Forum menu
Motorist observes cyclist passing parked cars ahead, tried to go around him, clips the central reservation, bounces into cyclist and kills him.
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.
Anyone care to suggest how he passed with "enough room" when apparently a slight turn of his car was sufficient to clip the bars?
[i]Anyone care to suggest how he passed with "enough room" when apparently a slight turn of his car was sufficient to clip the bars? [/i]
Nope, you've got me there.
Terrible. RIP.
Nope, makes no sense to me. I'm gonna start wearing a suicide bomb belt so I can at least take the fekkers out with me, should the need arise 👿
RIP Mr Malleson
indeed.
discuss use / presence of words / phrases like "clipped", "slightly" and indeed "lightly" and "scuff". Not to mention the chestnut "who was not wearing a helmet"..
as if the reservation appeared out of nowhere. manslaughter / careless driving at least.
grr.
What will it take for prosecutors and judges to recognise the difference between an accident at the hand of the unknown and an incident as a result of incompetence/ignorance/arrogance?
Are the CTC whimpering into their sandals or actually planning on doing any decent lobbying on it?
Amazing.
I hate this sentence:
[i]"The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who was not wearing a cycle helmet, to lose his balance and fall to the ground."[/i]
The implied sub-text seems to be that it is his fault on two counts:
for not wearing a helmet and for losing his balance so carelessly. 😐
[i]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.
[/i]
= Joseph Strong did not look far enough ahead to judge that it was clear to overtake the cyclist. He tried to squeeze past, found there wasn't enough room and in doing so knocked Mr Malleson into the ground with his car, killing him.
[i]David Mitford said neither Mr Strong, who was not speeding in the 30mph zone, nor Mr Malleson were at fault.[/i]
Mitford is clearly an absolute moron.
Decided to "give him plenty of room" and yet tries to overtake the bike where there's a pinch point. FFS.
And nice use of softly, softly words in the article; "lightly clipped", "scuffed". No, he hit the bike which caused the accident and the death of the rider.
Grrrrr.
Struggling to see how that wasn't the driver's fault.
I read this several times yesterday assuming i was missing something. pleanty of room, overtakes, hits stuff, kills cyclist, is fine.
Clearly not. I'm too dismayed to even be angry. It only goes to reinforce the primary position arguement, which angers motorists sometimes, but it does stop stuff like this.
It's just absolute madness.
If the case had been Mr Malleson walking down the street, being pushed to the ground and bashing his head (& subsequently dieing), then the perpetrator would have almost certainly been jailed for assault.
The driver shows a clear lack of forethought and even continued to try and pass the cyclist even when the road narrowed to such an extent he hit a kerb in an effort to continue his passing manouvre. Accidental? I doubt the driver wanted to kill/injure/hit the cyclist, but he's in no way free from guilt and should be punished accordingly.
Grrrrrrrrrr!!!
Thats disgusting.
If I ever approach a central reservation on a single lane and know theres a car behind I always move slightly further out to prevent the car squeezing through.
When driving I always hold back until past the reservation before overtaking. It seems the driver squeezed through.
If I'd hit a central reservation with my car for no good reason I'd expect to be prosecuted - not have a copper make excuses for me.
Let's imagine a slightly different scenario
Mr Malleson was driving 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 out to overtake him.
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 driver, and lightly clipped his car.
The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who's car was not fitted with airbags, to swerve and crash head on in to a stationary vehicle.
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.
Wonder what the verdict would have been then?
Reading it causes a sick, tense and angry feeling in my stomach.
There seems to be an acceptance that carelessly drifting past cyclists is perfectly acceptable.
I know I've been guilty of it in the past, but drivers need to be educated about this above all else as far as I'm concerned.
The default needs to be treat a cyclist like you would a car. Wait behind until you can see that it's totally safe to pass, giving the cyclist the same room as you would a car.
It's just not like that at the moment.
-
As an aside - even if the fault had been the drivers and they'd have ruled it dangerous driving, there still wouldn't have been a manslaughter charge.
Poor chap, RIP.
Those central areas in the road are dangerous enough, add in a careless driver, and you'll end up with deaths.
Terrible, but it really is as simple as people driving along without a care in the world, as if they're sat on the sofa at home, not in a vehicle..
I hope the guilt destroys them.
....yet we are all told to be 'eco' or 'green'...........so buy a new ECOMOTION marketed-car when really lots of people actually would be GREEN if it was safe to ride a bike on our roads.
Why are Politicians all the same underneath?
David Mitford said neither Mr Strong, who was not speeding in the 30mph zone, nor Mr Malleson were at fault.
Mitford is clearly an absolute moron.
Moron is being polite and there are too many phrases, as highlighted by others above, to try to mimimise the consequences of the driving errors, presumably from an equally moronic journalist. 'lightly clipped' is downright ridiculous. Maybe the coroner would like to experience being 'lightly clipped' round the back of the head by a wing mirror at 20+ mph.
Very sad and made worse by verdicts like that.
[i]Struggling to see how that wasn't the driver's fault.[/i]
That's because it quite obviously was. Unless cyclists aren't allowed to overtake parked cars of course. In which case the verdict was entirely correct.
p.s, makes my blood boil that is in an 'accidental death'. If I go grab a knife, run out onto the streets, stabbing the air, say I then stab someone, would that be treated as an accident? Would it ****. The law is an ass.
Bit late for the submission date of last friday, but there is "[i] an inquiry currently examining the Government’s road safety strategy, on 24 April the Transport Committee will take oral evidence about the safety issues facing the growing numbers of cyclists on roads in town and country.[/i]"
Some relevant Qus asked though
http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23AskCycleMinisters
DezB +1
Just shows how deep the 'car is king' roots go. In pretty much any other scenario that sort of ass-backwards thinking would be rightly ridiculed, but where driving 'accidents' like this are concerned that just seems to be how most people think. Really, really sad.
I hate this sentence:"The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who was not wearing a cycle helmet, to lose his balance and fall to the ground."
The implied sub-text seems to be that it is his fault on two counts:
for not wearing a helmet and for losing his balance so carelessly.
GrahamS is spot on here too. Language is very powerful and here it's just reinforcing the status quo. The author probably didn't even realise.
hard to say without seeing the scene but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt I'd say maybe the road was very wide at that point and clipping the kerb wrenched the steering a lot, meaning a positive action (keeping well clear) could have caused the driver to end up swerving a long way by over-compensation. But it's far more likely he just squeezed through.
presumably only being 'lightly clipped' means the poor chap was only 'lightly killed'.
F*** it, I've just emailed No 10.
I know it won't get me anywhere but I feel better for it.
I'd be interested to hear about the legal qualifications of the posters here.
The information is very limited - a short newspaper article - and to suggest the driver should suffer guilt for the rest of his life seems premature to say the least.
I would suggest people review all of the evidence before passing judgement.
It's there in the article. Didn't you read it? It only takes common sense, not legal qualifications.
Overtaking a vehicle that's overtaking a vehicle, thought that was a no no.
This Joseph Strong, drives a Skoda - wonder if his age has anything to do with him getting off - or was/is he someone important?
I'd be interested to hear about the legal qualifications of the posters here.
The information is very limited - a short newspaper article - and to suggest the driver should suffer guilt for the rest of his life seems premature to say the least.
I would suggest people review all of the evidence before passing judgement.
Fair enough. But I'd say most people on here know first hand that drivers squeeze past cyclists at a pinch point like traffic islands all the time, so it's maybe not surprising if people are perhaps jumping to conclusions.
Disgusted and angry.
I've been in correspondance with my MP re the time cycling campaign so I may pass this particular one on as it is near me.
I think this probably explains why such verdicts are given.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html
hard to say without seeing the scene..
Street View heading north at the [i]"junction of Heaton Road and Meldon Terrace"[/i]:
http://g.co/maps/2qh2x
Note parked cars to the left and the traffic island ahead. 😐
Who appoints coroners?
Very sad, RIP
A newspaper article of 1,000 words does not go into the kind of clinical detail that a fair legal trial demands.
What I took from the article was this: "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."
After the case of Gary Mason (the boxer) being killed in South London, where the driver was speeding, cut across the junction and failed a eye sight test and the ruling was still accident, then i'm afraid nothing surprises me.
Tragic all the same.
Negligence of Person A has directly resulted in the death of Person B.
In almost every scenario this would lead to a conviction with serious consequences. Except it seems in cases where Person B is cycling, then he/she may as well be a dog that has inadvertently been allowed to run into the road.
No government will change the law because it won’t be popular with voters, most of whom drive.
A newspaper article of 1,000 words does not go into the kind of clinical detail that a fair legal trial demands.
Obviously but it is al that most of us will be privy to.
Plus I'm as much annoyed at the tone of the article as the actual verdict.
shoot me, but they need to make the wearing of helmets compulsory
Doesn't excuse the fact that it should have been ruled death by dangerous or careless driving
but they need to make the wearing of helmets compulsory
and then they'll say hi-viz is compulsory, and then testing, then insurance, then licencing, then eye tests, then mandatory use of cycle lanes....
Cyclits use the road by right, car drivers are the ones licensed to be there and use our space.
Its getting beyond a joke now.
The implied meaning in this article is that its the cyclists fault.
Im SURE if sentencing became more harsh for this kind of thing drivers would bloody well think twice before trying to overtake..
Obviously but it is al that most of us will be privy to.Yes, and that is why I reserve judgement. Everybody on here has had a terrible experience of bad driving. People make mistakes and maybe this is what happened here.