UPDATED: Teenager struck by cyclist "critical but stable" (From Southend Standard)

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

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

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

Cosmo Spring wrote:

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

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

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

was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

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

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.

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

Cosmo Spring wrote:

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

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

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

was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

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

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.

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

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Cosmo Spring wrote:

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

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

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

was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along?

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

Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.

Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.

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

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

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

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

bigmak wrote:
pleased to hear that Shoebury Cyclist, please can you have a word with the other idiots who give you a bad name?

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

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

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

To be fair this is the first cycle/pedestrian collision on Marine Parade in the two years or so the shared space has been open.

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

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

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.

gooner44 wrote:

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

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.

Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.

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

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.

Keptquiettillnow wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It's designated by the eight-foot signs at each end. One just before passing under the pier, and one at the Kursaal traffic lights.

I havent got any problem with that SC, but why is the kerb taken away at that junction in the picture? and the rest of the road, if it is shared space why is there a kerb?

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

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

asbo. just the truth wrote:

Local yachtsman wrote:
Hate to say I told you so but...
Why the speculation about the cyclists speed? I used to race cycles and I know it is almost impossible for even the fittest cyclist to go over 30 mph on the flat unless they have a very strong tailwind so the accusations of speeding are irrelevant.
However, many kids don't seem to have a clue about road safety, they walk straight across the roads without looking because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them how to cross the road safely. I do not know whether this might have been the case on this occasion so I can't comment further but I do hope this young lady gets better.

so it was the parent's fault but you don't want to comment further? an insensitive post at the very best

saarfender wrote:

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

If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped.

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


Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.

asbo. just the truth wrote:

saarfender wrote:

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

If it is shared space, as the Council claim, then the same goes not just for cyclists but for drivers too. i.e. any driver that goes faster than walking speed should be kneecapped.

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


Is there any updated news on the girl? I hope she is pulling through.

no that is not the case. the space for cars is clear with a 20mph speed limit.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo. just the truth wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo. just the truth wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

asbo. just the truth wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

gooner44 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

gooner44 wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

gooner44 wrote:

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

All the best to the girl that was hurt, let's hope she has no lasting damage.

Having been a witness to this terrible accident and someone who was first on the scene and helped the young girl i can say that the cyclist involved was on the pavement with no lights on coming down from pier hill at over 30 miles an hour. As he was passing traffic going at 20mph he was still gaining speed when he hit her.A completly reckless act on his behalf which has put a young girls life in danger.The word footpath should be a clue as to who should be on them.

That whole area is designated as shared space. That means people cancycle on the 'pavement' areas.

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

As for going 'over 30 miles an hour', that is a matter for the police to decide. Unless you were using a speed gun at the time?

he was cycling on the pavement not on the cycle track provided on the other side of the road and yes speed was clocked at over 30 miles an hour get ur facts correct before u make any further stupid comments

There is no designated cycle track on Marine Parade shared use area. Cyclists and pedestrians are free to use the entire area between the pier and the Kursaal and between the arcades and the beach.

Do you have proof the 'speed was clocked at over 30 miles an hour'? Did you have a speed gun?
No. So the speed is just speculation, and not backed up with evidence at all.

u was not there so please keep quiet and get on with ur dinner u kno nothing at all on what so button it

I cycle along there several times a week. I know there is NO designated cycle path on that part of the seafront. I know cyclists can use any part of that section of seafront. I know there are no speed cameras on Pier Hill or near Chinnerys.

So unless you actually had a speed gun with you to measure the cyclist's speed there is no way at all you can possibly know what speed he was travelling at.

anyone with judgement is able to make good a estimate of speed as a pedestrian. besides we are all trained to know what 30mph is with our eyes closed. you obviously need a speedo but we already know you have zero judgement.

I notice that in your usual rush do nothing but attack other posters you have completely failed to wish the injured girl well.

it goes without saying. but yet again you are questioning and undermining credible eyewitness accounts when you were not there. any speed that is faster than pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying that"'I reckon he was goin' at least firty mile 'n hour guv", will be thrown out of court as inadmissible without concrete proof that that WAS the speed he was travelling at.

let me restate. any speed that is faster than pedestrian is totally unacceptable in that space. you do the cause of cyclists only harm with your posts.

As usual you jump in mouth open and eyes shut. I wrote earlier:

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

You STILL have not wished the poor girl well. It seems attacking other posters is more important to you.

asbo. just the truth wrote:

saarfender wrote:

asbo. just the truth wrote:

Local yachtsman wrote:
Hate to say I told you so but...
Why the speculation about the cyclists speed? I used to race cycles and I know it is almost impossible for even the fittest cyclist to go over 30 mph on the flat unless they have a very strong tailwind so the accusations of speeding are irrelevant.
However, many kids don't seem to have a clue about road safety, they walk straight across the roads without looking because their parents couldn't be bothered to teach them how to cross the road safely. I do not know whether this might have been the case on this occasion so I can't comment further but I do hope this young lady gets better.

so it was the parent's fault but you don't want to comment further? an insensitive post at the very best

I don't think that's an insensitive post as such. I also used to ride seriously and also know that >30mph on the flat is very hard (as I said earlier about the speed from the hill having worn off if it was outside Chinnerys).

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

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

As always, I'm hoping for a swift recovery of the injured.

you obviously weren't that serious. 30 mph down pier hill with a tail wind is easily achieved

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

Barry_Shitpeas wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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



2009/08/12/cyclist-i



s-jailed-for-killing



-by-1861-law-335527/



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



n.com/motorcycle-new



s--general-news/care



less-cyclist-prosecu



ted-for-injuring-bik



er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.

And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.

Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?

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

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Barry_Shitpeas wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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




2009/08/12/cyclist-i




s-jailed-for-killing




-by-1861-law-335527/




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




n.com/motorcycle-new




s--general-news/care




less-cyclist-prosecu




ted-for-injuring-bik




er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.

And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.

Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?

Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time:

http://www.solihulln

ews.net/news/solihul

l-news/2013/01/17/dr

iver-gets-35-fine-af

ter-cyclist-dies-in-

collision-105074-326

22442/

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

http://www.yorkshire

eveningpost.co.uk/ne

ws/latest-news/top-s

tories/cabbie-is-sen

tenced-for-leeds-stu

dent-collision-1-534

6826

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

http://allpartycycli

ng.org/2013/01/30/ju

stice-needed-for-cyc

lists-on-the-roads-s

ays-parliamentary-in

quiry-press-release/

asbo. just the truth wrote:

Local yachtsman wrote:

asbo. just the truth wrote: knowing your history you're about the most insensitive bloke on the planet

You must be looking in the mirror. As someone else said (above), all you are interested in is attacking other posters.

shouldn't you be using the time to get up to speed with those eyewitness accounts?

Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Barry_Shitpeas wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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





2009/08/12/cyclist-i





s-jailed-for-killing





-by-1861-law-335527/





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





n.com/motorcycle-new





s--general-news/care





less-cyclist-prosecu





ted-for-injuring-bik





er/19266.html), but as a rule cyclists are only ever taken to court if their actions damage other people. Motorists are sometimes prosecuted, or fixed-penaltied, when there has been no 3rd party harm or even involvement, but a huge number of motorist prosecutions only come about because a 3rd party was affected.

And even then the great majority of motorist convictions, even if they killed someone, amount to little more than a paltry fine and some points on their licence.

Would you like to share a link to those particular statistics?

Here's one example. Driver hits a cyclist carries him 90 yards on his bonnet, hits several signs and a tree, kills the cyclist. Fined £35 and points on licence. No jail time:

http://www.solihulln


ews.net/news/solihul


l-news/2013/01/17/dr


iver-gets-35-fine-af


ter-cyclist-dies-in-


collision-105074-326


22442/

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

http://www.yorkshire


eveningpost.co.uk/ne


ws/latest-news/top-s


tories/cabbie-is-sen


tenced-for-leeds-stu


dent-collision-1-534


6826

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

http://allpartycycli


ng.org/2013/01/30/ju


stice-needed-for-cyc


lists-on-the-roads-s


ays-parliamentary-in


quiry-press-release/

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

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

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

/news/uk-england-der

byshire-20343097


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

om/watch?v=12fMTAQyX

TI


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

om/watch?v=G7ad6htxR

Ig


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

om/watch?v=l6laj5sAN

B8


So is at always the car drivers fault or it it also the cyclist?

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

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

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

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

Heavenwilkins wrote:
Nuff said on the subject now?

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

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

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Cosmo Spring wrote:

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

was the teenage girl looking at her phone while walking along? Did she suddenly walk right into the path of the cyclist without looking leaving him no room or time to avoid her? Having said that, I hope he recovers fully from her injuries and suffers no lasting effects.

Also were there many cars parked on the pavement blocking sight-lines.

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

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

asbo. just the truth wrote:

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

the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers

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

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

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk

InTheKnowOk wrote:

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

EXACTLY !!!!

stopmoaning1 wrote:

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

What makes a ‘genuine’ cyclist. One would assume that if the man was on the bike riding it at the time of the accident, he would be a ‘genuine’ cyclist. However, if he were playing a computer game where he was on a bike, he might be a ‘cyber’ cyclist Time to leave this now and let the police sort out the facts and deal with it accordingly.

asbo. just the truth wrote:

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

the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers

Local yachtsman wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk

There has been a fatality in the Coventry shared space and Exhibition Road is just a side road off Cromwell Road so it's not really a main road which is why it was considered in the first place. We have been keeping traffic on roads and pedestrians on pavements for a very long time for a very good reason, they don't mix.

reptile wrote:
Bloody cyclists.

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

The__Truth wrote:

asbo. just the truth wrote:

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

the only confusion re the shared space exists in the heads of the befuddled echo readers

Maybe you are confused too. My understanding is that the sea side of the promenade is a shared cycle way/footway but the amusement side is for pedestrians only. Well that's what Southend Council put in a notice in the Echo in March 2011. "The Borough of Southend-on-Sea, Seafront (Western Esplanade/Marine Parade/Eastern Esplanade) (Section 3) Cycleway" notice which describes the south footway but not the north.

reptile wrote:
Bloody cyclists.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads. That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.

There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year. How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year? Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads. Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

Coventry: http://youtu.be/i4LZ iWZvLfk Exhibition Road, London: http://youtu.be/DQI_ LUDIiIk

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

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.

There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.

There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.

My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

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

It doesn't disprove it at all. Each year there are 1,818 fatalities, 13,284 seriously injured, and 88,399 slightly injured on Motorways, A(M) and A roads.

That sounds decidedly more dangerous than ONE fatality on shared space.

There are about 33,000 miles of A roads and motorways in the UK. So on your figures that works out at an average of about one person being killed or seriously injured for every 2.2 miles of these type of roads per year.
How many miles of shared space are there in the UK, and how many serious injuries or fatalities have there been in shared spaces in the last year?
Then you can compare shared spaces with other roads.
Maybe a better comparison would be to just to compare the stats for A roads, as this shared space is part of an A road. To include motorways does not really give a like for like comparison.

My point was - to use the logic expressed by yachtsman that ONE fatality was reason for not having shared spaces - that thousands die on Motorways each year, therefore Motorways are too dangerous and we should get rid of them.

Yes. I appreciate that. My point was to try and put your statistics into a form that are comparable with similar incidents in shared spaces. It may well be that motorways are more dangerous, or it may be that they are less dangerous, but simply saying there are more accidents on Motorways compared to shared spaces does not really cut it.

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

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