# Coroner: Lorry driver "would not have expected" to encounter cyclist he killed



## andyfraser (13 Nov 2015)

http://road.cc/content/news/171190-...not-have-expected-encounter-cyclist-he-killed

I agree with Duncan Dollimore of CTC. It may have been highly unusual to see a cyclist on that road in those conditions at that time but he wasn't breaking any laws and was allowed to be there. This seems to be yet another get out of jail free card for motorists.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (13 Nov 2015)

Shameful comments. Could have been a pedestrian walking to a broken down vehicle, the vehicle itself, a random swan, my ex.colleague who was jailed for driving the wrong way up a dual carriageway drunk.

Lots of things legal and not are unexpectedly on the roads nobody should drive in a way that endangers them or themselves.

The judge needs a lesson in the highway code


----------



## Fisheh (13 Nov 2015)

What a load of rubbish , that driver needs to be banned at least... Grrrrrrr.


----------



## steve50 (13 Nov 2015)

"He was there to be seen but the collision occurred when Mr Ashford looked but failed to see him. - 

That ^^^^^^^^^ says it all, would they have said the same had it been a motorcyclist that had been killed?
The driver "failed" to see the cyclist.................undue care and attention................"the driver did not expect to see a cyclist on the road at that time of night or in those conditions"..............so that makes it alright then???????
The driver of the lorry should be convicted and charged to fullest extent of the law, he is a professional driver and as such his driving abilities should be beyond reproach.


----------



## Drago (13 Nov 2015)

Coroner sounds like a self appointed road safety and cycling expert, the sort with no knowledge of either. May as well get Judge bleeding Rinder to run these things.


----------



## Illaveago (14 Nov 2015)

The lorry driver was lucky that it wasn't the back of another lorry that he ran into.


----------



## Brandane (14 Nov 2015)

steve50 said:


> he is a professional driver and as such his driving abilities should be beyond reproach.


Without defending the driver here; this statement is wrong.
I am the holder of an HGV class 1 (i.e. for artics) licence, and I do use it. Does that make me a professional driver? I would say no, it doesn't. All I have done is pass another test, 10 years ago, which allows me to drive a different class of vehicle. I do it part time a couple of days a week when I can be bothered (I have another source of income unconnected with driving). EVERYONE's driving should be beyond reproach, not just HGV drivers. What about other professionals who drive? Sales reps, van drivers, taxis, window cleaners....... That HGV you see out on the road could well be driven by someone who passed their test yesterday, and I can assure you that as with most things, passing the HGV test is only the beginning of a very steep learning curve! Sorry, but this "professional driver" thing just gets on my t!ts, it strikes me as an excuse for non-"professionals" to drive like nobbers.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (14 Nov 2015)

I get your point @Brandane but when you are driving your HGV class 1 unit, whether daily or ad-hoc, you are doing it for money and therefore are a professional driver. Sales reps etc could use a different mode of transport to get from appointment to appointment - its a poor analogy to class them as professional drivers rather than regular drivers with a different purpose who have to do no assessment or testing above the bare minimum that anyone else has to, to be allowed propel the 'easiest' classes of vehicle on a bog standard driving licence.

Like it or not you are in a different category and are more of a professional driver when the purpose of your being behind the wheel is the driving, as opposed to it being to get to an end point to sell or consult or meet with......

Irrespective of that, anyone controlling the progress and the steering wheel of anything has the duty of care to themself and others and needs to expect the unexpected. Neither of which were met in this instance, also the thing we cannot get away from with any semantic debates on what is a professional driver is the massively increased killing potential that is tied to massively increased size & kinetics.


----------



## Mrs M (14 Nov 2015)

Sad news, poor man.


----------



## stoatsngroats (14 Nov 2015)

I can't comment on the location, but I can comment on driving a lorry, and the factual element of the "Collision investigator Sergeant David Parrys" comments are given extra weight here (if reported correctly) are the issue for the coroners failure. HGVs and coaches have very large blind spots caused by the mirrors, and I can imagine this is an equally strong part of the failure of the driver to see the cyclist. If the speed of collision was indeed 45mph, this implies to me that the cyclist _could_ have been in this mirror blind spot (I realise this is speculation, but would be a primary investigation point to determine the drivers actions.)
To conclude an investigation without establishing this single point could result in the wrong conclusion.
The facts appear to me to be that the lorry driver believed the junction was clear, and drove accordingly, whereas the junction was NOT clear - therefore the drivers actions were fatally incorrect. the legal judgement following this I am uncertain of, but in my laymans understanding, indicate a manslaughter.
It's a very sad incident!


----------



## Brandane (14 Nov 2015)

stoatsngroats said:


> HGVs and coaches have very large blind spots caused by the mirrors, and I can imagine this is an equally strong part of the failure of the driver to see the cyclist.


That is correct; mirrors do cause blind spots. So you have to actually move your head and upper body to look around them; same as you do with door pillars on cars. You can't just sit rigidly still in your seat and pull out at a junction or in this case, slip road, hoping for the best!


----------



## Drago (14 Nov 2015)

Thing is, items don't suddenly materialise into physical existence in the blind spots. They travel across the field of view before working their way into a blind spot.


----------



## machew (14 Nov 2015)

Next up: 
"Tourist, 65, died in Central Park after accidentally colliding with a bullet despite being warned against vigorous exercise"


----------



## stoatsngroats (14 Nov 2015)

@Drago and @User9609 
I realise that my post might appear to exonerate the lorry driver, which is not my intention! The fact is that mirrors (particularly HGV ad Coach mirrors - look at them, some are HUGE!!) _do_ cause a large area of road off to the right for the off-side mirror, and off to the left for the near-side mirror, and these can, and do (I speak from experience) shield the view, particularly of a moving pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle, because the movement of the HGV and the ped/bike/motorbike, can be commensurate with the moving field of vision of the lorry driver. It's not a case of something materialising into a blind spot, it's a case of the lorry driver, not making certain that the blindspot is clear.
@Brandane makes the point more clearly than my original post, but the issue, IMVHO is that the HGV driver did not see the cyclist, and the mirror blind spot is a very important point for investigation - although, I am not familiar with the road, nor the specific incident, so I am very likely to be wrong. - it's nothing to do with not expecting
the cyclist to be on that road at that time, it's more to do with not _being certain_ that the road was clear, which appears not to have been part of this investigation, or, if it was, not to have been reported in the article.


----------



## Neilsmith (14 Nov 2015)

What absolute b***ocks "would not have expected to see a cyclist" when I go out driving I don't plan what I expect to see I judge my speed and the manoeuvres I undertake based on what's in front ( and behind me ) on the day. Ridiculous comments that excused terrible driving.


----------



## sidevalve (14 Nov 2015)

For once I agree with the CTC . The cyclist HAD lights AND reflectors - he WAS on the main road and without doubt he DID have right of way. It WAS the drivers responsibility to see him no if's no but's. Being able to stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear not just THINK is clear or SHOULD be clear [applies to cyclists too] would save a lot of grief.


----------



## winjim (14 Nov 2015)

*Coroner: Cyclist "would not have expected" to be hit by lorry driver who killed him.*


----------



## glenn forger (14 Nov 2015)

winjim said:


> *Coroner: Cyclist "would not have expected" to be hit by lorry driver who killed him.*



It was the copper who said that. If I was local I would be desperate to discover from the copper which roads he declares cyclists would be a surprise on. I wonder if he could let us know the list of roads his opinion applies to?


----------



## stoatsngroats (14 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction. google streeview a....</>....I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

Good research! This is different to how i imagined from the original post.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Nov 2015)

Collision investigator Sergeant David Parry should supply his list of roads where cyclists aren't expected. Or admit he's drastically exceeded his brief and once again made leaps of faith to exonerate a killer driver. Parry, in short, has no idea what the driver was thinking and no right to make definite statements about what the driver was thinking.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"] i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

No judge was involved.


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

Cyclists have been banned on a similar type stretch of the A19 in Cleveland.

That follows two cyclist deaths of which I am aware.

In one sense it's locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it seems likely there would have been another death sooner or later if cyclists continued to use the road.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cyclists-banned-from-using-the-a19


----------



## glenn forger (14 Nov 2015)

How the local press reported it.

http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.u...tory-28168531-detail/story.html#ixzz3rODVx8Tl

Cyclist, 42, died in accident on the A40 despite being warned not to ride on busy roads


----------



## Fisheh (14 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

I see what you mean but you should have no problem seeing a cycle on that road, if the weather is bad and low visibility you should slow down irrespective of the type vehicle you are driving. We have a dual carriage way exactly like that one (A50) and a cycle club use it on a regular basis for time trial races , it may seem like suicide to non cyclists but they have every right to be there and motorists have to treat a cycle like any other vehicle. 
If the cyclist had working lights and hi-viz clothing then the driver that hits him is driving without due care and attention and should be punished .


----------



## Neilsmith (14 Nov 2015)

I have never passed a pedestrian, or cyclist in high viz in any conditions that I haven't seen from distance no matter the road layout. I don't accept they were too difficult to see in the circumstances, which they seem to be implying.


----------



## Pale Rider (14 Nov 2015)

Neilsmith said:


> I have never passed a pedestrian, or cyclist in high viz in any conditions that I haven't seen from distance no matter the road layout. I don't accept they were too difficult to see in the circumstances, which they seem to be implying.



I agree.

Were I the driver, I like to think I would have seen the cyclist and worked out I couldn't safely join the main road without stopping.

So I'm then stopped on a slip road, but so what?

It's a 'give way' junction like any other, is you have to stop, you stop.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Nov 2015)

Really poor, so now we have no clue whether a particular road is deemed to be reasonable for a cyclist to be on.

Pish poor judge.


----------



## Illaveago (15 Nov 2015)

It would be a bit ironic if the Coroner visited the site only to be hit by another lorry.


----------



## oldstrath (15 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]
So if an HGV driver is in a hurry, he's allowed to bully, and if necessary kill, any cyclist who happens to be in the way. And it will be excused because this allegedly well trained professional driver can't be expected to be bothered looking or thinking. Why the fark bother with lights if killers are allowed not to look or think?


----------



## oldfatfool (15 Nov 2015)

Out and out murder, "He said he could not avoid hitting the cyclist because of vehicles in the outside lane as he joined the road at a speed of 45 miles an hour." 

Basically he said he had the option to perhaps hurt himself or probably kill the cyclist, he opted to kill the cyclist.


----------



## Brandane (15 Nov 2015)

oldstrath said:


> allegedly well trained professional driver


 www.cyclechat.net/threads 
What makes you think he is either "well trained" or "professional"?
He has simply passed a DSA test of competency to drive an HGV, a fairly basic test much like the one applied to car drivers. The learning begins AFTER passing the test, and who knows how much experience the guy had? This does not in any way excuse his lack of observational skills.


----------



## oldstrath (15 Nov 2015)

Brandane said:


> www.cyclechat.net/threads
> What makes you think he is either "well trained" or "professional"?
> He has simply passed a DSA test of competency to drive an HGV, a fairly basic test much like the one applied to car drivers. The learning begins AFTER passing the test, and who knows how much experience the guy had? This does not in any way excuse his lack of observational skills.


So people with essentially no experience, and possibly little skill, are allowed to drive heavy things, with poor visibility, very quickly? shoot, that really is scary. Still doesn't excuse his killing someone. Hopefully he'll never be allowed near a steering wheel again, but I suppose in fact he'll just get some counselling and carry on being dangerous.


----------



## Brandane (15 Nov 2015)

oldstrath said:


> So people with essentially no experience, and possibly little skill, are allowed to drive heavy things, with poor visibility, very quickly?


Yes! My experience was: test passed on Saturday; keys of fully laden artic (with completely different control layout, gearbox etc.) thrown at me on Monday morning and sent out into the big bad world to learn how to drive it by myself. Cacking myself would be a good description; I hadn't even driven a loaded artic before (test has changed now, I think they have to be carrying a load of about 6 tonnes). Then when it came to reversing one of them in enclosed yards or narrow streets , it was a whole lot different to the set up used on the test reverse.
Part of the problem being that haulage companies will only employ drivers with experience (insurance requirement sometimes). The only way to get that experience is by doing agency work. Agencies are only interested in getting bums on seats, they give zero training. So you turn up at whatever company to do a shift, and they are even less interested in giving training; they just want the freight delivered; after all they are paying the agency good money for a driver. All you get is a set of keys and paperwork for the load, and sent on your way. Still want to take your chances on a busy dual carriageway on a bicycle? I know I don't.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Nov 2015)

he didn't see because he wasn't looking and all the bs about it being unavoidable because of the vehicles in the outside lane, is just that, post-hoc rationalisation, bs.


----------



## blazed (15 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

Very true but cyclists love to play the victim. If you combined the chips on cyclechat members shoulders you'd be half way to a happy meal.


----------



## Milkfloat (15 Nov 2015)

blazed said:


> Very true but cyclists love to play the victim. If you combined the chips on cyclechat members shoulders you'd be half way to a happy meal.


I would agree with you normally, but I this case I cannot. Yes the victim was risking it riding on that particular road, but there is no excuse for him being mowed down. Do you honestly think if it had been a broken down motorist or a slow moving moped that the court outcome would be the same?


----------



## Dan B (15 Nov 2015)

Just because you're not expecting to see a cyclist should not be an excuse to legally run them down.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Nov 2015)

blazed said:


> Very true but cyclists love to play the victim. If you combined the chips on cyclechat members shoulders you'd be half way to a happy meal.


Some cyclists are born victims, some achieve victimhood, others have it thrust upon them?


----------



## Origamist (17 Nov 2015)

sidevalve said:


> For once I agree with the CTC . The cyclist HAD lights AND reflectors - he WAS on the main road and without doubt he DID have right of way. It WAS the drivers responsibility to see him no if's no but's. Being able to stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear not just THINK is clear or SHOULD be clear [applies to cyclists too] would save a lot of grief.



It's not often that I agree with sidevalve, but this is one such occasion.

Far too many drivers treat slip roads like an exit pit lane - the idea that they might have to slow considerably or even stop is seen as some kind of driving failure (i.e. not being able to slot into a gap).

The explanation that he was not expecting to see a cyclist is not the critical issue here, it is his abject failure to properly assess the road conditions before maneuvering that caused the cyclist's death. The cyclist was there to be seen - and the driver failed in his duty of care.

The coroner seems to have aped what the police sergeant said without interrogating his assumptions or bias.

If you want to comment on the coroners unfortunate choice of language:
Coroners.office@gloucestershire.gov.uk


----------



## Smurfy (19 Nov 2015)

This reminds me a little of the ridiculous line you often read that someone was 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'. No! They were in the right place at the right time for what they were lawfully doing, had every right to be there, and were a victim of someone else's carelessness rather than suffering from bad luck.


----------



## Aravis (20 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to join this so late. Reading through, I was glad to find someone prepared to swim against the tide on this one.

I know the road where incident occurred extremely well. As a cyclist I am certainly not scared of traffic, but never in a million years would I ride this road. Apart from anything else, there is a perfectly safe (if any road truly is) alternative which is only marginally longer.

It seems, from comments posted elsewhere, that at one time there was a temporary order prohibiting cycling on this particular 3.1 mile long dual carriageway, and that pressure from local cycling groups was at least partly responsible for this being removed. If this is true I suggest they were misguided. When it come to cyclists' rights there are many things that do need defending, but I seriously question this one.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Apart from anything else, there is a perfectly safe (if any road truly is) alternative which is only marginally longer.



What's the difference between your route and the one taken by O’Connell to his destination?


----------



## Aravis (20 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> What's the difference between your route and the one taken by O’Connell to his destination?


One is a B road and a recognised cycle route. The other is a dead straight high-speed dual carriageway. The B road is about half a mile longer.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

Half a mile longer to which destination?


----------



## mickle (20 Nov 2015)

blazed said:


> Very true but cyclists love to play the victim. If you combined the chips on cyclechat members shoulders you'd be half way to a happy meal.


fark off.


----------



## Aravis (20 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Half a mile longer to which destination?


There is a roundabout at each end of the dual carriageway. The B road links the same two roundabouts but takes about half a mile longer to get there.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

Adds half a mile to what? What's the destination?


----------



## Aravis (20 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Adds half a mile to what? What's the destination?


Is this really so unclear? If you drive or cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the DC you will cover 3.1 miles. If to drive/cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the B road you will cover 3.6 miles.

I'm about to drive along this famous dual carriageway now and will be unable to make any further clarifications for about 2 hours.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Is this really so unclear?.



Whether or not half a mile is a reasonable extension to a journey depends on the length of the journey. You have no idea what this is, but you blame a dead man for using that road. How come? You have no idea why he was using that route.


----------



## jefmcg (20 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Is this really so unclear? If you drive or cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the DC you will cover 3.1 miles. If to drive/cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the B road you will cover 3.6 miles.


OK, I'm confused now, too. He would leave the DC at one roundabout, then rejoin it at the next? How is this a solution? He'd still be on the DC where drivers are allowed to hit cyclists.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Is this really so unclear? If you drive or cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the DC you will cover 3.1 miles. If to drive/cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the B road you will cover 3.6 miles.



Do you really think this is the place for sarcasm? You think it unreasonable for the cyclist to take a half mile detour. If you don't know what his journey was I don't see how you can make that judgement on behalf of the dead man. It's as daft as the copper pretending he knew what the driver was thinking. Nobody's attacking you personally, take a look around the forum, we can disagree without being sarcastic.


----------



## Aravis (20 Nov 2015)

Back earlier than expected. I am sorry, no sarcasm was intended.

No, I am not blaming the dead man for using a road he was legally entitled to use. I would, however, argue that any cyclist using that particular 3.1 mile section of road is being extremely unwise, and it would be better if the possibility didn't exist. It is one of the most cyclist-hostile roads imaginable.

To clarify further, the said road links a roundabout on the edge of Gloucester to another on the edge of Cheltenham. It runs dead straight for 3.1 miles with a motorway junction in the middle. There is no other access of any sort. If it were to be airbrushed it from existence, cyclists would not feel inconvenienced because they would use the B road, which really doesn't feel like a detour.

Multiple roads extend from each end into Cheltenham and Gloucester, and these are of completely different character.


----------



## oldstrath (20 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Back earlier than expected. I am sorry, no sarcasm was intended.
> 
> No, I am not blaming the dead man for using a road he was legally entitled to use. I would, however, argue that any cyclist using that particular 3.1 mile section of road is being extremely unwise, and it would be better if the possibility didn't exist. It is one of the most cyclist-hostile roads imaginable.
> 
> ...



That may all be true, and I surely wouldn't want to ride this rosd. But none of it alters the fact that the lorry driver either failed to see something that was there, or chose to ignore what he saw. In neither case can he be considered remotely fit to drive anything more powerful than a pedal car, and it's appalling that the neither the police nor the coroner recognised this.


----------



## Origamist (21 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Sorry to join this so late. Reading through, I was glad to find someone prepared to swim against the tide on this one.
> 
> I know the road where incident occurred extremely well. As a cyclist I am certainly not scared of traffic, but never in a million years would I ride this road. Apart from anything else, there is a perfectly safe (if any road truly is) alternative which is only marginally longer.



If a HGV driver does not look where he is going, the class of road is immaterial, be it a DC or B road. 

Many people think it's v dangerous to cycle on NSL rural roads, or in the centre of London, mixing it with large quantities of construction traffic etc.


----------



## Aravis (21 Nov 2015)

Origamist said:


> If a HGV driver does not look where he is going, the class of road is immaterial, be it a DC or B road.


Nowhere have I questioned this, nor have I made any comment on the appropriateness of the coroner' verdict.


----------



## jefmcg (21 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Nowhere have I questioned this, nor have I made any comment on the appropriateness of the coroner' verdict.


This thread is about the coroner's verdict. It's fair to assume that's what you are talking about.


----------



## Origamist (21 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Nowhere have I questioned this, nor have I made any comment on the appropriateness of the coroner' verdict.



Except that you were keen to agree with someone that was justifying the coroner's verdict. I think we can draw a reasonable conclusion from that, particularly as you also found no space to comment on the driving that killed the cyclist, only his choice of route.


----------



## PK99 (21 Nov 2015)

Aravis said:


> Is this really so unclear? If you drive or cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the DC you will cover 3.1 miles. If to drive/cycle from roundabout A to roundabout B on the B road you will cover 3.6 miles.
> 
> I'm about to drive along this famous dual carriageway now and will be unable to make any further clarifications for about 2 hours.



I this the section of road you refer to?
@Aravis


----------



## jefmcg (21 Nov 2015)

You know, there are some roads I avoid, of course. My feeling is "if I am maimed/dead who cares if I was I had the right to be there". It never occurred to me that a coroner might decide that I did not have the right to be there, even though I was within the law.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2015)

[QUOTE 4017120, member: 9609"]repugnancy aside, some roads are just too busy, too fast and too lawless to take a bicycle onto. It is not a case of agreeing with the situation, more a case of understanding it.[/QUOTE]

The right to cycle is important, but I'm not prepared to stake my life to support it.

No cycling on motorways appears to be widely accepted.

A lot of dual carriageways are so close to motorways as to make little practical difference.


----------



## Siclo (24 Nov 2015)

Having several times been that cyclist who has ended up on highly unsuitable roads looking longingly at the parallel B road some 30 feet down a sheer embankment I thought this was interesting: https://goo.gl/maps/1KY7ijrVKM52


----------



## glenn forger (24 Nov 2015)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/duncandollimore/coroners-careless-comments-cyclists-causation


----------



## albion (24 Nov 2015)

"The Elephant and Castle junction was described by PC Smith as "very complex" and by Lahyani's widow last year as a "death trap". London cycling campaigners have criticised the junction on numerous occasions. If the Coroner thought the layout of the junction contributed to Lahyani's death she should have made a Prevention of Future Deaths Report to Transport for London, requiring them to identify how they proposed to address the concerns she raised. No such report appears to have been submitted. No comments have been made about lorry design or safety issues. The one issue the Coroner believed worthy of comment, to explain the driver's apparent failure to see Lahyani, was the cyclist's choice of clothing."

The future looks bleak, a cyclists death not seeming to matter.


----------

