When is a collision not a collision

[Grandad]

When the Coroner says so.
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/16-year-old-cyclist-joseph-guy-died-tragic-accident-hit-van-inquest-concludes-365122
Not sure that many cyclists will agree with the Coroners words "“On the balance of probabilities I do not think this can be described as a road traffic collision but a genuinely tragic accident.”

Oncoming car saw the cyclist's signal but if the overtaking driver did then he forgot to mention it in his statement. I wonder why. The cynic in me could think of a reason.

[Barks]

The van driver didn”t forget to mention the hand signal, I suspect that he, or more probably his lawyer, felt it prudent not to mention it. Quite why coroners continullay ignore logical conclusions that just about everyone else can see (see the comments in the article) is utterly beyond me. I thought that coroners were there to establish the causes not to speculate on who might be responsible, the latter I thought were the bag of the police and CPS but grateful for others more knowledgable to comment.

[thirdcrank]

It's not easy to reach any firm conclusions when you are interpreting something that has been recounted and summarised several times. The report in the local rag of which the linked report in the comic seems to be a summary is here:

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/loc ... -accident/

Bear in mind that this is just what some local hack sees as important in the case, which will then have been edited, but this bit seems relevant to me:

PC Richard Darby, of Staffordshire Police’s collision investigation unit, told the inquest that Joseph’s friend had turned around and was heading back towards Straight Mile and assumed Joseph, who was behind, was also going to turn around.

The officer also said a motorist travelling in the opposite direction to the collision witnessed Joseph give a misleading hand signal to indicate he was turning around which he stated could have inadvertently led the van driver to believe he was being encouraged to overtake (My emphasis)

.

Now, to say that a collision isn't a collision is bordering on the absurd but there's no prescribed hand signal for "I'm about to perform a U-turn" and bearing in mind that for a criminal prosecution to succeed the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that independent witness's evidence would sink a prosecution. When there's been no prosecution, the verdicts available at an inquest are limited. (Presumably, the van driver was interviewed under caution ie he didn't have to say anything.)

[awavey]

the two issues I have with that is, I guarantee if you drive into another vehicle and you say to the police but they signalled me to pass them,pull out whatever, the police will turn round and say thats still your fault, because you are responsible for driving safely around other road users & you should not rely on their signals as permission to carry out any manuever around them.

and secondly if someone is using a signal you dont recognise, the answer isnt just overtake them, the answer is pause and wait to see what they intend doing.

[reohn2]

One thing I do know from experience is that I'm sick of cars and vans overtaking me when I'm in the middle of the road and signalling clearly to turn right when those cars and vans have had enough room to overtake on my nearside or wait until I've turned,I've also on a number of occasions been part of a group of six or more when the same thing as happened.
I count my road sense as the only reason I've not been hit and my 'lifesaver' over the right shoulder check being my only savior,on a couple of occassions it's been a close call.

From a cyclists POV I have NO faith in the UK justice system,my own experiences and other the cases brought to court have lead me to that conclusion.

Edited for clarity.

[tykeboy2003]

One thing I do know from experience is that I'm sick of cars and vans overtaking me when I'm in the middle of the road and signalling clearly to turn right.

Me too.

[eileithyia]

Hmm strange situation, I am assuming '4 crosses' means they were out on the single carriageway A5.... a pretty busy stretch of road.
I like others have had far too much experience of signalling my intent to turn right and overtaken while I had my arm stuck out to indicate such a maneouvre, and if I sense they are not slowing would never turn but pull back / wait....
I too also do U-turns when training as I may want to ride over a specific section of road again as it is incorporated into interval training. However what I would never do is turn across an approaching vehicle... if necessary I have stopped ans waited until I could be certain i could make the move safely.
In no way am I putting full blame on the rider, if a cyclist is making some sort of a signal that is a sign to a driver that they might be doing something.
But it does suggest lack of experience of traffic situations .... I refer to my 2nd sentence, possibly on behalf of both those involved.
When in a vehicle and following a cyclist if they start doing something I am unsure of what...... and inparticular if they start to glance behind... I hang back..... too many times I have seen a sudden unexpected move out to the right with very little warning.....

While as drivers we have a responsibility to other road users, as cyclists we also have a duty of care of own actions if only for self preservation.

[thirdcrank]

I don't know the exact location but here's the streetview of the point where the Vicarage Road speed limit increases from 30 to 50 so it must be somewhere beyond this point.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.67543 ... 312!8i6656

The road is straight and of apparently constant width till the National Speed limit (60mph) signs are reached:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.67773 ... 312!8i6656

So, the authorities have calculated that driving at 50mph - all other things being equal - is the max here. Of course, that's not the target speed and for whatever reason, prior to the crash the driver's tachograph is reported to have recorded 36mph, well within the limit.

To perform a U-turn on a road of this width, I think it's fair to say that it would be necessary to come almost to a standstill and easiest by starting the turn from as close to the nearside as possible. That fits in with this from my earlier link:

The hearing, at Cannock Coroner’s Court, was told that the driver of the van had pulled out into the middle of Vicarage Road preparing to overtake Joseph who was on the left-hand side.

But the cyclist then pulled in front of him causing the vehicle to strike the back wheel of the bike and knock him to the ground.

In the context of a criminal prosecution, does: not anticipating that the rider would ride out into the carriageway, amount to: driving below the expected standard, or well below that standard? Remember that if it did go to court, a defence advocate wouldn't summarise it so blandly.

A civil case - compo - would be judged by different standards and that's where contributory negligence sometimes attributes degrees of blame to both parties.

[busb]

Back in the summer, I was approaching a set of traffic lights that were red. I was turning right so signalled to move into the righthand lane which I did. A car was pulling out of a side road, stopped to allow motor traffic going straight on to pass then pulled out in front of me, causing me to spill. The driver's exasperated explanation was that he was flashed to pull out. The driver who did that obviously saw what happened but unsurprisingly disappeared behind us.
What got me was him not taking responsibility for double-checking but relying on another motorist. Interestingly, when I mentioned this incident on a local facebook page, many pointed out that the on-coming motorist may have been warning him!
I've signalled either cyclists or motorists but doing so is open to misinterpretation! Neither I nor my bike was seriously damaged & he did compensate me later, though he did argue about that as well.

[Tizme]

by reohn2 wrote
One thing I do know from experience is that I'm sick of cars and vans overtaking me when I'm in the middle of the road and signalling clearly to turn right when those cars and vans have had enough room to overtake on my nearside or wait until I've turned,I've also on a number of occasions been part of a group of six or more when the same thing as happened.
I count my road sense as the only reason I've not been hit and my 'lifesaver' over the right shoulder check being my only saviour,on a couple of occasions it's been a close call.

From a cyclists POV I have NO faith in the UK justice system,my own experiences and other the cases brought to court have lead me to that conclusion.

I heartily agree!

Coroner Haigh said:
“It is a possible explanation that Joseph has indicated a turnaround manoeuvre then made a right turn hand sign as well.

“I take the view Joseph misjudged the situation and ended up turning or moving out in front of the LGV which was far too close.”

But the driver didn't misjudge the situation?

I have had experiences where I have indicated, both by hand and by moving into the middle of the road (just to the left of the centre lines) and STILL had drivers overtake. I've also indicated to drivers that vehicles were approaching and to overtake would be dangerous and they have STILL overtaken. I am convinced if I die at the hands of a driver whilst out cycling (or probably walking where there is no pavement) it will be seen as my misjudgement and nothing to do with the poor, innocent driver, who just happened to be speeding/on his phone/not paying attention*

*Take you pick - the driver wont be responsible whatever he/she was doing at the time I struck them (it just isn't possible for a car/van/lorry to hit a cyclist - it must have been my fault!!).
Rant over/

[Tangled Metal]

I thought the purpose of flashing your headlights was to "say that you're there. As in to highlight your presence. It is not a telling off signal or a signal that you're letting someone through.

Also, it's a substitute for the use of a car horn for the hours that it is not acceptable to use your horn (IIRC the highway code has the hours you're not supposed to use your car horn.

So whenever anyone flashes me I wait a bit until they actually stop and make sure it is safe to come out. If in doubt I will and do wave the other generous motorist to carry on.

Anyone who is let out and as a result of coming out of the junction / lane / driveway is involved in an accident is completely at fault. First off they acted based on a wrongly used signal. Second they didn't make their own checks that it was safe.

At the end of the day any motorist, cyclist or other road user has to abide by the rules and make sure the actions they make are safe. If they cock up on that then it's their responsibility. If they do all they can but an unforeseeable accident happens then that is different. It's proving that though.

[Vorpal]

Moderator note:

Off-topic discussion about The BC corner campaign has been removed.

[Barks]

Just re-read the article. So the Coroner has stated that the van was too close, a clear case of of poor driving then, not an ‘accident’ at all, simply poor inconsiderate driving, and which some would consider dangerous. Just what is wrong with Coroners when it comes to assessing incidents involving cycles - conscious bias springs to my mind. You’d have thought their training would address such an inappropriate approach.

[thirdcrank]

"I take the view Joseph misjudged the situation and ended up turning or moving out in front of the LGV which was far too close."

I took that to mean that the deceased rode out in front of the van when it was far too close to do so, having misjudged the situation.

[thirdcrank]

When is a collision not a collision?

Although we've discussed this fatal crash and the reports of the inquest, we've not come near to resolving the question in the thread title, in particular, why the coroner went to the trouble to make the distinction, especially as there was a collision in any normal use of the word.

I'm well-aware that there's been plenty of controversy about the use of the word "accident" and I'd prefer not to re-open that part of the discussion here. The point I would like to resolve is what was the legal reason for the coroner feeling the need to make the distinction.

There has been a complete reorganisation of the system of coroners and inquests fairly recently, the main authority being the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and The Chief Coroner's GUIDANCE No.17 CONCLUSIONS: SHORT-FORM AND NARRATIVE. There's also useful information in the CPS Guidance Coroners.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... usions.pdf
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coroners

It's now over twenty years since I retired so I have no experience of this recent reorganisation to rely on. I've ploughed through the above to try to resolve this question and while it seems generally agreed that "road traffic collision" became recognised as a specific cause of death under the revised legislation, I've been unable to find the specific part of the legislation that makes this provision. Even more to the point, I cannot find anything in the above stuff which explains the legal difference between the two alternative findings. I'll reiterate that this would have gone over my head if the coroner hadn't made the difference.

I hope this will attract an answer from somebody who knows the answer: I'm keen to know the law, rather than philosophy.

Beyond that, the report of this inquest seems to confirm a point I've made before, eg Michael Mason case. The current legislation prevents inquests deciding individuals have been guilty of an offence, the logic seeming to be that if the CPS has decided that the two tests for a prosecution are not met, then that's it. Part of the logic here is an inquest can hear all manner of evidence which would not be admissible in a criminal trial. All fair enough, but it's been interpreted to mean that if the police decide the case is not worth passing to the CPS, then that's pretty much the end of it. Police experience in the investigation of traffic offences is dwindling and increasingly left with a shrinking cadre of experts. With regard to the current government inquiry into cyclists' safety, this seems to me to be an important trend which needs reversing.