Lamp post attacks cyclist

Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

It looks from the video that he was cycling on the pavement, as they do "in
the interests of safety".
If he had been cycling on the road, it would have missed him completely.
Ironic, isn't it?

On 01/05/2014 17:31, Tarcap wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511


It looks from the video that he was cycling on the pavement, as they do
"in the interests of safety".
If he had been cycling on the road, it would have missed him completely.
Ironic, isn't it?


I wonder if there will be a compo claim, no I am joking, of course there
will be.

On 01/05/2014 17:20, Mrcheerful wrote:

Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

I don't see how it can be literally true.

The lamp standard fell entirely onto the footway. At no time did it
touch the carriageway. The footway at that point is not marked as a
"shared use" surface (it's in what appears to be an urban side-street).

In order for the falling equipment to hit a cyclist and/or a bike, the
cyclist would have to be "riding past" on the footway.

Surely no cyclist would do that?

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

Hmmm. "Contributory negligence" by the cyclist, riding on the footway?

Mainly though, this is a failure to have and implement a full and proper
RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) - and also a reportable incident
to the Health and Safety Executive under the so-called RIDDOR (Reporting of
Incidents Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations).

I foresee a prosecution, and a civil law suit from the injured cyclist.

--
MatSav

On 03/05/2014 09:35, Matsav wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

Hmmm. "Contributory negligence" by the cyclist, riding on the footway?

Mainly though, this is a failure to have and implement a full and proper
RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) - and also a reportable incident
to the Health and Safety Executive under the so-called RIDDOR (Reporting of
Incidents Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations).

I foresee a prosecution, and a civil law suit from the injured cyclist.


ah, yes, the compo claim for doing something stupid and illegal that has
lead to an injury, perhaps a penny would be a sensible award.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2014 09:35, Matsav wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

Hmmm. "Contributory negligence" by the cyclist, riding on the footway?

Mainly though, this is a failure to have and implement a full and proper
RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) - and also a reportable
incident
to the Health and Safety Executive under the so-called RIDDOR (Reporting
of
Incidents Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations).

I foresee a prosecution, and a civil law suit from the injured cyclist.


ah, yes, the compo claim for doing something stupid and illegal that has
lead to an injury, perhaps a penny would be a sensible award.

The failure of the harness to hold the lighting column should have been
considered as a risk, and an area should have been cordoned to prevent
access by anyone when the lifting operation was taking place. The fact that
the injured person was cycling on the footway was in itself a breach of the
law, but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the contractor tp prevent
access to the immediate area during a lifting operation.

--
MatSav

On 03/05/2014 13:39, Matsav wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2014 09:35, Matsav wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511

Hmmm. "Contributory negligence" by the cyclist, riding on the footway?
Mainly though, this is a failure to have and implement a full and proper
RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) - and also a reportable
incident to the Health and Safety Executive under the so-called RIDDOR
(Reporting of Incidents Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations).
I foresee a prosecution, and a civil law suit from the injured cyclist.

ah, yes, the compo claim for doing something stupid and illegal that has
lead to an injury, perhaps a penny would be a sensible award.

The failure of the harness to hold the lighting column should have been
considered as a risk, and an area should have been cordoned to prevent
access by anyone when the lifting operation was taking place. The fact that
the injured person was cycling on the footway was in itself a breach of the
law, but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the contractor tp prevent
access to the immediate area during a lifting operation.

Agreed.

But do *we* know for certain that the whole street was not closed to
traffic with "Road Closed" signs (or perhaps with a "Road Closed" sign
at one end and the normal "No Entry" sign at the other if it's a one-way
street)?

After all, there's no other traffic seen.

On 03/05/2014 13:43, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2014 13:39, Matsav wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 03/05/2014 09:35, Matsav wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Hard to believe, but true.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...alling-7056511


Hmmm. "Contributory negligence" by the cyclist, riding on the footway?
Mainly though, this is a failure to have and implement a full and
proper
RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) - and also a reportable
incident to the Health and Safety Executive under the so-called RIDDOR
(Reporting of Incidents Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations).
I foresee a prosecution, and a civil law suit from the injured cyclist.

ah, yes, the compo claim for doing something stupid and illegal that has
lead to an injury, perhaps a penny would be a sensible award.

The failure of the harness to hold the lighting column should have been
considered as a risk, and an area should have been cordoned to prevent
access by anyone when the lifting operation was taking place. The fact
that
the injured person was cycling on the footway was in itself a breach
of the
law, but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the contractor tp
prevent
access to the immediate area during a lifting operation.

Agreed.

But do *we* know for certain that the whole street was not closed to
traffic with "Road Closed" signs (or perhaps with a "Road Closed" sign
at one end and the normal "No Entry" sign at the other if it's a one-way
street)?

After all, there's no other traffic seen.

Hmmm... I take that back... there *is* other traffic to be seen.

You have to cross the path to enter the bridge which has a ramp for cyclists etc ,