A motorist involved in a fatal collision which resulted in a cyclist’s death in Hampshire has been branded “disrespectful” by the coroner after she refused to answer any questions, replying with a curt “no comment” at the inquest attended by the deceased’s family.
45-year-old Oliver Gadney, a “keen and experienced” cyclist, was riding on Newton Lane, between Andover and Winchester, on August 15, 2021 with his friend, when he was hit by Alice Kitching driving a Vauxhall Astra.
Kitching was asked questions regarding Gadney’s death by the coroner at the Winchester Coroner’s Court, but at the advice of her legal representative, she answered “no comment” to every question, reports the Daily Echo.
After the crash, Kitching had been arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving, as well as causing death by driving a vehicle while unlicensed or uninsured.
However, she was released without charge. A post-mortem later revealed that Gadney had died soon after from head injuries caused by the collision.
The coroner asked Kitching: “Are you going to answer no comment to all my questions?”, to which Kitching replied: “Yes.”
Gadney, of Greenacres, Barton Stacey, was cycling with his friend Mark Wadey on the day he died, and Wadey described him as “the nicest guy you could ever meet”.
Wadey said: “He was a generous, genuine and funny guy. We went cycling together on a regular basis. He was a very safe rider who always erred on the side of caution.”
The inquest heard that Gadney and Wadey approached a sharp left-hand bend in the road. Wadey said: “Suddenly the car was right there. I heard a loud bang behind me and saw Oliver catapulted over the bonnet. He was unresponsive, so I called 999.”
Kitching was breathalysed at the scene, which came back negative. In a statement to police after the incident, she said that she had held a full driving licence for about three months and that she had been driving at a speed which was appropriate for the conditions.
However, a forensic collision investigation report concluded that neither Mr Gadney nor Ms Kitching had sufficient time to react.
The coroner said at the inquest: “Mr Gadney was just 45 when he died. He was a keen, frequent and experienced cyclist who was familiar with the road. Based on the evidence, he approached the bend at 15mph.
“Ms Kitching chose to answer all of my questions as ‘no comment’. She does have the right not to incriminate herself. Ms Kitching approached the bend at 18mph. It is a narrow road with vegetation, so there was insufficient time for either of them to avoid it.”
The coroner gave the cause of death as a road traffic collision and gave his condolences to the family.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
59 thoughts on “Motorist called “disrespectful” by coroner for refusing to answer questions after causing cyclist’s death”
Awful.
Awful.
The coroner asked Kitching:
The coroner asked Kitching: “Are you going to answer no comment to all my questions?”, to which Kitching replied: “Yes.”
To which the coroner replied – aha, got you!
This is honestly the sort of
This is honestly the sort of thing that scares me. I was out the other day and coming around a corner there was an Audi driver (what a shock) who had to swerve to avoid me because he was about a metre and a half further towards me than he should have been and had no time to do anything but swerve. The speed that some people fly around country roads with blind bends is mind boggling. I assume the fact that hitting another car will probably not result in their own death means its OK.
I’ve had numerous drivers act like I am the bellend because I dare to ride anywhere but the absolute gutter when on small country roads with gravel, dirt, horse poo etc. They seem to think that when it comes to small roads cyclists should get out of their way. They wouldn’t act the same way if it was a car coming the other direction.
mctrials23 wrote:
Only because they know that another car hitting them might cause them an injury or – god forbid! – damage their vehicle.
They know that a cyclist will come off worse, so really couldn’t GAF.
They seem to think that when
They seem to think that when it comes to small roads cyclists should get out of their way
There’s no ‘seem to’ about it- they really do think that.
Yep. In Surrey on narrow
Yep. In Surrey on narrow roads with enough room to pass safely by slowing down and moving over to the left a bit, oncoming drivers do neither (it’s as if a cyclist wasn’t there) so I can only presume they couldn’t care less if they kill or seriously injure someone.
So the other charges just got
So the other charges just got dropped and everything is OK?
Quote:
However, she was released without charge.
Why? Or (because people who kill on the roads are let go all the time) why has nothing further happened? Surely it’s a simple matter to show if unlicensed or uninsured and to do something about that at least?
Or is it “We won’t cooperate – you will have to prove my client was driving at the time. Further, if you do so we will simply say it was a a tragic accident – there was a corner with restricted visibility so the cyclist ‘came out of nowhere’. We will point out that she was not drunk or exceeding the speed limit. You know no magistrate / jury in the land will convict because no-one could foresee that and lower speed means it can’t possibly be careless or dangerous…”
Absolutely not wanting to
Absolutely not wanting to victim-blame but sadly – even when there are two lanes / road is wider – if as a cyclist you can’t see round a corner currently you need to consider what your options will be if a vehicle suddenly appears. Quite possibly going too fast or even in the wrong lane.
This of course can mean more problems as if you move left a vehicle behind you may think it’s their cue to overtake (into a blind bend)…
Seems the victim was behind
Seems the victim was behind the witness/other cyclist as that person was quoted as he saw the car then heard the bang behind him. He must have been lucky to not be hit but might have been more into the turn manouvre where his colleague behind might have been further out to then take the apex.
Of course that eaxctly the
Of course that eaxctly the same consideration should have been given by the driver of the car. However we must also understand that with no licence or insurance, she had absolutely no right to be on the road in the first place. With the collision coming from behind your point is however actually irrelevant. She also claimed to be driving at 18mph, with the cyclist coming at 15mph. It is indeed unfortunate to have died from such an impact, if that was indeed her speed.
didsthewinegeek wrote:
We don’t have all the info. I’d assumed a head on collision (e.g. first cyclist got round the bend and passed the car as it entered the bend coming the other way and hit the second cyclist). However it is not clear from this article or the original.
As AlsoSomniloquism has said although the licence and insurance points seem strange there could be reasons why this was suspected but then was not the case (or at least not sustainable in court).
It is a good idea on left
It is a good idea on left-hand turns with restricted visibility to position towards the right hand side. E.g., of your own lane on 2-way road, or near the right of the road on a single-track. This obviously gives you significantly more visibility down the road and through the corner, giving both you and any motorist more time to take action.
You can quickly duck left again. On a single-track road, you can do that OR even exit the road right – lifting the bike up and just going straight and off the road to the right side of the corner may be the quickest and best escape route on some blind left-hand corners on single-track country lanes.
On the second charge, depends
On the second charge, depends when the arrest happened, but maybe she hadn’t recieved her license officially (she had only passed for 3 months) or it hadn”t been updated on records the Police had due to delays. (covid etc.)
So once she had the documentation, that was then dropped.
As she was adamant she had done nothing wrong, I’m surprised she didn’t want to talk at the inqury though.
[?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?]
[?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] [?] “However, she was released without charge. A post-mortem later revealed that Gadney had died soon after from head injuries caused by the collision.”
WTF is this!
Honestly…after 11 years and
Honestly…after 11 years and nearly 60K miles of following the rules I do wonder whats the point when time and time again this happens.
Wheres the media outrage?
So manslaughter is not a
So manslaughter is not a crime anymore. Not at all!
Great British Justice.
She said she was driving at a
She said she was driving at a speed suitable to the conditions, that is clearly not true otherwise she would not have killed a vulnerable road user, she would instead have been able to stop within the distance she could see to be clear!
To clarify, the road is narrow, so she was effectively going round a blind bend with some of her vehicle across the other half of the road and too fast to be able to stop if someone was coming the other way on their own half of the road.
How The Actual F*ck is she not being prosecuted for killing someone?!
I aggree 100%, but the road
I aggree 100%, but the road is likely a 60mph speed limit and muppets iterpret it as reasonable according to it
The Echo article says that
The Echo article says that she said she was driving at 18 mph on the approach to the bend. Which is actually pretty reasonable, and as HLaB says, is a lot better than many motorists do on those sorts of roads.
What this incident illustrates, I guess, is that a two tonne metal box powered by an internal combustion engine can kill someone at any speed.
Clearly the road isn’t
Clearly the road isn’t suitable for motor vehicles!
Ironically, I’ve never cycled it, but I’ve cycled on both the A roads that parallel it, the A30 and the A303.
I’ve cycled along that very
I’ve cycled along that very lane many times, but I’ve calculated the most recent occasion was, sadly, 53 years ago. If I remember rightly, Joe Strummer and family lived in a farmhouse on the lane.
But where did 18mph come from
But where did 18mph come from ?
Still seems too fast for the road. What happened to stop within the distance you can see to be clear?
On a lane like that, the rule
On a lane like that, the rule is double the distance you can see to be clear.
If it’s accurate, the cyclist doing 15 mph, the motorist doing 18 mph, then stopping distances might be quite similar for each, factoring in ABS.
Which would mean potentially they were both failing to uphold that.
Solocle wrote:
Half, presumably? I.e. be able to stop in half the distance you can see to be clear, to allow for closing speed. I think people forget that an oncoming driver is also going to use some of the space they can see to be clear.
I think that is just phrasing
I think that is just phrasing the same thing in slightly different words. ie if you can stop in 10m, then you need to allow 20m as the distance you can see to be clear.
Cyclists were travelling at
Cyclists were travelling at 15mph, same accusation could be thrown there. Accident investigators estimated both speeds, (cyclists might even have had strava). Whilst it wouldn’t be the first case of investigators getting things wrong, they also probably get them right more times.
But it is still unclear which
But it is still unclear which direction they were all travelling in.
I should be very interested in how the 18 was derived.
I doubt it was unclear to the
I doubt it was unclear to the Police and the coroner. However look at it this way. If the car was travelling at 18 mph and the cyclists at 15 mph into the same bend, then I doubt the Police and coroner would be stating there was nothing that could have been done for either party, plus a 3mph closing speed would not have had the force to make a loud sound or have the cyclist going up and over the bonnet. Plus the witness in front wouldn’t be stating he saw the car first and then heard the bang behind him, but would have been stating hearing the bang and then looking behind him.
As for the 18 mph, braking tracks plus the eye witness accounts. The car woudn’t have taken long to stop in the dry, but with a closing speed of 33mph….
“she would instead have been
“she would instead have been able to stop within the distance she could see to be clear!”
Sorry to be the pedent but this absolutely guarantees hitting another vehicle on a narrow lane using that thought process.
If you work on the stoping within the distance you can see (which maybe she was..), it doesn’t take into account that if you encounter a vehicle coming in the opposite way doing the same thing, then all that braking distance you had planned on has now gone, and you’ll hit the opposite vechicle midway in that space.
Thank god she didn’t pirate a
Thank god she didn’t pirate a movie and only killed someone … WTF
So she’s got off with no
So she’s got off with no punishment? Have I read this right? Whether she meant to or not, she’s killed someone.
Coroners’ inquests are to
Coroners’ inquests are to establish the circumstances of a death, not to determine anyone’s guilt or otherwise.
I don’t know why criminal charges were dropped, nor why if she’s not facing any she was legally advised not to answer questions.
Absolutely not defending her actions which led to her killing him: I’d very much like to see the law operate a presumption that the more powerful road user is culpable. Just pointing out that it’s not the coroner’s function to decide on guilt or innocence.
[EDITED because I’d not read it properly]
Brauchsel wrote:
I would assume that having dodged criminal prosecution (how, in God’s name?) she was advised not to answer any questions in case her answers could be used against her in a compensation claim or private prosecution.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
“Innocently killed” though…
I think “draining the drama” here could be a useful way forward. In the UK the focus is almost solely on legal responsibility – and that of the road users (rather than e.g. designers). So currently* we’re searching for either “there was a bad apple” or “it was one of those one-off tragic accidents”.
I favour a more “health and safety” approach – which is a red flag to some (“people will get away with murder!”) However in current UK practice lots of people kill someone on the roads and neither face punishment (or even charges) nor does anything happen to improve safety either!
In NL there can be a criminal investigation but they also investigate if there is something about the road / the environment or even the rules which could be changed to prevent this recurring.
* Yes there are coroner’s “reports to prevent future deaths” but the only legal force they have is to compel someone to answer a question – not actually do anything constructive.
My sincere condolences to the
My sincere condolences to the family.
Yet again. A perfect example of the NECESSITY in strapping a front and back camera to our bikes.
The camera will dictate that you motorists can shove your no comments where the sun don’t shine.
Anyway. Having to live with any guilt cannot be easy.
Why would the camera have
Why would the camera have made any difference here? The speeds were estimated by crash investigation and we had a witness anyway.
A camera would have been
A camera would have been useful as the collision occured BEHIND the surviving cyclist and therefore he could not know whether either was stationary when the collision occurred or even the relative positions in the road. IF it was the case that the cyclist was stationary and on their side of the road when they were hit I suspect blame for the collision could have been attributed by the police. If the circumstances were different, eg driver was stationary on their side of the road, then it may be that the driver genuinely was driving at a suitable speed.
It would not have saved this cyclist but if the driver was shown to have been at fault and the police bothered to pursue it and got a conviction, it would potentially have saved any future victims of this driver as well as acting as a deterrent for other drivers to follow this one’s example.
It is entirely up to
It is entirely up to individuals of course but the utility of running cameras is certainly not obvious. They are not a “safety aid” as has been said elsewhere. There are a whole series of uncertain “ifs” between “I had a camera” and “the motorist who hit me / someone else got punished” or even “this might stop a future crash”.
It’s not a small cost and you do have to maintain things (batteries, checking the footage is still readable etc.)
Maybe if I had a commute in busy or fast traffic I’d reconsider. It’s clearly not “what the people are calling for” but why not mandatory cameras in cars where they’re much easier to power / protect / secure?
Anyway in this case it seems the main facts are not being questioned – albeit the driver wasn’t forthcoming and the reporting is thin so we don’t know where they got their speeds from. Having thought about it I don’t think a camera would bring much benefit in *this* case.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This is definitely the direction we should be going. It should be beneficial for insurance companies to provide a discount if drivers are running a camera or insurance company provided black box recorder. It’s in the driver’s interest (and their insurance company) to use the footage when they are not to blame for incidents and getting other drivers to provide incriminating footage of other drivers would surely lead to safer roads for everyone.
However, I don’t think driver dashcams would be of much use when the driver is to blame and there’s no other nearby cameras to show what’s happened as it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to hand over incriminating footage and trivial for a driver to destroy the footage before it could be requested.
Meanwhile, if you’ve got the disposable income and inclination to run front and rear cameras on your bike, then it’s highly recommended. The more of us that upload close passes and inconsiderate driving, the safer that drivers will become.
I join you in offering
I join you in offering condolences.
As said before the camera would not have deterred anyone here. Again circumstances not clear from the report but I interpret this as a head-on collision going round the bend e.g. genuinely very little time between parties seeing each other and the crash.
Without commenting on the general utility of running cameras and assuming the little we know from the story is true I don’t think having video would have made any difference legally to this case. I think the argument “but my client had slowed right down – the speed limit is 60mph as the road is derestricted” means that neither police, magistrate or judiciary will consider this anything other than a “tragic accident” or “just one of those things”. Or they will say (as one commentor here already has) “but the cyclist was going a similar speed – why didn’t they slow down?”
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Do they generate a protective force field, or is that an added extra?
brooksby wrote:
Do they generate a protective force field, or is that an added extra?— Fignon's ghost
Maybe the idea is to make cyclists like those creatures which taste really bad? One for you:
Zaphod: I’m a pretty dangerous dude when I’m cornered.
Ford: Yeah, you go to pieces so fast people get hit by the shrapnel.
Why the anti camera
Why the anti camera fercocking BS?
As a result of the no comment, we will never know the complete picture.
ALWAYS WEAR A CAMERA.
FRONT AND BACK.
FFS!
I agree. They may not be
I agree. They may not be useful in every single case but far better evidence if the driver was at fault.
In this case, I would apply
In this case, I would apply the “What would have happened if they met themselves?” test.
While 18mph seems slow for a car, clearly if another car had also been approaching at 18mph there would have been a collision, probably hard enough to set off airbags and therefore risk some serious injury.
Given that the rule is to drive within your stopping distance, and on a single track road the rule is to halve that, it would appear that however reasonable it sounds, 18mph was probably twice as fast as the corner should have been taken – by either party.
So, what we have is the normalisation of dangerous driving on country lanes – we can’t expect drivers to slow to a safe speed around unsighted bends, therefore if an accident results it is acceptable.
My suspicion is that the police might have wanted to prosecute but the CPS took the judgement that the relatively low speeds would seem perfectly reasonable to a typical (drivist) jury or magistrate so the chances of a conviction would be low.
Have some of the posters
My error
Had you even bothered to do
Had you even bothered to do any research you’d have seen that there is absolutely no excuse for a driver to miss the existence of those cyclists. There are 4 bends on the whole damn road – all with clear line of sight on their approaches.
The cyclists were not invisible and hit from the rear. There is a clear case that the driver was not paying enough attention. The comments below are justified imo.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Hmm. I questioned this myself but there is not enough info in the stories. The road appears to be single-track or near, with almost zero visibility at bends. Deffo would expect anyone approaching them to slow right down. My driving instructor would have advised winding down the windows also although hearing an approaching cyclist is not likely and at least one cyclist didn’t hear the car…
The road is derestricted though! Not sure how they determined the speed of the car (presumably crash investigation?) but it wouldn’t surprise me if people assume no oncoming traffic and rag it between the bends, possibly carrying a lot of speed into them…
On “invisible and hit from the rear” it’s not clear. To me it seemed more likely the lead cyclist went round the corner, saw car coming the other way go past them, heard the bang and looked back to see the aftermath as the car hit the second cyclist head on.
Quote:
I don’t think that is the case from the riding mate’s statements from the article.
He saw the car, then heard the bang behind him. It was a head on with the car approaching the corner at 18mph and the cyclists at 15mph. The first cyclist was missed probably because he was on the apex line and she was just turning in but the coming together was the rear cyclist who would have been further out on the turn just as the driver would have been coming in more. As it was single track, the wouldn’t have been enough room for both, especially as vegetation was mentioned during the summoning up which indicates the road was even narrower.
Legin wrote:
Well, it’s clear that there was a collision and there doesn’t seem to be any explanation other than the driver not paying attention. If there was another reason (e.g. mechanical failure, cyclist suddenly swerving due to poor road surface or even a sudden medical incident) then it would be reasonable to expect the driver to provide some explanation.
I don’t know what you’re trying to imply by suggesting that the cyclist wasn’t paying attention – how would that lead to a collision?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Indeed, but if the statement above is accurate and the cyclist was doing 15 and the driver 18. then how was there a collission sufficient to injure the cylists with a speed differential of only 3 miles an hour?
My interpretation is that both the cyclists and the driver approached the same bend at a similar speed from opposite directions. So both were approaching the same bend at a similar speed and equally unaware of what was approaching from the other side. The lead cyclist saw the car (as as they flashed past each other) and then heard it collide the rear cyclist. the car did not approach from behind but it was behind the witness at the point of impact.
Now we can argue that maybe the cyclists can go faster round these bends as they only need half the road, so can pass oncoming cyclists without issue. But that’s crazy as the vehicle coming the other way is most likely to be filling the space. I wonder if it was a electric car that the cyclists dodn’t appear to hear it approaching.
Hierarchy of responsibility.
Hierarchy of responsibility. The cyclists are unlikely to cause a colision. The driver is highly likely to cause a (potentially fatal) collision if not going slow enough around blind bends.
The ‘disrespectful’ motorist
The ‘disrespectful’ motorist was driving an Astra which has only been available as an electric and hybrid since June 2023 so wouldn’t have been a silent vehicle if you believe that to be a possible factor in the incident.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I agree – it sounds like they were going in opposite directions.
What, she got off Scott free?
What, she got off Scott free?! How?!
To echo some other commemts,
To echo some other commemts, many drivers regularily commuting on familiar rular roads are just ticking bombs. They tend to drive at failry constant (seemingly not very high) speed not dynamically adjusting their progress and position to conditions and the road layout.
There is no such thing as high or low speed, just speed (un)suitable for conditions. Some tight bends or hump bridges require slowing down to almost a walking speed in the 1st or 2nd gear and preferably using the horn to warn other traffic.
I believe that driving and theory tests should be more comprehensive and even harder to pass. They should also contain the elements od advanced driving e.g. IAM smart as standard.
I’d make cycle training
I’d make cycle training compulsory for all drivers taking the test. And I’d make it compulsory for anyone renewing a licence. Tricycles or hand cycles would be available for those unable to ride a bicycle and I doubt many drivers would be so disabled as to be exempt by being unable to operate an electric assist hand cycle.
Research shows cyclists and motorcyclists make better car drivers through better understanding of road conditions and hazard perception.
I’ve said many times, the IAM
I’ve said many times, the IAM Advanced driving test is misnamed. There is absolutely nothing in it that is not required for safe and careful driving.
They cover how to judge the correct safe speed for a corner, how to brake and change gear to maximise control, how to properly overtake minimising the time you are committed on the wrong side of the road, how to observe, to always drive within the speed limit, how to approach junctions more slowly to increase your observation time and judge how to meld with traffic more easily..
There might be a few things that might be considered refinements, but there is nothing that any driver should consider superfluous to good driving.