Home
Inquest hears driver would not have been able to see him

An Italian prince who was killed near Knightsbridge tube station in October 2016 cut in front of the HGV that hit him immediately after overtaking it. After hearing that the German lorry driver would not have been able to see Filippo Corsini, senior Westminster coroner Dr Fiona Wilcox gave a conclusion of accidental death.

The London Evening Standard reports that Corsini was on his way to Regent's University where he was studying International Business. Approaching Scotch Corner just before 12.40pm he overtook Thomas Dose’s truck.

Brian Morey, a black cab driver, told the hearing: “I noticed he was pedalling extra fast. He was on the outside of the lorry and sort of just got ahead of it.

“All of a sudden he made a left turn across the front of the vehicle that shocked me. Because of the angle, of course the lorry would catch him. It caught the back of his bike, which went up in the air and threw the rider to the road.”

Corsini was pronounced dead at the scene.

Morey added: “The bike disappeared under the front of the lorry but by this time I could not see the rider. It had obviously gone over him. I don’t think the lorry driver had a chance.”

Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry and said Dose had rested appropriately before driving through London, having arrived in the UK from Holland the day before.

He said Corsini had been very close to the lorry as he overtook, having moved closer to avoid a pedestrian kerb.

Corsini was riding a fixed gear bike with no front brake.

Keen said: "He could have potentially slowed or stopped, but his ability to do that was down to the bike he was riding.

"His bike had fixed gears, no front brake and in order to slow down he had to use resistance in his legs to slow down. That is the only braking mechanism.

"Bikes should have two means of coming to a stop. One was the resistance through the legs and there should be an additional conventional brake on the front really for it to comply with regulations.

"The nature of the cycle could have been what made it more difficult to slow compared to if he had been on a more conventional cycle."

Wilcox said the driver’s attention would have been on the road in front of him as Corsini passed.

"It was highly unlikely that Mr Dose would have been looking that direction and if he had, he could not have seen him," she said.

She gave the medical cause of death as multiple injuries and gave a conclusion of accidental death.

"As [Corsini] approached [Dose] he would have been very close to him to avoid the raised kerb in the pedestrian area in the middle of the road and was in a position where he would not have been visible to Mr Dose."

She added: "Then Mr Corsini, for reasons only known to him, overtook and accelerated past the HGV and went in front of him."

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

47 comments

Avatar
Deeferdonk [131 posts] 1 month ago
15 likes

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

Avatar
dafydd_llywelyn [6 posts] 1 month ago
7 likes

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will [851 posts] 1 month ago
7 likes

Interestingly last night I had some chap have a pop at me for some 'crazy' riding. 

That crazy riding was track standing in a primary position at a set of lights behind a van, and accelerating away from the lights quickly. This rapid get away meant that I was still within say 20 foot of the van as speeds reached about 20mph and the van had to yank its anchors on.

This meant I had to yank my anchors on, which I did.

The car behind me felt like I was 'being crazy... and what did I expect?' I  was not sure what he meant, but he didn't want to get into it.

Anyway, my point is, actions that we all feel are normal and appropriate (I positioned myself so I didn't get squeezed out of the lights, and acelerated hard to avoid being rear ended), to non-cyclists can easily be perceived as reckless and unusual. 

 

Avatar
HLaB [199 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
Alessandro wrote:

Whether the lack of a front brake was a contributory factor, you just know that the mainstread media is going to have a field day with this. 

 

The only possible connection Icould draw there may be others but he was behind the lorry, moved out to avoid the pedestrian kerb and suddenly found himself about to hit the lorry.  A front brake may have let him slow down at that point. Instead he had to swerve round the lorry which had tragic outcomes when he swerved back in front  2  sad

Avatar
alansmurphy [1658 posts] 1 month ago
4 likes

"I noticed he was pedalling extra fast"

 

Extra how?

 

"He could have potentially slowed or stopped, but his ability to do that was down to the bike he was riding"

 

It doesn't appear he was trying to slow or stop so what has this to do with anything?

 

"Bikes should have two means of coming to a stop. One was the resistance through the legs and there should be an additional conventional brake on the front really for it to comply with regulations".

 

If he had a rear brake he had 2 means.

 

"The nature of the cycle could have been what made it more difficult to slow compared to if he had been on a more conventional cycle"

 

The nature of the lorry means that the driver couldn't see what was in front of him compared to if he'd been in a roadworthy vehicle.

 

So many experts giving so much mis-leading information. Scary!

 

 

 

 

Avatar
hirsute [109 posts] 1 month ago
3 likes
dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

But we don't know where the cyclist came from and there are a lot of areas near/around lorries where you can't be seen.

Why did the cyclist perform a 'left hook' ?

Avatar
Valbrona [321 posts] 1 month ago
7 likes

C'mon, we've all seen silly idiots on fixies dicing with death ...

Avatar
burtthebike [1381 posts] 1 month ago
11 likes

The main conclusion to be drawn from this, which seems to have escaped both the police and the coroner seem to have missed, is that HGVs should not be allowed on the roads until the driver can see what is happening.

I'm sure this will be addressed in the forthcoming government inquiry into cycling and road safety.  And there goes another pig on it's migration flight.

Avatar
Yrcm [17 posts] 1 month ago
13 likes
dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

According to the taxi driver witness he was on the outside of the lorry, and then swung in in front of it (to avoid an island). I think what is being suggested is that in that position, with an unexpected obstacle ahead of him his options on a normal bike would have been to either go for it or slam the anchors on. The latter would have been the safer option but being on a fixie made it impossible.

It was a foreign truck, with the driver presumably on the left which probably didn't help matters.

Very sad, I'm sure we've all been in situations at times where we've thought 'oops' afterwards but ridden away.

Avatar
alansmurphy [1658 posts] 1 month ago
3 likes
Valbrona wrote:

C'mon, we've all seen silly idiots on fixies dicing with death ...

 

Absolutely, and road bikes, mountain bikes, bmx, hybrid and on and on.

 

Not sure anyone has suggested that the blame doesn't neccessarily lie with the rider on this occasion, just the worrying rhetoric around his pedalling style, the incorrect assumptions about 2 braking systems and forms of transport with restricted visibility being accepted as normal...

Avatar
Alessandro [163 posts] 1 month ago
9 likes

Whether the lack of a front brake was a contributory factor, you just know that the mainstream media is going to have a field day with this. 

Avatar
superfly_nz [4 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Avatar
Zjtm231 [100 posts] 1 month ago
13 likes
superfly_nz wrote:
Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Just in vehicles that don't have massive bind spots so their drivers have no idea if they are killing people or not.....i don't think that's much to ask.
How did goods get into cities before the advent of HGVs with cabs based on construction site vehicles?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [1317 posts] 1 month ago
8 likes
Yrcm wrote:
dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

According to the taxi driver witness he was on the outside of the lorry, and then swung in in front of it (to avoid an island). I think what is being suggested is that in that position, with an unexpected obstacle ahead of him his options on a normal bike would have been to either go for it or slam the anchors on. The latter would have been the safer option but being on a fixie made it impossible.

It was a foreign truck, with the driver presumably on the left which probably didn't help matters.

Very sad, I'm sure we've all been in situations at times where we've thought 'oops' afterwards but ridden away.

didn't briggs do something similar in front of Charlie Alliston, Alliston was accused of manslaughter and should have avoided her according to every man and his dog, why is this not the case here? Why do motorists not get the zero leeway that people on bikes are seemingly getting, why are the operators of proven to be killing machines not forced to give leeway for others errors just as Charlie Alliston was convicted over because of the perveption he didn't despite slowing sigificantly, doing what the vast majority do and swerving to avoid?

Two sets of rules, same old.

Avatar
Duncann [1212 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Interestingly last night I had some chap have a pop at me for some 'crazy' riding. 

That crazy riding was track standing in a primary position at a set of lights behind a van, and accelerating away from the lights quickly. This rapid get away meant that I was still within say 20 foot of the van as speeds reached about 20mph and the van had to yank its anchors on.

This meant I had to yank my anchors on, which I did.

The car behind me felt like I was 'being crazy... and what did I expect?' I  was not sure what he meant, but he didn't want to get into it.

Anyway, my point is, actions that we all feel are normal and appropriate (I positioned myself so I didn't get squeezed out of the lights, and acelerated hard to avoid being rear ended), to non-cyclists can easily be perceived as reckless and unusual. 

I had to look it up so not looking down my nose at you but I see the RAC says that thinking distance alone at 20mph is 6 metres (almost 20 feet) and braking distance the same again. On that basis you should have been further behind the van so you wouldn't have to brake so hard.

Of course there may be other factors, if you have a car right up your tail (i.e. not 6+6 metres)...

Avatar
Duncann [1212 posts] 1 month ago
4 likes
Deeferdonk wrote:

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

In fairness to the police officer, I think the point is that neither of those were crimes.

Maybe they should be but that's a different issue and not the officer's responsibility.

Avatar
Duncann [1212 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
Yrcm wrote:
dafydd_llywelyn wrote:

I can't see here why the lack of brake is relevant as he was hit from behind.

Also the lorry driver didn't realise he was being overtaken by a guy on a bike... that's quite a long time not to check your mirrors.

According to the taxi driver witness he was on the outside of the lorry, and then swung in in front of it (to avoid an island). I think what is being suggested is that in that position, with an unexpected obstacle ahead of him his options on a normal bike would have been to either go for it or slam the anchors on. The latter would have been the safer option but being on a fixie made it impossible.

It was a foreign truck, with the driver presumably on the left which probably didn't help matters.

Very sad, I'm sure we've all been in situations at times where we've thought 'oops' afterwards but ridden away.

I don't see from the article(s) how fast the lorry was going relative to the cyclist and thus how long the manoeuvre would have taken - it may have been very few seconds. Regardless, the onus is on overtakers to ensure they can do so safely - which it doesn't appear the poor chap did.

The lorry driver does have to check his mirrors but he can only look in one direction at a time so would prioritise more attention ahead if he only going straight ahead. Would be different if he was switching lanes or turning but there's no suggestion he was.

It's also uncertain from the details given whether the lack of a front brake was important here - it might have allowed the rider to abort the manoeuvre safely. Maybe not - we can't say specifically (although it's sensible from a safety and legal perspective to have one).

Avatar
brooksby [2910 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

didn't briggs do something similar in front of Charlie Alliston, Alliston was accused of manslaughter and should have avoided her according to every man and his dog, why is this not the case here? Why do motorists not get the zero leeway that people on bikes are seemingly getting, why are the operators of proven to be killing machines not forced to give leeway for others errors just as Charlie Alliston was convicted over because of the perveption he didn't despite slowing sigificantly, doing what the vast majority do and swerving to avoid?

Two sets of rules, same old.

OT:

I had my own near-Alliston moment the other evening.  Two lanes of traffic going down a hill; left one for going straight on, right one (with queuing traffic) for turning right.  I'm going right, but I know there's an ASL at the traffic lights at the bottom of the hill so I go down in the (empty) left hand lane.  Pedestrian on my left kerbside further down: watch her as she steps into the road (without looking), crosses my lane, pauses before going between the queuing traffic in the right hand lane, steps as if to pass between the queuing cars, but then - just as I get level with her, passing behind her in an otherwise empty traffic lane  - she turns and dashes back to the kerb (again, without looking).  If she'd done that probably less than a second later, we would have collided at speed.  If I'd have been driving a car, she would have run into the side of my vehicle.

Avatar
brooksby [2910 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
Duncann wrote:
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Interestingly last night I had some chap have a pop at me for some 'crazy' riding. 

That crazy riding was track standing in a primary position at a set of lights behind a van, and accelerating away from the lights quickly. This rapid get away meant that I was still within say 20 foot of the van as speeds reached about 20mph and the van had to yank its anchors on.

This meant I had to yank my anchors on, which I did.

The car behind me felt like I was 'being crazy... and what did I expect?' I  was not sure what he meant, but he didn't want to get into it.

Anyway, my point is, actions that we all feel are normal and appropriate (I positioned myself so I didn't get squeezed out of the lights, and acelerated hard to avoid being rear ended), to non-cyclists can easily be perceived as reckless and unusual. 

I had to look it up so not looking down my nose at you but I see the RAC says that thinking distance alone at 20mph is 6 metres (almost 20 feet) and braking distance the same again. On that basis you should have been further behind the van so you wouldn't have to brake so hard.

Of course there may be other factors, if you have a car right up your tail (i.e. not 6+6 metres)...

If he had left twelve metres behind the van (or even six) then I would imagine that gap would have been filled up by another car overtaking him and sitting far less than six metres behind said van... 

Avatar
superfly_nz [4 posts] 1 month ago
6 likes
Zjtm231 wrote:
superfly_nz wrote:
Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Just in vehicles that don't have massive bind spots so their drivers have no idea if they are killing people or not.....i don't think that's much to ask. How did goods get into cities before the advent of HGVs with cabs based on construction site vehicles?

PC Keen's investigation of the lorry would have determined whether the driver had adeqaute vision (in the way of mirrors suitable for the lorry), but there will always be blind spots in any vehicle. It's up to the cyclist to make sure they aren't in them, especially when the vehicle is moving.

This is a tragic event but totally avoidable. The cyclist made a poor choice, whether it be through speed or not making himself visible enough, or just plain recklessness, but let's not blame the lorry who in this case did nothing wrong and had every right to be there.

Avatar
Duncann [1212 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Interestingly last night I had some chap have a pop at me for some 'crazy' riding. 

That crazy riding was track standing in a primary position at a set of lights behind a van, and accelerating away from the lights quickly. This rapid get away meant that I was still within say 20 foot of the van as speeds reached about 20mph and the van had to yank its anchors on.

This meant I had to yank my anchors on, which I did.

The car behind me felt like I was 'being crazy... and what did I expect?' I  was not sure what he meant, but he didn't want to get into it.

Anyway, my point is, actions that we all feel are normal and appropriate (I positioned myself so I didn't get squeezed out of the lights, and acelerated hard to avoid being rear ended), to non-cyclists can easily be perceived as reckless and unusual. 

I had to look it up so not looking down my nose at you but I see the RAC says that thinking distance alone at 20mph is 6 metres (almost 20 feet) and braking distance the same again. On that basis you should have been further behind the van so you wouldn't have to brake so hard.

Of course there may be other factors, if you have a car right up your tail (i.e. not 6+6 metres)...

If he had left twelve metres behind the van (or even six) then I would imagine that gap would have been filled up by another car overtaking him and sitting far less than six metres behind said van... 

Yes, I'm not disagreeing - there are a lot of compromises to be made in the real world.

Avatar
Stephan Matthiesen [66 posts] 1 month ago
3 likes
alansmurphy wrote:

the incorrect assumptions about 2 braking systems

I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain what the "incorrect assumption" ist?

The relevant regulation is the "Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983" in 7.1.b.i (my emphasis):

7 - (1) Save as provided in Regulations 8 and 9,

(b) . ...every cycle ... the height of the saddle of which is 635mm or more ... shall:

(i) if it is so constructed that one or more of its wheels in incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with a braking system operating on the front wheel...

(ii) if it is not so constructed that one or more of its wheels in incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with two independent braking systems one of which operates on the front wheel...

(Regulation 8 and 9 ive exemptions for some special cases historic bikes, bikes temporarily brought to the UK, none of which seem to apply here).

 

Avatar
Stephan Matthiesen [66 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
alansmurphy wrote:

the incorrect assumptions about 2 braking systems

I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain what the "incorrect assumption" ist?

The relevant regulation is the "Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983" in 7.1.b.i (my emphasis):

7 - (1) Save as provided in Regulations 8 and 9,

(b) . ...every cycle ... the height of the saddle of which is 635mm or more ... shall:

(i) if it is so constructed that one or more of its wheels in incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with a braking system operating on the front wheel...

(ii) if it is not so constructed that one or more of its wheels in incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with two independent braking systems one of which operates on the front wheel...

(Regulation 8 and 9 ive exemptions for some special cases historic bikes, bikes temporarily brought to the UK, none of which seem to apply here).

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [1696 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes

He gambled on fixed odds.

I'll get my coat.

Avatar
Thelma Viaduct [78 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes

I wouldn't drive a car through london, let alone ride a bike. Anyone on a 'fixie' riding with/through traffic are thick as pig s#1t. Darwinism in action.

Avatar
Thelma Viaduct [78 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
superfly_nz wrote:
Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

 

TR-3B 

Avatar
Grahamd [864 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
superfly_nz wrote:
Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Rail perhaps, there are a few stations after all.

Avatar
Deeferdonk [131 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
Duncann wrote:
Deeferdonk wrote:

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

In fairness to the police officer, I think the point is that neither of those were crimes.

who said they were crimes? They are problems.Erectile disfunction is not a crime but I'm sure PC David Keen would consider it to be a problem.

Avatar
Deeferdonk [131 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
superfly_nz wrote:
Deeferdonk wrote:

 

"Serious collision investigator PC David Keen found no problems with the lorry "

I've thought of a couple:

-$hit visibility

-Prescence in central London

 

How else do you expect goods to get into central London? Horse and coach?

Well if high cabbed heavy goods vehicles and coach & horses are the only 2 types of vehicle that exist, I suppose a coach and horses is the most suitable for the task of delivery in this environment.

Avatar
alansmurphy [1658 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
alansmurphy wrote:

the incorrect assumptions about 2 braking systems

I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain what the "incorrect assumption" ist?

The relevant regulation is the "Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983" in 7.1.b.i (my emphasis):

7 - (1) Save as provided in Regulations 8 and 9,

(b) . ...every cycle ... the height of the saddle of which is 635mm or more ... shall:

(i) if it is so constructed that one or more of its wheels in incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with a braking system operating on the front wheel...

(ii) if it is not so constructed that one or more of its wheels in incapable of rotating independently of the pedals, be equipped with two independent braking systems one of which operates on the front wheel...

(Regulation 8 and 9 ive exemptions for some special cases historic bikes, bikes temporarily brought to the UK, none of which seem to apply here).

 

That'll teach me for scanning, I thought there were just 2 systems required and not the specification as to which wheel.

Pages