The Dangers of Road Debris

[Valbrona]

... try and avoid it, and report to your Local Highways Dept any rubbish that needs to be removed.

http://road.cc/content/news/139798-vide ... as-crashed

[[XAP]Bob]

Nice, comments are a bit random though.

That's why "four wheels bad, two wheels good, three wheels better"

[Tonyf33]

Bloody newbs, seriously what a douche, how the hell can you not see those VERY large sticks and why oh why were they riding in the gutter in the first place? The carriageway clearly is demarked by the solid white line, why the heck would you ride in the trash section, just asking for trouble.
Stupid is as stupid does springs to mind..

[Si]

I'd guess that he didn't see it as he was riding on the wheel of the camera bike.

I got 'glances' a while back when I went out with a new 'sports' cycling group and refused to ride right up the 'arris (chain gang stylee) of the rider in front on a fast downhill with a rubbish surface. It's amazing how the others, some new to group riding, were happy riding this section just a few inches off the wheel in front because the 'captain' had told them to.

As to riding beyond the solid white 'edge of the carriageway marker' line....it's a tricky one. If the DC has a lot of fast traffic on it then I would tend to ride there, but I would, of course, make sure that I was looking where I was going.

But this is the thing with a lot of cyclists these days. So many are new to cycling (which is a good thing of course), but haven't picked up the skills yet; and because there is a bit of a macho thing about some types of cycling, many of them plain refuse to seek advice. For instance there is a club that meets near me. They are pretty fit, and appear to have good bike control, but when I see them riding off after the ride I really do cringe......all in the gutter, through the door zone, not looking before moving across, filtering on the least safe side, etc etc. Most of them could really benefit from a L3 session but when I very politely and diplomatically offered there was no take-up at all. It's also interesting that of all of the many L3 sessions that I've taught, only one has been to a bloke! (sorry, is that sexist ).

[[XAP]Bob]

no it's factual

[beardy]

Or he did see it but couldnt avoid it because it moved, having been thrown up by the bike in front clipping it.

Same thing could have happened to any group of riders, no matter how experienced or qualified. If they want to actually make reasonable progress on the roads.

Benefiting from hindsight is the only infallible way of avoiding such accidents.

[Si]

Or he did see it but couldnt avoid it because it moved, having been thrown up by the bike in front clipping it.

So he was riding too close to the vehicle in front then.
If you look on the vid you'll notice that there wasn't just one bit of debris there - the lead bike went over them all, it's doubtful if the lead moved them all into the crasher's path.

Same thing could have happened to any group of riders, no matter how experienced or qualified. If they want to actually make reasonable progress on the roads.

Well, no. If they had left a reasonable gap then he could have taken avoiding action...ain't rocket science As for making reasonable progress.....what does that actually mean? I bet those chaps probably go twice as fast as me, so does that mean that I never make reasonable progress? Strange because I virtually always get to my destination on time.

Bottom line is: if you are going to ride right up someone's back wheel, and do it at speed, then you are going to lose sight of a fair bit of the road in front of you and thus decease your safety.

[beardy]

As for making reasonable progress.....what does that actually mean

It means benefiting from each others slipstreams. Rather than each fighting the air individually.

As for the decrease in safety, yes but so small we need a video from the other side of the world to show its dangers. The actual damage done was very unusually severe for meeting a bit of road debris.
There was a path through the debris, the lead bike took it. It just wasnt a perfect path or the rider didnt take a perfect line through it. However the lead rider, who could see clearly, chose to take it.

[beardy]

So he was riding too close to the vehicle in front then.

Well, no. If they had left a reasonable gap then he could have taken avoiding action...ain't rocket science

Riding too close? He didnt hit the vehicle in front he hit something thrown up by it. Nowhere in the advice about "keeping your distance", "two second rule" etc does it say that you should keep adequate separation that you can totally avoid something thrown up by or dropping off another vehicle.

A bit like when a lorry wheel came off a lorry, crossed the central reservation and hit the side of my friend's van, he was going too close to it? I thought he was just unlucky.

[al_yrpal]

Had a chat with Oxfordshire County Councils local pothole identifier who I came across whilst out on the road. I mentioned the massive amount of winter road debris that was still on local carriageways in July. His response was that it was not Oxfordshires responsibility but the responsibility of the district council, in our case South Oxfordshire District Council. The mind boggles?

Al

[Si]

Riding too close? He didnt hit the vehicle in front he hit something thrown up by it. Nowhere in the advice about "keeping your distance", "two second rule" etc does it say that you should keep adequate separation that you can totally avoid something thrown up by or dropping off another vehicle.

No one said he hit the vehicle in front, and there is no proof that he hit something thrown up by it. But even if he did hit something thrown up by it then the logical conclusion ought to be that if he wasn't so close then he'd have had more chance of avoiding it.

Inded, what is obvious is that he'd have had a much better chance of seeing and avoiding the debris if his view of the road in front was not partially blocked by the rider in front.

Also, we might postulate that the guy around four back was very lucky too - did he know that there was nothing about to over take him before he swerved out into the carriageway? If there was more distance between him and the crashing rider would he have had to swerve out like that?

A bit like when a lorry wheel came off a lorry, crossed the central reservation and hit the side of my friend's van, he was going too close to it? I thought he was just unlucky.

Totally irrelevant to the incident being discussed I'm afraid.

[beardy]

Totally irrelevant to the incident being discussed I'm afraid.

You think so?

Vehicle hits something caused by another vehicle but not the vehicle itself. The parallel is there, you just dont accept it.
I dont accept your off-hand dismissal of it.

[[XAP]Bob]

Something crossing a central reservation is completely irrelevant to what appears to be stationary debris on the road.

Comparisons with Contador are fair, yours is not.

[beardy]

If the debris was stationary then that would be so.

If the debris was moving then it is valid.

There does seem to be a starting assumption that these riders were incompetent and a scenario built around that to support it. Putting yourself in the position of the rider who fell or the camera owner, you had a choice. Attempt to move out (knowing you have a group moving with you), slow down and maybe stop or navigate a course through the debris.
Every day across this country lots of groups of cyclists are successfully navigating through the debris. One freak accident from the other side of the world doesnt radically change the relative risks of the different courses of action.

[Si]

Totally irrelevant to the incident being discussed I'm afraid.

You think so?

Vehicle hits something caused by another vehicle but not the vehicle itself. The parallel is there, you just dont accept it.
I dont accept your off-hand dismissal of it.

Off hand only because I thought it totally obvious what the difference was. Obviously not so I shall explain. If there was more space between your friend and the car in front would it have given him more time to see and avoid the wheel? Answer: NO. If the rider had been further back from the vehicle in front (i.e. the camera cycle) would he have had more time to see and avoid the debris? Answer: YES. Therefore, if subjected to logical consideration, your example is irrelevant.