[Closed] Another Cyclist Dead. Another Ruling of Accidental Death.

[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]"

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/ask-cycle-ministers/

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.

 

You wearing one at the moment dogbert?

badnewz

You asked about the legal qualifications of posters.......

A newspaper article of 1,000 words does not go into the kind of clinical detail that a fair legal trial demands.

dogbert - Member

shoot me, but they need to make the wearing of helmets compulsory

i understand the reaction, but there's safety in numbers.

compulsory helmet wearing = fewer cyclists = more dangerous for those left.

Cyclits use the road by right, car drivers are the ones licensed to be there and use our space.

Wrong Im afraid - as long as you pay your taxes you are entitled to use the public highway. As long as you have satisfied the necessary legal requirements of course.

Im SURE if sentencing became more harsh for this kind of thing drivers would bloody well think twice before trying to overtake..

sentencing is the least of our worries. This was a Coroners inquiry into the death, if he doesnt even think there's a case to answer, then there's naff all chance the rest of the judiciary are going to get a chance to either look at it or god forbid hold someone to account for it.

I wonder if the inquest was shown that google street view image? Because I took one look at that and saw there was not enough room for a cyclist, the cyclists safe distance from the kerb, and a car plus the overtaking minimum safe distance required.

Should be death by careless driving or something.

shoot me, but they need to make the wearing of helmets compulsory

Don't want to get sidetracked into a helmet debate.

A helmet may well have helped here. But the medical evidence suggests that compulsion would cause more harm (as a whole) than it would prevent, due to drops in numbers cycling. Hence why the British Medical Assoc were* against helmet compulsion.

(* until they were politically pressured to [url= http://www.mtbrider.com/showthread.php?184-BMA-do-a-U-turn-on-helmet-compulsion ]change their mind[/url])

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

Why oh why do we have to keep discussing helmets that provide negligible benefit, rather than talking about stuff that's actually going to make the roads safer (for everyone)?

Tomorrow, 24th April, there is a discussion in parliament about Cycle Safety.
> http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/ask-cycle-ministers/

The Minister for Roads, Mike Penning (thinks motorists [url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/government-minister-sticks-to-his-mistaken-claim-that-motorists-pay-for-roads/ ]Pays for the roads[/url] ) has the view that cyclists just need to wear helmets, whereas Norman Baker doesn't. Its likely the whole thing will just be about that, thus it will be a massive waste of time.

Helmets are just a distraction from other issues.

sentencing is the least of our worries. This was a Coroners inquiry into the death, if he doesnt even think there's a case to answer, then there's naff all chance the rest of the judiciary are going to get a chance to either look at it or god forbid hold someone to account for it

Fair enough. Seems a more fundamental change in the mind-set is required then.

They really DONT want us on THEIR roads do they..

Why oh why do we have to keep discussing helmets that provide negligible benefit, rather than talking about stuff that's actually going to make the roads safer (for everyone)?

This

Don't seem right to me on reading it, but then again I'm not in full posession of the facts. Not sure what "facts" would make it any better mind!

A slight tangent.... a road reasonably local to me [url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=denmead&ll=50.900207,-1.059095&spn=0.000869,0.002642&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Denmead,+Hampshire,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&safe=vss&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=50.900207,-1.059095&panoid=Irf7587A_qZ-ZpXBb1YlSQ&cbp=12,307.38,,0,12.75 ]link[/url].

They have put super short bike lanes on the road 20m or so either side of the islands in the road all the way up it (about 6 or 7 of them). I can see why a well meaning (non cycling) road planner might do this to try and give the cyclist some protection but it just seems wrong when you are on it. When cycling it feels like it's giving an impression of a road next to you when there isn't space that some muppet might want to try and use and squeaze past and it also would make a less experienced cyclist think that the painted bit is where they should be when (god I'm agreeing with TJ!) they should be right in the middle to prevent any daft overtaking. As a driver it feels totally wrong as you are forced to drive in the cycle lane as the remaining road left is nothing like wide enough for any car. Sometimes the road planners don't make it easy.

badnewz

You asked about the legal qualifications of posters.......

A newspaper article of 1,000 words does not go into the kind of clinical detail that a fair legal trial demands.

Clearly you have none, as this was an inquest. Maybe you would need to see the autopsy before we can have the benefit of your full wisdom on the matter.

This is very true - I have no legal training or qualifications whatsoever.
It is why I don't feel qualified to comment on the story - certainly not to question the verdict. I was pointing out that other people felt they could do so with a similar lack of legal training and qualifications.

When all the fuel runs out then we will have our day.

And anyone who has ever, ever ridden a bike, knows that the slightest "scuff" on your bars can be catastrophic. For a car to be close enough to "scuff" your bars is essentially driving without due care and attention IMO - although clearly I'm not in a legal position to judge.

My road bike sees little use these days and stories like that make me feel like it should stay that way.

[i]It is why I don't feel qualified to comment on the story [/i]

As a regular user of the roads on my bike and in my car, I feel more than qualified to comment. But thanks for your concern.

As a regular user of the roads on my bike and in my car, I feel more than qualified to comment. But thanks for your concern.

Of course, people are free to make comments. But from one short article the following comments have been left: a) the driver should suffer guilt for the rest of his life and b) there is systemic corruption in the legal system favouring drivers over cyclists.

I'm just pointing out that there may be more to this case than we know about. Obviously there are terrible drivers out there, but without having been there, I can't say that the involved driver here is one of them. And I don't see how anybody else can too.

From that streetview of it it looks like a mental place to choose to overtake, even without the parked cars. Road side on right, island for pedestrian crossings...

I haven't looked at all the links, but it would be interesting to see the road layout and other considerations. I wonder what led the coroner and the courts to rule accidental death and not apportion any blame.

It's a shame they don't share the evidence that was reviewed to make the judgement then we'd know exactly why that ruling was made.

I have no legal training or qualifications whatsoever.
It is why I don't feel qualified to comment on the story - certainly not to question the verdict.

The lack of a law degree should not prevent you from considering if justice has been done. Law is [i]supposed[/i] to represent the collective will of the common man.

You are (presumably) a cyclist and driver? Look at the Street View image:
http://g.co/maps/2qh2x

Would you have passed a cyclist there? Do you think that is "enough room"?

just to add.....

Having clicked on the link with the photo of the junction/island assuming (I know, dangerous!) the cars were parked legally they would not have been parked on the double yellow lines around the island but a good 4-5 car lengths up the street. I wonder if the ruling came from the vicar moving across earlier than reasonably expected when the car was already mid overtake causing the swerve, clip then "scuff". Still should not have been attempting to overtake near that island in any case imo.

Wrong Im afraid - as long as you pay your taxes you are entitled to use the public highway. As long as you have satisfied the necessary legal requirements of course.

I'm just pointing out that there may be more to this case than we know about.

Why wasn't it included in the article then?

Why wasn't it included in the article then?

Perhaps we should direct that question to the journalist.

I wonder if there is a publically accessed ruling online? I seem to recall that some court cases could be viewed online.

Unless there's something we really don't get to see in the evidence, [url= http://tinyurl.com/c92v7tx ]David Mitford[/url] has been somewhat lenient in his assessment that the driver was not at fault for initiating an overtake with an island ahead.

So lets get this straight.

Cyclist moves out to go around parked cars. Driver sees him do it. This is apparently a matter of record.

The road narrows, at this point driver has a [b]choice.[/b]

A Slow Down and pass cyclist after the obstruction
B Attempt to pass even though there may not be sufficient space.

Driver [b]makes choice[/b]. This choice results in the unfortunate death of the cyclist.

Obviously its an accident as the driver was not setting out to kill the cyclist but how the coroner can choose not to assign blame is absolutely ludicrous

The lack of a law degree should not prevent you from considering if justice has been done. Law is supposed to represent the collective will of the common man.

You are (presumably) a cyclist and driver? Look at the Street View image:
http://g.co/maps/2qh2x

Would you have passed a cyclist there? Do you think that is "enough room"?

You are right - everybody is entitled to an opinion irrespective of training. I would like to think I would not overtake there. And as a cyclist I have experienced one case of very bad driving.

My point remains that we do not know the full facts, and as I understand it this inquiry would have been extremely thorough - more thorough than we can hope to be by sharing google streetmap links. I was suggesting it is harsh to judge the people involved when we are relative outsiders to this particular, tragic event.

Firstly the Highway code says - and I quote -

211
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.
212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

There are obviously "unknowns to joe public in terms of info available to the coroner, but that does not excuse the drivers decision to complete his overtake. Morally, of course it smacks of injustice, and you can bet your bottom dollar if some loved up actor or MP was run over then there WOULD be hell to pay.

Wonder if [url= http://g.co/maps/vrcz8 ]this[/url] is the old fella 🙁

b) there is systemic corruption in the legal system favouring drivers over cyclists.

relative outsiders to this particular, tragic event

Yes to the event, but not the scenario. Anyone with any experience of cycling on the road can see exactly what's happened here because we have all experienced the scenario.

Paying your taxes maintains the roads and allows the car on it. To DRIVE the car one must be licensed

Correct.

Hence why I said

As long as you have satisfied the necessary legal requirements of course.

Your point being?

Paying your taxes maintains the roads

If you mean Road Tax as its is incorrectly know. Wrong.

Vehicle excise duty goes into general tax fund. There is no direct link between tax raised from vehicle excise duty and the money spent on roads.

Vehicle excise duty is a tax on your vehicle based on emmissions, not a tax on using the roads.

[url= http://ipayroadtax.com/ ]http://ipayroadtax.com/[/url]

If you mean Road Tax as its is incorrectly know. Wrong.

Did I mention "road-tax"?

Nope.

I was suggesting it is harsh to judge the people involved when we are relative outsiders to this particular, tragic event.

Yep. It is a fair point and I usually dislike these witch hunt threads for that very reason, but I find it very hard to reconcile the verdict, that Street View image and this one from the Highway Code:

[img] [/img]

Or indeed Rule 167:

[b]DO NOT[/b] overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
• where the road narrows
...

Did I mention "road-tax"?

Nope.

That's all right then.

What Graham S said

It is pretty clear he could not legally overtake he tried and now someone is dead HowTF is that not the driver's fault