# Curious coroner's remarks.



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

“Had they [the breaches of the Highway Code] not occurred it could well have meant that the collision would not have occurred,” said Mr Brunton.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...list-inquest-hears-169828#zaHTb0LSS3GVvM2K.99

What?


----------



## BigCoops (6 May 2015)

Meanwhile, the elephant in the room slips silently away...

"He also had to wait in an ambulance outside Bronglais Hospital for 50 minutes, due to the A&E department being full"

Now is it me, or is it 'common' sense that a head injury (in this case a severe one) would take absolute priority on arriving at A&E?

As far as the coroners remarks go, I wonder if the same comment would have been made had the poor man been struck by a car travelling at 30mph. I'd suggest not.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

BigCoops said:


> As far as the coroners remarks go, I wonder if the same comment would have been made had the poor man been struck by a car travelling at 30mph. I'd suggest not.



And you'd be right:

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mared-elfyn-teacher-lost-control-7056422

Not a word about the speed, not a word about "breaches of the Highway Code". How curious.


----------



## Pale Rider (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> And you'd be right:
> 
> http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mared-elfyn-teacher-lost-control-7056422
> 
> Not a word about the speed, not a word about "breaches of the Highway Code". How curious.



Not curious and not relevant.

In that case, the deceased teacher lost control of the car she was driving and collided with a blameless driver coming the other way.

Very different to a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian, who later died from injuries sustained in the collision.

Good result for the cyclist, he has got away with the killing - no criminal charges - just a shot across the bows from the coroner.

The coroner's remarks seem reasonable to me, 25mph in the rain, in the dark, on a poorly lit narrow lane will be seen by many as reckless riding.


----------



## BikeLiker (6 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The coroner's remarks seem reasonable to me, 25mph in the rain, in the dark, on a poorly lit narrow lane will be seen by many as reckless riding.



Don't agree. A cycle can outbrake a car, it has about 10% of the mass of a car and therefore 10% of the kinetic energy, so why should 25 mph be considered excessive speed? I'd love to know what the "breaches" of the HC were; why have the police not charged the rider? Because no offence was committed?. Sounds like typical bikeism mentality to me, from someone raised in an era when cycling was the transport option for the impoverished whose rights could be overlooked..


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

“Had they [the breaches of the Highway Code] not occurred it could well have meant that the collision would not have occurred,” said Mr Brunton.

I would have thought that maybe the words in brackets were inserted by the reporter, except Brunton goes on to say:

Summing up the evidence and recording a verdict of misadventure, Mr Brunton said: “I have never encountered a case like this before.

“This case highlights the dangers of bikes riding at high speed.”


----------



## pauldavid (6 May 2015)

BikeLiker said:


> Don't agree. A cycle can outbrake a car, it has about 10% of the mass of a car and therefore 10% of the kinetic energy, so why should 25 mph be considered excessive speed? I'd love to know what the "breaches" of the HC were; why have the police not charged the rider? Because no offence was committed?. Sounds like typical bikeism mentality to me, from someone raised in an era when cycling was the transport option for the impoverished whose rights could be overlooked..



Or maybe they had more information on the incident than you and less of a chip on their shoulder and a feeling of being hard done to?


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

pauldavid said:


> Or maybe they had more information on the incident than you and less of a chip on their shoulder and a feeling of being hard done to?



What breaches of the HC took place please Paul?


----------



## BikeLiker (6 May 2015)

pauldavid said:


> Or maybe they had more information on the incident than you and less of a chip on their shoulder and a feeling of being hard done to?


Why would I feel hard done to? I cycle, drive and motorcycle roughly equal distances per annum so have no axe to grind for any particular group of road users. Part of the role of a judge / coroner is to present their summation coherently. Here, that particular coroner has failed regardless of how much information he was privy to.


----------



## winjim (6 May 2015)

Definitely rule 60 (a criminal offence?), arguably rule 68.


----------



## Kestevan (6 May 2015)

From the article quoted the only section I can see which mentions a possible breach of the HC is the following:
"The inquest heard that Mr Eakins turned his headlight off when its battery ran down, but did have a bright and fully working headtorch on."
I'd guess that the lack of a lamp fitted to the bike would count as a breach in letter if not in spirit (given the presence of a headtorch).

Although the following does indicate that the coroner at least though that the requirement to be able to stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear may not have been adhered to:
"Coroner Peter Brunton found that the poor street lighting and excessive speed for the circumstances caused the collision."

Having said that, I think it unlikely that any comment would have been passed if the guy had been killed by a car driver in similar circumstances....or for example in bright sunlight......


----------



## pauldavid (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> What breaches of the HC took place please Paul?



I don't know Glenn, and neither do you because neither of us attended court.

if this had been a car with one blown headlight bulb (the cyclists front light was off) that had hit a cyclist you'd have started a thread screaming that the driver got away with murder. The cyclist was travelling to fast to be able to stop or avoid an object given the amount of light available, collided with and killed a man.

Stop trying to find a way to make the situation look like a hardship for cyclists and have a little respect for the deceased pedestrian.

Tit


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

pauldavid said:


> I don't know Glenn, and neither do you because neither of us attended court.
> 
> if this had been a car with one blown headlight bulb (the cyclists front light was off) that had hit a cyclist you'd have started a thread screaming that the driver got away with murder.



Nope. Try again.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

pauldavid said:


> Stop trying to find a way to make the situation look like a hardship for cyclists



When did I do that? There's no charges. No hardship at all, read the article.


----------



## pauldavid (6 May 2015)

First class full weight sanctimonious daffodil


----------



## Steve Malkin (6 May 2015)

BikeLiker said:


> Don't agree. A cycle can outbrake a car,



Is that really true? 
Maybe I'm just a crap cyclist, but I'm pretty sure I could stop a lot faster in my car if I was travelling down a soaking wet hill at 25mph than I could on my bike.
4 big tyres and 4 big hydraulic disks backed up by ABS makes stomping on the pedal in the car a stress free affair, but if I hauled on the bicycle brakes in those circumstances i'd probably end up sliding down the hill on my arse.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

pauldavid said:


> First class full weight sanctimonious daffodil



DON'T attack me for stuff I haven't said. If I thought it was an "attack on cyclists" I'd have said so,. I merely said it's curious. Calm down.


----------



## pauldavid (6 May 2015)

BikeLiker said:


> Why would I feel hard done to? I cycle, drive and motorcycle roughly equal distances per annum so have no axe to grind for any particular group of road users. Part of the role of a judge / coroner is to present their summation coherently. Here, that particular coroner has failed regardless of how much information he was privy to.



But we've only seen the couple of lines from his summation that the reporter decided to share.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

winjim said:


> Definitely rule 60 (a criminal offence?), arguably rule 68.



It's possible that since the headlight was described as "very bright" the cops considered the lack of a light that's actually fixed to the bike irrelevant. It's an anomaly that he could have had a terrible, but legal, front light that would have been much less effective at lighting the road ahead. 

To me the main point is I've never heard of a motorist travelling well below the speed limit be criticised when a ped has died in similar circumstances.


----------



## Panter (6 May 2015)

Steve Malkin said:


> Is that really true?
> Maybe I'm just a crap cyclist, but I'm pretty sure I could stop a lot faster in my car if I was travelling down a soaking wet hill at 25mph than I could on my bike.
> 4 big tyres and 4 big hydraulic disks backed up by ABS makes stomping on the pedal in the car a stress free affair, but if I hauled on the bicycle brakes in those circumstances i'd probably end up sliding down the hill on my arse.



+1. My car stops in an incredibly short distance, far shorter than I could, even on a hydraulically braked MTB on slicks. Especially in the wet.


----------



## Markymark (6 May 2015)

Everybody on the road should travel at a speed that they can stop within the distance they can see. I do not know if this was the case with the cyclist.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Everybody in the road should travel at a speed that they can stop within the distance they can see. I do not know if this was the case with the cyclist.



Precisely. Under PL the cyclist would be presumed at fault, I'm completely happy with that, which is why paul's garbage is so annoying.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3681012, member: 9609"]I tried the brake test thing a few years back, from 30mph slightly downhill my van stopped within its own length.[/QUOTE]

Doubt that very much, your thinking distance is one foot per 1mph.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Or his van's sixty-three feet long?


----------



## Drago (6 May 2015)

The rider had a moral duty to ride at a speed that would allow him to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. He failed to do so. The coroner was right to criticise the rider for failing to observe a code of practice that may well have prevented this death.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Drago said:


> The coroner was right to criticise the rider for failing to observe a code of practice that may well have prevented this death.



Do you think that a coroner has failed in their duty if they neglect to make the same remarks following every road fatality?


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3681138, member: 9609"]Think that table was devised in the 1960s - modern brakes and tyres have much improved .[/QUOTE]

Human reactions are just as bad, sadly. You can't stop a van within it's length at 30mph.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Like the man in the orthopaedic shoes, I stand to be corrected, but that doesn't sound right to me.


----------



## BigCoops (6 May 2015)

Riding/driving at a speed enabling the rider to stop in order to avoid unexpected obstacles...

And in the event of step out? Say 6 feet in front of you? I'd suggest the only safe speed in this event is not riding/driving at all.

Ride/drive to the conditions is a very easy but blanket statement to make, however there are an infinite amount of variables contained within "The Conditions", not all of which are readily apparent, or can be planned for or anticipated.

It's easy to judge others when looking in from the outside, as I said in my first post (and with respect to the victim) I wonder if the huge delay in accessing A&E contributed to his sad death, or even if the concequences of the delay were explored during the inquest.


----------



## Simontm (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> “Had they [the breaches of the Highway Code] not occurred it could well have meant that the collision would not have occurred,” said Mr Brunton.
> 
> I would have thought that maybe the words in brackets were inserted by the reporter, except Brunton goes on to say:
> 
> ...



Just to clarify standard practice: The journalist reported verbatim what the coroner said- "Had they not occurred it could well have meant..."
The [...] is the clarification of what the coroner meant when he said "they".


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

That seems to me to only make sense had the coroner previously referred to breaches, but I can't see that he did.


----------



## Simontm (6 May 2015)

In 2012 Which? did a test of superminis' braking distances from 62mph to 0. Ten times using GPS for distance.
Top five: 

*1. Volkswagen Polo - 34.2m*
*2. Ford Fiesta - 34.7m
3. Skoda Fabia - 34.9m
4. Mini Cooper S Convertible - 35.7m*
*5. Volkswagen Up - 36.1m*

Bottom five:

*1. Citroën C1 - 44.1m*
*2. Toyota Aygo - 43.1m*
*3. Suzuki Alto - 42.5m*
*4. Nissan Pixo - 42.4m*
*5. Kia Picanto - 42.1m*

So even three years ago, modern braking systems outdid the 30 year old braking distances.

However...there are still cars out there that perform as badly, if not worse, than the recommended braking distances so you may avoid the issue ahead and find trouble behind. 

Personally, I think sticking to the two second rule is a good start.


----------



## PK99 (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That seems to me to only make sense had the coroner previously referred to breaches, but I can't see that he did.



the only reason you are on your high horse about this, is because a cyclist was criticised

Wind it in, prat!


----------



## Simontm (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That seems to me to only make sense had the coroner previously referred to breaches, but I can't see that he did.


I was referring to your comment: "I would have thought that maybe the words in brackets were inserted by the reporter"


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Simontm said:


> I was referring to your comment: "I would have thought that maybe the words in brackets were inserted by the reporter"



Yes, I see, but the first mention of breaches was in parenthesis. Unless I'm confused?


----------



## Simontm (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Yes, I see, but the first mention of breaches was in parenthesis. Unless I'm confused?


The coroner would have made opening remarks - which will be noted by the stenographer and on the official report. I guess, since I wasn't there, that there was an initial reference to the Highway Code and so when he mentioned "They" the reporter had to clarify what "they" was as it wasn't noted up article, well either him, editor or sub.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 May 2015)

BigCoops said:


> Riding/driving at a speed enabling the rider to stop in order to avoid unexpected obstacles...
> 
> And in the event of step out? Say 6 feet in front of you? I'd suggest the only safe speed in this event is not riding/driving at all.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm. having had the six foot step out and managed to not run over and kill the ipod idiot, it is entirely within the realms of reason to anticipate or at least consider the possibility of such things and self regulate in advance. The key is not to be so riding far in excess of anticipatory factors that last moment eventualities mean collisions become unavoidable.

In this instance I would suggest a wet, narrow road, dark by both inadequate street lighting and half of his own lighting not working & still going at 25mph did not meet even a basic risk self assessment to protect himself or anyone else from harm if something unexpected happened.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

In that case the rider could have had the most rubbish, but road legal, front light which did a far worse job of illuminating the road in front and the coroner would have not mentioned anything about breaches?


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Simontm said:


> Just to clarify standard practice: The journalist reported verbatim what the coroner said- "Had they not occurred it could well have meant..."
> The [...] is the clarification of what the coroner meant when he said "they".



You're right;



> Recording a verdict of misadventure Mr Brunton said there had been “significant breaches” of the Highway Code.
> 
> “There is no doubt that it was a substantial speed for a pushbike bearing in mind the atrocious conditions.”
> 
> ...



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/57...ding-cyclists-pensioner-death-25mph-collision


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 May 2015)

Dunno. Is it definite that the coroner is referring to the bike lights as breaches then? I've not seen that clearly reported, on reading the report I'd taken breaches as the inadequate street lighting as much as anything else I may have surmised. 

TBH I've never owned a head torch I'd be comfortable cycling at pace with, however bright a light they throw out its more of a round plate of light than a directed cone. Lumen for lumen I would trust a bike light far more readily than a head torch as my principal means of seeing far enough to go at 25mph in the dark and wet.

IME they're more suited for blundering about a campsite or woods at walking pace than riding a bike rather fast.

Also while surmising, that the rider had turned off his bike light with flat batteries would suggest some semblance of use and recognition that it was necessary in those conditions.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Dunno. Is it definite that the coroner is referring to the bike lights as breaches then?
> 
> .



By no means, the only specific references are to the street lighting, which have nothing to do with the HC, and what he describes as "excessive speed".


----------



## Simontm (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> By no means, the only specific references are to the street lighting, which have nothing to do with the HC, and what he describes as "excessive speed".


Yeah, the original report from the Cambrian Times wasn't that clear either. 

"Mr Brunton said he “should have been travelling at a reasonable speed for the conditions” and found that the the “poor street lighting and the excessive speed for the circumstances” caused the collision" 
I presume the reasonable speed/excessive speed are the breach mentions for failure to take due care of the road conditions.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 May 2015)

User said:


> The original point at discussion is the valid description of 25mph being excessive in this case versus the reluctance of coroners being prepared to criticise car drivers in similar fashion where a legal limit is not being exceeded. Glenn's point is perfectly valid.


I didn't think there was a legal limit for bikes.

Lets be fair about this though, 25mph on a bike would be decent going in broad daylight and dry roads. 

To try and conflate 25mph on a bike and in a car is a tad disingenuous


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 May 2015)

User said:


> Yes and no. Look at it from the point of view of someone crossing the road.


 ok, braking in a car at relatively low speed for that type of vehicle as opposed to braking on a bike at relatively high speed for it, and the number & size of the contact patches/chances of losing grip of the respective tyres, particularly on a wet road allied to those respective speeds per vehicle....


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 May 2015)

User said:


> Are you going to legislate a different, lower, speed limit for bicycles?


What on earth makes you think that? I've got no legislative powers have already recognised there's no speed limit for bikes, but I don't need to pretend a bike and a car are the same physical or kinetic beasts to try and bolster my opinion.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

I think the critical issue would be less the relative top speeds of the respective vehicles and more the potential for harm.


----------



## Steve Malkin (6 May 2015)

User said:


> Yes and no. Look at it from the point of view of someone crossing the road.



Rather ask yourself the question whether it would be more reckless for a car or a bicycle to be travelling at 25 mph under those circumstances.

Imagine if this incident had involved a tipper truck ploughing down a cyclist in similar circumstances. There would have been uproar on here and I don't think anybody would have been an apologist for the truck driver because he was 'only' doing 25mph and 'not breaking any laws'

It's not about what's 'legal', it's about what's sensible and showing consideration to other people on the roads. As cyclists we have to show consideration to others if we are to expect it in return.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Steve Malkin said:


> Imagine if this incident had involved a tipper truck ploughing down a cyclist in similar circumstances. There would have been uproar on here



Once again, no there wouldn't. If a driver under the speed limit hit an unlit cyclist on a narrow road then it would be tragic but I certainly wouldn't attach blame to the driver.


----------



## Steve Malkin (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Once again, no there wouldn't. If a driver under the speed limit hit an unlit cyclist on a narrow road then it would be tragic but I certainly wouldn't attach blame to the driver.



Really? - is the legal speed limit the only limiting factor in your opinion?
I think there are lots of circumstances (such as when travelling downhill on a badly lit wet road in poor visibility) when travelling at anywhere near the legal limit is totally irresponsible.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

Steve Malkin said:


> Really? - is the legal speed limit the only limiting factor in your opinion?



No. Lighting is. It's there, in my post.


----------



## fossyant (6 May 2015)

It's a where there is a blame, there is a claim issue.

25mph isnt too fast on a bike on a road, we don't know the circumstances.

I'm currently being sued by another cyclist - I was knocked off my bike in September by an unidentified car, but during the process, I was passing another cyclist, I went flying, but my bike took him down. Roll on 5 months and a solicitors letter arrives on my doorstep from the cyclist sueing me. It says I rode into the back of him at excess speed etc etc. That's not the case and I have GPS logging that says I was riding much faster a few minutes before, then slowed for some time with traffic and following the other rider - talking 23mph and down to 18-20

The whole thing is a mess, and I have BC Insurance that protects me (fortunately). The worse thing is I work with the guy's wife (like sit next to her). I can't ask how her husband is as it might affect the case. Motor Insurers wont accept my claim as the exact car can't be identified - police reports, but no CCTV. MIB is a waste of time - it won't protect you in a hit and run.

I'll add I had slowed to wait for a space to pass, I was riding outside the cycle lane (he was in it) and I waited a fair distance before tried to pass. He didn't look behind, I had. I was the only person to stay on scene and phone an ambulance despite my broke bones, the driver left, no-one stopped at all.


----------



## Wobblers (6 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3681138, member: 9609"]Think that table was devised in the 1960s - modern brakes and tyres have much improved - *seriously any modern car can stop within its own length from 30*. I would even suspect modern HGVs with cold brakes could match that table.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. According to my calculations, a car in perfect conditions will stop from 30 in 8.5 metres (26 ft). Unless you have a _very long_ car, this seems rather unlikely. (In the wet, this distance will be double.)


----------



## Wobblers (6 May 2015)

Steve Malkin said:


> Is that really true?
> Maybe I'm just a crap cyclist, but I'm pretty sure I could stop a lot faster in my car if I was travelling down a soaking wet hill at 25mph than I could on my bike.
> 4 big tyres and 4 big hydraulic disks backed up by ABS makes stomping on the pedal in the car a stress free affair, but if I hauled on the bicycle brakes in those circumstances i'd probably end up sliding down the hill on my arse.



Very true: a car can easily outbrake a bicycle simply because you'll go over the handlebars first. But this isn't really the issue, is it? Is "25 mph" really excessive? Given the choice of being struck by a car or a cyclist going at that speed, well, I'll choose the cyclist every time - because the cyclist has much less than of one twentieth of the kinetic energy, so the consequences will be far less severe.

And given the behaviour of motorists on my residential street, I'm prepared to bet that most cars would have been - and still do - travel rather faster than 25 mph. Who brings the most danger?

(This is not to excuse the cyclist - he's a twat. While the coroner is right to condemn him, why is society so reluctant to condemn motorists who do the same thing?)


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I think the critical issue would be less the relative top speeds of the respective vehicles and more the potential for harm.


In this instance the bikes potential for harm has been terribly demonstrated though.


----------



## glenn forger (6 May 2015)

You're quite right, and that's my fault for not saying "operator".


----------



## benb (7 May 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> ok, braking in a car at relatively low speed for that type of vehicle as opposed to braking on a bike at relatively high speed for it, and the number & size of the contact patches/chances of losing grip of the respective tyres, particularly on a wet road allied to those respective speeds per vehicle....



Are you seriously suggesting a bicycle travelling at 25MPH is *more* dangerous than a motor vehicle at the same speed? 

Have you heard of this thing called physics? It's quite interesting.


----------



## Steve Malkin (7 May 2015)

benb said:


> Are you seriously suggesting a bicycle travelling at 25MPH is *more* dangerous than a motor vehicle at the same speed?
> 
> Have you heard of this thing called physics? It's quite interesting.



The way I read it, he was suggesting that a car doing 25 mph was far more likely to be able to stop before ever hitting the pedestrian than a bike doing the same speed, so in that sense then yes it would be less dangerous.

As to which is more dangerous if it does actually hit you, then I don't think kinetic energy is the only factor to consider. Bicycles have lots of pointy sharp bits to impale you with in comparison to the average jelly mould car these days with their smooth rubber bumpers and gently sloping bonnets. Personally I wouldn't like to be hit by either one at 20 mph!


----------



## benb (7 May 2015)

Steve Malkin said:


> Personally I wouldn't like to be hit by either one at 20 mph!



Nor would I, but if I had to choose, I'd go for the 100kg one over the 1500kg one any day.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (7 May 2015)

benb said:


> Are you seriously suggesting a bicycle travelling at 25MPH is *more* dangerous than a motor vehicle at the same speed?
> 
> Have you heard of this thing called physics? It's quite interesting.


Not at all, simply trying to keep in perspective that a bike at that speed can and in this instance has, caused a significant injury to another person who has shortly after lost their life. It is also a reiteration of a point further up thread that the likely outcome of anchoring on hard in a car and on a bike at that speed are different.


----------



## benb (7 May 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Not at all, simply trying to keep in perspective that a bike at that speed can and in this instance has, caused a significant injury to another person who has shortly after lost their life. It is also a reiteration of a point further up thread that the likely outcome of anchoring on hard in a car and on a bike at that speed are different.



OK, apologies for misunderstanding you.


----------



## Origamist (7 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3681830, member: 9609"]@McWobble
I have found my figures, from 30mph on the bike I done two tests one 28m and the other 26m. I made one attempt in the van and had wrote down 6m (which is nearly a metere longer than the van! It wasn't the most scientific of tests, the speedometer probably wasn't very accurate (that van over read distance by 7.9% so the speedo probably did too) and I just paced out the stopping distances, so lots of room for errors!, but I do recall being suprised at how quickly the van had stopped and particularily that it had done so pretty much within its own length. I sort of suspect a decent car would perform better.[/QUOTE]

It's the overall stopping distance that is crucial - not just the braking distance. At 30mph thinking distance (just spotting a hazard) can eat up between 7m to 10m on average.


----------



## cd365 (7 May 2015)

I would have liked an explanation as to how the collision actually occurred. Did the pedestrian move into the path of the cyclist or was the cyclists line too close to the edge? With a head torch on the cyclist should have been able to see someone walking along. There are a lot of unanswered questions for me.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (7 May 2015)

Origamist said:


> It's the overall stopping distance that is crucial - not just the braking distance. At 30mph thinking distance (just spotting a hazard) can eat up between 7m to 10m on average.


But when comparing different vehicles it's irrelevant because thinking distance is vehicle agnostic. You'll add that 7-10m to whatever you are operating.


----------



## Origamist (7 May 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> But when comparing different vehicles it's irrelevant because thinking distance is vehicle agnostic. You'll add that 7-10m to whatever you are operating.


 
Not quite. Motorists can have an obstructed view of the road conditions ahead - sat navs, A-Pillars, wipers, visors, pine tree air fresheners etc which can hinder cognition, delay hazard perception and thereby extend thinking time.

On a bike, you have much better visibility - assuming you are looking where you are going and not staring at your cassette...


----------



## w00hoo_kent (7 May 2015)

Not buying that I'm afraid. Yes, a motorist eating a sandwich while chatting on the phone is going to take longer to react to something. But so is a cyclist stretching out their leg muscles after a taxing hill climb, or fiddling with their gillet zipper while fondling around for their next gel sachet.

Presuming the operator of the vehicle is doing so in a sensible and legal manner without distractions, they are going to have the same thinking time to process what is happening in front of them to the point where they decide they need to stop. How they stop depends on the vehicle, speed to start the braking process happening, efficiency of the various components at stopping the vehicle on that particular road surface. If you decide 'when I get to that pole I'll start braking', then the distance it takes to happen will be a reasonably fair example of you vehicles braking distance. Slightly exaggerated by the fact that you were probably in place to start the braking quicker than you'd normally be.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 May 2015)

A lot has been made in this thread of the coroner's remarks about breaches of the Highway Code.

I suspect he was referring to the rules for pedestrians which include walking on the right when there is no footpath.

Presumably, the cyclist clouted the pedestrian from behind.

Had the pedestrian been on the right and the cyclist on the left, even on a narrow road there would have been no collision.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35


----------



## Origamist (7 May 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Not buying that I'm afraid. Yes, a motorist eating a sandwich while chatting on the phone is going to take longer to react to something. But so is a cyclist stretching out their leg muscles after a taxing hill climb, or fiddling with their gillet zipper while fondling around for their next gel sachet.
> 
> Presuming the operator of the vehicle is doing so in a sensible and legal manner without distractions, they are going to have the same thinking time to process what is happening in front of them to the point where they decide they need to stop. How they stop depends on the vehicle, speed to start the braking process happening, efficiency of the various components at stopping the vehicle on that particular road surface. If you decide 'when I get to that pole I'll start braking', then the distance it takes to happen will be a reasonably fair example of you vehicles braking distance. Slightly exaggerated by the fact that you were probably in place to start the braking quicker than you'd normally be.


 
I listed objects that create blindspots for drivers - A-pillars in particular are known to hamper the field of view and this will indubitably affect cognition. I'm not sure what you are not "buying" into.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (7 May 2015)

Origamist said:


> I listed objects that create blindspots for drivers - A-pillars in particular are known to hamper the field of view and this will indubitably affect cognition. I'm not sure what you are not "buying" into.



I'll clear that up for you. I am not buying in to the concept that the thinking time is different depending on the vehicle you are doing the thinking in and I'm definitely not buying in to the idea that the best vehicle to be doing the thinking on is a bicycle.

You make a list predominantly of things that don't need to create blind spots for drivers and aren't necessarily in the vehicle, let alone in the sight line of the driver in an attempt to suggest that you think quicker on a bike because it is some (my take on your argument here) pure experience of transport with no possible distractions where you are at one with your environment (I agree it's probably somewhat overblown for effect) while in a car your life is full of distractions and obstructions to obscure and impede your ability to think about braking. It's pretty obvious it was spurious by the fact that when you want to continue the argument you keep the one thing that might actually hold water in an argument although while I agree A pillar design is an issue I'd say the HC is probably talking about braking in a straight line to avoid an object to the front when it talks about braking distances.

It's perverting the concept of 'thinking time' as part of the braking process. Your brain takes time to turn the fact that it has spotted something that it needs to brake for in to the process of braking and to start sending out commands to make all of that happen. It equates basically to your current speed expressed as a distance in feet. That distance isn't dependent on the vehicle that you are in at the time that you are deciding if to brake or not. If other things have been added to the vehicle, or your experience in operating it that add distractions then the time will increase, but the base time will be uniform across vehicles.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 May 2015)

User said:


> There is a fair bit of assumption there.



As a statement of the bleedin' obvious, I can't disagree.

But it does all fit.

The coroner found the pedestrian bore some responsibility for his demise by walking on the 'wrong' side of the road.

It may also go some way to explaining why the cyclist faced no criminal charges.

Thus the coroner and the police have done their jobs correctly, and have certainly not been in any way anti-cyclist.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Had the pedestrian been on the right and the cyclist on the left,



What do you mean? The pedestrian's right *is* the cyclist's left.

GC


----------



## Origamist (7 May 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I'll clear that up for you. I am not buying in to the concept that the thinking time is different depending on the vehicle you are doing the thinking in and I'm definitely not buying in to the idea that the best vehicle to be doing the thinking on is a bicycle.
> 
> *It's perverting the concept of 'thinking time' as part of the braking process.* Your brain takes time to turn the fact that it has spotted something that it needs to brake for in to the process of braking and to start sending out commands to make all of that happen. It equates basically to your current speed expressed as a distance in feet. That distance isn't dependent on the vehicle that you are in at the time that you are deciding if to brake or not. If other things have been added to the vehicle, or your experience in operating it that add distractions then the time will increase, but the base time will be uniform across vehicles.



It's not. The speed at which you react to a situation is governed initially by how quickly you can perceive and then process the "hazard". If there are blind spots affecting how quickly you can identify a hazard, your thinking/reaction time is going to increase. Motorists have a more of these blind spots by dint of the metal cage that envelops them and the objects they choose to deploy in front of the windscreen.

The rest of your points about my so called "argument" are the product of a lively imagination...


----------



## Wobblers (7 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3681830, member: 9609"]@McWobble
I have found my figures, from 30mph on the bike I done two tests one 28m and the other 26m. I made one attempt in the van and had wrote down 6m (which is nearly a metere longer than the van! It wasn't the most scientific of tests, the speedometer probably wasn't very accurate (that van over read distance by 7.9% so the speedo probably did too) and I just paced out the stopping distances, so lots of room for errors!, but I do recall being suprised at how quickly the van had stopped and particularily that it had done so pretty much within its own length. I sort of suspect a decent car would perform better.[/QUOTE]

Well, I must confess I was being just a little flippant. But there is a more serious point - that most people seriously underestimate the distance in which they can stop in. As I said, 8.5 m is under perfect conditions: new tyres and unblemished tarmac in the dry. For more typical dry conditions, you need to add 20% to this figure. And then there's another 8 metres to account for reaction time. Realistically, you're not going to be able to stop from 30 in anything less than 60 feet. And usually it'll be more. Possibly much more. Braking is limited by the cohesion between tyre and road, not brakes - unless there's something very wrong with them!


----------



## Wobblers (7 May 2015)

Steve Malkin said:


> As to which is more dangerous if it does actually hit you, then I don't think kinetic energy is the only factor to consider. Bicycles have lots of pointy sharp bits to impale you with in comparison to the average jelly mould car these days with their smooth rubber bumpers and gently sloping bonnets. Personally I wouldn't like to be hit by either one at 20 mph!



The bonnet on a car serves a purely aerodynamic and aesthetic purpose. It is very thin metal, and offers no protection from the very sharp, pointy and hot engine just beneath. Collision with those hard pointy objects is a major cause of injury in pedestrian collisions. And given the mass of the cyclist is likely similar to you, momentum transfer and thus maximum forces (which relates rather well to degree of injury) will thus be half what they would be in the case of a car.


----------



## Wobblers (7 May 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> But when comparing different vehicles it's irrelevant because thinking distance is vehicle agnostic. You'll add that 7-10m to whatever you are operating.



Untrue. It takes longer to hit the brake in a car simply because nerve impulses are slow, and take longer to reach your legs - that alone accounts for 0.25 seconds. You also have to move your foot further - especially if the cyclist is covering the brakes (which most road cyclists do anyway when they're on the hoods). In short, an alert cyclist has a very significantly shorter thinking distance than an alert motorist. The key, of course, is to be alert....


----------

