[Closed] FFS "brief lapse of concentration"

The A19 is little different to a motorway. Why would you organise a race on it?

"momentary"

Accident investigators said Barraclough would have seen Grayson for at least nine seconds. But the defendant admitted he had been looking at a low-loader lorry on the opposite carriageway just before the crash.

Nine seconds is a hell of a long time when you're driving. Go on, count nine seconds and imagine you're driving, but not looking.... scary huh?

Such a sad loss of life, it saddens me to think that when you go out on your bike there's a good chance you could be seriously injured or killed, sure he died doing something he loved but i bet he'd have rather finished the race and lived to tell the tale.

It seems to be happening all too often lately

A year or so ago a rider was killed on a road near to where i live, the 85 year old driver thought he had run over a badger ?
another was hit and left for dead for 3 days in a ditch and another on the same stretch was hit and killed.

Sickening,

Stay Safe..............

Time trials are held on dual carriageways as they produce quick times for the British Best All Rounder competition at 50 and 100 miles and over 10 and 25 miles because people like to go a fast as possible

Saddest of all is the fact that it seems to be the opinion of the defence, jury and judge that killing people though inattention is just one of those things.

Could quite easliy have been anyone of them that killed someone when they were fiddling with the radio, or plugging their phone into the charger, or gazing out the side window for nine seconds, or having the sun in their eyes, or leaving their glasses at home...

It is a very sad loss of life but can anyone truly say they keep their eyes on the road and are 100% aware of what is going on 100% of the time.

I will admit I don't. Not defending the driver as such and possibly he got away with a light sentence but he may feel pretty upset he has killed someone for his momentary lapse - I know I would...

Cheers

Danny B

I think I went passed this incident on the way back from Bike Scene. Saw all the riders going along the A19 on the way up and couldn't believe they were using that section of road for a race. On the way back down it was clear there had been an accident and I can remember thinking it was no suprise.

Terrible incident and feel very sorry for the rider's family but as was mentioned above it's like racing on a motorway and is no way suitable for bikes. It really is madness on the bit of road.

Edlong +1, that's a very long time.

I have to slow down to letch at women in short skirts, and that's only for a second!

Accidents happen and theyvare not always avoidable, that's why they are called accidents I wouldn't class that much inatention as an non avoidable accident though.

Its not an "accident". Iits an "incident"

Accidents are avoidable if proper care and attention is taken. Being qualified to hold a driving license is supposed to ensure you will ALWAYS take that care and attention whilst driving you 1.5 tonne machine at 70mph.

I bet if you walked down a high street pavement swinging a chainsaw around your head, and looked the other way for 9 seconds, it wouldn't be classed as an "accident" if you killed someone.

there would have been signs, and riders at minute intervals, so its not like the rider has appeared from no where.
So when you are given warning signs/indicators of slower moving traffic this chap stares at traffic on the opposite carriage way!

Just not good enough.

What is the point of a legal system!!!!!!

To protect motorists at any cost it seems

This just further illustrates the fact that most judges and juries are biased towards motorists and is proof of how low cyclists are in the pecking order.

Sad.

He apparently saw the signs so knew there was a bike race going on, but still took his eyes off the road ahead of him for nine seconds. I can't believe the judge thinks it "could have happened to anyone" - if he genuinely thinks that drivers in general regularly stop looking where they're going for that long...

So sad, and so avoidable.

5thElefant - Member

The A19 is little different to a motorway. Why would you organise a race on it?

Bit like arguing you hit an invalid carriage on the road because it shouldn't have been there, even though you saw it anyway.

To protect motorists at any cost it seems

you mean to protect society. In cases like this society backs drivers, as society could not function if driving required 110% concentration all the time, imagine if all drivers were prosecuted just for being idiots...

this isnt drivers winning vs cyclists, its society saying we have to allow poor standards of driving or the country would grind to a halt. Sucks but its true.

Nine seconds is a hell of a long time when you're driving. Go on, count nine seconds and imagine you're driving, but not looking.... scary huh?

240 meters @ 60 mph. Unbelievable.

Very sad. Driver at fault undoubtedly. I'm not qualified to comment on the sentence. But FFS, a time trial on a national speed limit dual carriageway? Now that IS asking for trouble, and IMO shouldn't be allowed. It makes this sort of tragic incident an inevitability.

I've not readd the report and am in no way defending a day dreaming driver but as I said before, it was no place for a race.

I seem to remember it being windy and seeing the riders wobble about all over the place. I can also clearly remember thinking there was bound to be an accident. The organisers should take some responsibility in my opinion as it was not a suitable route.

It would actually be safer to organise a race along the hard shoulder of the M6 really.

As the cyclist was hit from behind, in a time trial, what difference did it make that he was "racing" (other than that there were signposts drawing attention to this)? Are we saying that cyclists, of any description - should not be allowed on dual carriageways at any time?

The organisers should take some responsibility in my opinion as it was not a suitable route.

Courses are approved and traffic counts done according to ctt rules every season .A pre race recce is done and signs are placed Approval is sought from and notification given to the police 6 weeks before events as well .I am not being rude but guessing you have not organized an open timetrial according to the rules of the ctt?

[quote=scotroutes ]As the cyclist was hit from behind, in a time trial, what difference did it make that he was "racing" (other than that there were signposts drawing attention to this)? Are we saying that cyclists, of any description - should not be allowed on dual carriageways at any time?

chestrockwell - Member

I've not readd the report and am in no way defending a day dreaming driver but as I said before, it was no place for a race.

I seem to remember it being windy and seeing the riders wobble about all over the place. I can also clearly remember thinking there was bound to be an accident. The organisers should take some responsibility in my opinion as it was not a suitable route.
Posted 6 minutes ago # Report-Post

I havent read the report.... dont worry it hasnt stopped you having an opinion!

v8ninety - Member

It would actually be safer to organise a race along the hard shoulder of the M6 really.
Posted 3 minutes ago # Report-Post

I am sure time trials would be a lot safer if they were run with their own lane free from traffic. Why dont you put it forward to your time trial secretary for consideration at your next CTT district meeting?

To be fair you can spout on a mountain bike forum about the rights and wrongs of time trialling on dual carriage ways but if want a proper debate take it over to the [url= http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ ]time trialling forum[/url]. I am sure they would be more than happy to discuss your well researched and reasoned debate.

Could quite easliy have been anyone of them that killed someone when they were fiddling with the radio, or plugging their phone into the charger, or gazing out the side window for nine seconds, or having the sun in their eyes, or leaving their glasses at home...

Which might be why we're judged by a jury of our peers.

What might be more useful is to mandate something similar to Volvo's City Safety in new cars instead of locking up someone who's made a mistake - a mistake that cost someone their life, granted - but equally one that's actually destroyed two lives.

scotroutes - Member

Are we saying that cyclists, of any description - should not be allowed on dual carriageways at any time?

Where the speed limit is 60 or 70mph, then no.
The speed differential is too high to be safe.

Where the speed limit is [ul]60 or [/ul]70mph, then no.
The speed differential is too high to be safe.

so you mean ban cyclists from most rural roads then? what about walkers and horses????

What might be more useful is to mandate something similar to Volvo's City Safety in new cars instead of locking up someone who's made a mistake - a mistake that cost someone their life, granted - but equally one that's actually destroyed two lives.

Exactly, the guy (driver) was a dope, but a dope who didnt really know any better. Yes he passed a test etc, but tell me this, does everyone vilifying this guy believe that they and people close to them (relatives, close friends) pay 100% attention all the time? if not how would you feel if your wife/sister was sent to jail for 'not really paying attention' when they do try to drive properly but maybe get distracted occasionally.

We all know and sit in cars of people who dont pay full attention all the time, its a fact of life sadly. Just look at how many minor prangs people have, any one of those could have been a injured cyclist not another car, but we allow drivers to exchange details and get on with their lives without any form of punishment other than a slightly higher insurance premium next year.

Clearly we've not had the full report posted up here, however it appears that this happened in good visibility on a road clear enough that investigators felt he had the bike in sight for 9 seconds. He himself said that he'd seen the warning notices about bikes and I imagine had passed several already (unless he'd just joined the road)

That is not unlucky or even just careless; it's negligent and dangerous

I don't want him driving ever again (in fact if he had any decency and remorse he'd never do so anyway). What did he get, btw ?

I don't really care about jail, except that there has to be a significant deterrent if this shit is to stop

If the judge genuinely said that this could happen to anyone, the ****er should be pursued via the judgy-council by the CTC/BC etc

The speed differential is too high to be safe.

At what 'speed differential' is it safe to be hit by a car exactly?

Where the speed limit is 60 or 70mph, then no.
The speed differential is too high to be safe.

Got any evidence to back this up?

On a road like that there will be warning signs as he comes down the slip road or onto a roundabout .They are big and yellow with cycle event written inside a red triangle .Quite easy to see

Rubber necking at Stobart lorries or whatever he is into going the other way for 9 seconds is more than a moments distraction

Am i the only one that thinks this is a great tragedy. And a waste of a well lived life.

However the Driver has taken responsibility for his carelessness and owned up.

The judge has made the sentence call not him, But he is the one that is going to have to live with this on his conscious (which he obviously has, other wise he wouldn't admit it) for the rest of his life. Surely this could bee seen as a sentence its self.

The point is 9 seconds is not a momentary distraction. I find it hard to believe that are people on here who think that drving for 200 meters at 60 mph without looking where you are going is something that is understandable & normal. No wonder driving standards are so low.

Surely this could bee seen as a sentence its self.

But he is the one that is going to have to live with this on his conscious (which he obviously has, other wise he wouldn't admit it) for the rest of his life. Surely this could bee seen as a sentence its self.

Yes so much so that he stood at the side of the road crying "I'm going to jail" Clearly killing someone was at the forefront of his mind.

Stato, you and i have no right to drive, you do it under licence, read the conditions attached to the licence, drive in accordance with the conditions. If you are tired, distracted etc then you don't drive.

Is that such a hard thing to understand, and 9 seconds when you have been forewarned that there are cyclists about?

Think about how many hundreds of metres 9 seconds is! think about at 70mph your doing over 1 mile every minute.

He was so distracted he thought he had hit a bird ? that shows real inattention ,hitting say 70kg of bike and rider felt like a bird .He also said that he had seen event warning signs but failed to be extra attentive .The judge still said it could happen to anyone though?

I think its 240 metres in 9 seconds at 60 mph!!

Yes so much so that he stood at the side of the road crying "I'm going to jail" Clearly killing someone was at the forefront of his mind.

I know nothing about this as of just reading the article. Do you know that for fact or are you just Jumping on the cyclists against the world.

I'm not deffending him Im mearly saying there may be more to the case than the press tell us. yes he may have been rubber necking at a lorry and killed some one and he may well have been able to see the rider for 9 seconds. But i bet you have all taken your eye of the road for a brief second and narrowly avoided an accident that could be major or minor.

I will remind you all again he has owned up and even admitting to looking the other way, I would put money on the majority of people not doing this.

When driving, is concentration optional?

The judge still said it could happen to anyone though?

I'd settle for 6 month jail term (OK, 12 so that they serve 6) suspended indefinitely and invoked next time they get done for speeding etc

crying "I'm going to jail"

I know nothing about this as of just reading the article. Do you know that for fact or are you just Jumping on the cyclists against the world

initially thought he had hit a bird

I will remind you all again he has owned up

Stato, you and i have no right to drive, you do it under licence, read the conditions attached to the licence, drive in accordance with the conditions. If you are tired, distracted etc then you don't drive.

Is that such a hard thing to understand, and 9 seconds when you have been forewarned that there are cyclists about?

Yes i agree, you should be attentive, but what im saying is 'society' allows less. Look at the amount of people out there not paying attention, should all of these people go to jail immediately? of course not, so why does being innatentive AND unlucky result in a lynching. Plenty of people have accidents where by sheer luck (or better car design!) people dont get hurt, no one lynches them.

By way of clarification, i dont drive, no licence and im 30. I ride everywhere, see all sorts of bad driving, have done TT's on DC's. My gut turns at the thought of good friends who TT being injured like this, in no way am I trying to side with the driver in this case (9 seconds! ridiculous!), however he admitted fault and yes maybe it is a bit lenient but thats the way society views things. Hopefully things will get better but i doubt it, driving is pivotal to modern society and cannot be punished as harshly as we would like.