Parent’s plea after daughter’s death (From Daily Echo)

iPods have turned young people into zombies, how many times do these people walk into the road when not paying attention?

Your never going to stop cyclists listening to music ,Like most they dont wear helmets either .Don't stop at junctions and don't stop at red lights either ..

I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

rednwhite1 wrote:
I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

a motorcyclist can't listen to an MP3 so why should cyclists. You have a moral responsibility to be safe on the road. That poor lorry driver didn't deserve a death on his conscience.

rednwhite1 wrote:
I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

I could not disagree more. You may THINK you never had a problem but I have little doubt you would have been totally unaware or oblivious to the problems you would have caused to others. I have seen many cyclists put themselves in extreme danger due to their being in a partial state of sensory deprivation because their hearing was cut off by using headphones. You cannot always be aware of vehicles behind you using sight alone (I see very few cyclists using mirrors or looking behind them except very rarely) whereas you would automatically be aware of approaching engine noise.

And I level similar criticism at pedestrians who step out into the road across junctions oblivious to the traffic because any noise is drowned out by the music they are listening to.

The fact is that for someone who is partially sensory deprived means they have to overcompensate for that sensory loss but it is virtually impossible to achieve as their minds are elsewhere...

And yes, I do listen to an MP3 player, and I am also a cyclist but I would NEVER wear headphones in the street or when riding!

My sympathy goes to the parents of this young lady, it is a loss all parents dread and that no parent should ever suffer!

Condor Man wrote:

rednwhite1 wrote:
I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

a motorcyclist can't listen to an MP3 so why should cyclists. You have a moral responsibility to be safe on the road. That poor lorry driver didn't deserve a death on his conscience.

so because motorcyclists are not allowed to listen to music you feel it should be the same for cyclists. if that is the case then surly motorists shouldn't be allowed either then? no the driver didn't deserve to have a death on his conscience but accidents happen.

Offence 1:

64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.



Offence 2:

You MUST NOT

* carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
* hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
* ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner



I haven't checked for previous cases yet, but i'm sure we could argue that listening to music would constitute riding in a careless manner. so your admission of generally breaking the law as and when you feel like it, is duely noted! Please don't preach on acceptable riding behaviour.

thesotonsaint wrote:
Offence 1:

64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.



Offence 2:

You MUST NOT

* carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
* hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
* ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner



I haven't checked for previous cases yet, but i'm sure we could argue that listening to music would constitute riding in a careless manner. so your admission of generally breaking the law as and when you feel like it, is duely noted! Please don't preach on acceptable riding behaviour.

It didn't like the brackets:

Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

thesotonsaint wrote:

thesotonsaint wrote:
Offence 1:

64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.



Offence 2:

You MUST NOT

* carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
* hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
* ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner



I haven't checked for previous cases yet, but i'm sure we could argue that listening to music would constitute riding in a careless manner. so your admission of generally breaking the law as and when you feel like it, is duely noted! Please don't preach on acceptable riding behaviour.

It didn't like the brackets:

Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

aimed at rednwhite1 ) my browser is playing up so it didn't quote him originally.

Surely can't be any different to listening to loud music in cars. I like turning the volume up but usually when I enter say a built up area or somewhere I know requires a bit more concentration I turn it down. Cyclists need their senses about them in order to stay safe. It's not even arguable in my opinion. Being able to hear a bus or lorry behind you would automatically make you self aware and be prepared. It's actually common sense.

Rest in peace Amber xx

What a sad loss of life for someone aged only 29.
I can’t help but wonder why she did not SEE the lorry that she rode in to the back of. There are so many things that just don’t sit right with this one. She was listening to music, she didn’t stop at the junction, she rode into the back of a lorry as it was turning into another road, and she knew the route. Something just does not add up. If this was a car driver, the possibility of the driver falling asleep could be the cause of such an accident.

fraggled wrote:
What a sad loss of life for someone aged only 29.
I can’t help but wonder why she did not SEE the lorry that she rode in to the back of. There are so many things that just don’t sit right with this one. She was listening to music, she didn’t stop at the junction, she rode into the back of a lorry as it was turning into another road, and she knew the route. Something just does not add up. If this was a car driver, the possibility of the driver falling asleep could be the cause of such an accident.

Tragic, and rest in peace Amber. I think 'the back' means that as he was turning left she clipped the wheels. The lorry driver has no to limited visibility during that time, and I don't suspect sleeping was a factor. Tragically this sounds like complaicancy, something we should all think about whilst on a public highway. Even if you think you're safe, others may not.

i have an ipod and whenever i cross a road i take the earphones out as you may hear something you cant yet see, common sense is a huge factor here, my children have ipods but theyre only allowed out with them in if theyre with me, im sorry this woman died it is very sad but could have been avoided, my sympathies go out to her family and friends, rest in peace.

Condor Man wrote:

rednwhite1 wrote:
I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

a motorcyclist can't listen to an MP3 so why should cyclists. You have a moral responsibility to be safe on the road. That poor lorry driver didn't deserve a death on his conscience.

to be fair if motorcyclists and cyclists cant listen to music why should everyone else be able to?? ive seen car drivers totally oblivious to whats going on because theyve had their music blaring so if its not suitable for cyclists etc it shouldnt be suitable for anyone which i think is the fairest option, although i dont know why with a little common sense and courtesy etc everybody cant listen to music!!

Condor Man wrote:

rednwhite1 wrote: I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

a motorcyclist can't listen to an MP3 so why should cyclists. You have a moral responsibility to be safe on the road. That poor lorry driver didn't deserve a death on his conscience.

R.I.P Amber xxx

Maybe the driver didn't deserve to have a death on his concience, but if he was concentrating so much, why did he not notice he had hit her? he carried on driving, isn't that what mirrors are 4? so before people start banging on about her and her headphones, maybe they should question why he hadnt noticed hes hit her.

vic83soton - he didn't hit her, she rode into the back of him.

vic83soton wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

rednwhite1 wrote: I used to cycle to work every day with my mp3 on and never had a problem. Because i had my music on i made myself be more aware of what was happening around me. Just because we listen to music doesnt mean were not careful. Cyclists can be just as bad as some drivers who have there music blaring out with windows down and not concentrating , only difference is we havent heard or read about them being in an accident and thats if there were in one. If you know your route you should know were to look and stop and be aware. Helmets you dont have to wear its optional but safer and with the red lights and junctions well some will and some wont . I used to approach a junction or red light and skip onto the pavement as i found that to be a safer option. But were not all the same.

a motorcyclist can't listen to an MP3 so why should cyclists. You have a moral responsibility to be safe on the road. That poor lorry driver didn't deserve a death on his conscience.

R.I.P Amber xxx Maybe the driver didn't deserve to have a death on his concience, but if he was concentrating so much, why did he not notice he had hit her? he carried on driving, isn't that what mirrors are 4? so before people start banging on about her and her headphones, maybe they should question why he hadnt noticed hes hit her.

Vic, having been in a proper HGV and a proper lorry (LGV) I can assure you that you have no feeling of the rear unless something very substantial rocks it. I'm afraid to say a person, even a motorcycle or small car wont send the vibration of impact through to the cab in the way you'd expect from a car. A good reason to exercise caution around large vehicles imo, even if you're in a car or on foot.

Very sad story, I remember it when originally reported, and I think the parents are very brave to come out and voice their opinion, even after all this time.
.
From my own cycling perspective I dont like the idea of headphones. They disorientate me on foot so there is no way I would personally ride with them.
.
However I think there needs to be something said here about music in general whilst on or in a vehicle. People get a little too preachy about ipod-cyclists without really considering their own behaviour. I see plenty of drivers with music up full-whack, even driving with earphones in. No one can claim to be an angel.
.
I also doubt it was the music drowing out the ambient road sounds that caused this. It would seem in my experience to be a case of lack of concentration. Its very hard to miss a HGV, unless of course her bike suffered a brake failure or she'd glanced in a different direction.
.
BTW ...Always check over your bike after unlocking it from a public area (I learnt this after one of mine was vandalised and the gear cables were cut some years back)
.
I think its also worth pointing out that hearing is a defensive tool for cyclists and other road users. The same for shoulder checking. Please dont think ill of cyclists if you dont see them use mirrors, or shoulder check as often as you personally think is appropriate. Its down to us on two wheels to establish if its needed, and down to the overtaking motorist/cyclist to make sure that they overtake with distance and safety (google the 3 feet rule which is considered to be the bare minimum distance between the furthest protrusion of bike or cyclist)
.
If cyclists want advice on this stuff, HGV, roadskills etc, then look up any of the major cycling forums (cyclechat, bikeradar, the CTC forums etc). Others are happy to pass on advice.

thesotonsaint wrote:

thesotonsaint wrote: Offence 1: 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Offence 2: You MUST NOT * carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one * hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer * ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner I haven't checked for previous cases yet, but i'm sure we could argue that listening to music would constitute riding in a careless manner. so your admission of generally breaking the law as and when you feel like it, is duely noted! Please don't preach on acceptable riding behaviour.

It didn't like the brackets: Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement".
.
You made that bit up - sections 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 do not even discuss that. Cycling on a pavement is allowed under various circumstances.

I have always thought that cyclists listening to their mp3 players or ipods are taking a huge risk. I've even seen it happening in central London where there are a heck of a lot of potential hazards to cyclists.
.
I think the current law regarding cyclists is inadequate. Helmets should be compulsary, whilst headphones should be banned. Action also needs to be taken against the minority of cyclists who disobey the rules of the highway code. Just today I saw a cyclist riding through a red light because he couldn't be bothered to wait.

MartinWellbourne wrote:

thesotonsaint wrote:

thesotonsaint wrote: Offence 1: 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Offence 2: You MUST NOT * carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one * hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer * ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner I haven't checked for previous cases yet, but i'm sure we could argue that listening to music would constitute riding in a careless manner. so your admission of generally breaking the law as and when you feel like it, is duely noted! Please don't preach on acceptable riding behaviour.

It didn't like the brackets: Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement".
.
You made that bit up - sections 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 do not even discuss that. Cycling on a pavement is allowed under various circumstances.

Cycling on footways (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

(Source:- http://www.bikeforal
l.net/content/cyclin
g_and_the_law.php)

Nod wrote:

MartinWellbourne wrote:

thesotonsaint wrote:

thesotonsaint wrote: Offence 1: 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Offence 2: You MUST NOT * carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one * hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer * ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner I haven't checked for previous cases yet, but i'm sure we could argue that listening to music would constitute riding in a careless manner. so your admission of generally breaking the law as and when you feel like it, is duely noted! Please don't preach on acceptable riding behaviour.

It didn't like the brackets: Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement". . You made that bit up - sections 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 do not even discuss that. Cycling on a pavement is allowed under various circumstances.

Cycling on footways (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (Source:- http://www.bikeforal l.net/content/cyclin g_and_the_law.php)

Exactly - pavement at the side of carriageway being the point he was making. Other areas have to be issued a TRO (traffic regulation order iirc) to stop cycling on paved areas. City centre paving outside the West Quay for example had a TRO placed on it.

soton1980 wrote:
I have always thought that cyclists listening to their mp3 players or ipods are taking a huge risk. I've even seen it happening in central London where there are a heck of a lot of potential hazards to cyclists. . I think the current law regarding cyclists is inadequate. Helmets should be compulsary, whilst headphones should be banned. Action also needs to be taken against the minority of cyclists who disobey the rules of the highway code. Just today I saw a cyclist riding through a red light because he couldn't be bothered to wait.

You see, again, I fear you're misunderstanding the situation on several fronts. The hazards dont dissappear without earphones, I feel there are some who can indeed concentrate on the road with the music on low volume. It aint me but I couldnt ever hold myself up as proof that everyone behaves the same with them in.
.
Helmets. You want a contentious issue then mention helmets. A helmet would have been zero benefit here and I feel if you had read the article and the previous story properly you'd realise why. Helmets should not be compulsary, can we just have a society without nosey-parkers thinking they know best for others?
.
Just look at the CTC forum thread on "Stop Headway" to see a wealth of statistical evidence that goes against helmets, and the skewed public perception thanks to groups like Headway, who although acting from the heart, have entirely missed the point about road safety.
.
Pretty much every other cyclist I meet would agree with you on bad cyclists, though if the police wont tackle the plums in corsas and saxos who race around the city like lunatics, why would they target a minority who have statistically been proven to be a much lesser risk?
.
I think the law is fine. It just needs people to start being sensible. Laws only come about when people overwhelmingly prove themselves to be selfish or dimwitted.

downfader wrote:

soton1980 wrote:
I have always thought that cyclists listening to their mp3 players or ipods are taking a huge risk. I've even seen it happening in central London where there are a heck of a lot of potential hazards to cyclists. . I think the current law regarding cyclists is inadequate. Helmets should be compulsary, whilst headphones should be banned. Action also needs to be taken against the minority of cyclists who disobey the rules of the highway code. Just today I saw a cyclist riding through a red light because he couldn't be bothered to wait.

You see, again, I fear you're misunderstanding the situation on several fronts. The hazards dont dissappear without earphones, I feel there are some who can indeed concentrate on the road with the music on low volume. It aint me but I couldnt ever hold myself up as proof that everyone behaves the same with them in.
.
Helmets. You want a contentious issue then mention helmets. A helmet would have been zero benefit here and I feel if you had read the article and the previous story properly you'd realise why. Helmets should not be compulsary, can we just have a society without nosey-parkers thinking they know best for others?
.
Just look at the CTC forum thread on "Stop Headway" to see a wealth of statistical evidence that goes against helmets, and the skewed public perception thanks to groups like Headway, who although acting from the heart, have entirely missed the point about road safety.
.
Pretty much every other cyclist I meet would agree with you on bad cyclists, though if the police wont tackle the plums in corsas and saxos who race around the city like lunatics, why would they target a minority who have statistically been proven to be a much lesser risk?
.
I think the law is fine. It just needs people to start being sensible. Laws only come about when people overwhelmingly prove themselves to be selfish or dimwitted.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. All I have to add to my previous statement is this. I have a friend who resented wearing a helmet when he was younger, but was forced to by his mother. One day he was in an accident and that helmet saved his life. Statistics can be made to prove anything. The doctors treating him all agreed that the helmet is what saved his life.
.
A helmet may not have helped in this situation, but I never claimed that it would have. I was talking about cyclists in general.

soton1980 wrote:

downfader wrote:

soton1980 wrote: I have always thought that cyclists listening to their mp3 players or ipods are taking a huge risk. I've even seen it happening in central London where there are a heck of a lot of potential hazards to cyclists. . I think the current law regarding cyclists is inadequate. Helmets should be compulsary, whilst headphones should be banned. Action also needs to be taken against the minority of cyclists who disobey the rules of the highway code. Just today I saw a cyclist riding through a red light because he couldn't be bothered to wait.

You see, again, I fear you're misunderstanding the situation on several fronts. The hazards dont dissappear without earphones, I feel there are some who can indeed concentrate on the road with the music on low volume. It aint me but I couldnt ever hold myself up as proof that everyone behaves the same with them in. . Helmets. You want a contentious issue then mention helmets. A helmet would have been zero benefit here and I feel if you had read the article and the previous story properly you'd realise why. Helmets should not be compulsary, can we just have a society without nosey-parkers thinking they know best for others? . Just look at the CTC forum thread on "Stop Headway" to see a wealth of statistical evidence that goes against helmets, and the skewed public perception thanks to groups like Headway, who although acting from the heart, have entirely missed the point about road safety. . Pretty much every other cyclist I meet would agree with you on bad cyclists, though if the police wont tackle the plums in corsas and saxos who race around the city like lunatics, why would they target a minority who have statistically been proven to be a much lesser risk? . I think the law is fine. It just needs people to start being sensible. Laws only come about when people overwhelmingly prove themselves to be selfish or dimwitted.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. All I have to add to my previous statement is this. I have a friend who resented wearing a helmet when he was younger, but was forced to by his mother. One day he was in an accident and that helmet saved his life. Statistics can be made to prove anything. The doctors treating him all agreed that the helmet is what saved his life. . A helmet may not have helped in this situation, but I never claimed that it would have. I was talking about cyclists in general.

Trouble is neither he nor the Doctors are entitled or qualified to state "it saved your life". They simply are not designed for any kind of serious impact, if you want protection wear a motorcycle helmet - that is actually designed for it.
.
Better driving and better cycling is the only way you will see a reduction in accidents, injuries and deaths. I'm afraid everyone who seems to be pro-compulsion is typically non-cyclist, or at best inexperienced cyclists.

I still fail to see how listening to music prevented/distracted her to the point that she did not see the large articulated lorry. Not to mention not giving way at the junction. That’s why I said earlier that if it had been a car driver, it may have been assumed that the driver had fallen asleep.

fraggled wrote:
I still fail to see how listening to music prevented/distracted her to the point that she did not see the large articulated lorry. Not to mention not giving way at the junction. That’s why I said earlier that if it had been a car driver, it may have been assumed that the driver had fallen asleep.

It probably/possibly didnt. Theres just so much not mentioned here from the Coroner's report that may lead to an understanding, and I would take it the Parents have a copy.
.
However sleeping on this last night I think they perhaps want to feel some control from this sad loss. Its difficult to influence a fully grown woman, but raising the debate will atleast get people talking.
.
I can see a number of hypothetical outcomes that could have lead to her being distracted enough that she didnt look.
.
I also think this debate can be taken further in the same way mobile phone research was done with drivers. Put some people on a bike with and without music and let one of the big universities do the research.