Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Casualty
Miscellaneous
Collision
Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking himBroken bike (CC licensed image by garryknight, www.flickr.com)

Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him

Corner's inquest in Lincolnshire told it is "likely" victim was wearing earphones...
by Simon_MacMichael
Thu, Jun 13, 2013 15:40
37

A coroner has returned a verdict of accidental death in the case of a cyclist who apparently rode without warning into the path of a car that was overtaking him as he attempted to perform a right turn on a road in Lincolnshire. A police officer told the inquest it was "likely" the victim was wearing earphones.

Andrew Watson, aged 41, died in Scunthorpe General Hospital hours after the collision, which took place near Wroot at 7.30pm on the evening of 10 September last year, reports the Scunthorpe Telegraph.

Adam Coggon, the driver of the Range Rover involved in the incident, told coroner Andrew Pascoe at Scunthorpe’s Civic Centre: "The cyclist was still on the left-hand side of the road as I went to overtake.

“As I started coming past, I could see him in the corner of my eye coming to the front of the car.

"I tried moving over to the other side of the road, but I could not go any further."

Police Constable Ian Clark said it was "likely" the cyclist had been wearing earphones at the time of the collision - the implication being he may not have heard the vehicle behind him - adding: "I think a significant majority of motorists would have done as Mr Coggon did," he said.

The victim’s mother, Ida Coggan, said: "Andrew was a beautiful son who thought the world of his family. He is very much loved and missed every minute of the day and will never be forgotten."

headphones
earphones
Lincolnshire
Coroner's Inquest
Simon MacMichael

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
jollygoodvelo replied to jova54 | 10 years ago
0 likes
jova54 wrote:
jimmyd wrote:

He wasn't killed because he was wearing earphones, he was killed as he didn't look before moving across the road. I see other cyclists do this a lot and scares me each time.

Agreed

I was beginning to worry with the first load of responders who saw some sinister plot by the Police and coroner to blame the cyclist when 'obviously' the motorist was to blame.

Just occasionally cyclists do silly things and the unfortunate result, as in this case, is that they get killed or seriously injured.

Sympathies to the family and friends of the cyclist don't have to balanced with demonising the other party.

I agree too. Terrible thing to happen, but the number of times fellow cyclists pull out on me without looking (when I'm overtaking them on a bike) always amazes me.

Avatar
therevokid | 10 years ago
0 likes

and the friend of many a motorcycle rider ...
"The life saver" - a glance in the direction you're about
to turn to make sure there's nowt there ..... something
the size of a Chelsea Tractor would be well visible !

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 10 years ago
0 likes

Ahem,

I refer you to rule 167 of the highway code;

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

Avatar
Chuck replied to WolfieSmith | 10 years ago
0 likes
MercuryOne wrote:

Without wanting to sound like Columbo... Oh go on then.. "There's just one thing that's bothering me Mr Coggon.."

Sunset on September 10th last year was 19.26 - a full four minutes before Andrew Watson was apparently hit. Even with head phones Watson should have noticed a full set of Range Rover lights lighting the road around him. If they were on...

There is a growing tendency for motorists to run side lights or no lights at all at dusk these days. It's caused by one of three things;

- auto lights not coming on in low light properly
- forgetfulness
- and the old favourite - plain cussedness.

No way to prove it now but interesting all the same.

I'll get my mac.

It's amazing what people don't notice though. When I come up behind people in the dark parts of the park with a pretty decent front light on I still frequently have to say "excuse me" as they've not noticed they now have a massive shadow in front of them and the area in front of them is all lit up.

Avatar
bike_food replied to Tony Farrelly | 10 years ago
0 likes
tony_farrelly wrote:
bike_food wrote:

Another classic bit of roadcc reporting. An article full of hand picked quotes and bias designed to make cyclists feel like victims and anger us for the rest of the day.
I stopped reading papers years ago to avoid having to read this style of article. Just the facts would be good, expect a mild slant toward cyclists but nothing more.

Can you point me to the slanted bits?

In fairness the article is pretty much a C&P from the linked article.
However I'll point out what I mean, emphasis on the word likely, twice. I think the PC's entire quote should be reported, we literally have one word and no context.

When we do get a quote from the PC "I think a significant majority of motorists would have done as Mr Coggon did,"
again there appears to be more to the quote indicated by the comma. Leaving the quote open like this appears to indicate the PC has stated that most motorists would also have knocked the cyclist off his bike when what he could have been trying to state was most motorists would've overtaken given the road and conditions or most motorists would've moved over as far as they could when the cyclist moved over, we just don't know from the limited info we've been given.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to bike_food | 10 years ago
0 likes
bike_food wrote:
tony_farrelly wrote:
bike_food wrote:

Another classic bit of roadcc reporting. An article full of hand picked quotes and bias designed to make cyclists feel like victims and anger us for the rest of the day.
I stopped reading papers years ago to avoid having to read this style of article. Just the facts would be good, expect a mild slant toward cyclists but nothing more.

Can you point me to the slanted bits?

In fairness the article is pretty much a C&P from the linked article.
However I'll point out what I mean, emphasis on the word likely, twice. I think the PC's entire quote should be reported, we literally have one word and no context.

When we do get a quote from the PC "I think a significant majority of motorists would have done as Mr Coggon did,"
again there appears to be more to the quote indicated by the comma. Leaving the quote open like this appears to indicate the PC has stated that most motorists would also have knocked the cyclist off his bike when what he could have been trying to state was most motorists would've overtaken given the road and conditions or most motorists would've moved over as far as they could when the cyclist moved over, we just don't know from the limited info we've been given.

If this is cut and paste, then it has an editorial which probably does have a slant if sorts. If you do not get source material you are relying on writing and editorial of another paper. As someone else says, we have to take the view that the judge got it right, but frustratingly the article does not support enough relevant details to indicate this, and given the way it is presented it suggests that there is some doubt - as if rough justice for cyclists was common place.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 10 years ago
0 likes

There's an old adage that says there are at least two sides to every story, Unfortunately in this tragic case it would appear the overstretched/time starved police officer only had one side to listen to and accepted it.

Who (except the driver) really knows what happened for all we know the cyclist had clearly indicated that he was turning and the car driver wasn't paying attention and ploughed straight into him, obviously I am not saying that is what happened but...without a full investigation by the police road incident team which would cost money and time when most forces are cutting back on their budgets the truth may never be known.

Pages

Latest Comments