Crash Scene Investigators - 1/7 ITV

andywgg

Just watched this, an interesting insight into police accident investigators, during which one of the accidents was a bloke who'd been knocked off his bike by a 32 ton truck. I was interested to see the police investigation seemed to hinge on establishing whether the bike was in the carriageway or not - seeming to suggest that if he was on the traffic side of the rumble strip then despite having lights and a reflective jacket, this somehow exonerated the truck driver from any blame in driving into him. Is there some rule on the A38 dual carriageway that says bikes have to be in the gutter? I'd have thought that driving into a legally ridden bicycle with lights on would be illegal wherever it was?

The other interesting insight was the bike investigator said that there was "an absence of tread" on the guys tyres - hope he never sees the 23mm jobbies on my road bike - smooth as a baby's bum!

Incidentally the cyclist recovered after a kidney transplant and several months in hospital - the driver got a 2 year ban and a community order (after the cyclist asked for him not to be sent to prison).

markwatkin

Yes I've just watched this programme as well. The police investigation seemed to focus on the poor chap's bike, looking for evidence to see if the rider contributed to the accident by poor cycle maintenance rather than on a 32 tonne lorry with a driver who should have been looking where he was going.

Hooligan Bill

andywgg wrote:

Just watched this, an interesting insight into police accident investigators, during which one of the accidents was a bloke who'd been knocked off his bike by a 32 ton truck. I was interested to see the police investigation seemed to hinge on establishing whether the bike was in the carriageway or not - seeming to suggest that if he was on the traffic side of the rumble strip then despite having lights and a reflective jacket, this somehow exonerated the truck driver from any blame in driving into him. Is there some rule on the A38 dual carriageway that says bikes have to be in the gutter? I'd have thought that driving into a legally ridden bicycle with lights on would be illegal wherever it was?

My take is they were pretty sure that it was the truck drivers fault (he did later plead guilty), therefore if the cyclist had been on the verge side of the rumble strip when the collision had taken place, this would back the theory up and show that the truck must have drifted off the main carriageway. I am sure if the cyclist had been on the traffic side of the rumble strip the outcome would have been the same, as a witness had seen the truck drifting, however it would have been harder to prove that the cyclist had not swerved in front of the lorry.

Considering the injuries the cyclist suffered I do not think I would have been so forgiving towards the truck driver as he was.

andywgg

See what you mean, but they did seem (and it may just have been the telly people) to be suggesting that the truck driver's guilt hinged on whether the bike was on the road (which unless there's a very specific by-law he has an absolute right to be). Worrying is that people may watch this and start to think that bikes are supposed to be off the road.

spen666

Reading the posts here, I think some of you are misinterpreting the actions of the police.

Rather than trying to suggest the cyclist was to blame, the police were seeking to defeat any potential defences available to the lorry driver.

The way to do this most effectively is to put yourself in the position of the defenc and consider how they would attack the prosecution case.

If we have any police traffic accident investigators on here, I'd like to hear their take.



They cyclist himself came over as incredibly forgiving. I'm not sure I'd want to be so generous to someone who had nearly killed me

paulwood

didn't see the programme but........

generally you would try and work out what happened or could have happened in as much detail as possible.

fault and possible defences would come much later

iainment

spen666 wrote:

Reading the posts here, I think some of you are misinterpreting the actions of the police.

Rather than trying to suggest the cyclist was to blame, the police were seeking to defeat any potential defences available to the lorry driver.
The way to do this most effectively is to put yourself in the position of the defenc and consider how they would attack the prosecution case.

If we have any police traffic accident investigators on here, I'd like to hear their take.



They cyclist himself came over as incredibly forgiving. I'm not sure I'd want to be so generous to someone who had nearly killed me

Is it their job to be worrying about defence strategies? Aren't they supposed to investigate, get the facts and present them to the CPS and then move on to the next job.

andywgg

I certainly didn't get that impression from the programme voiceover - they were saying that in order to get a successful prosecution they'd have to prove the bike wasn't in the carriageway - completely understand that they'd want to make sure he was visible (although suggesting that if they'd failed to find both batteries from his rear light their case would be screwed seemed a bit much).

It wasn't the police I was concerned about - I'm sure they do need to ensure that they have all the angles covered - more that whether the bike was on or off the road seems completely irrelevant.

brookter

iainment wrote:

Is it their job to be worrying about defence strategies? Aren't they supposed to investigate, get the facts and present them to the CPS and then move on to the next job.

Comes to the same thing in the end. If they hadn't established where the cyclist was, then what's to stop the defence saying that he was in the middle of the carriageway and or indeed deliberately dived under the wheels of the lorry? Guilt has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary...

David

andywgg

I can perfectly understand that they need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but my issue is the inference that some drivers will take that if a cyclist is riding to the right of the rumble strip they're in some way doing wrong. You might be nuts to ride in the middle of the carriageway, but it's still the driver's responsibility to see you and not run you over. I'm sure the police were ensuring the defence of "he swerved" wasn't available - but that wasn't how it was positioned on the telly.

brookter

andywgg wrote:

I can perfectly understand that they need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but my issue is the inference that some drivers will take that if a cyclist is riding to the right of the rumble strip they're in some way doing wrong. You might be nuts to ride in the middle of the carriageway, but it's still the driver's responsibility to see you and not run you over.

I agree, absolutely. I was clarifying the point that the police in practice have to establish possible lines of defence when they're doing the initial investigation.

I'm not defending the attitude of the officers as I didn't see the programme - but I don't see anything out of the ordinary at all in them trying to establish where everyone was exactly - it's standard practice in any RTC investigation and has been for many years. If nothing else, it's needed to fill in the ten thousand pages of government statistics that accompany every collision...

To repeat though - I agree wholeheartedly that the position of the bike doesn't justify lack of care (or worse) by a driver...

David

David

beverick

andywgg wrote:

I was interested to see the police investigation seemed to hinge on establishing whether the bike was in the carriageway or not - seeming to suggest that if he was on the traffic side of the rumble strip then despite having lights and a reflective jacket, this somehow exonerated the truck driver from any blame in driving into him. Is there some rule on the A38 dual carriageway that says bikes have to be in the gutter? I'd have thought that driving into a legally ridden bicycle with lights on would be illegal wherever it was?

Had the cyclist been unlit, wearing dark clothing and in the middle of the lane then I would argue that the most the driver could have been charged with would have been careless driving. In all reality he would probably not have been charged as the cyclist would have been primarily to blame. even if it werer establishe that the truck driver's driving was below the standard required of a competent driver so was that of the cyclist.

By establishing that the cyclist was clearly visible (which they did by both 'testing' the GIL jacket and reviewing CCTV footage) and proving that he was not actually on the carriageway at the time of impact the charge could be, as was proven by the successful convition, one of dangerous driving. ie the truck driver's standard of driving alone was substantially below that of a competent driver.

If you note, exactly the same test that applied to the other driver featured in the programme (who hit and killed a pedestrian on the same stretch of road). The police had to establish where both victim and vehicle were at the time of impact and how much time the driver had to react.

In the case of the cyclist the police established that, having left the road, the wagon driver hit a well lit and clearly visible cyclist whereas the car driver hit and killed an apparently intoxicated pedestrian who was wearing predmoinantly dark clothing and walking along an unlit 70mph dual carriageway. The car driver was indeed exonerated.

andywgg wrote:

The other interesting insight was the bike investigator said that there was "an absence of tread" on the guys tyres - hope he never sees the 23mm jobbies on my road bike - smooth as a baby's bum!

The investigator indeed said that there was "an absence of tread" on the guys tyres. He also said, in the same sentence "which could only have been relevant had the conditions been wet".

graeme_s-2

beverick wrote:

The investigator indeed said that there was "an absence of tread" on the guys tyres. He also said, in the same sentence "which could only have been relevant had the conditions been wet".

But in reality would not have been relevant even if the conditions had been wet:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tyres.html#hydroplaning

Even if his tyres had only been at 40 PSI, he'd have needed to be doing over 60mph to aquaplane. Slick bicycle tyres provide more grip in the wet than those with a tread pattern.

It was possible that he was referring to the tread as being the layer of rubber over the canvas, rather than a tread pattern which was cut into the tyre.

beverick

Graeme_S wrote:

beverick wrote:

The investigator indeed said that there was "an absence of tread" on the guys tyres. He also said, in the same sentence "which could only have been relevant had the conditions been wet".

But in reality would not have been relevant even if the conditions had been wet:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tyres.html#hydroplaning

Even if his tyres had only been at 40 PSI, he'd have needed to be doing over 60mph to aquaplane. Slick bicycle tyres provide more grip in the wet than those with a tread pattern.

It was possible that he was referring to the tread as being the layer of rubber over the canvas, rather than a tread pattern which was cut into the tyre.

60mph....I had a 'brown trouser' moment on a wet road this morning at substantially less than walking pace.

Irrespective, the state of the tyre (which did look quite shabby) was discounted from the cause of the crash.

Bob

graeme_s-2

beverick wrote:

60mph....I had a 'brown trouser' moment on a wet road this morning at substantially less than walking pace.

Because wet roads are slippery. I'm not denying that. A tread pattern on tarmac (like on car tyres) will only prevent aquaplaning, it doesn't give you any better grip. The more tread pattern on a bicycle tyre, the less rubber you put on the ground, and the more slippery it'll be all the time, including in the wet.

spen666

iainment wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Reading the posts here, I think some of you are misinterpreting the actions of the police.

Rather than trying to suggest the cyclist was to blame, the police were seeking to defeat any potential defences available to the lorry driver.
The way to do this most effectively is to put yourself in the position of the defenc and consider how they would attack the prosecution case.

If we have any police traffic accident investigators on here, I'd like to hear their take.



They cyclist himself came over as incredibly forgiving. I'm not sure I'd want to be so generous to someone who had nearly killed me

Is it their job to be worrying about defence strategies? Aren't they supposed to investigate, get the facts and present them to the CPS and then move on to the next job.

Its too late to consider it in the middle of a trial when defence have presented their case.

Police were in my view ( despite years of defending against police!) acting properly and correctly. It is their job to consider all the evidence and all the possible explanations and defences

Yorkshireman

I noticed that the investigators/police didn't mention anything about reflectors (apart from the clothing) ... pedal or otherwise.

beverick

Graeme_S wrote:

beverick wrote:

60mph....I had a 'brown trouser' moment on a wet road this morning at substantially less than walking pace.

Because wet roads are slippery. I'm not denying that. A tread pattern on tarmac (like on car tyres) will only prevent aquaplaning, it doesn't give you any better grip. The more tread pattern on a bicycle tyre, the less rubber you put on the ground, and the more slippery it'll be all the time, including in the wet.

It's far, far more complex than that......

Bob

andywgg

"By establishing that the cyclist was clearly visible (which they did by both 'testing' the GIL jacket and reviewing CCTV footage) and proving that he was not actually on the carriageway at the time of impact the charge could be, as was proven by the successful convition, one of dangerous driving. ie the truck driver's standard of driving alone was substantially below that of a competent driver."

I think I've stated several times it wasn't what the police were trying to establish that I had a problem with, it was that several times the narrator clearly implied that if the cyclist was in the carriageway that would mean no prosecution could be brought.

If a truck driver hit a cyclist who was clearly visible wherever they were that would be substantially below that of a competent driver, wouldn't it? It's the message that could be easily taken from this by someone who doesn't believe bikes should be on the road - ie a cyclist on a dual carriageway is in some way breaking the law.