Baffling comments after cyclist's death.

mybreakfastconsisted

I can't understand this at all:

A RESPECTED North East vicar died after his bike was clipped by a moving car, an inquest heard.

The Rev Michael Malleson, 69, fell head-first on to the road in the accident, which happened on Heaton Road, in Heaton, Newcastle.

He was rushed to hospital but died two days later from his injuries.

The inquest, at Newcastle’s Civic Centre, heard Mr Malleson was cycling north along Heaton Road when he pulled out to avoid some parked cars.

Motorist Joseph Strong was driving behind him and saw him pull out, prompting him to pull over to give the vicar enough room.

But a central reservation caused the road to narrow, and Mr Strong’s Skoda car clipped the kerb of the reservation as he tried to pass. His car turned slightly towards Mr Malleson, an experienced cyclist, and lightly clipped his handlebars.

The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who was not wearing a cycle helmet, to lose his balance and fall to the ground.

The grandfather-of-three suffered serious head injuries and was taken to Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary, where he died two days later on December 2.

PC Stuart Cockburn told the hearing he was concerned by cars being allowed to park where the road narrows.

He told the inquest: “I don’t think that area of road is appropriate for parking. I have made enquiries with Newcastle City Council’s Highways Department and told them of my concerns.”

The council has agreed to scrap on-street parking at Heaton Road’s junction with Meldon Terrace, near the entrance of Heaton Park.


PC Cockburn told the inquest: “This has been a tragic accident where Mr Strong has observed Rev Malleson ahead of him. He observed Rev Malleson had to move out in the carriageway to overtake the parked cars and he decided to give him plenty of room.

“Unfortunately, Mr Strong’s wheel hit the kerb of the reservation and it caused the car to go slightly to the left as Rev Malleson was coming slightly to the right.

“That’s caused the two of them to come together and the car has scuffed Rev Mallesons’s handlebars.”

Pathologist Dr Abhijit Joshi said Rev Malleson died of a severe traumatic brain injury.

Returning a verdict of accidental death, coroner David Mitford said neither Mr Strong, who was not speeding in the 30mph zone, nor Mr Malleson were at fault.

He said: “I have been concerned about the situation with the parked cars and I have noted that the Cockburn took it upon himself to go to the local authority.

“The local authority have said they will make changes to the road. They’re going to be made as soon as possible but in accordance with financial constraints.

“I think life is more important that finance but at least those steps are being taken”

Mr Malleson, from Cochrane Park, in High Heaton, Newcastle, served in the dioceses of Durham and Newcastle in a number of different positions.

In retirement, he continued to serve the people and parishes of Newcastle and Heaton in particular, and to support the work of the vicar of St Gabriel’s.

His family, including wife Eileen, and children Cath and Adrian, said: “Michael is still greatly missed by his family and friends and the parishes where his faithful ministry was so highly valued.

“The inquest brings an end to the sad story of Michael’s death and allows us to focus our memories on all the many blessings of his life, and remember him as he would wish.”



Read More http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east ... z1tAJGUqTG

graeme_s-2

If you're following the highway code, like this:



Then this:

Mr Strong’s wheel hit the kerb of the reservation and it caused the car to go slightly to the left as Rev Malleson was coming slightly to the right.

Will not result in a collision.

I think road and junction design does have an impact on safety, but broadly believe there are no such thing as dangerous roads, only dangerous road users.

TommyEss

It's a classic pinch point, and the judge has missed the point that there wasn't enough room for the car and the cyclist to fit, or in other words, the driver didn't give the cyclist enough room. If he was to give him enough room he would have held back and let him through first. The fact that he saw the cyclist move and himself moved is brilliant, but it was only half the job, and now a man has died.

Sounds like a bit of a freak, it was unfortunate to clip the kerb - maybe he thought he had a bit more room/misjudged it only slightly, but I'm surprised he (the driver) was apportioned no blame whatsoever. Sure, poorly designed roads lead people to behave in a certain way, and that's a factor, but he was behind the wheel, he had eyes, and he judged a situation poorly resulting in someone's death.

Sad story.

Nancy Luger

The driver should not have gone past the reservation when he had a bike in front of him, especially when he noticed the cyclist was further out in the road. To slow down for the 4 seconds or so that it would take to get past the reservation would have saved the cyclists life. Strange comment though from plod, about cars parking where the road narrows - there's clearly double yellows there, and although there are cars usually parked further back from the island, it's a good couple of hundred yards away and it's proper parking bays which don't affect the width of the road in either direction. Certainly some element of fault here but on who's side it's impossible to know, if it had been raining for instance the cyclist might have veered right to avoid the large puddle that collects right in that spot.

diy

I agree with the views - if you can't get passed safely then you don't overtake.

tuktuk

This is a road i drive/pedal down and im not suprised this incident occured.

Tragic loss of life.

fastandfurry

What the hell?!!!! Surely this is entirely the drivers fault. Manslaughter, or causing death by dangerous driving, non?? There was a conscious decision to take a risk and the driver drove into an immovable object, which led to a collision resulting in death. Manslaughter following on from driver negligence. Entirely predictable, entirely preventable, completely unnecessary.

diy

Not Manslaughter though. Causing a death as a result of a negligent act, is not the same as attacking someone with the intent to do harm and killing them in the process. Sad though it is you have to consider the intent of the person before the result.

Teddy Westside

Graeme_S wrote:

If you're following the highway code, like this:



Then this:

Mr Strong’s wheel hit the kerb of the reservation and it caused the car to go slightly to the left as Rev Malleson was coming slightly to the right.

Will not result in a collision.

100% agree.

Just some of the passing manoeuvres (I refuse to call them "overtakes") from a recent outing (and believe me, they were closer than the wide angle lens makes them look, plus the forward-looking camera is left of centre on my bars so there is more of me and the bike to the right of the camera view):





The driver in the above 2 images proceeded to indicate with his fingers out the window that his IQ was 2. :roll:















Note the examples of passing on tight bends with unbroken lines, with traffic coming in the opposite direction and also with the other side of the road being completely clear for a proper overtake. And these are just a fraction of the poor passes I recorded. And over all, these aren't the worst passes I've encountered.

Many of these drivers seem to get a kick out of intimidating cyclists, many show a disregard for the law and Highway Code and the rest seemingly ignorant of how vulnerable the most experienced cyclist feels when passed so dangerously.

I was shocked recently when one motorist, who I'd indicted had passed too close, stopped ahead of me and got out his car. I was expecting the usual threat of violence I'm sadly used to but to his credit he apologised and said he thought he'd given me enough room. Nearly fell off my bike! So it does show that some of them are just simply not as good at road-craft as they thought they were. I still don't think that's acceptable even though I was happy to accept his apology.

diy

Its legal to overtake a slow cyclist doing <=10mph on solid white lines. its also legal to overtake on solids providing you don't cross them. Not saying its safe in those cases can't really tell from the pics, since speed would make a big difference to perception of safety.

btw I was tooted to move over the other day so that someone could overtake me and not wait while the oncoming traffic had passed. I had around a meter probably less from the curb.

Teddy Westside

diy wrote:

Its legal to overtake a slow cyclist doing <=10mph on solid white lines. its also legal to overtake on solids providing you don't cross them.

I was doing around 25mph approaching that corner. It was also a blind bend due to being tight and because of trees and bushes (partly obscured by the cars in the screenshot). The fact a car is coming in the other direction compounds the poor judgement of the driver. And of course, Rule 129 which you correctly mention, ought to be overridden by rule 163.

fastandfurry

diy wrote:

Not Manslaughter though. Causing a death as a result of a negligent act, is not the same as attacking someone with the intent to do harm and killing them in the process. Sad though it is you have to consider the intent of the person before the result.

Attacking someone and killing them is murder, non? Unless there are strong mitigating circumstances. This is manslaughter.

"Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable."

diy

fastandfurry wrote:

Attacking someone and killing them is murder, non?

No. with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm = murder. e.g. stabbing someone. A punch in the face which causes a brain bleed and death would typically be manslaughter.

two useful guides on the subject:

Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homi ... slaughter/

Policy for prosecuting cases of bad driving
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... olicy.html

IMO this case would be Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving at "best". Effectively an error of judgement leading to a death. Until fairly recently, criminal law pretty much always focused on the persons intent (mens rea) rather than their actions (reas actus). So an intent to do something which was "bad", which failed would be treated as more serious than an action which had serious consequences, but was not out of ill intent. However, the new offences of death by... for driving changed that as they allow the results to be considered. I personally think these are "bad" laws, because the move away from the intent.

As an example:

A - a driver approaches a junction, fails to look properly and pulls out in to the path of an oncoming motorcycle who is forced to overtake to avoid a collision. Is an act of careless driving.

B - a driver approaches a junction, fails to look properly and pulls out in to the path of an oncoming motorcycle who crashes as a result sustaining minor injuries. Is an act of careless driving.

C - a driver approaches a junction, fails to look properly and pulls out in to the path of an oncoming motorcycle who crashes as a result and is killed. Is an act of causing death by careless driving.

IMO A, B & C are the same careless acts, the law should treat them the same. Its just "luck" (proximity, timing whatever) that B resulted in an injury and C a death and A a near miss.

Mike Healey

The other problem arising from the "death by careless driving" law is that there has been a reduction of, IIRC, about 30% in charges of causing death by dangerous driving. It would seem that the CPS has been going for the easier, i.e. more easily proved, option.

The possible result of this practice is that the bar for dangerous driving is raised, leaving even more room for people like "Mr. Loophole" to get his clients off. My reasoning behind this argument is that every time they chose the lesser charge, they extend the upper range of poor, i.e. careless, driving. This will inevitably push the lower limit of what constitues dangerous driving upwards.

diy

Actually its more likely to be the other way around. If the CPS push "dodgy" Dangerous driving charges, by trying to stretch the definition of DD. There will be decided cases which guide future cases. So for example if a court decides that driving at 100mph in a 60mph limit is not in itself dangerous driving, then future cases will have to take that ruling in to consideration. If causing death by careless driving causes more cases to succeed that would may otherwise have failed, then this is surely a good outcome for society?

Personally I don't buy the "got off on a technicality", since its suits plod to prosecute on technicalities almost every day of the week. if the offence is there, plod do their job properly and the law clear, then there should be no wriggle room.

Mike Healey

Actually its more likely to be the other way around. If the CPS push "dodgy" Dangerous driving charges, by trying to stretch the definition of DD. There will be decided cases which guide future cases. So for example if a court decides that driving at 100mph in a 60mph limit is not in itself dangerous driving, then future cases will have to take that ruling in to consideration. If causing death by careless driving causes more cases to succeed that would may otherwise have failed, then this is surely a good outcome for society

But your argument depends on the idea that the previous level of DD cases were "dodgy". given that the CPS tend to go for the easier to prove, but lesser charge, this would imply that the previous number of DD charges were, in fact, doable. This being the case, the reduction in that number is caused by the creation of an easier to prove charge of causing death by careless driving and not by a change in the level of proof required.

Which brings me back to my original point. The reduction by about a third in DD charges presumably means that they have chosen those which were at the lower part of the DD range. By doing so, they will have almost automatically removed such cases from the DD range, thereby raising the bar.

I suggest that this will have the unforseen effect of creating, in the public mind, an "excuse" that such driving is merely the result of momentary inattention, rather than a deliberate choice to flout their duty of care to other road users.

Personally I don't buy the "got off on a technicality", since its suits plod to prosecute on technicalities almost every day of the week. if the offence is there, plod do their job properly and the law clear, then there should be no wriggle room.

Anyone who read the odius Freeman argument the Stone Roses' lead singer's 105mph on the motorway was due to the fact that, in an expensive, powerful car, it was easy to do this without noticing it, won't believe that technicalities don't play a part in defence arguments. I do agree, however, that the CPS should make damn sure that such people don't escape proper punishment on the kind of arguments that Mr. Loophole uses.

diy

I wasn't familiar with that case, but a quick search showed that, this was a case of pleading leniency due to hardship a ban would bring - he got 6pts. That's not really getting off on a technicality like for example 60 in a 30, because a few street lights were missing, when it would be obvious to anyone that its a 30mph limit.

When I was a student we used to sit in the gallery and you'd see case after case abandoned due to lack of preparation proving the case according to the definition in law. I don't know what its like now, but I imagine the CPS are just as stretched. Its not about going for the easy option, its about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt given how little time they have.

The problem is really that when we see someone has died, we feel that its wrong for the perp to get off or get 6 points or a ban "because they killed someone". But we are humans and humans make mistakes, we have recognise the difference between a mistake and conscious act to take risks or endanger others.

rake

the rider in the photos above does seem to be quite far over to the right which causes a lot of the hassle in my opinion. its not necessary. a foot or two for avoiding drain covers but not four feet off the kerb, it just winds people up.

Mike Healey

diy wrote:

I wasn't familiar with that case, but a quick search showed that, this was a case of pleading leniency due to hardship a ban would bring - he got 6pts. That's not really getting off on a technicality like for example 60 in a 30, because a few street lights were missing, when it would be obvious to anyone that its a 30mph limit.

I stand corrected (again). Lophole's comments were, in fact, to the press after the case. What I found appalling was that someone who can afford an expensive, powerful, car would suffer "hardship" visiting his parents in London and going to the rural recording studio the group were using. Mixing with the common herd on public transport must be quite difficult for the delicate little lambikins

When I was a student we used to sit in the gallery and you'd see case after case abandoned due to lack of preparation proving the case according to the definition in law. I don't know what its like now, but I imagine the CPS are just as stretched. Its not about going for the easy option, its about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt given how little time they have.

To be fair, unwillingly, I did read an interview with Loophole in which he said that he'd offered to meet with the CPS in order to point out the common weaknesses their cases exhibited

The problem is really that when we see someone has died, we feel that its wrong for the perp to get off or get 6 points or a ban "because they killed someone". But we are humans and humans make mistakes, we have recognise the difference between a mistake and conscious act to take risks or endanger others.

I agree with you on this. the question of intent where people have been careless has always been difficult to accept. I've always thought that the solution would be to lower the point at which the standard of driving should be regarded as dangerous, rather than introduce the death by careless driving offence

Teddy Westside

rake wrote:

the rider in the photos above does seem to be quite far over to the right which causes a lot of the hassle in my opinion. its not necessary. a foot or two for avoiding drain covers but not four feet off the kerb, it just winds people up.

Really? Because if I was approaching a traffic island I would definitely move far enough out to try and prevent some moron squeezing through. Besides, from that photo, we can't tell if the rider has just passed a stationary vehicle (or some other obstruction). Even if not, I see no problem with making sure a motorist actually obeys the Highway Code and overtakes responsibly and safely. And to me, the most valid judge of whether it's responsible and safe is the cyclist, not the motorist in his or her metal cocoon.

diy

Teddy Westside wrote:

Really? Because if I was approaching a traffic island I would definitely move far enough out to try and prevent some moron squeezing through. Besides, from that photo, we can't tell if the rider has just passed a stationary vehicle (or some other obstruction).

Agree with that, plus photos can lie, perspective, depth etc can all be changed by the lens or post production.

Teddy Westside wrote:

Even if not, I see no problem with making sure a motorist actually obeys the Highway Code and overtakes responsibly and safely. And to me, the most valid judge of whether it's responsible and safe is the cyclist, not the motorist in his or her metal cocoon.

Basic rule of advanced driving (motorcycle), with regard to position:
highest priority: safety
then : stability
Lowest priority: view/advantage

If blocking an overtaking driver puts you in greater risk (and it probably will) then you shouldn't do it. You don't have mirrors on bikes, you don't have a good view of what is behind, by the time you have guessed that they are looking to overtake they have probably already decided to. All your move will do is make them do it more aggressively. By all-means take up a defensive position, but there is no point in having the extra space if you don't use it when you need to. The only person you should be enforcing the HWC on is yourself.

There is a conflict between what cyclists think is right and what motorists think is right. One or both attitudes has to change. if cyclists think they have a right to enforce the HWC on drivers, then more cyclists will get killed and injured. Just because the driver is liable doesn't help you when your feet are facing the wrong way.

sfichele

Accidental death my arse! Another judge who doesn't appear to live in the real world.

bompington

diy wrote:

Stick to the gutter, it's dangerous out there!

FTFY

sfichele

diy wrote:

Actually its more likely to be the other way around. If the CPS push "dodgy" Dangerous driving charges, by trying to stretch the definition of DD. There will be decided cases which guide future cases. So for example if a court decides that driving at 100mph in a 60mph limit is not in itself dangerous driving, then future cases will have to take that ruling in to consideration. If causing death by careless driving causes more cases to succeed that would may otherwise have failed, then this is surely a good outcome for society?

Personally I don't buy the "got off on a technicality", since its suits plod to prosecute on technicalities almost every day of the week. if the offence is there, plod do their job properly and the law clear, then there should be no wriggle room.

So in terms of guiding future prosecutions, this case basically highlights that it's okay to kill cyclists when going through a pinch point, as long as you "claim" that you were trying to give the cyclist room.

The laws an ass!

beverick

Personally I can't understand why the driver wasn't prosecuted for careless driving.

I can only assume that the fact the driver's actions were below that to be expected of a competent driver is 'netted off' by the fact that the fact the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet could be assumed to be below that to be expected of a competent rider - especially in these road safety conscious days.

Basically the reason the rider fell from their cycle was because of the impact. The reason he died was because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

It would be interesting to see details of the inquest.

Also remember that the person instigating the overtake has an obligation to ensure that the manouevre can be carried out in safety but the obligation transfers in part to the person being overtaken once they are being passed.

Bob

sfichele

I personally believe that the defendant had plenty of time to assess the situation, but instead tried to push his way through, and like a lot of drivers was in "auto-pilot must overtake" mode. In fact, I created a virtual reconstruction of the scene

http://geckocycling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/virtual-reconstruction-of-cycling-death.html

Take a look at the video. Would you have overtaken?

diy

beverick wrote:

I can only assume that the fact the driver's actions were below that to be expected of a competent driver is 'netted off' by the fact that the fact the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet could be assumed to be below that to be expected of a competent rider - especially in these road safety conscious days.

Nice logic, but it does not work that way.. now given a certain anally retarded ex junior solicitor will be reading this. I will be careful with my words.

Not wearing a helmet would effect a personal injury claim in a civil court. It would be "contributory negligence", in the event that the defence could show (and there are plenty of decided cases) that the lack of helmet contributed to the cyclists death/injuries. This would therefore reduce the amount of compensation he could claim from the other party for his injuries. Cyclists owe a duty of care to themselves - a defence of contributory negligence says basically, yes it was my fault, but your own stupidity or risk taking means your injuries are partly your own fault.

None of this has anything to do with meeting the charging standard for "bad" driving. So as you say later on, there must be more to this than has been published.

beverick

sfichele wrote:

I personally believe that the defendant had plenty of time to assess the situation, but instead tried to push his way through, and like a lot of drivers was in "auto-pilot must overtake" mode. In fact, I created a virtual reconstruction of the scene

http://geckocycling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/virtual-reconstruction-of-cycling-death.html

Take a look at the video. Would you have overtaken?

Defendant? What defendant? There is no defendant as no offence was committed. The inquest established that the death was accidental.

Hence my earlier view that it would be interesting to read the coroner's full adjudication.

As to whether I would have overtaken, and based purely on your video, then probably not but I would also say, as a cyclist who has come within a couple of inches of being hit in almost identical circumstances, I would have placed myself in a position where it was unlikley that the overtake would have been attempted in the first place.

Bob

diy

sfichele wrote:

http://geckocycling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/virtual-reconstruction-of-cycling-death.html

Take a look at the video. Would you have overtaken?

I really like the simulation, but why twist the facts to suit an argument?

your blog article is full of assumptions that you cannot know to be true:

What's scary about this ruling is it might set a precedence. In essence anybody can now argue that if they hit a cyclist at a pinch point then it's the road layout to blame, or the parked cars rather than the driver. In addition, all they have to say is they saw the cyclist, tried to give them room, but then the road narrowed.

No precedent has been set as far as we know no civil case has been heard by a court capable of setting a legal precedent.

The report indicates speeding wasn't an issue, so the driver is travelling at a approximately 30 mph throughout without slowing down.

you've got no evidence to support that speed. Your calcs may be correct, but the basis of the assumptions is very week.

Here's another hypothesis:
car start to overtake cyclist.
cyclist fails to look before moving out to pass parked cars.
car cannot give more space at the critical point and a collision occurs.

fault: car driver failed to anticipate cyclists need to move out. cyclist failed to perform rear obs before changing position.

PS in your video example "there is no excuse" the driver who is demonstrating the "proper" overtaking technique commits two traffic offences (if this was a uk road).

sfichele

beverick wrote:

I would have placed myself in a position where it was unlikley that the overtake would have been attempted in the first place.

How do we know that Rev. Malleson wasn't riding primary anyway?

Here's something else to raise the eyebrows even further. Katja Leyendecker, a cycling campaigner from the Newcastle cycling, placed a freedom of information request to Northumbria police on the evidence they held. Here's the result

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_report_for_cyclists_death

i.e. Feck all. And yes you read it correctly, the Northumbria police said they had no info and that she should instead contact the Northumbria police, o_O. Yet if I understand correctly their "evidence" was pivotal in the inquest.

diy

The issue is this info cannot be disclosed under FOIA. plod and plod authority are not the same thing.

If you look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9qbswHrVOM example at 41 seconds. Imagine the traffic island in that situation.