Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Papa Serf

Boxer Gary Mason Has Died

Recommended Posts

Sad news, I know the road he was killed on well, drove down it on my way to work hundreds of times.I could even hazard a guess at the exact spot it happened. A left hand turn at a give way that most drivers take at speed with just a glance to the right to check for traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is sad news. First cyclist to die on London roads this year. Seemed a nice chap.

I think 10 cyclist were killed in London last year. The figure has been dropping year after year but still 10 too many.

RIP Gary Mason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say he was 48, yet when he fought Bruno in what must have been 1991/2 he was down as being in his late 30s then!

Still, sad he died.

They never met in the ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say he was 48, yet when he fought Bruno in what must have been 1991/2 he was down as being in his late 30s then!

Still, sad he died.

He thought Lewis and retired after that fight, never fought Bruno but did spar with him apparantly. I think Sky cocked up the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad news, I know the road he was killed on well, drove down it on my way to work hundreds of times.I could even hazard a guess at the exact spot it happened. A left hand turn at a give way that most drivers take at speed with just a glance to the right to check for traffic.

I've just seen a picture of where it happened and I was wrong, it was at another junction. I think it was unfair of me to automatically blame the van driver, he's probably just a normal bloke on his way to work. He must be feeling sick at the moment not only killing a man but a famous man that is now splashed all over the news.

He has been charged with careless driving but the best of us have been "careless" a few thousand times in our lives behind the wheel.

Being a car driver, motorbike rider and cyclist and would say the push bike is by far the most dangerous, one has to rely on drivers not running you down from behind where atleast on a motorbike you keep up with the speed of the traffic and most of the hazards are in front of you to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White van man strikes again. mad.gif

As he has been charged it appears so, but i've seen crap behaviour across the entire spectrum of road users, including cyclists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As he has been charged it appears so, but i've seen crap behaviour across the entire spectrum of road users, including cyclists

Indeed. However when was the last cyclist you saw run over a person with 3 tonnes of metal..:rolleyes:

The dangers are increased and therefore people should drive accordingly. Unfortunately the opposite seems to occur. Many in larger vehicles seem to prefer the 'I'll be allright in this beast ****** everyone else' attitude instead.

People in large vehicles should be the slowest ,safest and most cautious drivers on the road. Instead they are generally the worst IMO.

Although I am sure when they finally run over someones skull and see the consequences they quickly change their mind. Too late though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to be honest, the standards on the road of cyclists are generally apalling, not just on the lanes but in urban spaces. They seem to think many rules don't apply to them, cycle way too fast in some places and what's with riding 2 a breast on narrow country lanes? Selfish.

I'm very surprised that only 10 (bad as that is) were killed in London last year.

Was Mason wearing a helmet? Not that that would have stopped a white van, but I justy can't believe how many of these folks won't wear them.

... and it's blame the victim time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as?

Where to start? So much in so few words.

Maybe you could start by checking the real-life data on effectiveness of helmets before spouting ill-informed crap. www.cyclehelmets.org is a good reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a cyclist get knocked off his bike. I was the first car on the scene and approached the motionless cyclist who had blood pouring out of his head. He wasn;t wearing a helmet. If he had he would have at least absorbed much of the impact. I was then in court 18 months later as a witness for dangerous driving.

Rather than spouting some stats from a website, get back to me when you've actually had some first hand experience of head injuries sustained by cyclists. I have, and if he had have been wearing a helmet he may not have had to spend a few days in hopsital. Not my view, but the view of the paramedic team that arrived shortly after. But I guess real life examples just are examples of 'ill informed crap' or the 'usual prejudices'.

You could say the same about pedestrians and car drivers/passengers, so should they all be wearing helmets as well?

The government figures on traffic injuries are at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009

In 2009, 500 pedestrians were killed, 104 cyclists, 472 motorcyclists, 1059 car occupants, 14 bus occupants and 73 "others" (wonder who they are?). Also, "Pedestrians were more likely to be admitted to hospital with a head or face injury than other road users, 46 per cent having such an injury in 2009 compared to 33 per cent of road casualties overall."

Helmets all round, I say.

Edit. Damn this quoting bug!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago a good friend of mine died after caving his head against a car while out on his bike.

Ever since then I have never gone out for a ride without my helmet. This paid off when I came a cropper while out for a ride. I ended up with a bloodied knee, elbow and shoulder, plus a helmet that was virtually smashed in two. That could have been my skull. As it was I managed to ride the 15 miles back home okay, with a very loose and wobbly helmet.

The worst bit was that while I was picking myself up and dusting myself off, a group of a dozen or so cyclists rode by and not one asked if I was okay or needed any help. I was dumfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have anecdotes.

Last time I came off my bike was when the handlebar sheared right off! I fell towards some big rocks, but was able to avoid anything worse than grazes to a leg and arms/hands, and was even able to walk the 7 or so (mercifully downhill) miles home.

If I had been wearing a helmet, I wouldn't've been able to escape serious injury:

  1. With a much bigger effective head footprint (headprint?) I wouldn't've been able to avoid hitting it on the rocks.
  2. The size of a helmet adds leverage to twist the head if I hit a glancing blow. This matters because torsional injuries (spinal cord damage, up to a broken neck) are a bigger risk of serious injuries than fractured skulls.
  3. With an encumbrance on the head, it's likely I wouldn't have had the alertness to avoid more serious injury to other parts of the body

Note that while reasons (2) and (3) are speculative, they are backed by scientific evidence. They also provide plausible but untested hypotheses for why real-life statistics show helmeted cyclists to be at greater overall risk of death of serious injury than unhelmeted ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, we don't know the full story yet. Charging the driver for careless driving is a standard procedure I would guess following a death.

I did read from one source that Gary's bike did not have any light on it but we don't know for sure yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Being a car driver, motorbike rider and cyclist and would say the push bike is by far the most dangerous"

Whether it's the cyclist or motorist at fault, bicycles shouldn't be allowed on public roads, sorry.

It's just too dangerous for all concerned. You wouldn't catch me riding a bicycle on the road.

Who's bright idea was it to put flimsy unprotective cycles on the same road as deadly hunks of metal? Absolute insanity.

Take your bike to the park, and keep it there, along with your silly hat B)

RIP Gary Mason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Being a car driver, motorbike rider and cyclist and would say the push bike is by far the most dangerous"

Whether it's the cyclist or motorist at fault, bicycles shouldn't be allowed on public roads, sorry.

It's just too dangerous for all concerned. You wouldn't catch me riding a bicycle on the road.

Who's bright idea was it to put flimsy unprotective cycles on the same road as deadly hunks of metal? Absolute insanity.

Take your bike to the park, and keep it there, along with your silly hat B)

RIP Gary Mason.

The roads aren`t dangerous.

It`s the incompetent, idiotic drivers that are dangerous.

You know the type. Regular fan boys of the likes of Top gear who hang on every word that nobheads like Clarkson spout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say the same about pedestrians and car drivers/passengers, so should they all be wearing helmets as well?

The government figures on traffic injuries are at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009

In 2009, 500 pedestrians were killed, 104 cyclists, 472 motorcyclists, 1059 car occupants, 14 bus occupants and 73 "others" (wonder who they are?). Also, "Pedestrians were more likely to be admitted to hospital with a head or face injury than other road users, 46 per cent having such an injury in 2009 compared to 33 per cent of road casualties overall."

Helmets all round, I say.

Edit. Damn this quoting bug!

Car drivers have to wear seatbelts by law, because they CAN save lives.

One of the 1059 car occupants wasn't wearing a seat belt (he totalled himself outside a friend's wedding reception just as we were leaving). It's highly unlikely he would have survived, even if he had been wearing it.

Does that mean car drivers should be given a choice about whether they choose to wear seatbelts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean car drivers should be given a choice about whether they choose to wear seatbelts?

Quite possibly. I think there's a difference between seatbelts and things like drink-driving, for instance, in that not wearing a seatbelt is unlikely to cause danger to anyone except the driver/passenger themselves (unless they get thrown out of their car and through someone else's windscreen or something), whereas drunk drivers endanger other people. On this basis it might be possible to convince me that it should be up to car occupants whether or not they should wear a belt, although it's not something I'd get hugely worked up about either way.

In the case of seatbelts it's also been suggested that the benefits are illusory in that drivers feel safer and then drive more dangerously, leading to extra deaths. Significantly, the new deaths often tend to affect people outside the car, so that the belts make the drivers safer but endanger others.

There's a guy called John Adams who's an expert on risk and its effects, and he's done a lot of research on this question. See http://john-adams.co.uk/ .

As for cycle helmets, the risk of death is already pretty small, and compulsory helmets might reduce it a little. Whether it's worth forcing every cyclist in the UK to wear a helmet every time they get on a bike in order to save perhaps 20 lives a year is highly debatable. In countries where helmets are mandatory one of the effects seems to be to reduce the number of cyclists to a degree which has a net negative effect on the overall health of the nation because people exercise less. The health benefits of cycling are so great that they vastly outweigh the risk of death in an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possibly. I think there's a difference between seatbelts and things like drink-driving, for instance, in that not wearing a seatbelt is unlikely to cause danger to anyone except the driver/passenger themselves (unless they get thrown out of their car and through someone else's windscreen or something), whereas drunk drivers endanger other people. On this basis it might be possible to convince me that it should be up to car occupants whether or not they should wear a belt, although it's not something I'd get hugely worked up about either way.

In the case of seatbelts it's also been suggested that the benefits are illusory in that drivers feel safer and then drive more dangerously, leading to extra deaths. Significantly, the new deaths often tend to affect people outside the car, so that the belts make the drivers safer but endanger others.

There's a guy called John Adams who's an expert on risk and its effects, and he's done a lot of research on this question. See http://john-adams.co.uk/ .

As for cycle helmets, the risk of death is already pretty small, and compulsory helmets might reduce it a little. Whether it's worth forcing every cyclist in the UK to wear a helmet every time they get on a bike in order to save perhaps 20 lives a year is highly debatable. In countries where helmets are mandatory one of the effects seems to be to reduce the number of cyclists to a degree which has a net negative effect on the overall health of the nation because people exercise less. The health benefits of cycling are so great that they vastly outweigh the risk of death in an accident.

Scunnered, you'll never convince the great British (mostly non-cycling) public that helmets are generally a waste of time. When a pedestrian or motorist dies of head injuries, nobody ever bleats 'a helmet would have saved them!' People always seem to ignore statistical evidence and rely on anecdotes about friends of friends who dared to cycle without a helmet are now in a coma, etc etc.

I just find it tragic to see cyclists in London fully kitted up with plastic hats, dayglo jackets etc and yet ignoring basic, primary school level safety procedures like undertaking lorries when they are turning left. Presumably they think they are immortal because they have a bunch of styrofoam bananas on their head. I no longer waste my breath and only bother getting het up if the compulsion argument comes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scunnered, you'll never convince the great British (mostly non-cycling) public that helmets are generally a waste of time. I just find it tragic to see cyclists in London fully kitted up with plastic hats, dayglo jackets etc and yet ignoring basic, primary school level safety procedures like undertaking lorries when they are turning left. Presumably they think they are immortal because they have a bunch of styrofoam bananas on their head. I no longer waste my breath and only bother getting het up if the compulsion argument comes up.

Very true. However not all people who wear helmets assume they are unbreakable.

If I am flying off my bike head first towards a kerb I want a helmet on. Simple as that. I have had a crash when snowbaording that I am pretty sure would have left me in a Bulgarian hospital with a fractured skull for a few months.

That is enough for me never to head out on a bike/board/skis again without one on !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Does that mean car drivers should be given a choice about whether they choose to wear seatbelts?"

Seatbelts. Another bug bear.

If a motorist chooses not to wear one and kills himself, that is his responsibility and his decision. It's odd how critics of a nanny state are in favour of compulsory seatbelts. It should be up to the individual, since the individual is not hurting anyone but themselves.

Certainly children should be belted up, even if the driver isn't, because they are shouldn't die as a result of someone else's poor decision.

I tend to wear a seatbelt most of the time, but don't in slow areas where I have to make many stops. It's no one else's business if I choose to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Does that mean car drivers should be given a choice about whether they choose to wear seatbelts?"

Seatbelts. Another bug bear.

If a motorist chooses not to wear one and kills himself, that is his responsibility and his decision. It's odd how critics of a nanny state are in favour of compulsory seatbelts. It should be up to the individual, since the individual is not hurting anyone but themselves.

Certainly children should be belted up, even if the driver isn't, because they are shouldn't die as a result of someone else's poor decision.

I tend to wear a seatbelt most of the time, but don't in slow areas where I have to make many stops. It's no one else's business if I choose to do that.

I agree that there should be a personal choice in whether you should wear a seatbelt, but many would counter this with, if you don't wear a seatbelt, then you should pay for the extra services provided by the emergency services, i.e. as you refused to wear one, then you will incur harsher injuries, hence it will cost the NHS more...But then you could counter that with should we treat smokers, alcoholics, etc...they pay tax on their fix, and so does the motorist, and round the argument goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there should be a personal choice in whether you should wear a seatbelt, but many would counter this with, if you don't wear a seatbelt, then you should pay for the extra services provided by the emergency services, i.e. as you refused to wear one, then you will incur harsher injuries, hence it will cost the NHS more...But then you could counter that with should we treat smokers, alcoholics, etc...they pay tax on their fix, and so does the motorist, and round the argument goes...

And where it ends, nobody knows (like all other arguments on HPC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.