Home
David Allison lost his life in April last year when lorry turned across his path

A judge in Guernsey has criticised the layout of a road and cycle path where a bike rider was killed in a collision with a lorry in April last year.

David Allison, aged 59 was riding on a shared-use footpath at Salerie Corner, St Peter Port, when a lorry turned into an entrance. The cyclist braked, but was thrown underneath the vehicle.

This week, lorry driver Nigel Simon, aged 50, was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving as well as the lesser charge of driving without due care and attention, reports BBC News Guernsey.

Summing up the case, Judge Sir Christopher Pitchers commented on "the odd configuration of carriageway where cycle path merges with footpath... [its] meaning was so obscure that policemen had to call the Environment Department for clarification of the lines."

During the trial, the prosecution claimed that the driver had failed to take account of blind spots in his mirrors prior to the fatal collision.

The court was also told that Mr Allison was travelling faster than the lorry immediately prior to the crash.

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.

21 comments

Avatar
pikeamus [48 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Very sad story.

My reflex is to disagree with the verdict which is obviously unreasonable given that I don't know what happened, but it is hard to imagine a situation where a driver turning into an entrance hasn't done something wrong if they've hit a cyclist on a cycle path.

Guernsey isn't mapped on streetview by the looks of it. I wanted to see this infrustructure myself. I suspect Mr Allison's family should have a fairly water tight case for compensation, given the judge's comments and the verdict here. Not that this will provide much consolation for them, I'm sure.

Avatar
mrmo [2076 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

does seem very odd, HGV driving along I assume then turns left or right to cross the footpath to enter a yard. In doing so hits someone on the path???

Only situation I can think of is where there is something between the road and the path, a hedge, fence, something that renders the driver and cyclist blind to each other????

Avatar
matttheaudit [72 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I worry that judges seem to allow labrador brained drivers so much leeway. Surely Mr Allison would have been visible on the driver's approach. The driver moving so as to put Mr Allison in his blind spot does not mean that he ceases to be on the path. Would the judiciary please grow some and start givng victims and their families some justice.

Avatar
Capt Caveman [10 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Have a look at this to get an idea of the layout path, about 2:40 in - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b049dtvm/bbc-channel-islands-news-2...

I use the path pretty much every day, but exit onto the road before this junction because of the number near misses I've had over the years at at this junction and the preceding one.

Avatar
racyrich [254 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

It was a jury that acquitted, not the judge. Though presumably the judge has some input in giving direction.
Not that it alters the basic problem - people invariably identify with drivers and not cyclists.

Avatar
Paul_C [463 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

they expect the cyclist to give way...

rule 206 only states this for pedestrians and cyclists at junctions:

"turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning"

Until we get cycle paths that continue across side streets with priority, we will continue to get these rubbish decisions

Avatar
truffy [653 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Paul_C wrote:

they expect the cyclist to give way...

Given the size of a truck I'd give way. Wouldn't you?

Avatar
McDuff73 [78 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

How on earth can the truck driver be aquitted of killing someone on a pavement? The law is indeed an ass... wonder if that had been a pedestrian or a child in a pram the verdict would have been different?

Avatar
oldstrath [616 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:
Paul_C wrote:

they expect the cyclist to give way...

Given the size of a truck I'd give way. Wouldn't you?

Yes you, and I, probably would. I can't see how that excuses killing someone who doesn't give way - are we really saying it's fine to kill someone for, at most, a minor traffic violation? Does that mean I can go and shoot the next guy speeding through our village? Or does it only work if I drive a truck over him?

Avatar
brooksby [1277 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

Only situation I can think of is where there is something between the road and the path, a hedge, fence, something that renders the driver and cyclist blind to each other????

...and there are a surprising number of junctions laid out like that, all over the UK. I come down off the cycle path over the Avonmouth Bridge (M5), going toward Shirehampton, and the end of the path (which is, as you can imagine, quite a steep slope) goes out onto a footpath (not shared use), and a road that I need to cross to the island at the middle of, then to turn right to go toward Bristol.

Streetview at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.495924,-2.684582,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLbpVf33Rc_zIRw6dtN83qg!2e0

The exit from the cycle path is now almost completely obscured by greenery, so that you have to come to a complete stop and then ease v-e-r-y slowly out, to check you're not going to hit a pedestrian or get hit by a pavement cyclist.

Avatar
brooksby [1277 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
McDuff73 wrote:

How on earth can the truck driver be aquitted of killing someone on a pavement? The law is indeed an ass... wonder if that had been a pedestrian or a child in a pram the verdict would have been different?

Too many motorists don't see a cycle path or a cycle lane as a "real" lane of traffic.

And - admitting you have a massive blind spot which didn't allow you to see the cyclist, is surely an admission of guilt rather than a mitigating circumstance??

Avatar
Matt eaton [742 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Capt Caveman wrote:

Have a look at this to get an idea of the layout path, about 2:40 in - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b049dtvm/bbc-channel-islands-news-2...

I use the path pretty much every day, but exit onto the road before this junction because of the number near misses I've had over the years at at this junction and the preceding one.

Looks like the typical problem with this sort of path: there is no indication of who has priority. I would assume that as trucks/cars/whatever have to cross the shared use path then anybody on the path would have priority, just like where a minor road crosses a major road.

My opinion is that this sort of infrastructure is the wrong approach and that in urban environments the primary solution should be safe integration of road users rather than this sort of segregation.

Avatar
jacknorell [966 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
McDuff73 wrote:

How on earth can the truck driver be aquitted of killing someone on a pavement? The law is indeed an ass... wonder if that had been a pedestrian or a child in a pram the verdict would have been different?

Too many motorists don't see a cycle path or a cycle lane as a "real" lane of traffic.

And - admitting you have a massive blind spot which didn't allow you to see the cyclist, is surely an admission of guilt rather than a mitigating circumstance??

Most cycle lanes & paths in England at least are not mandatory, so advisory only. I.e. not a real lane! Needs to have a solid line for legal standing.

Blind spots should mean more care needs to be taken, but the practice with the courts seems to be that it's a mitigating factor... which is nonsense of course  2

Avatar
Housecathst [464 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
McDuff73 wrote:

How on earth can the truck driver be aquitted of killing someone on a pavement? The law is indeed an ass... wonder if that had been a pedestrian or a child in a pram the verdict would have been different?

Too many motorists don't see a cycle path or a cycle lane as a "real" lane of traffic.

And - admitting you have a massive blind spot which didn't allow you to see the cyclist, is surely an admission of guilt rather than a mitigating circumstance??

I totally agree, how often to we hear that in defence of a driver, "I didn't see them". How thats not admitting your guilt I really don't know. Yeah driving your ton of metal box into a space that you can't see is totally fine isn't it. That's why drivers kill and serious injury thousands of people a year.

Avatar
truffy [653 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
oldstrath wrote:
truffy wrote:
Paul_C wrote:

they expect the cyclist to give way...

Given the size of a truck I'd give way. Wouldn't you?

Yes you, and I, probably would. I can't see how that excuses killing someone who doesn't give way - are we really saying it's fine to kill someone for, at most, a minor traffic violation? Does that mean I can go and shoot the next guy speeding through our village? Or does it only work if I drive a truck over him?

I didn't say, or mean to imply, that it does excuse killing someone who doesn't give way. Simply that the wise cyclist assumes total responsibility for their safety to be on the safe side. There are a lot of idiots out there who're well-protected by their vehicle and are not going to come of worst in a collision. Being in the right is no consolation if you're critically injured (or to your loved ones if worse).

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1198 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:
oldstrath wrote:
truffy wrote:
Paul_C wrote:

they expect the cyclist to give way...

Given the size of a truck I'd give way. Wouldn't you?

Yes you, and I, probably would. I can't see how that excuses killing someone who doesn't give way - are we really saying it's fine to kill someone for, at most, a minor traffic violation? Does that mean I can go and shoot the next guy speeding through our village? Or does it only work if I drive a truck over him?

I didn't say, or mean to imply, that it does excuse killing someone who doesn't give way. Simply that the wise cyclist assumes total responsibility for their safety to be on the safe side. There are a lot of idiots out there who're well-protected by their vehicle and are not going to come of worst in a collision. Being in the right is no consolation if you're critically injured (or to your loved ones if worse).

What's the point in saying that though?

The only way to truly be on the safe-side and take total responsibility for all possible risk is to not cycle. Or even not go out-doors at all other than in a tank. Is that your approach? Or do you, in fact, NOT take total 100% responsibility for your own safety but instead expect the rest of the world to take at least some measure of care as well?

Avatar
oldstrath [616 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

 16

truffy wrote:
oldstrath wrote:
truffy wrote:
Paul_C wrote:

they expect the cyclist to give way...

Given the size of a truck I'd give way. Wouldn't you?

Yes you, and I, probably would. I can't see how that excuses killing someone who doesn't give way - are we really saying it's fine to kill someone for, at most, a minor traffic violation? Does that mean I can go and shoot the next guy speeding through our village? Or does it only work if I drive a truck over him?

I didn't say, or mean to imply, that it does excuse killing someone who doesn't give way. Simply that the wise cyclist assumes total responsibility for their safety to be on the safe side. There are a lot of idiots out there who're well-protected by their vehicle and are not going to come of worst in a collision. Being in the right is no consolation if you're critically injured (or to your loved ones if worse).

I can't take "total responsibility" without hiding away from every driver, pedestrian and errant animal out there. I should, though, be able to expect the legal system to offer me some degree of protection from blind or cretinous drivers. But apparently not.

Avatar
A V Lowe [575 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Does Guensey have the equivalent of Section 39 RTA? This is a fatal crash. What does the States of Guernsey do by way of investigating crashes and identifying road hazards (risks)?

Given the reports from other users that this is a dangerous arrangement of cycle path, footway and roads it would also be interesting to know what the safety audit process is for the roads department as well.

Avatar
Matt eaton [742 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

If we were talking about a truck that turned accross a nearside bus lane into the path of a bus there would be no question who was at fault. I don't see how this road configuration is any different but the verdict seems completly contrary to what we would expect.

Avatar
Capt Caveman [10 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

No equivalent piece of legislation to Section 39 I'm afraid.

Immediately after the event signage was improved, although only by installing a couple of no entry signs on the road side entrance and a written warning on the exit road advising motorists to look out for cyclists and pedestrians, but the recently reshuffled Environment Department (now pro-bike) haven't announced any plans to change the layout as yet.

Avatar
userfriendly [562 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:

Being in the right is no consolation if you're critically injured

Am I the only one who is utterly sick of this kind of 'argument' being used to shift blame on to a victim? I can't be the only one, surely ...