[Closed] "accidental death"

i thought there was no such thing as an accident according to road law it's always somebodys fault

I suppose it depends on if it was a cyclist that was killed or not. CPS=no case to answer (not even careless driving) and inquest says accidental death. I cant tell you how angry this makes me.

Nothing new there - if you want to kill somebody and get away with it, use a car. Though presumably you have a specific incident in mind, care to provide a link?

I thought the opposite! I thought if you were driving along a twisty dark lane in the rain/dark and hit a cyclist with no lights/reflective gear, you could be considered 'at fault' (not talking about the sentence) as you should be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Because if you can't stop for a cyclist you wouldn't be able to stop for a walker either, and you wouldn't expect them to have lights.

[url= http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_questions_cps_decision ]null[/url]
no inquest link it only happend yesterday.

Presumably this is all about evidence; the CPS has reviewed what evidence is available and determined that there is not enough to convince a jury 'beyond reasonable doubt' that someone is responsible for the death of the cyclist involved.

As I wasn't there at the time I can't comment on what happened. Can you?

Tells us nothing of the incident or what happened.

A van over took a car on a straight dual carridgeway road, pulled in and ploughed into the back of two cyclists killing my friend and that isnt considered careless but is considered an accident. No link to the inquest findings, I'm going on what I was told by a friend who went.
To say that no one is responsible is beyond belief and just goes to show how little protection by law cyclists have and how little regard we are held in by lawmakers.

Like drac says, there's not enough information to draw any conclusions. For all we know the cyclist might have veered in the vans path. I've certainly done dodgy stuff in the past sprinting against friends.

Recently there has been a change in the law to make prosecutions more likely in this sort of case and this has been successful in general - people are getting Jail sentences for killing on the road. In this specific case - I cannot comment

So many variables. Any link to a story? The rider could have momentarily swerved right slightly? guessing here though.

Most likely no independent witnesses and no objective evidence - hence no prosecution

The rider could have momentarily swerved right slightly?

Again, we're making assumptions without any evidence but… When overtaking a cyclist on a dual carriageway, the vehicle should be in the right-hand lane. It's very unlikely that a cyclist would swerve that far to the right.

We had a couple of similar cases near here recently:

A truck overtook a 15-year-old lad on a single carriageway road and the lad apparently swerved in front of the truck. The lad was wearing an iPod so didn't hear the truck, but if the truck had left as much room as he should it should be virtually impossible. Accidental death, apparently.

An old lady drove into the back of two very experienced cyclists 15 miles or so north on the same road. She killed one and the other was seriously injured. No prosecution.

That is a ****ing joke.

That bit of road is an accident waiting to happen for cyclists. I have to cross it on a ride, and TBH it scares the crap out of me every time. Cars just seem to treat it like a race track.

This is exactly why I try to keep off the main roads and have virtually stopped riding in the dark. I don't want my wife to be left alone all because the law does not provide even the slightest deterrant.

If it wasn't an accident the only other option is someone deliberately ran over 2 cyclists. That strikes me as unlikely.

I wouldn't expect to encounter cyclists on a dual carriageway, and I certainly wouldn't ride on them. I'd be surprised not to die to be honest.

If it wasn't an accident the only other option is someone deliberately ran over 2 cyclists. That strikes me as unlikely.

In an accident, someone can still be at fault.

If I leave a pan of hot water on a worktop with the handle hanging over the edge and my daughter pulls it on top of herself, that's an accident but is still my fault even though I didn't deliberately scald her.

If I'm riding my bike while texting and ride in front of a car without seeing it, it's an accident but is still my fault even though I didn't do it deliberately.

I wouldn't expect to encounter cyclists on a dual carriageway, and I certainly wouldn't ride on them. I'd be surprised not to die to be honest.

The only road where you shouldn't expect to encounter a cyclist is a motorway. People ride on dual carriageways all the time and they should expect to be able to do so without dying, whatever you think.

The only road where you shouldn't expect to encounter a cyclist is a motorway. People ride on dual carriageways all the time and they should expect to be able to do so without dying, whatever you think.

Back to your hot water analogy. Cycling on dual carriageways is far worse. Obviously it's you who's taking the risk and you're not putting someone else at risk but it's an accident is waiting to happen.

anagallis_arvensis, I didn't read your subsequent post about your friends death. I'd of kept my big mouth shut if I had.

If drivers were paying proper attention and driving correctly, it would be almost 100% safe to cycle on a dual carriageway.

It should be safer than cycling on a single carriageway, as there's no reason why vehicles overtaking the cyclist shouldn't be in the other lane, there are less distractions and potential hazards such as farm gates and side roads and they generally don't have blind bends with oncoming traffic.

The only way a cyclist could be killed on a dual carriageway, if every driver was driving as they should and was paying proper attention, would be to suddenly swerve into the other lane.

If drivers were paying proper attention and driving correctly, it would be almost 100% safe to cycle on a dual carriageway.

Precisely Miketually. I drive to work on a dual carriageway, and always swap lanes entirely to pass cyclists. The amount of drivers who still only give the cyclist a foot or two of clearance when there is a whole empty lane to move in to gives me the 4rsehole.

Sheer laziness, and utter contempt for other road users.

Almost all accidents are because someone is driving at a speed where they cannot stop within their sightline.

Everytime someone gets injured on a section of road, the speed limit should be dropped by 10mph, and the sign should make it clear that it is because of accidents. Eventually really bad spots would be at 10mph.

Think of how much money this would save the authorities, no need to improve roads, just cut the speed limit. The only cost would be the sacrifice of a few cyclists and nobody cares about them anyway, or there would be prosecutions and jail sentences for random killing.

I feel your pain, a_a, and agree largely with your perspective. Assuming all is as it seems from that article (which isn't necessarily the case unfortunately, given the selective way news reports are put together), then it would indeed appear that the cyclist was not at all at fault and the driver was completely at fault. In a sane world he would be up for causing death by dangerous driving, not just careless driving (in a really sane world in which a car was considered just as much a deadly weapon as a gun he'd be up on a manslaughter charge). I'd have thought there was plenty of evidence available - the issue as always is that it is expected that juries will think "that could have been me driving", since the accepted standard of driving is so low.

The CPS spokesman is basically saying that cyclists shouldn't expect any protection from the law at all - drivers can kill them at will.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, epicyclo. "Accidents" are caused because people aren't paying proper attention, not down to the speed they're going. The number of accidents actually caused because people can't stop within their sightline where the accident does involve them running into something they didn't see early enough to stop is a very small proportion (I should point out that just to buck the stats my biggest accident was down to this cause, though I was doing <30mph at the time!) All the stats show that speed really isn't the biggest issue, however the government might like to distort the stats to suggest it is. This particular incident could have quite easily been avoided without the driver slowing down at all.

Accidents can happen without it being purely one persons fault, which is why they're called accidents.

You seem to be suggesting something along the lines of women who wear short skirts and make up are equally at fault for being raped as their attacker is.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, epicyclo. "Accidents" are caused because people aren't paying proper attention, not down to the speed they're going.

You seem to be suggesting something along the lines of women who wear short skirts and make up are equally at fault for being raped as their attacker is.

The road is a hostile environment. The fact that it's hostile because people are inept or careless doesn't matter. We all know the risks.

This is exactly why I try to keep off the main roads and have virtually stopped riding in the dark.

I choose my routes carefully when riding at night, with this in mind. It still worries me tho.

The town centre is a hostile environment. The fact that it's a hostile environment because people are rapists doesn't matter. We all know the risks.

The road is a hostile environment. The fact that it's hostile because people are inept or careless doesn't matter. We all know the risks.

So, is the answer to stop all cyclists from riding on the road, or to do something to make drivers drive more carefully?

So, is the answer to stop all cyclists from riding on the road, or to do something to make drivers drive more carefully?

Lets face it, it is not safe to let cycles and cars mix. Either you let people take the risk if they want to and accept that there will be casualties or you ban cycles from the road and make them use cycle-paths.

Lets face it, it is not safe to let cycles and cars mix. Either you let people take the risk if they want to and accept that there will be casualties or you ban cycles from the road and make them use cycle-paths.

Segregated cycle facilities are the answer, but cars and bikes have to mix at some point as it's not practical to avoid it entirely. If we added a grand onto all bands of "car tax", there would be plenty of cash to spend on better cycle facilities.

I used to ride on a dual carriageway daily, one used by both wagons and cars, just around rush hour. It was never a problem during the day, or even dusk with lights - cars and wagons GENERALLY gave about 5-6ft clearance and rarely got upset with having cyclists there. And due to the airflow I used to get there a lot faster than the cycle path! But at night I'd never have ridden the road, as a driver at 70 its fairly hard to see a lot of bike lights (admittedly thats getting better these days) and a lot of cyclists are not wearing bright gear and prove very hard to see. If I had to I'd make sure I was lit up like a christmas tree.

Either way, without more info its impossible to make a judgement - both cyclists and drivers make stupid mistakes. To say you should always be able to stop for any eventuality is utterly stupid, its impossible to achieve, impossible to enforce and helps no-one.

Segregated cycling is not an answer IMO, this just leads to people assuming bikes should never be on the road. It's hard to take but sometimes bad things happen, by accident, and its hard to judge one way or other without an independant witness. I certainly wouldnt want to be held responsible for killing someone if it wasnt my fault but I had no witness to prove it.

[i]If we added a grand onto all bands of "car tax", there would be plenty of cash to spend on better cycle facilities. [/i]

Good luck with that one when you become PM

If we added a grand onto all bands of "car tax", there would be plenty of cash to spend on better cycle facilities.

I don't know how many cyclists get killed a year. Presumably it's low enough for it not to be cost effective to make significant changes.

It's also low enough that there's no point avoiding certain types of road to make you safer 🙂

Lets face it, it is not safe to let cycles and cars mix.

In any case, whilst there are far too many incidents like this, it's not exactly carnage out there. Most of us are far more likely to be killed whilst in a car rather than whilst on a bike.

Why should cyclists give up the right to ride on the road just becuase driving standards are so low.
Its not safe to let lorries and cars mix so should we segregate them as well? what about pedestrians and those in wheelchairs or with buggies?

That's far from being inherently the case. The only issue is the incompetence of drivers, which seems to be simply accepted. What we need to be challenging is this acceptance.

Exactly.

It's also low enough that there's no point avoiding certain types of road to make you safer

But yes, I accept I may not evaluate the risk accurately. I ride motorbikes which I feel are massively safer than bicycles, but statistically don't appear to be.

I ride motorbikes which I feel are massively safer than bicycles, but statistically don't appear to be.

Passenger death rates by mode of transport (Deaths per billion passenger km, 2002):

Motorcycle - 111.3
Walk - 44.8
Bicycle - 29.5
Car - 2.8
Van - 1.0

Cycling is safer than walking...

In which case it's definitely not worth spending money on cycle safety*

*Although deaths per km is pretty meaningless, deaths per hour or deaths per journey would better reflect the risk.

Although deaths per km is pretty meaningless, deaths per hour or deaths per journey would better reflect the risk

Why?

Risk is interesting. People think someone riding 2 miles to work is taking a big risk, but someone driving 20 miles to work is not.

There needs to be a big change in attitudes towards cyclists in this country. I've noticed when cycling in France and Spain that drivers consistently give you more room when passing - compare with over here, where you can be pretty much guarantee that someone will come within inches of taking you out on a daily basis.

One reason why in most of continental Europe cyclists get more consideration is that in law the car driver is assumed to be at fault in any collision with a bike unless they can prove otherwise. this would help greatly IMO.

Couldn't agree more if I'd written that myself, TJ 😉 I thought there was some proposal to bring such a law in - greeted of course with much wailing from the DM readers who seemed to think they'd be blamed even if the cyclist was at fault. IMHO such a law shifts the position to allocating blame in the most likely place by default.

It isn't just because of the law. it is also an attitude. Where I ride some drivers will beep and cheer you on. Almost all will not overtake on a blind bend but will wait for a safe place to clear. Some have even waited behind until they have been waved on.

[i]Although deaths per km is pretty meaningless, deaths per hour or deaths per journey would better reflect the risk
Why?[/i]
Because comparing risk by distance when objects don't travel similar distances gives skewed results. Let's say I live 100K from work. If I drive I have a 0.00000028 chance of dying, 0.00000295 for cycling and 0.00000448 for walking. So cycling's would appear to be 1.5 times safer than walking. But in reality people don't walk 100K to work or cycle 100K to work, they choose a different form of transport. Let's say the average uk commute is 30 minutes, you average 60Kmh in the car 20kmh on the bike and 5Kmh walking. So the distances travelled are 30km, 10Km and 2.5Km respectively. The death rates for the journeys are 0.000000084, 0.000000295, 0.000000112.
So taking into account the speeds people move at and the time they're exposed to the risk you'll see that cycling is 2.6 times more dangerous than walking, rather than the 1.5 times safer the base line statistics would suggest.
A moment's thought will tell you that it's patently absurd that walking is more dangerous than cycling. Try thinking of all the times that friends and work colleagues have regaled about all the near misses they've had walking into work rather than cycling.

Very true Roper, we got cheered up the hills too. There seems to be less resentment of cyclists and I'm not sure that changing the law can do much about this.

I'm saddened to read comments like 5thElefant's about cyclists not having any place on certain roads. It's a circular argument (because the fewer people who cycle, the less aware car drivers are of cyclists) and doesn't seem to acknowledge that for a lot of people cycling is a practical mode of transport as well as a hobby.

Why?

Risk is interesting. People think someone riding 2 miles to work is taking a big risk, but someone driving 20 miles to work is not.

Have a look at the Space Shuttles safety record. It's deaths pre km travelled make it the safest vehicle in the world.

A moment's thought will tell you that it's patently absurd that walking is more dangerous than cycling. Try thinking of all the times that friends and work colleagues have regaled about all the near misses they've had walking into work rather than cycling.

In reality, without a huge amount of further analysis, trying to compare the risk of a particular journey by different means of transport using these stats is spurious. That's the problem with stats - they include all sorts of stuff which isn't relevant to your situation, like children crossing the road, inexperienced cyclists, and people doing very low cycle mileage but most of that in risky situations.

Good point, 5thelephant - I suggest commuting by space shuttle.

I'm saddened to read comments like 5thElefant's about cyclists not having any place on certain roads. It's a circular argument (because the fewer people who cycle, the less aware car drivers are of cyclists) and doesn't seem to acknowledge that for a lot of people cycling is a practical mode of transport as well as a hobby.

I do both, but generally neither works very well as transport.

That's a pretty inane comment. Has it dawned on you that what doesn't work for you might work very well for other people? 😉

I didn't say that

So what did this mean?

Lets face it, it is not safe to let cycles and cars mix.
...or you ban cycles from the road and make them use cycle-paths.

[i]I didn't say that, but you would be correct to assume I don't accept cycling as a practical mode of transport. Neither is the motorcycle. I do both, but generally neither works very well as transport. [/i]
It's a far more practical form of transport for my daily commute than a car, no queues, no hunting for a parking space, no walking miles (well a 1/4 mile) from the parking space to the office. Obviously your milage may vary though.

So what did this mean?

Lets face it, it is not safe to let cycles and cars mix.
...or you ban cycles from the road and make them use cycle-paths.

That's very different to "cyclists not having any place on certain roads".

Don't forget the context, I was asked 'what my solution would be'. I offered one, but I don't think there needs to be a solution.

If you're willing to take the risk then I'm not going to tell you otherwise.

I'll just chip in - I might not use a bike much as transport, but it works just fine when I do. The idea that cycling isn't a practical mode of transport would be hilarious were it not coming from a cyclist who appears to be clueless.

I use my bike as a mode of transport. It saves on us needing a second car. I even use it to pick up my daughters and get some shopping so how is it not practible?

Obviously your milage may vary though.

Deliberate or accidental comedy?

Unfortunately here we run into one of the problems with democracy. I think it would be very hard to find anyone who does not accept that driving standards are not as good as they might be - but unfortunately it would be electoral suicide for any government to attempt to improve driving standards for car drivers. It has been done for motorcycles thru stricter licensing and testing - but for cars - no way jose.

If I ruled the country then mandatory retesting every five yrs would be introduced along with a significantly tougher driving test.

Many people use bikes for transport. In fact, I'd bet more miles are ridden for practical purposes than for pleasure.

I'll just chip in - I might not use a bike much as transport, but it works just fine when I do. The idea that cycling isn't a practical mode of transport would be hilarious were it not coming from a cyclist who appears to be clueless.

There isn't a single journey I do where I could use a cycle.

Either the places where you work, shop and send your kids to school are 50 miles from where you live, or you're talking out of your arse. 😉

I don't own a car - my bike is used for practical transport most days

Either the places where you work, shop and send your kids to school are 50 miles from where you live, or you're talking out of your arse

My time is valuable to me, if I could cycle quicker than drive I'd cycle. I did a 220 mile round trip commute to London for 9 months. I used a motorbike, which although a crap form of transport save me 4 hours a day.

I live in the country. I can't think how I could do any journey quicker by bicycle, and their can be no other justification to use one (for me, although it may be convenient to double up transport and exercise for some).

Lets not beat around the bush with statistics...Most car/van/lorry drivers dont give a flying f*** for the cyclist.Unless they cycle themself. Nor do the grovelment ..(government) care about road users unless you pay tax. Wether its for a race licence or through the club fees.
I have also had a few bumps with veichles .Not my fault...Fing drivers..ACCIDENT MY ARSE. They see you but dont care.. Neeed i go on..

NO ! my darkside has gone to the forest..forever !!

There isn't a single journey I do where I could use a cycle.

If you live in the middle of some dale somewhere, with a ten mile trip to get to anywhere, that may be true. Most people do not, so saying that cycling is not generally a useful form of transport is a bit of a leap.

In the town where I live, 34% of trips within the town could be made by bike instead of by car. These are trips which are less than two miles in length, where there is no heavy object to carry, where the person making the trip owns a bike and they are healthy enough to ride it.

Obviously, your opinion might be more relevant than a fairly large study carried out by a respected organisation… In that case, you can rule out the bicycle as a practical means of transport.

I can't think how I could do any journey quicker by bicycle, and their can be no other justification to use one

I think you are a) wasting yours and your family's money, and b) [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/morning-chorus-commute-content ]missing out on some of the finer things in life[/url].

If you live in the middle of some dale somewhere, with a ten mile trip to get to anywhere, that may be true. Most people do not, so saying that cycling is not generally a useful form of transport is a bit of a leap.

I can see better alternatives in every scenario. But, as always, if you want to, go for it. But accept the risk if you do.

I think you are a) wasting yours and your family's money, and b) missing out on some of the finer things in life.

Forgot to add, c) You're currently living your life in a way that may well be unimaginable in a few years's time. Along with a lot of the rest of the Western world. I'm sure you'll be able to adapt though, you sound like an open-minded sort of bloke. 😉

Cool. I'm looking forward to nuclear rocket boots.

[i]Cool. I'm looking forward to nuclear rocket boots.[/i]

You'll get glow in the dark ankles, mind 🙂

And to be fair, Mr_A, if 5thElefant works from home and he gets his shopping delivered (so do I, BTW; it's more environmentally friendly than driving, and I'm not cycling to my local shopping emporium for reasons I hope are clear 🙂 then how is what he's doing less sustainable than the lifestyles of you or I?

The road is a hostile environment. The fact that it's hostile because people are inept or careless doesn't matter. We all know the risks.

5thElefant - whether cycling is a viable or desirable means of transport for you or not is entirely your free choice, but comments like that are just astonishing. "The fact that it's hostile because people are inept or careless doesn't matter." Of course it matters! That's the whole point! Driving a car is an activity by which we have the potential to kill people, whether they be on bikes, on foot or in other cars. We have a pretty damn sombre responsibility [b]not[/b] to be be inept or careless. We have to undergo tuition and testing, observe a raft of strict laws and pay for a license and insurance on a vehicle that has been tested to meet a minimum standard of road worthiness. All of that should serve as a bit of a hint that the thing we all undertake when we get behind the wheel is something we need to take pretty sodding seriously! Yet the roads are a hostile place because driving standards and attitudes (and i don't just mean towards cyclists) are at something close to an all time low in this country right now. And that matters.

Fine, you may not give a sh!t about cycling as transport, but a lot of people do and they have a right to expect to be able to do so without dying at the hands of careless or inept drivers. "They knew the risks" is not a good enough answer. The point of society is that it puts structures in place to enable people to coexist safely and peacefully without one group being left to the metaphorical wolves. "He should have known the risks" from an offending driver is about as valid a justification as "his insurance'll pay for it" from a burglar. And before you tell me that's no comparison because the drivers actions weren't malicious, that [b]doesn't[/b] matter; vaguely good intentions don't excuse dangerous negligence and, however it comes about, ending someones life is a damn sight more serious than relieving them of their plasma screen TV.

One reason why in most of continental Europe cyclists get more consideration

Not in France then...

Well Barney, the sustainability thing is just one issue as far as I'm concerned - it's one of many reasons to cycle, along with costing less, getting you fitter and being able to stop off at the pub en route. 🙂

But if we're talking about the sustainability of a lifestyle that depends on a finite amount of compressed dead sea creatures for nearly all its energy, that's a no-brainer. I'm not trying to do a holier-than-thou thing here, I quite like the trappings of modern life. But it would be nice to think that we could at least eke our resources out for a few more years and ease the transition a bit, without having to dynamite Antarctica or the like. 😉

As for not being able to cycle to the shops, pshaw. Just because you live somewhere that, in geological terms, is slightly pimply. 😉

trailbreak-martin...

How many inept drivers are there? 10 million? How many kill cyclists? One in 10,000?

How do you get people to not take a 1 in 10,000 risk (or whatever it might be).

You can't. That's the environment. That's the risk. You can take revenge against people making mistakes but it won't change anything.

5thElefant - you said "I don't accept cycling as a practical mode of transport." The context of the quote you were replying to makes it clear that you didn't consider it practical for anybody, not just you. Are you retreating from that position?