclist to wobble. Whenever I see someone riding I want to grab them and take them onto the cycle path, yes the condition is rubbish is rubbish but its better to get a puncture than end up in A&E. Perhaps a ban may not happen but even if signs were putting up recommending the cycle route it would be something. As riding becomes increasingly popular the council need to maintain cycle routes as they would roads, rubbish & glass need to be routinely removed, broken signs need fixing, etc....[/p][/quote]What because you feel is unsafe. Me I don't go that way anyway. But I might go use it and see for myself. A lot of people say cycling should be banned on the A30 through Devon and Cornwall but I found it an amazing road to cycle very fast down the hills and there's a nice wide bit to safely go out of traffic. It also only takes one speeding car to kill a cyclist or pedestrian on ANY road. Good signs offering on and off road routes would be a good idea and a few signs warning motorists of cyclists on mount baton way would be good too. Give people the choice of whatever legal route they wish to choose. We as cyclists should be campaigning for better and safer access to all legal roads not banning cyclists because of one incident. How far to do go Mark died at Ipley crossroads should we ban cycling there too. I'm sure a better way of remembering loved ones would be an improvement in attitudes of ALL road users to ensure safety on all roads and a start to improving road infrastructure by including cycle safety on all roads current and new. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

3:02pm Thu 15 May 14

camerajuan says...

southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug



hters/sons/sisters/b



rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?". camerajuan
  • Score: 1

3:44pm Thu 15 May 14

southamptonadi says...

camerajuan wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug




hters/sons/sisters/b




rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently.

But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't.

We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists.

I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".[/p][/quote]Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently. But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't. We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists. I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really, southamptonadi
  • Score: 2

4:03pm Thu 15 May 14

geoff51 says...

southamptonadi wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug





hters/sons/sisters/b





rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently.

But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't.

We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists.

I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,
Dont bring me into this as i had no comment to make on the sad death of the cyclist whoever was to blame.
By the way Dale road goes from Winchester road to Tremona road, Dale valley road goes from Dale road to Lordswood road and has no lights on it.
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".[/p][/quote]Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently. But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't. We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists. I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,[/p][/quote]Dont bring me into this as i had no comment to make on the sad death of the cyclist whoever was to blame. By the way Dale road goes from Winchester road to Tremona road, Dale valley road goes from Dale road to Lordswood road and has no lights on it. geoff51
  • Score: -4

4:52pm Thu 15 May 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51 wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug






hters/sons/sisters/b






rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently.

But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't.

We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists.

I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,
Dont bring me into this as i had no comment to make on the sad death of the cyclist whoever was to blame.
By the way Dale road goes from Winchester road to Tremona road, Dale valley road goes from Dale road to Lordswood road and has no lights on it.
We all know exactly why your name has been brought up here Jeffy don't even try that one.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".[/p][/quote]Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently. But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't. We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists. I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,[/p][/quote]Dont bring me into this as i had no comment to make on the sad death of the cyclist whoever was to blame. By the way Dale road goes from Winchester road to Tremona road, Dale valley road goes from Dale road to Lordswood road and has no lights on it.[/p][/quote]We all know exactly why your name has been brought up here Jeffy don't even try that one. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

6:26pm Thu 15 May 14

downfader says...

The "alternative" cycle route is going. People need to be aware this will mean more riders on the main road!

ABP are removing sections of path and installing track, and further down past the Shell petrol station the route is being removed to allow two way motor traffic.

I am all for restrictions on cycling along this route, but it will never and can never be done unless we get a decent and maintained cycle route! Motorists should be campaigning with riders for better as it could mean a reduction in motor traffic as well as safer roads.
The "alternative" cycle route is going. People need to be aware this will mean more riders on the main road! ABP are removing sections of path and installing track, and further down past the Shell petrol station the route is being removed to allow two way motor traffic. I am all for restrictions on cycling along this route, but it will never and can never be done unless we get a decent and maintained cycle route! Motorists should be campaigning with riders for better as it could mean a reduction in motor traffic as well as safer roads. downfader
  • Score: 3

8:07pm Thu 15 May 14

Torchie1 says...

camerajuan wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug




hters/sons/sisters/b




rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
Logically you therefore cannot give motorists less respect because a few break the odd motoring law!
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".[/p][/quote]Logically you therefore cannot give motorists less respect because a few break the odd motoring law! Torchie1
  • Score: -3

12:11am Fri 16 May 14

southamptonadi says...

geoff51 wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug






hters/sons/sisters/b






rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently.

But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't.

We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists.

I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,
Dont bring me into this as i had no comment to make on the sad death of the cyclist whoever was to blame.
By the way Dale road goes from Winchester road to Tremona road, Dale valley road goes from Dale road to Lordswood road and has no lights on it.
I appreciate that but was only using you as an example not trying to goad you into commenting. It is a tragic and sad death but we or at least I am discussing ways to prevent this just like I imagine will come out of the inquest,

Thank you, I nearly left out valley but changed my mind. For some reason.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".[/p][/quote]Your right but you only need to look at the attitude of our great friend Geoff. If cyclists adhered to the HC etc etc what argument could he have, he have to accept that cycling is here to stay. It's about the perceived view of the average cyclist. There all the same apparently. But we have to start somewhere if we as a cycling group want councils and government to help, if we want the police to act harsher on motorists who cause accidents and injure cyclists then we need to follow the Highway Code ourselves, yes I do but most don't. We can't have it both ways, I always have said bigger fines routinely handed out to cyclist who flout the rules. That will stop them. Then we can campaign for more. We may even then get the backing and sport from other motorists. I'm trying to teach mini me the Highway Code and responsible cycling but every day walking the school run we will see at least ten cyclists jump red lights into dale valley road. Doesn't help really,[/p][/quote]Dont bring me into this as i had no comment to make on the sad death of the cyclist whoever was to blame. By the way Dale road goes from Winchester road to Tremona road, Dale valley road goes from Dale road to Lordswood road and has no lights on it.[/p][/quote]I appreciate that but was only using you as an example not trying to goad you into commenting. It is a tragic and sad death but we or at least I am discussing ways to prevent this just like I imagine will come out of the inquest, Thank you, I nearly left out valley but changed my mind. For some reason. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

12:15am Fri 16 May 14

southamptonadi says...

downfader wrote:
The "alternative" cycle route is going. People need to be aware this will mean more riders on the main road!

ABP are removing sections of path and installing track, and further down past the Shell petrol station the route is being removed to allow two way motor traffic.

I am all for restrictions on cycling along this route, but it will never and can never be done unless we get a decent and maintained cycle route! Motorists should be campaigning with riders for better as it could mean a reduction in motor traffic as well as safer roads.
It's a shame I believe the southampton cycle campaign tried to get rights of way put on it but the council said there was no need, I wonder if they knew.

The second avenue bit really needs a rethink even I would think twice about the main road there. Too many people cutting across at the last minute.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: The "alternative" cycle route is going. People need to be aware this will mean more riders on the main road! ABP are removing sections of path and installing track, and further down past the Shell petrol station the route is being removed to allow two way motor traffic. I am all for restrictions on cycling along this route, but it will never and can never be done unless we get a decent and maintained cycle route! Motorists should be campaigning with riders for better as it could mean a reduction in motor traffic as well as safer roads.[/p][/quote]It's a shame I believe the southampton cycle campaign tried to get rights of way put on it but the council said there was no need, I wonder if they knew. The second avenue bit really needs a rethink even I would think twice about the main road there. Too many people cutting across at the last minute. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

8:35am Fri 16 May 14

camerajuan says...

Torchie1 wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southamptonadi wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug





hters/sons/sisters/b





rothers.
Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?
Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge.

Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.
As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights.

That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".
Logically you therefore cannot give motorists less respect because a few break the odd motoring law!
I give you this quote from downfader on a different story.

"The average recorded punishment for a driver proven to have caused a death of a rider - a £300 fine and a 6 month ban, usually with the ban cancelled

The average recorded punishment for a cyclist proven to have killed a pedestrian - £2200 fine with half doing a prison term for Wanton (which can be a 2 year sentence)

The risk of a driver killing compared to a cyclist? ...over 2000:1"

So to counter your argument, yes I can. And this is why.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: If Stephen Petterson had adhered to to section 154 of the Highway Code (Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear) this needless death would easily have been avoided. Drivers need to stop regarding cyclists as an obstruction (the law defines cyclists as road vehicles) and recognise them as vulnerable mothers/fathers/daug hters/sons/sisters/b rothers.[/p][/quote]Are you equally dedicated to getting ALL road users to adhere to the Highway Code or just those travelling on more than two wheels?[/p][/quote]Your right but in this case the cyclist was adhering to the highway code. And technically the car driver was as he could see the car in front. Don't forget forest resident the driver was cleared in a court of law. As much as I disagree with the judge. Maybe as a cyclist myself. Motorists would give more respect when more cyclist start respecting the Highway Code and stop hiding behind annomnity.[/p][/quote]As much as I agree with your post I have to say that morally motorists cannot give less respect to cyclists because a few of them jump red lights. That's like Idi Amin saying "That Fred West is a bit odd right?".[/p][/quote]Logically you therefore cannot give motorists less respect because a few break the odd motoring law![/p][/quote]I give you this quote from downfader on a different story. "The average recorded punishment for a driver proven to have caused a death of a rider - a £300 fine and a 6 month ban, usually with the ban cancelled The average recorded punishment for a cyclist proven to have killed a pedestrian - £2200 fine with half doing a prison term for Wanton (which can be a 2 year sentence) The risk of a driver killing compared to a cyclist? ...over 2000:1" So to counter your argument, yes I can. And this is why. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

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