PTW

Given the driving conditions and visibility this morning and combined with what the cyclist was wearing, certainly makes you wonder HOW!

It's the BMW factor.

Apparently the cyclist was going up a one-way road in the wrong direction.

So how come the driver didn't stop?

Someone has asked me, quite pertinently, why there isn't the same hoo-hah over this case as there was over the hit and run child in Bristol?

The only answer seems to be becasue there is a persistent attitude that cyclists are deliberately putting themselves in harms way and deserve what they get. The conclusion being of course that it's up to cyclists to defend themselves from the risk that motorists pose to them, not for motorists to mitigate the risk that they pose to everyone else. A bit cart-before-the-horse if you ask me.

Anyone see the BBC Wales news story about the cyclist complaining about cars parking on the Canton Road in Cardiff? The intro was a perfect hatchet job. "Is cycling a pleasant experience, or do you feel you are taking your life in your hands?. One viewer has contacted us to say his trip to work is even more treacherous because of ..."

Who'd cycle anywhere with reports like that going out?

Strange line of thought there Bill!, but it's like russian roulette. If the cyclist had been riding to the rules of the road, he wouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I wouldn't wish it on anyone and we've all taken a chance in the past, but, I don't think you can blame the motorist on this one. I suppose the last thing he expected to see at that time of day was a cyclist coming at him, up a one-way road, on a blind bend, in the WRONG direction!. It wasn't a hit and run, the cyclist had no I.D. on him and wasn't reported missing for a few hours.

That line of thought actually came from a report on pedestrian safety published in 1930.

As it happens the child in Bristol was on the pavement when killed, but even if he had run right in front of the vehicle, the public sympathy would be with the child. Hence campaigns such as Kill Your Speed, 20mph default limits, and crash safety requirements that have transformed the front-end of your average car into a mattress. It is accepted that pedestrians will get hit by cars, therefore it's up to drivers and car manufacturers to compensate for this complete certainty.

But no-one has any sympathy for cyclists in the same circumstances. That's my point.

In Brussels every one-way street is two-way for cyclists. Why would they not be? But over here a one-way street is treated like a toboggan run. I was in Town Hill yesterday and a Corsa (already a bad sign) shot past us at at least 50mph. The driver was doing that because it was a one-way street.

As for rules, they don't protect cyclists. You obey the rules, you die, no-one has any sympathy. You disobey the rules, you die and still don't get any sympathy. Rules 1 Cyclists 0.

Oh! I've got plenty of sympathy for this cyclist and I'm in no doubt so has Joe public, but the harsh reality is, he wasn't doing his utmost to defend himself. The rules are there to protect everyone, but accidents happen. Town Hill, rules, a slight contradiction in terms