Dan Walker Hit By Car On Sheffield Roundabout

[Cody's Granddad]

I use that roundabout now and again, not a lot but I do use it and with proper care and attention you can cycle round it safely.

You can't have eyes for clumsy drivers and yes it is risky but so is being on the road anywhere in this City.

The underpass is a muggers paradise I used to work on Hanover Way and know how bad it is so that would put many cyclists off.

The roundabout above at Brookhill is as bad or even worse but we have to get round them occasionally and that means taking a risk and it is down to car drivers taking more due care and attention which clearly wasn't happening in this case. 

[Kidorry]

53 minutes ago, Cody's Granddad said:

I use that roundabout now and again, not a lot but I do use it and with proper care and attention you can cycle round it safely.

You can't have eyes for clumsy drivers and yes it is risky but so is being on the road anywhere in this City.

The underpass is a muggers paradise I used to work on Hanover Way and know how bad it is so that would put many cyclists off.

The roundabout above at Brookhill is as bad or even worse but we have to get round them occasionally and that means taking a risk and it is down to car drivers taking more due care and attention which clearly wasn't happening in this case. 

Totally agree with that.

[spilldig]

18 hours ago, geared said:

 

If the drink driver wasn't on the road in the first place, would there have been an accident?

Far be it from me to defend drink driving but you could say that about any driver in any accident.

18 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Why muddy the waters even further?

We are not discussing drink drivers but, in any case, most people would say "Throw the book at them regardless"

 

 

So the driver who's fault it was gets away with it.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, spilldig said:

Far be it from me to defend drink driving but you could say that about any driver in any accident.

So the driver who's fault it was gets away with it.

No, I thought that would have been easy enough to comprehend.

 

The driver at fault cops it for his bad driving AND the drunk driver cops it for being drunk.

What's hard about that.

 

That's the way our law has worked for years.

Can we stop making things up now and just deal with Dan's  situation before Putin's nukes come into the story too.

 

 

1 hour ago, Cody's Granddad said:

I use that roundabout now and again, not a lot but I do use it and with proper care and attention you can cycle round it safely.

You can't have eyes for clumsy drivers and yes it is risky but so is being on the road anywhere in this City.

The underpass is a muggers paradise I used to work on Hanover Way and know how bad it is so that would put many cyclists off.

The roundabout above at Brookhill is as bad or even worse but we have to get round them occasionally and that means taking a risk and it is down to car drivers taking more due care and attention which clearly wasn't happening in this case. 

I agree with that too.

I used to cycle around there and went past it 2 days ago and I can't see why I could not still cycle  around it now.  

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Organgrinder

[AndrewC]

13 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Yes. As soon as one chooses to go public with something, it's going to create speculation positive and negative.  Even if they don't go public there's still plenty of uncorroborated opinions or accusations getting thrown around regarding whose to blame for any kind of accident.  There are even entire YouTube channels dedicated to showing bad, clumsy, reckless driving errors. There are plenty of articles and memes and clips showing hazardous or completely ridiculous parking failures.  

 

Once again, this is not some cyclist victimisation.

 

Let's also not ignore that there wouldn't have been a news story or online backlash or speculative debate or public opinion at all if Dan Walker hadn't CHOSEN to do some self publicising by taking woe is me photo ops in the back of an ambulance.

 

Again, another reason why Mr. Walker is a contributor to his own circumstances.  If he didn't want lots of attention and backlash and speculation and debate shouldn't have publicised it then.  Seems like skipping the purpose built cycle path wasn't the only bad choice Walker made that day.

 

I am not saying that the car driver wasn't at fault. We don't know that. However, there is no doubt that choosing to use the roundabout put the cyclist at increased risk which was their own decision.  

 

I'm not saying that the victim deserves the backlash and speculation. But choosing to make it very public and high profile invites such response. That again was a choice made by the cyclist.  

 

 

It's clear that you don't see it. Your posts scream 'carbrain' through a megaphone.

[spilldig]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

No, I thought that would have been easy enough to comprehend.

 

The driver at fault cops it for his bad driving AND the drunk driver cops it for being drunk.

What's hard about that.

 

That's the way our law has worked for years.

Can we stop making things up now and just deal with Dan's  situation before Putin's nukes come into the story too.

 

 

I agree with that too.

I used to cycle around there and went past it 2 days ago and I can't see why I could not still cycle  around it now.  

 

 

It is dealing with dan's situation because it's about apportioning blame in advance.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, spilldig said:

It is dealing with dan's situation because it's about apportioning blame in advance.

It is not up to us to apportion blame either in advance or afterwards.

We have a police force and a courts & legal system to do that.

 

We are each entitled to our own personal views  on the incident, but some are trying to change the story with non-existent drunk drivers etc.

My personal view, as an ex-cyclist is, that I cannot see that Dan did anything he shouldn't have and, as far as I know he was observing the highway code.

I haven't watched the film so I can't prove  the driver was at fault but he should have avoided hitting Dan and therefore must bear some blame.

As it's not my place to prove anything, I will leave it at that. 

 

 

[redruby]

Well there no broken glass or flooding on that subway today.  The only issue was some plastic fences that had been put around the area where the concrete barriers were damaged by the car that crashed and burnt out last week. Which is maybe another sign that it’s not too safe to cycle on that roundabout.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, redruby said:

Well there no broken glass or flooding on that subway today.  The only issue was some plastic fences that had been put around the area where the concrete barriers were damaged by the car that crashed and burnt out last week. Which is maybe another sign that it’s not too safe to cycle on that roundabout.

If cyclists were to stop riding on every bit of road where a car has crashed, they would soon run out of road to ride on

I always rode on the roads but would have really appreciated some well thought out cycle tracks / lanes.

 

 

[fools]

On 26/02/2023 at 18:12, metalman said:

Looking at the dashcam footage which was on the Daily Mail website (which gave a different view to that on the Sun's website), it looked to me as though the car carried on on the same trajectory, whereas Dan definitely seems to veer to his right somewhat and in doing so the car contacts his rear wheel. It would be interesting to hear the car driver's version rather than just Dan's.

Oddly, none of the cycling lobby seem to have noticed this, perhaps they blink excessively when things don't quite fit the

narrative.

 

get a cycling mirror folks, far cheaper than a silly headcam

Edited March 9, 2023 by fools