Cycling UK Forum

Vorpal wrote:

horizon wrote: What isn't clear from the reports is how the cyclist died: was he killed as a result of his fall or as a result of the car hitting him once he had fallen? If the latter, my case would be that the focus should be on the driver, not because I have it in for the poor man but because cyclists can fall for any number of reasons (had a dog ran out and he swerved it would be the same). In this event the coroner should say something about drivers not councils.

Would you still say the same thing, if the cyclist had been thrown 4 metres, directly into the path of an oncoming car, and there was nothing that even the most conscientious of drivers could have done?

I thought one of the good things about coroners is that they could look at the circumstances and make recommendations in a very public sort of way. This is something the police AIUI cannot do and it seems to be the closest we can get to the Air Accident Branch for cyclists i.e. to find the cause, make recommendations to prevent a reoccurrence but not simply apportion blame. If that were the case, the coroner himself might have answered your question: was the driver too close or was the necessary response beyond the limits of what we could at very best expect? I'm reminded of the incredibly sad case of the young lad whose brakes failed downhill at a major road crossing: that was about bicycle brakes not driver care.

So, to answer your question directly, No. But I would have expected the coroner to explore that factor. There are many cases where (I'm sure we on here all agree) a driver must guard against the unexpected such as children clearly playing at the side of the road and then running into the road to retrieve a ball. While some drivers are happy to speed on past groups of adults, children, prams and dogs (as they do round my way on pavement-less roads) most drivers don't allow for anything very much in more regular situations such as when overtaking a cyclist on a main road. The coroner is this case might have said, "Look, you haven't done anything terribly wrong and you have suffered enough yourself but let me say to all motorists, do drive even more slowly and wider than you do at present when overtaking a cyclist on a fast road - you might just save a life if the unexpected happens."

Potholes are a menace and councils must be held to account for them. But that doesn't relieve motorists of their duty of care. It's in the Highway Code even if they aren't taught it. But we are now unlikely to know in this case whether doing the right thing would have saved this man's life or indeed whether the right thing was done.

Vorpal wrote: ... Would you still say the same thing, if the cyclist had been thrown 4 metres, directly into the path of an oncoming car, and there was nothing that even the most conscientious of drivers could have done?

I think you have touched on the big issue here, which is that our criminal justice system does not provide the protection sought for vulnerable road users. Unless it can be proved to the criminal standard that the driver committed an offence (careless or dangerous driving) there cannot be a prosecution in a case like this and since the law was changed, a coroner's inquest can't comment on that decision. We had a thread about other criminal justice systems and somebody (Brucey?) mentioned a case in France where a driver who collided with a cyclist was jailed for not maintaining the minimum overtaking distance.

thirdcrank wrote:Looking back to the start of this thread, you took exception to my use of the expression "pothole-related" in my title although with the limited number of characters available in a title, I fancy your alternative might not have fitted, but I'm OK with my choice of words as a title for the thread.

Your choice of title was perfectly acceptable and indeed very accurate: the death had been related to the pothole. I take exception to the way this was done by the coroner, not to anything said on here. But please note that I am aware that I may be clutching at straws.

I'm trying to re-frame the event to see it as avoidable. If the driver had overtaken "wide and slow" he might either have missed the cyclist or struck him less badly (20 mph is said to be survivable). If the cyclist had not been cycling so close to the edge of the road, he might have forced a wider and slower overtaking (he might also have missed the pothole but that is not my point). If cyclists learnt to recognise and behave differently in the non-overtaking lane of three lane roads, they might be less accommodating to drivers trying to overtake without going over the double white line.

If I had been driving, I would have avoided hitting the cyclist by deliberately slowing down around him and overtaking wide.
If I had been cycling I would have avoided the pothole and at the same time ensured a safer overtaking by the driver by being in primary position on that road.

We needed to know:

How soon did the driver spot the cyclist?
How fast was the car going when it overtook?
Where was the car in relation to the lane and to the cyclist?
Where was the cyclist positioned prior to the collision?
Was the cyclist using a mirror?

At the heart of this for me is that the coroner had AIUI the power, authority and opportunity to find these things out. He could then have recommended that drivers overtake widely and slowly and that cyclists take the primary position. This may be pie in the sky but given that someone has died, I don't see that it is wrong to explore even the outlandish.

The fact that your questions are not answered in either the local rag or the national media reports does not mean that they were not part of the evidence at the inquest. I suspect the delay - measured in years rather than months - between the fatal collision and the full inquest indicates the detailed nature of the investigation and the decisions subsequently made by the CPS as to whether there should be a prosecution. In addition to the expert examination of the scene I fancy there have been some police visits to the highways dept. However, it's not unusual for media reports of something like this to concentrate on the controversial or sensational. The deceased is pictured in at least one report in helmet, high viz waistcoat on a charity ride so nothing there for the victim-blamers.

Note that only one sentence (IIRC) is quoted from the evidence of the independent witness. Not only will they have given more evidence than the bit quoted, but in common with all the other witnesses they will have been subject to at least the possibility of cross-examination by the bereaved or their legal representative as well as by the coroner. Going only from media reports, which may be incomplete, the deceased's widow seems to have attached greatest importance to the pothole aspects of the evidence.

In short, the coroner is not responsible for which parts of the evidence heard are reported in the media.

The impression I get is that the investigation may have needed to establish whether or not the cyclist really did hit the pothole - in which case it is clear (to them) that the driver could be exonerated and the council blamed. I think I could be forgiven though for wondering why the final report was so completely focused on the pothole. Other than that, you are right - I am going on the media reports which don't tell the whole story, presumably by a long stretch.

I've lost patience with the local rag's website so this is from memory. I thought there were eye witnesses to the collision, including at least one independent witness, ie in addition to the rider's companions. Until you raised it, I was in no doubt that the rider had hit the hole and that was what brought him down and that had been witnessed. I had jumped to the conclusion that that bit was relatively straightforward. Bear in mind also that the detailed expert examination of the scene - debris, marks, friction testing of the road surface etc - provides a lot of information and evidence about what happened. I presume that the criminal investigation had two separate legs, one concerning the driving and the other any criminal offence particularly manslaughter on the part of any employee of the highways department. (FWIW, I've seen something recently where the IPCC was treating an allegation of a police call centre employee not passing on information as misconduct in a public office. Again IIRC, one of the linked reports alleged that one of the police reports to the highways department was not passed on by the operator takling the call.)

I see that Martin Porter, The Cycling Silk, has written an interesting article on the general subject of the working of Coroners' Courts and the deaths of cyclists.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... y-mix.html

What has motivated me to comment on this and other threads related to cases coming up in coroners' courts is the, possibly mistaken, belief that the coroner is able to investigate causes and offer recommendations to avoid future similar recurrences.

This is completely different from attributing blame and identifying the committing of an offence. It may not even be what the bereaved family wants. Nevertheless it may be the only public examination of cause and search for a solution. Train and aeroplane crashes have investigation bodies that recommend changes to avoid similar accidents occurring in the future - some recommendations are put into effect immediately. Were it not for this approach, few members of this forum would adventure abroad by plane even though many pilots and others may be incarcerated (or not) and languishing in prison for the breaking of arcane flying rules. We don't have the same system for road accidents. What is absolutely astounding and deeply offensive to me is that Cynthia Barlow had to take her ideas on lorry safety measures to the company AGM: the coroner did nothing except declare her daughter's death an accident.

I myself cannot say why people die. What I can say is that when somone is killed in a road accident we owe it at least to the family of the deceased, even if not to ourselves, to investigate every avenue, to consider every idea, to look at all the alternatives to see at least if something similar cannot be prevented in future.

In the case under discussion in this thread, I thought there were at least four lines of worthwhile enquiry:

1. That the local road layout and lane design encouraged close overtaking so as not to cross the double white line.
2. That local signage may not have indicated a safer route for cyclists with lower speed limits rather than the by-pass.
3. That drivers need to be trained to pass cyclists much more widely and slowly so that in the event of a fall (however caused) the result may be indeed be injury but less serious and not death. Thus driver training is an issue.
4. That cyclists need to be much more aware of the risks associated with cycling too close to the carriageway edge.

Disregarding whether one agrees with that and while the road surface is of course important, it seems to me that the work of the coroner's court was simply to apportion blame, not to find solutions. It is of course obvious that research, innovation and public education do take place away from coroners' courts. But the very public (and often well publicised) proceedings of a coroners' court seems to me the ideal place to kick start whatever needs to be done. I thought coroners had the authority to recommend ways of avoiding future deaths but it seems that they either don't have it or they don't bother to use it.

They can make recommendations for issues to consider and investigate, and make suggestions, to hospitals when people die after poor care as a result of their stay.
It seems strange if they can say some things to try to prevent other cases, but not others.
Can they really not comment on things like road layouts, if only to suggest that the layout is inspected?

.

My reason for returning to this thread was that I thought Martin Porter's detailed explanation of the way coroners carry out their duties had more authority than my own.

thirdcrank wrote:My reason for returning to this thread was that I thought Martin Porter's detailed explanation of the way coroners carry out their duties had more authority than my own.

And indeed it was very useful. Who you trust on these matters though is a bit debateable as, as Mr Porter points out, it isn't terribly clear what the coroner is allowed to do or say. Since writing my post above, I went to the Roadpeace site and found much to back up my point about finding solutions. However, that process could take place outside of the inquest if the will were there to do it.

The compensation has been agreed, with the highway authority still denying any liability.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32215664

thirdcrank wrote:The compensation has been agreed, with the highway authority still denying any liability.

I don't think you agree 6-figure deals unless you think there is a substantive likelihood of losing, not least because of the encouragement such a settlement gives to other potential claimants, if in fact you aren't liable. Elsewhere, Hertfordshire did lose a case in relation to a pothole related accident, where someone was able to use a dated google map to demonstrate that the council had failed to fix a bad pothole in accordance with its own inspection/repair regime, which tends to suggest a likelihood that this case might also have been won by the claimant. Maybe in this case they hoped to win based on some other details. Nevertheless I suggest that they continue to deny liability mainly for the form of it because they can, with some residual if limited discouragement to other claimants. But even if they might eventually have won, the cost of has been sufficiently pyrrhic that it should teach them that it can be costly to fail to follow your own pothole policies.

At the same time, cyclists need to know big potholes can arise suddenly and councils are not legally required to fill them in or mark them the instant they open up, they are liable only if the fail to follow a reasonable inspection/reporting/repair policy. The road user does need to know to keep himself safe from them. For cyclists, this probably means cycling further from the road edge than other road users might like, so if you need vary your line it can more often be towards the road edge.

.