Baffling comments after cyclist's death.

sfichele

diy wrote:

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.

I did try my best not to twist the facts, and I wish there were more facts available so I could have done a better, more representative simulation, instead I did the best I could with the evidence that was reported. I actually tried various scenarios, and imo they all come out with the same prominent conclusions.

1) If no speeding was involved, there was plenty of time to see and assess the situation.
2) The road didn't suddenly just narrow, the bollard is clearly visible.
3) The collision was a result of driver error, who tried to force his way through

I can't see other conclusions regardless of whether the driver was doing a continuous 30 mph up the collision point, or whether he was slowly driving behind Rev. Malleson and then decided to overtake.

However, what is missing from my simulation is other cars. i.e. did a previous car overtake Rev. Malleson. That would change the view of the bollard, but would confirm my belief which is the driver was in "auto-pilot must overtake" mode.

diy

There was no judge it was a pathologist at an inquest, google inquest to see why we have them, what their role is and there legal authority.

To say this might create a precedent is like saying I might go to mars for my holidays this year

mybreakfastconsisted

sfichele wrote:

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.

I'd be interested if Katja pursues this.

priory

Does the courts opinion that failing to control the car , hitting a kerb and killing a cyclist was ''not the driver's fault'' mean that the family do not get any compensation payment?

sfichele

@priory, this was an inquest conducted by a coroner. It was him and the police that decided it was not the driver's fault. Case didn't even make it to cps and court.

priory

from what we know so far this is a shocking case.

It cannot be acceptable to lose control of your vehicle while making an unwise overtake and kill someone. If the family have no right to comensation they will have to pay for the funeral and all the other financial aspects of his death. They may get a bill for the ambulance . It seems that the police and coroner are OK with that; or will the insurance company accept liability for what the driver did? I half expect to hear of the family getting a bill for a broken side-light as a bullying tactic by the insurers. I know of a case where that happened.

I hope the campaigners push it as far as possible.

coroners are a strange breed aren't they? They seem to be able make judgements on things they nothing about based on little information and there is no appeal I am aware of. I suppose we only notice the glaring errors .


PS On reading the reply of the police to Katya's enquiry it is clear that whoever is dealing with it is only intent on obstructing any further debate or enquiry . He/she has cited grounds that ''it is not in the interest of the community.'' This is ridiculous obfuscation. There must be grounds for an appeal to someone, how about the Home office? Perhaps the CTC cyclists defence fund might give advice.

diy

All we have is a press report and quotes from the coroner and plod. The family may well have pursued and potentially even settled a claim. The details of any settlement are not usually reported in the press. Typically it is a condition of settlement that they remain confidential.

sfichele

priory wrote:

from what we know so far this is a shocking case.

+1

beverick

sfichele wrote:

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?

We don't, that's why I said 'based on the video reconstruction'.

Also, the 'Primary position' is a concept originated with best intentions by an acknoweldged expert in cycling. However, it's a concept that a) is out of step with any other 'advanced' guideline on road positioning and b) has been brought further into disrepute, by people using it out of context, with disregard to the original author's guidance and, predominantly, as a sound-bite.

As DIY mentioned, the only consideration re road positioning is to assess and use the position that affords the maximum level of safety. It is absolutely impossible to presecibe this position.

Bob

diy

hmm.. when you read up on cyclecraft and the primary position (mostly articles about it) you realise how far behind the so called experts are, when you compare their advice to that offered in the driving and riding styles based on police roadcraft (the source of most advanced driving courses). There is a lot in roadcraft which has been questioned for non police use, due the focus on progress being less important. That being that my goal should not be to get from a-b as quickly and safely as possible, but a-b as safely as possible.

But I have to say, in all my years as an advanced motorcycle instructor (which included training plod) I would never prescribe a position, without telling a student how to first assess if its the best position based on the information.

I really can't see how anyone can justify a position that is intended to obstruct others, particularly when you don't have a clear view of what is behind. Seems like advice motivated by the political aims of cycle campaigners rather than advice aimed at improving safety.

If the advice to own the lane is based on encouraging others to hold back and giving you a better safety bubble, then all good, but there is no point in having a safety bubble if you do not use it when you need to. I really question these "experts". I wonder how many of them have advanced driving qualification in which to compare and contrast their thinking?

beverick

diy wrote:

hmm.. when you read up on cyclecraft and the primary position (mostly articles about it) you realise .....................

ooh, now we could talk about this for hours but rather than that, let me pick out a few items from your text. Firstly, I'm not sure that John Frankin is that behind advice to that offered in the driving and riding styles based on police roadcraft. He advocates the 'primary' riding position which joe public read as being a specific place on the road whereas you and I read the 'primary position' as being the one offering 'maximum safe progress'. Where he fails, and Roadcraft excels, is that a) he doesn't make it sufficiently clear that the primary position is relative to other road users and associted hazards and b) the thought process that goes into identifying the primary position.

Certainly I agree that 'old' roadcraft was questionable for non police use - up to the 1977 version (+/-) it was far too technical. However, I actually think that the last three version have gone too far the other way - a point I have made to one of the authors of the current version (who agrees by the way!). What I will say is that the focus in all cases remains on "maximum SAFE progress" (see chapter 1 of RC) and it is the definition of 'maximum' that alters between 'blue light' and general drivers. That said, I would argue that most "Roadcraft trained" drivers, irrespective of their journey and its reason, will generally drive slower in the face of danger than their untrained counterparts, and faster where the risks are lower - just watch a traffic/persuit driver cross a major junction under 'blues and twos' they'll typically be going slower than most other drivers.

I disagree regarding justification of taking a position that is intended to obstruct others. I will do this on a regular basis. However, and again it's down to definition. I read obstruct as influence as an advanced road user (on two wheels motorised and self powered as well as four wheels) and, where appropriate, I will use the road in a way to influence other road users. It's not aggression or obstruction, it's dominating the circumstance and providing clear communication (aka information). It's saying "Look. I'm here, and for this moment in time I am using this section of road please keep away". Most other road users will respond accordingly and will allow you safe passage, however, the skill is to recognise where others will try to dominate you and take your position. In that case, you allow them safe passage. Remember, one definition of a crash is where two road users occupy the same place concurrently!

I don't think JF's advice is motivated by the political aims of cycle campaigners but rather it's specialist advice in the hands of amateurs. Any DSA standard driver can read current Roadcraft and not adopt anything in it. It's not until you're taught Roadcraft that it becomes apparent what it means. The same is true for Cyclecraft (BTW, I actually think fleetcraft is a better read for joe public.)

I akso think that Frankin's advice is to own the bubble (ie the P in position in Roadcraft terms) but the primary position has now been defined as a specific location and not a principle - which is an error. I also think it's become accepted as the de facto place where a cyclist should expect to ride whereas if you actually READ CycleCraft (rather than spouting two words from it), there are very few times when you would expect to be cycling in the right/centre part of the running lane.

Personally, I question the amateurs, and not the "experts".

Bob

diy

I don't disagree with anything you said. I think we are on on the same page regarding taking a position to Hurd/encourage others. It's when a cyclist obstructs a driver to block the overtake that the problem exists. By all means take a defensive position but if they still move to pass, time to use the safety bubble. I suspect then that cycle craft is as misunderstood as road craft. Sadly one of the best contributors to road craft died of a heart attack about 4 years go. I did a few courses with him in tvp. Fantastic rider and driver.

karlth

As I commented on the dooring thread, there is no available verdict in the coronor's court that says "death resulted from an unlawful act but didn't pass the test for an Unlawful Killing verdict". The only available verdict is "Accidental Death", and only means that there was no intent to kill, cause serious injury, or act in a gratuitously reckless manner - such as would pass the test for manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, which this sort of thing would not do.

diy

/\ Perfect summary.