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

What other findings can a coroner make, and what meaning might this have?

Seems even the testimony of the Copper was biased IMO.

I know that road well, having lived in heaton for over 10 years. it connects two areas where congestion is bad, and I've alwyas found it to be a awful road to cycle on. the presence of a school does not stop speeding and aggressive driving, as drivers try to rush to the next traffic jam, the road is covered in parked cars, traffic islands and blind junctions.

hang on, this was an inquest; its purpose to determine cause of death, not to decide whether any law-breaking had happened?
this will obviously influence a criminal trial or civil proceedings, but are either of these things going to happen? or will they just take the coroner's verdict and file this as 'accidental'?

Geez only been reading forums a few days and its far too common.

First OK would he have survived with a helmet? Such a shame if the answers yes but that does not mitigate the actions of the driver.

It looks very much like at that pinch point there would be enough room to pass a cyclist. However clipping a kerb would not make you swerve violently. How close was he. Sounds like the cyclist claimed the road, which is correct to protect his space comming to the island and the driver thought 10 seconds of his time worth the life of another human being. He could have slowed to allow the cyclist through if there was any doubt in his ability to judge the space.

Verdict not an accident!

My thoughts are with his family.

Maybe as we have a great deal of actvity on here we should start a petition to parliament, particulrly after Mr Addison Lee's comments.

That's all right then.

Pleased to hear it.

Maybe as we have a great deal of actvity on here we should start a petition to parliament, particulrly after Mr Addison Lee's comments.

Perhaps join The Times' #cyclesafe campaign, which does at least seem to have caused some debate recently if nothing else.

Although I see [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3391010.ece ]"Mr Addison Lee" is a #cyclesafe backer[/url] 🙄

It looks very much like at that pinch point there would be enough room to pass a cyclist.

Physically yes but not safely IMO.

> It looks very much like at that pinch point there would be enough room to pass a cyclist.

Physically yes but not safely IMO.

Or in a way that obeys the Highway Code, or common sense.

Call it what you will, careless, dangerous or thoughtless driving, killing people isn't a problem if they happen to be riding their bike.

There's a deep seated lack of respect for our lives in the media, the courts, the coroner's office, the general public. There's also an underlying message that cyclists are somehow to blame: not
wearing a helmet, swerving around a pothole, whatever.

There needs to be a major shift in attitudes and deterrent sentences for bad driving would be a good start. But while we have anti-cyclist sentiment being stirred up by publicity hungry no-bodies and the state turning a blind eye I can't see things changing.

lack of respect

I think that's it in a nutshell stick_man. A total lack of respect.

Out with the kids in a trailer on Friday, had to hit a slightly busy stretch of road for about 400yds. Big tanker comes up behind me, cue much revving of engine and dramatic gear changes (he'd have seen me in plenty of time, so it was all for effect) before he passed me on a solid white line and cut back in sharply, making sure I knew (in his eyes of course) I'd held him up and I shouldn't be there. No respect at all for my right to be there and for the safety of me and my kids.

It looks very much like at that pinch point there would be enough room to pass a cyclist.

I will retract that as I am unfamiliar with the road and would certainly not do similar. Pass before or after but yes indeed ensure there is space. Obviously there wasnt as he hit the kerb then the cyclist.

Apologies to all.

 

Nasty woody, did you get his reg or company name? Might be worth ringing their [i]"How's My Driving?"[/i] line if you did.

The other day I had another car tooting me, because I refused to attempt a stupid overtake of a cyclist (crossing solid lines on a blind bend in a narrow road) and instead sat calmly behind them for the extra 30 seconds it took us to reach the junction at the top of the road.

I've no idea why some folk seem to think such a tiny time-saving is worth risking a life for.

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.

It's not from "one short article". It's already been linked to on this thread, but have a read of this article, by a criminal barrister:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html

"Systemic corruption" is the wrong term, but there's definitely cultural bias in favour of motorists at work in cases like this. You only have to look at how many times newspapers describe cases like this as "accidents".

Sadly not Graham 🙁

I have also experienced the impatience of a driver behind me when I've refused to overtake a bike!

So very sad, and so easy for a motorist to kill a cyclist, a felow cyclist was killed near where i live, the thing was the cyclist was police driver training instructor, for ages there was a red flower sign there, saying REMEBER ME, and lots of Police cars drove past, flashing their blue lights as they passed slowly.

someone ran me off the road in a very similar situation, luckily I read the situation & jumped onto the pavement in time. he had to stop immediately in traffic too! anyway when I asked him why he performed a dangerous manuvere which achieved no purpose he told me the road narrowed & he had to steer into me & he'd always choose hitting a cyclist than the (plastic) bollardc so f'off. had he killed me, he would have said 'whoops it was an accident, I only clipped him lightly' 😉

he told me the road narrowed & he had to steer into me & he'd always choose hitting a cyclist than the (plastic) bollardc so f'off.

Ohh.... that would have been a rest mist moment.

[i]First OK would he have survived with a helmet? Such a shame if the answers yes but that does not mitigate the actions of the driver.[/i]

Surely then you could ask the same question of anyone killed in a small car - could they have survived if they'd been driving a <insert large car>?

Its wasn't not wearing a helmet that killed him, it was been knocked off!

So no one seems to know what other verdicts coroners can give...and what the significance might be?

OK

19. Possible verdicts include:
natural causes
accident
suicide
unlawful or lawful killing
Industrial disease
open verdicts (where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict)

You have to ask how often "unlawful killing" is made. Seems to me there might need to be a more direct link between a person's actions and the death than present in this case.

b r - Member
Its wasn't not wearing a helmet that killed him, it was been knocked off!

No, it was being knocked off and possibly (/unlikely, we'll never know) by not wearing a helmet.

yeah I wanted to bomber him but kept my calm (unusual for me) & reported him instead - they weren't interested though 🙁

wish I had some bombers now.
at least it showed I've been right all these years in losing my rag quickly 🙂

It looks very much like at that pinch point there would be enough room to pass a cyclist.

Physically yes but not safely IMO.

You know why cars do that - overtake at traffic islands?
I've seen it so many times: they see the cyclist, they see the traffic island and they slow down, quite correctly thinking that they won't fit through. However, once the cyclist is in the middle of passing the traffic island (and especially if they haven't claimed their road space and are still over to the left), the motorist decides that actually there IS enough room to get past after all and goes for it. Most of the time they get away with it but they're accelerating and making a manoeuvre at the same time combined with a concrete block to their right. Sooner or later, the attempt to save 3 seconds of their journey goes wrong.

🙁

I am so frustrated. Venting on here will not make any difference. It really is time that there is a serious, coordinated lobbying of government.

In the meantime, writing to the local MP will not do any harm. I'll be doing it this evening, anyone else going to do the same?

[url= http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/nicholas-brown/523 ]Nicholas Brown MP[/url]

I have a number of legal qualifications and can't understand any legal logic behind this verdict . Car driver drove into clearly visible solid object in front of him then swerved into another vehicle that had also been in front of him . Solid death by careless case if ever I saw one. A reasonable prudent driver in all the prevailing circumstances would not drive into street furniture still less try to squeeze through a gap between a vehicle in front and street furniture so narrow that a slight deviation would cause a collision .

Ok, I posted an earlier comment regarding the compulsory wearing of cycles helmets and got some shady responses to that......why? pretty much every person on here goes out on a bike wearing a helmet whether that be on road or off road, but according to the responses there's no point, so why bother looking like a bell end if you don't have to?

This case the guy smacked his head off the road, first point of contact was his head, surely then a helmet may have saved his life......no?

Christ no one with any sense would think of taking a motorbike on the roads without a helmet so why leave it at home just because you don't have an engine, all the other dangers are there just the same.

Christ no one with any sense would think of taking a motorbike on the roads without a helmet so why leave it at home just because you don't have an engine, all the other dangers are there just the same

Helmets for motorcyclists are compulsory, but not for cyclists as yet.

Helmets for motorcyclists are compulsory, but not for cyclists as yet.

And it'll come, it'll all get to a head then all of a sudden helmets will be compulsary, insurance if you cycle on the road, number plates and a bike MOT every year.

I'm sure they have the same arguments on car forums, trouble is no-one wants to take any responsibility for themselves so it becomes a battle of the fittest and when ego's get involved someone gets hurt, usually the cyclist because they're not surrounded by 2 tons of steel. But then *shock horror* sometimes cyclists are to blame for their own accidents, i see it every day driving in to work. There's blame on all sides.

Christ no one with any sense would think of taking a motorbike on the roads without a helmet so why leave it at home just because you don't have an engine, all the other dangers are there just the same.

No they are not - the speeds are a lot higher and motorcycle helmets have much more protective capabilities.

However this is not about helmets - this is about a cyclist being knocked off and killed.

So whats to be done then?

There is usually plenty of political people on here, why not get something orginised. A slow ride up ad down the street in question make some noise etc.
Eithe that or just moan and wait for the next one?

Ok, I posted an earlier comment regarding the compulsory wearing of cycles helmets and got some shady responses to that......why?

Because the evidence from other countries and from polls here is that helmet compulsion causes a significant reduction in the number of people cycling and therefore causes more harm to overall public health than it prevents (less cyclists = more fatties, and more accidents for remaining cyclists).

Hence the original BMA position, [url= http://road.cc/content/news/39882-british-medical-journal-poll-says-no-helmet-compulsion ]still supported by its members[/url].

Christ no one with any sense would think of taking a motorbike on the roads without a helmet

Fancy cycling in a motorbike helmet? If you believe that "all the other dangers are there just the same" then a piece of polystyrene isn't going to help much. You should have a proper helmet, full leathers, boots and a spine protector.

Anyway, this isn't really the place for a helmet debate. A man died. He died because he was needlessly hit by a car. That is what we should focus on.

so sad - makes me despair reading about stuff like this - wish the law / society would change its attitudes

paul

"[i]This case the guy smacked his head off the road, first point of contact was his head, surely then a helmet may have saved his life......no?[/i]"

There's a massive inaccuracy in your statement which may seem pedantic, but is at the heart of the issue: The victim didn't "smack his head off the road", [b]someone else[/b] "smacked his head off the road".

It's not just a grammatical matter of subject and object, it's the fundamental cause-and-effect process.

Helmets offer some limited protection in certain circumstances (whether this incident constituted such circumstances is entirely a matter of speculation).

But that's not the point. Once you're talking about helmets you've already set that cause-and-effect process in motion. It starts before the cyclist hits the tarmac. It starts before the car hits the cyclist. It starts before the car bounces off the central reservation. It starts before the driver even begins to overtake in a dangerous manner.

It starts with the fact that some road users have no thought for anything other than proceeding at whatever rate they see fit, never wanting to slow down, and never needing to slow down because you can mow people down in this manner with complete impunity. It's not your fault, it's the fault of the inanimate parked cars, the inanimate traffic island, the design of the road - and if people still refuse to blame any of those then, hey, it's just an accident. Just as John Griffin says ("[url= http://road.cc/content/news/56999-addison-lee-chairman-airs-his-opinion-london-cyclist-deaths ][i]The fact is he just didn’t see her ... however cautious, caring or alert he is[/i][/url]"), you can be totally cautious and caring and still mow people down, so it's fine, f*** 'em, you're a good driver because you've passed what is basically a piss-easy test and paid a few quid into the exchequer and you therefore have the right to never have to lift off the accelerator pedal (not to mention the right to constantly whine about having paid a bit of motoring-related tax in the same breath as berating people who you presume haven't).

And it's all absolutely fine because incidents like this [b]prove that it is absolutely fine[/b]. You are immune. You are in a car. Your airbags make you physically immune, your taxes make you morally immune, and the entire stinking legal system makes you legally immune. Fit some diplomatic flags, go on, you're immune.

This is the cause of death. It's not the lack of a helmet. It's the chasmic divide between a legal system that can look at this sequence of events and fully and calmly absolve the killer of all responsibility, and those of us who are apoplectic about that.

So, to answer your clumsily phrased question, "surely then a helmet may have saved his life?" - it might. But not being driven into certainly would have.

Referencing helmets in this situation is not seeing the wood for the trees. It's little better than listening to a coherent argument and trying to counter by pointing out a spelling mistake. It's missing the point so dramatically as to be massively counter-productive.

I wear a helmet. I also happen to think it'll probably be roughly sod-all use if someone drives into me.

So as far as I'm concerned you can argue about whether I wear a helmet if you want. I'll argue to prevent people driving into me.

FFS - what an utterly predictable and depressing tale

As somebody on here says now & then - "write to the CTC and tell them you'll join if they ..."

well access campaigning is one thing, and would be great, but somebody (and I mean representative body) should be challenging this shit on a weekly basis and I'd pay my subs for that

What a sad tale. Hopefully, as others have said, the CPS will look at the case anyway - a coroner's verdict doesn't preclude criminal charges.

compulsory helmet wearing = fewer cyclists

Really? I'd better tell all these Aussies to get back in their cars then 🙄

Yes zokes - thats exactly what the stats show. Massive decrease in cycling with no significant decrease in head injury. Same as everywhere that helmets have been made compulsory.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a paper by Dorothy Robinson (a statistician at the University of New England, New South Wales in Australia) reviewing the effects of helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Robinson shows that, despite significant increases in helmet-wearing, there was no greater improvement in cycle safety than for pedestrian safety over the same period. On the other hand, there were substantial reductions in cycle use, amounting to a significant loss of the health and other benefits of cycling. Robinson says: "This contradiction may be due to risk compensation, incorrect helmet wearing, reduced safety in numbers (injury rates per cyclist are lower when more people cycle), or bias in case control studies.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4689

I always wear a helmet on the bike, kind of feel a bit weird without it, like driving without a seatbelt. But I don't think that's the issue here - the issue is how do we get non- cycling motorists to treat cyclists as human beings and fellow road users, rather than as an inconvinient hazard that needs to be overtaken RIGHT NOW, regardless of whether it's safe or not? Shifting driving culture to be more respectful will reduce injuries far more than any level of helmet wearing.

Until UK law aligns with many European countries, where there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the driver in incidents involving a cyclist or pedestrian, we will tragically see news like this on a weekly basis. Such a law would make drivers **** scared of going anywhere near more vulnerable road users and reduce the number of incidents as described in this thread.

Unfortunately, Jeremy Clarkson wouldn't like it, so it will never happen.

Such a law would make drivers **** scared of going anywhere near more vulnerable road users and reduce the number of incidents as described in this thread.

I've seen some proper cock end like cycling on the continent as a consequence of this - not the solution imo. What I think is the crucial difference on the continent is that most if not all motorists ARE cyclists too and that is why they have much better empathy with the cyclists around them when they are in cars.

How do you make that happen in the UK - I guess of combination of making driving shorter distances too expensive and not well provided for when it comes to parking and making cycling much easier in terms of facilities and road layout. Not a quick fix.

In the benign dictatorship I rule in my head, everyone would have to ride a bike for 6 months, then a moped for 6 months and pass a proficiency test before they ever get anywhere near a car.

It would teach them roadcraft, awareness, appreciation of road conditions and surfaces, observation - if they don't learn this in 12 months Darwin is more likely to take over which means fewer richardheads behind a wheel.

Agree with co-ordinated approach by some organisation - perhaps it's time to badger the CTC to grow some testicles?

Until UK law aligns with many European countries, where there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the driver in incidents involving a cyclist or pedestrian, we will tragically see news like this on a weekly basis. Such a law would make drivers **** scared of going anywhere near more vulnerable road users and reduce the number of incidents as described in this thread.

It seems you're right with regard to drops in cyclist numbers (though I do find it hard to believe given the huge numbers of cyclists here in Adelaide - especially casual / trendy cyclists in the evening). However, this study cast doubt on there being no reduction in head injuries:

The impact of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia

Author(s): Walter, SR (Walter, Scott R.)2; Olivier, J (Olivier, Jake)1,2; Churches, T (Churches, Tim)3; Grzebieta, R (Grzebieta, Raphael)2

[b]Source: ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION Volume: 43 Issue: 6 Pages: 2064-2071 DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.029 Published: NOV 2011[/b]

Abstract: The study aimed to assess the effect of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries given the ongoing debate in Australia as to the efficacy of this measure at a population level. We used hospital admissions data from New South Wales, Australia, from a 36 month period centred at the time legislation came into effect. Negative binomial regression of hospital admission counts of head and limb injuries to cyclists were performed to identify differential changes in head and limb injury rates at the time of legislation. Interaction terms were included to allow different trends between injury types and pre- and post-law time periods. To avoid the issue of lack of cyclist exposure data, we assumed equal exposures between head and limb injuries which allowed an arbitrary proxy exposure to be used in the model. As a comparison, analyses were also performed for pedestrian data to identify which of the observed effects were specific to cyclists. In general, the models identified a decreasing trend in injury rates prior to legislation, an increasing trend thereafter and a drop in rates at the time legislation was enacted, all of which were thought to represent background effects in transport safety. [b]Head injury rates decreased significantly more than limb injury rates at the time of legislation among cyclists but not among pedestrians. This additional benefit was attributed to compulsory helmet legislation[/b]. [b]Despite numerous data limitations, we identified evidence of a positive effect of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries at a population level such that repealing the law cannot be justified[/b].

or unlawful killing (but it is very unusual for that to be used in any road death (whether car driver / passenger, cyclist or pedestrian).

exactly - but the question is why is this unusual? rhetorical - because we as a society on the whole values the use of the car above human life and chooses to label the consequence of inattentive/impatient driving as an accident - might not be a deliberate act but isn't an accident

all in all a very sad case and i hope CPS acts

. In general, the models [b]identified a decreasing trend in injury rates prior to legislation, an increasing trend thereafter [/b]and a drop in rates at the time legislation was enacted, all of which were thought to represent background effects in transport safety.

Irrelevant to the point in question here tho which is that someone was knocked off their bike by a car and died

The death was caused by an accident (in that I think we can assume that the driver did not intend to clip him).

until people stop spouting this ^^^^ sort of drivel, general opinion amongst the motoring public will always be that causing death to a cyclist through negligent driving can be written off as an unfortunate accident.

Poly - do we know the family had representation and wished this line to be questioned?

Interesting that the word accident isn't used by Police anymore ( RTC not RTA).

zokes-good find, I can see that link coming up on future helmet use threads!

EDIT TJ are you really arguing against something you disagree with on the basis it's tangential to this thread? You engage in tangential discussions all the time!

zokes-good find, I can see that link coming up on future helmet use threads!

The advantage of being a scientist - I have access to things even more powerful that Google and Wikipedia 😉

Irrelevant to the point in question here tho which is that someone was knocked off their bike by a car and died

Absolutely, but as there is also an underlying discussion about helmet use going on here, [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-dead-another-ruling-of-accidental-death/page/4#post-3721756 ]which of course you got involved with[/url], it is relevant to that.

LOL!

until people stop spouting this ^^^^ sort of drivel, general opinion amongst the motoring public will always be that causing death to a cyclist through negligent driving can be written off as an unfortunate accident.

Exactly. And there's still the issue of the "soft words" used by the coroner to make it seem more like a little case of "Oops, sorry".

Zokes - as do I 🙂

Why you have to be so derogatory and unpleasant to anyone who disagrees with you is beyond me.

You claim to be a scientist - well then you can see even from the abstract what a poor and limited piece of research that is.

Ignoring a basic question yet again TJ?

Not that you criticise others for that. Oh, hang on...

"[i]Until people in this country bother to understand how the legal system works threads like this are bound to be full of this sort of drivel.[/i]"

It's true that some people are seeing the coroner's verdict in an ill-informed light, but I think focusing on that completely misses what's going on here.

The sequence of events is fairly clear, and it would appear that no blame has at any stage been laid at the driver's feet (literally, in this case).

Let me pick some quotes from the article to illustrate what reaction of The Powers That Be (media, police, local authority etc) actually gave:

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

Here we have the media painting the driver in a positive light despite the events showing beyond any argument that the vicar didn't have enough room.

"[i]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]"

Here some inanimate object has intervened, seemingly unpredictably, whereupon a series of minor and by implication excusable events have occurred - just a clip, a turn and a light clip. The cyclist, for his part was "prompted to lose his balance". Not "knocked off his bike" but "prompted", as if by some benign power of mild persuastion.

"[i]PC Stuart Cockburn told the hearing he was concerned by cars being allowed to park where the road narrows.[/i]"

I don't know about you but I couldn't give a flying fig about that. There's nothing unsafe about inanimate cars and inanimate traffic islands here, given that the driver has observed the cyclist from well before each of them reached the line of cars.

The PC chooses not to apportion blame with the driver but with the parking.

"[i]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.'[/i]"

That's as may be, and it may be perfectly fair, but to consider it relevant in this case is a clear demonstration of how reluctant the police are to put these things down to poor driving and human error.

The PC continues in a fashion that blatantly and shamelessly excuses the motorist entirely:

"[i]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.[/i]"

Every single phrase in there is toe-curlingly favourable to a motorist who clearly failed to judge the scenario in an even remotely safe manner. Despite all this apparent observation, they still collided. The PC says that the driver "decided to give him plenty of room" yet they still collided, despite his car going only "slightly to the left". If that is plenty of room then my cock is eight feet long. Objects do not collide if there is "plenty of room" between them - I think we can agree this is basic physics. What the PC says is indefensible horse manure, yet in legal terms it carries immense weight.

"[i]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.'[/i]"

The coroner has not simply returned a verdict of accidental death. He has (apparently) explicitly said that neither road user was at fault. Quite how two road users can collide fatally without either of them doing anything wrong is of course unfathomable to most of us, but Mitford agrees with the PC that the root of all trouble in this instance is a row of parked cars. He implies that the correct response to all this is to ask for some yellow paint. Not to address dangerous and negligent driving, but to apply some paint.

"[i]'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'.[/i]"

And then, despite the entire of the blame for someone's wholly unnecessary death being apportioned to the absence of two strips of paint, there's a palpable sense of casualness about the whole remedial process.

Now, if you want to get hung up on the points of what technical verdicts a coroner can return, then fine. But, let's be honest, it's irrelevant (unless a verdict of accidental death precludes certain prosecutions, in which case hell yeah it's important, and hell yeah we should be pissed off).

Here someone has died because a motorist has driven unsafely, and not one person has been found to be at fault. No-one at all. There is no trial, no conviction, no appropriate sentence. There is no comment made about why this insidious type of careless driving is so dangerous. The problem is, apparently, parked cars.

Every single aspect of this case, the way it has been dealt with, and the way in which it has been reported, is sickening in the way it demonstrates that vulnerable road users will stay vulnerable for some time, and that most people are absolutely fine with that.

And it's about time most people weren't fine with that.

And what a surprise - personal attack from cynic al based on a lack of understanding.

🙄

Why you have to be so derogatory and unpleasant to anyone who disagrees with you is beyond me.

I am confused. Please highlight where I have offended you?

As opposed to starting sentences with:

You claim to be a scientist

🙄

Pathetic.

I even started my post with the abstract by agreeing with you. Sadly this is another area in which debate is not allowed unless you happen to agree with [b]TJ FACTS[/b]

Just in case TJ etc missed the OP's post on page 2:

[i][b]Don't want to get sidetracked into a helmet debate.[/b] [/i]

Sincere apologies if that's the case TJ, please explain, as it looks entirely clear to me, and I don't consider myself stupid.

The Coroner was not looking at "guilt" but at the cause of death. The death was caused by an accident (in that I think we can assume that the driver did not intend to clip him). Accidental death is therefore the likely verdict.

If it is not the coroner's job to look at "guilt" (which I accept) then why is he allowed to comment on whose [i]fault[/i] it was?

From the article: [i]"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."[/i]

Surely that official comment has an impact on any case that may subsequently be brought and even on whether a case will be brought at all.

Good post, Bez. Kind of what we were saying at the beginning of the thread in fewer words. Until some numpties decided we didn't know what we were talking about.

Bez, I think I think it's naive of you to imply that any debate around issues other than those you consider solely relevant is a waste of time. Odd, you are usually pretty reasonable.

DO you know there will be no civil claim or criminal prosecution to follow?

Oh brilliant, another discussion that's polluted to hell by the two usual suspects arguing and whining like my two-year-old. Jesus, children, get a room and a pair of handbags.

It is not an accident - someone made an error.

Surely there has to be more education for drivers and more policeing of the highways.
On my short drive into work this morning two cars jumped a red light,one of these was when i had already stopped at the light and the other driver carried on through, and then theres the f*** wits texting.
No police prescence anywhere.
If people think they wont get caught they break the laws on the road which sadly leads to serious accidents.
Perhaps everybody who takes a driving test should have to spend a day cycling on our roads.

"[i]I think I think it's naive of you to imply that any debate around issues other than those you consider solely relevant is a waste of time.[/i]"

Maybe. I just think the point here is not really the coroner's verdict in terms of the label. It's the comments made by the inquest, including those made by the coroner in delivering that verdict, and the fact that the coroner's process appears to have served to oil the wheels of a cultural view that is fully tolerant of the sort of driving that kills people in this totally avoidable way.

"[i]DO you know there will be no civil claim or criminal prosecution to follow? [/i]"

I don't, no, I was leaping to conclusions to be fair. If someone can enlighten us as to the process and how the inquest would influence it then it would be good. I'm no legalician.

very well said Bez [edit: previous post, not the one above, which is still fine]

is it possible we could keep this on topic rather than turning into a 'debate' on helmets. I've put 'debate' in '' as TJ is involved.

[s]Bez, this is kind of what I've been implying all along, seems relevant to me, but you won't engage? Mu point is about understanding the system that exists. Just saying "it's rubbish" won't change things IMO...

cynic-al - Member
Bez, I think I think it's naive of you to imply that any debate around issues other than those you consider solely relevant is a waste of time. Odd, you are usually pretty reasonable.

DO you know there will be no civil claim or criminal prosecution to follow?

Seen your post above. Fair enough - both points relevant. Normal service resumed!

TBF I've not read the entire thread but I don't think TJ started the efficicay of helmets argument here.

EDIT, oh dear, it seems he did.

"[i]Bez, this is kind of what I've been implying all along, seems relevant to me, but you won't engage? Mu point is about understanding the system that exists. Just saying "it's rubbish" won't change things IMO...[/i]"

I concur, though I suspect the system is not the majority of the problem. This case, it seems to me, demonstrates not that the system is rotten but that the people who play key roles in its process suffer from the endemic view that you can do what you like in a car.

I'll just point out it was not me who started on about helmets, I corrected an erroneous statement made by Zokes and put

Irrelevant to the point in question here tho which is that someone was knocked off their bike by a car and died

With an inquest veredict of Accidental death it will be almost impossible to get either a civil claim or a criminal prosecution. the coroner could have recorded unlawfull killing which would have allowed both.

what about your post here TJ?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-dead-another-ruling-of-accidental-death/page/4#post-3721756

I'd still like to know about my misunderstanding please.

If someone can enlighten us as to the process and how the inquest would influence it then it would be good.

[url= http://www.surreycoroner.info/workofcoroners.html#whatabout ]Coroners - How they work[/url]

I can't help but wonder if those who seem to think we shouldn't be discussing this issue, or aren't qualified to do so, feel the same level of disgust (and fear?) about how unprotected we are as cyclists on the roads. Or do they feel all is fine and dandy and all motorists are taking just the right amount of care, and that we don't need to be protected from the likes of Mr. Strong?

Ah sorry the thread is now about who can argue the best out of TJ and cynic-al. I'll leave you to it.

Bez - I think the issue is that people can sympathise with the car driver " there but for the grace of god go I" but not with the cyclist as they have no experience of cycling but they do have of driving

Dez - I ain't answering him - I accept your point about this and willnot sidetrack the debate

Dez I don't think anyone is happy with the state of affairs, but some want to look into the coroners inquests etc and see what the verdict really means rather than just say "isn't this awful".

TandemJeremy - Member

I'll just point out it was not me who started on about helmets

OH FFS!!! I think it's better for all concerned if I just go back to seeing:

TandemJeremy - Member

TandemJeremy said something stupid.

Which is a pity, seeing as quite frequently he doesn't, but it saves these sorts of thread degenerations if I leave the filter there.

I only asked a question, easy to give an answer, rather than ignore!

Cheers for the Coroners link thegreatape.

From that article:

Where a person has been charged with .. causing death by reckless driving .. the inquest is postponed until the person's trial is over.

So it looks like there are definitely no official charges being brought. Though there may still be a civil case if his family or friends have the money, time and energy to pursue one.

Also:

WILL THE INQUEST DECIDE WHO IS TO BLAME?

11. No. An inquest is not a trial. It is an inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do, and there are no speeches. However, the Coroner does have the power to investigate not just the main cause of death, but also "any acts or omissions which directly led to the cause of death".

If it is not his job to "blame anyone" then why is it his job to say that no one caused the accident?

And how is it that attempting to pass someone at a pinch point and junction (in breach of multiple highway code rules), colliding with the traffic island then losing control of the vehicle do not seem to be considered [i]"acts or omissions which directly led to the cause of death"[/i]?

What can I do?

Its clear people do not want to go over old ground about helmets which is reasonable, its clear they do not want to see me bicker with people. How do I respond to the two posts above by zokes and cynic al? dammed if I do and dammed if I don't. 🙁

Easy TJ, just answer or fess up! I won't go on if you do.

The death was caused by an accident (in that I think we can assume that the driver did not intend to clip him). Accidental death is therefore the likely verdict.

So if I go into town and wave my shotgun around, randomly firing it, given that I didn't intend to kill anybody, if somebody just happens to get in the way of one of my shots would accidental death also be the likely verdict?

How do I respond to the two posts above by zokes and cynic al? dammed if I do and dammed if I don't.

Ignore them - just like everybody else on this thread is. The only people who care if you don't respond are you, zokes and cynic-al - can you live with that?

TJ: just try to rise above their pointless baiting.