Home
Motorist struck Jaye Bloomfield as she crossed slip road on Mancunian Way last August

A coroner’s inquest has heard that a speeding motorist in Manchester who struck and killed a cyclist as she was negotiating a pedestrian crossing escaped prosecution because signs notifying a change in the speed limit had been put in the wrong place.

Michael Campbell, aged 40, was travelling at between 41 and 49mph in his Seat Leon when he hit 44-year-old Jaye Bloomfield in August last year, reports the Manchester Evening News.

She died as a result of severe head and chest injuries shortly after the collision on a slip road leadinhg to the Mancunian Way. The location where the crash happened has a speed limit of 30mph, but the inquest was told that contractors had put signs in the wrong place.

Police Constable Ian Beaumont told the coroner: “The Mancunian Way is classed as a motorway, and when a motorway ends there should be appropriate signage of the speed limit.

“There should be a sign indicating the speed limit but this was incorrectly placed by the contractors.

“Improvements are being made to the signage so it is at the start of the slip road. A 30mph sign will be brought in next to the end of the motorway.”

According to witnesses, immediately before the collision, the cyclist was straddling her bike, using her feet to push herself forward.

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

The motorist was arrested following the fatal incident, but no charges were brought due to prosecutors deciding that in the absence of correctly positioned signs telling drivers of the change in the speed limit, he would not have been aware that he needed to slow down.

Giving evidence at the inquest, Mr Campbell said: “The traffic lights were green so I accelerated towards the Mancunian Way. I heard something hit the car and thought it had come from above.

“I stopped immediately in the middle of the road and looked to the left and saw someone in the road.

“I ran to the person. I was so confused. Two cars stopped and they called the police and ambulance.”

Returning a narrative verdict, the coroner, Fiona Borrill, said: “I shall be writing a letter to Manchester City Council to find out when the signs will be in place.”

Ms Bloomfield had entered into a civil partnership with Gemma Godden, her partner of eight and a half years, just under 12 months before her death and the pair were preparing to celebrate their anniversary.

In a statement issued through her solicitor, Ms Godden said: “I am grateful for the Coroner’s investigation in to the circumstances surrounding the accident that killed Jaye.

“I have lost the partner I loved and wanted to spend the rest of my life with.

"I miss her every day as do her family and friends. We both loved cycling but this terrible accident once again highlights the dangers cyclists face from motorists driving at speed.

"I urge drivers to respect the speed limit. If the driver who hit Jaye had been driving at 30mph or below as he should have been, he would almost certainly have seen her and been able to stop.

"I want police to clamp down on speeding drivers and I want drivers to realise that cyclists are all someone’s loved one. Please look out for cyclists and give them space on the roads.”

Her solicitor, Carol Jackson, added: “We are advising Gemma as to the possibility of a civil action against the driver of the car."

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

53 comments

Avatar
horizontal dropout [290 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Correction needed:

"Ms Bloomfield had entered into a civil partnership with Gemma Godden, her partner of eight and a half years, Carol Jackson, just under 12 months before her death and the pair were preparing to celebrate their anniversary."

Carol Jackson is Gemma Godden's solicitor.

Avatar
mrmo [2092 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

am i missing something?

Is it ok to kill someone? since when does a sign over rule looking where the f*** your going????

Avatar
Jimbonic [136 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

am i missing something?

Is it ok to kill someone? since when does a sign over rule looking where the f*** your going????

Apparently, yes!

This is another case of tragedy and injustice. My heartfelt condolences go to her partner.

Avatar
Jonathing [73 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I failed my first driving test because I was doing 50 in a 30 zone. There were no signs but the examiner said I should have known the speed limit. This was some time ago but if it was the case then, why is it not the case now.

Avatar
Jonathing [73 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I failed my first driving test because I was doing 50 in a 30 zone. There were no signs but the examiner said I should have known the speed limit. This was some time ago but if it was the case then, why is it not the case now.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael [2481 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
horizontal dropout wrote:

Correction needed:

Carol Jackson is Gemma Godden's solicitor.

Done; apologies for the error.

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2762 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

A very sad case.

Avatar
lolol [211 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

This make me feel sick and very angry

Avatar
dp24 [203 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

More bollocks from the justice system.

The speed limit is just that - a limit. It's not a target. If he was driving at a speed where he didn't see something in the road, even when he hit it, then his driving quite clearly feel below the standard expected of a competent driver.

Avatar
dp24 [203 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

In fact, the more I think about this, the more absolute nonsense it really is.

The accident occurred on the slip road ON to the Mancunian Way, not off it. The sign signalling the start of the motorway is after the crossing in question, with the signs signalling the start of the 50mph speed limit are beyond that at the top of the slip road.

All of the roads leading to the slip road are a 30mph limit. The 'lack' of a sign signifying it was a 30mph limit at that point is totally irrelevant - if you are driving on roads were a 30mph speed limit, then that is the limit until signed otherwise. He should not have been driving at 41+mph, and there is no excuse for the fact he was doing so.

Yet another victim let down by the justice system. Pathetic.

Avatar
workhard [396 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

there are streetlights. The Highway Code is clear streetlights = 30mph zone unless signs show to the contrary.

Manc Plod and CPS have let us all down.

Avatar
workhard [396 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

there are streetlights. The Highway Code is clear streetlights = 30mph zone unless signs show to the contrary.

Manc Plod and CPS have let us all down.

Avatar
Kapelmuur [375 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I drove on that road every working day for years, it's obvious that it's a built up area and speed restriction signs should not be necessary.

Avatar
Gourmet Shot [162 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Yeah......best way to commit murder IMHO....guaranteed to get away with it

Avatar
antigee [391 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

though there maybe some issues with the signage I suspect this is the real issue:

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

so in court the case would rest on does a driver have to give way to a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing?

now that is a can of worms and is a very simple change in the rules that should have been made years ago to protect the lives of the more vulnerable road user

Avatar
muffies [74 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

the dude didnt even see what he hit. wtf. how can this be no charges?

Avatar
WolfieSmith [1380 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

'No excuse that it's a dual carriageway. If it has street lights then you have to assume it is a 30mph limit.' Told this by a copper on Derby Rd in Liverpool after doing 38mph in what I thought was a 40.  39

Mancunian Way isn't really a motorway but a city centre dual carriageway so should be, IMO for safety, judging by the people barrelling along the overhead section at 60mph+ 40ph max really.

Avatar
sponican [94 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Taking this at face value I wonder why, if the cause of the accident was the failure of the highways authority (in this case Manchester City Council) to place signs correctly, then why aren't they being prosecuted for Ms Bloomfield's death? They have a statutory responsibility and they have failed to deliver on it - with the result that someone has been killed. Why no action?

Avatar
andyp [1495 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

'now that is a can of worms'

It's really not, unfortunately. It's very clear. A cyclist is not a pedestrian. Yes, I agree to a change to the law - but until then, it's pretty clear.

Avatar
David Portland [83 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Anyone know which junction this was? The only one I can see on Google Earth with ped crossings on the slip roads is this one:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Mancunian+Way/@53.4703218,-2.2469628,145m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x487bb1eb414a487f:0x8f65dc5f26c77ecf

On the approach to the junction there are 30 signs, big 30s on the road, and no signs to the contrary going up the slip road. The traffic lights for the crossing are signed from before the roundabout. Seems pretty clear to me. If you're leaving the Mancunian Way at that junction it's got 30 painted on the road at the very start of the slip road, but apparently the driver was joining (not sure why the PC is going on about the signage when leaving).

Avatar
clayfit [92 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I'm hoping that Carol Jackson will be able to use the civil route to pursue the driver. As I understand it, the standard of proof is more in tune with the common sense arguments in the thread above, and the chances of success potentially higher than via the criminal route.

I guess that these don't often make the news, but in all the sad cases of careless/dangerous driving that we read about on here, there will usually be a compensation case that accompanies it, where the driver has to answer a second time to what he has done, and where a successful prosecution establishes wrong-doing. Except in this case, unfortunately.

Please don't think I'm victim-blaming, but a pedestrian crossings are for pedestrians. Get off and milk it across a pedestrian crossing. And always keep a lookout for the idiot who hasn't seen you or is driving too fast, drop the bike and run.

Avatar
GREGJONES [296 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

David, that is the correct location, there is a crossing point under the motorway to the left of your co-ordinates. It has two sections, one from Rockdove avenue (colloquially named the redbricks) to under the motorway flyover, and then another section north of that to the hotel on th other side.

Jaye was killed on the first section, where the road leads towards the mancuanian way as it drops down to ground level. However it requires the driver to indicate out of that lane to join the motorway. The lane it's self continues upwards to join A roads at a large roundabout, so technically this lane is NOT motorway and doesn't join it either, there is no need for a person to accelerate hard at all

Avatar
farrell [1946 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

GMP have utterly smoke and mirrorsed this case. I've never been so appalled by the behaviour of an officer supposedly working on behalf of the people of Manchester and I have seen GMPs officers commit some truly awful acts.

Avatar
dp24 [203 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
David Portland wrote:

Anyone know which junction this was? The only one I can see on Google Earth with ped crossings on the slip roads is this one:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Mancunian+Way/@53.4703218,-2.2469628,145m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x487bb1eb414a487f:0x8f65dc5f26c77ecf

Yes - it is that one. As you say, and as with my previous post, all of the roads approaching the slip road are 30mph. There are no signs to the contrary until after the crossing. Ergo, it's a 30mph limit.

It beggars belief that the PC has given the evidence that he has (assuming it has been reported accurately). Looks like GMP spent a couple of minutes during a tea break preparing for it.

Avatar
brooksby [2232 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

I really don't see the relevance of the policeman's comment above, in the story.

Is he saying that it's all OK because it was a cyclist scooting across a non-toucan crossing rather than a pedestrian walking across it?

Surely if Mr Campbell was speeding (even if doing so inadvertantly #devilsadvocate) and didn't see Ms Bloomfield, then presumably exactly the same thing would have happened if she had been walking across as a pedestrian.

Would it have been still treated the same if she had been walking her bike across (as a pedestrian), or is the fact she was scooting across meaning that therefore she was a cyclist "illegally" using the crossing?

Avatar
bfslxo [144 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

If the police had simply stopped this guy for speeding would he have got away with it because of the same reason, i very very! much doubt it?
The result of this case is astonishing & tragic, how very sad

Avatar
farrell [1946 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
Quote:

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

I really don't see the relevance of the policeman's comment above, in the story.

It's completely irrelevant and also completely untrue.

So, whilst giving evidence PC Ian Beaumont is either so totally unaware of whats happened or where it has happened that it gross incompetence or he had deliberately and purposefully misled the hearing with his evidence. Given that he is allegedly a "senior investigating officer" I would imagine a mistake of this magnitude would not be allowed to happen.

brooksby wrote:

Would it have been still treated the same if she had been walking her bike across (as a pedestrian), or is the fact she was scooting across meaning that therefore she was a cyclist "illegally" using the crossing?

I don't get why some people, not yourself, are attempting to highlight this, why the hell would cycling or scooting a bike across a crossing be in any way an issue? Why should you have to get off and walk just because you're on a bike?

Do we also expect babies and young children to get out of their buggies to use crossings? Or disabled people to rise up out of their wheelchairs like Lourdes miracles when the green man lights up? Of course not, it would be absurd, just as absurd as the notions being put forth by the nonsense from PC Beaumont.

Avatar
Jimbonic [136 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:
brooksby wrote:
Quote:

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

I really don't see the relevance of the policeman's comment above, in the story.

It's completely irrelevant and also completely untrue.

So, whilst giving evidence PC Ian Beaumont is either so totally unaware of whats happened or where it has happened that it gross incompetence or he had deliberately and purposefully misled the hearing with his evidence. Given that he is allegedly a "senior investigating officer" I would imagine a mistake of this magnitude would not be allowed to happen.

brooksby wrote:

Would it have been still treated the same if she had been walking her bike across (as a pedestrian), or is the fact she was scooting across meaning that therefore she was a cyclist "illegally" using the crossing?

I don't get why some people, not yourself, are attempting to highlight this, why the hell would cycling or scooting a bike across a crossing be in any way an issue? Why should you have to get off and walk just because you're on a bike?

Do we also expect babies and young children to get out of their buggies to use crossings? Or disabled people to rise up out of their wheelchairs like Lourdes miracles when the green man lights up? Of course not, it would be absurd, just as absurd as the notions being put forth by the nonsense from PC Beaumont.

Exactly!

So, is it equally legal to gun someone down because they've driven through a red light - NO!

Is it legal to stab someone to death because they committed fraud - NO!

Just because something is illegal doesn't make committing another crime legal.

Either that, or I've been living in the wrong country all my life...

The guy was driving carelessly, at the very least. Whether or not he was speeding is immaterial, he wasn't paying attention or driving at a speed that would have allowed him to stop for the crossing - whether it had a pedestrian, horse, errant shopping trolley, or "scooting" cyclist.

 14

Avatar
Flying Scot [933 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

A few views, based on the fact...that there aren't too many facts published:

1) The guy was travelling at the limit and the lady left the pavement in front of him against a red man, driver had the green light and due to his speed and the bend in the road couldn't avoid it as he seen her too late. At 50mph, fatal, (at 30 probably fatal too)
2) He was indicted on what was the most easily proven offence - speeding, but the signs cocked that up and the CPS have had their chance?

....but...

I WAS prosecuted for speeding, on an on ramp, (no footway, ped crossing, street lights or anything) that had crash barriers etc. and no 30mph sign at all in any position, the Police got away with the fact that I had passed a 30 sign 4 MILES before the ramp, and the fact that the road was a new layout and looked like part of the motorway wasn't accepted as a defence, I did actually see the speed gun but reckoned it was a 50 from all the Armco etc. (I was done for doing 38) they still sit here 5 years later and 'do' drivers all day long, so if they can do this, why the hell cant this guy be prosecuted, especially speeding over a pedestrian crossing, which I'm fairly sure only exist only on 30mph routes

Avatar
farrell [1946 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Flying Scot wrote:

driver had the green light

According to the driver. And you'll have to forgive my doubts about the veracity of anything he says.

It's very strange that he managed to override the pareidolia that is innate in humans and failed to make out the shape of another person, and their bicycle, directly in front of him yet manage to clearly see that the light was green.

Pages