Jersey coroner says foot stuck in clipless pedal led to cyclist's death

KiwiMike wrote:

no. No. NO. N-O.

"...causing him to lose his balance and fall under a passing van"

He did NOT 'fall under a passing van'. You cannot 'fall under' something. You fall over, then IT runs OVER you.

The van driver was following too close, did not react to another road user in front of him, and RAN HIM OVER.

Had the van driver been travelling at a safe distance behind, or been passing with 1.5m of space, or passing at an appropriate speed, then he would not have ran him over.

That's it. End of.

Yep I was just going to say the same using this quote as a starter

"The inquest heard that there was nothing the vehicle’s driver could have done to avoid hitting the cyclist."

and I was about to say that the driver could have complied with the Highway code for starters. I don't know how fast he was driving so can't comment on that but he was going so fast that he was unable to stop in time.

Rule 163 of the Highway Code states:

"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215)."

And if the van driver had complied with the Highway code then he would have avoided the collision.

Another numpty Coroner.

oozaveared wrote:

Rule 163 of the Highway Code states:

"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215)."

And if the van driver had complied with the Highway code then he would have avoided the collision.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The fact he hit a lamppost, and the picture in the article above, would suggest that he riding on the pavement, and swerved/fell into the path of the vehicle. There is nothing a driver can do about such a scenario, Highway Code or not.

As someone said above, sometimes these things just happen, and there isn't a single person who can be blamed. It seems extremely unfair to try and make out that the driver could've avoided this.

dp24 wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Rule 163 of the Highway Code states:

"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215)."

And if the van driver had complied with the Highway code then he would have avoided the collision.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. The fact he hit a lamppost, and the picture in the article above, would suggest that he riding on the pavement, and swerved/fell into the path of the vehicle. There is nothing a driver can do about such a scenario, Highway Code or not.

As someone said above, sometimes these things just happen, and there isn't a single person who can be blamed. It seems extremely unfair to try and make out that the driver could've avoided this.

Well I didn't really. My target was the Coroner. As far as driving is concerned and I am an Advanced Driver and drove in a professional capacity for over a decade I have to say, "there but for the grace of god - goes many of us" . But to say that there was nothing a driver could do or could have done to prevent a collision is to test the bounds of credulity a bit. I am very sceptical of 100% judgements.

In my opinion the main person at fault was unfortunately the cyclist. He took a vehicle on the road that he wasn't quite in control of. I would also put a bit of blame on the bike hire company. I believe it was hired. That let a novice out on the road with clipless pedals without checking they were expreienced in using them. That doesn't excuse him though. But that doesn't mean to say that if a cyclist is at prime fault everyone else gets a free pass on any of the blame.

I work with a the Police quite a lot and several of my mates are still Road Traffic Officers in Surrey. The times we have heard "There was nothing I could do" after a collision would boggle your mind.

People walking out, cyclists falling off, stuff falling off other vehicles, drivers pulling out in front of you. These all happen. They happen hundreds even thousands of times everyday across the country. The difference between many good drivers and the others is that good drivers don't hit everything that lands in or comes in to their path.

This is not voodoo. It's not luck. Most supposedly "unavoidable collisions" are actually avoidable.

oozaveared wrote:

I work with a the Police quite a lot and several of my mates are still Road Traffic Officers in Surrey. The times we have heard "There was nothing I could do" after a collision would boggle your mind.

People walking out, cyclists falling off, stuff falling off other vehicles, drivers pulling out in front of you. These all happen. They happen hundreds even thousands of times everyday across the country. The difference between many good drivers and the others is that good drivers don't hit everything that lands in or comes in to their path.

This is not voodoo. It's not luck. Most supposedly "unavoidable collisions" are actually avoidable.

I have to somewhat agree with the above. Whilst it's clear that the cyclist made a hideous inexperienced error, I dont think it's as simple as there was nothing the driver could have done because the cyclist started on the pavement.

If I'm driving I always slow down or give room to "vulnerable" people on the pavement. If there's room I drive further out away from pavement, if there's no room then I slow down. I always do this if I see a kid on a bike on the pavement, as there's a slim chance* they might fall off or slip in the road.

Slow down? But they're on the pavement you say?

It is clearly not acceptable to closely pass a cyclist at speed if they are on the road for obvious reasons. Why is then acceptable to hammer past closely if they are on a narrow shared-path? Just because they are raised above the road surface, why does that mean it's suddenly okay to pass closely and quickly with no-room-for-error?

*In fact it's not even a "slim chance". A large proportion of cyclists killed are KIDS that badly transitioned from the pavement to the road.

KiwiMike wrote:

no. No. NO. N-O.

"...causing him to lose his balance and fall under a passing van"

He did NOT 'fall under a passing van'. You cannot 'fall under' something. You fall over, then IT runs OVER you.

The van driver was following too close, did not react to another road user in front of him, and RAN HIM OVER.

Had the van driver been travelling at a safe distance behind, or been passing with 1.5m of space, or passing at an appropriate speed, then he would not have ran him over.

That's it. End of.

F*cking hell, are you being deliberately stupid or does it come naturally? I'm suprised you manage to do anything with that much anger! At no point does the article state that the van was travelling in the same direction, in fact it states that the van driver could do nothing to avoid the cyclist.

It's a sad story but Shimano aren't to blame - a guy using their product for the first time (with little or no practice of what it's like to be clipped in), gets distracted, loses his balance and falls off his bike infront of a van which can't then avoid him. Accidents happen and unfortunately this one proved costly where the same sequence at other times wouldn't have done. RIP.

AyBee wrote:

At no point does the article state that the van was travelling in the same direction, in fact it states that the van driver could do nothing to avoid the cyclist.

Which I'm inclined to agree with - but see my post above re direction..

JonD wrote:

AyBee wrote:

At no point does the article state that the van was travelling in the same direction, in fact it states that the van driver could do nothing to avoid the cyclist.

Which I'm inclined to agree with - but see my post above re direction..

Noted, but riding on the pavement with a van passing on the road is different to the van passing the bike on the road. You don't expect people walking or riding on the pavement to move into the road without warning and therefore don't adjust your speed/road positioning as you would were it a bike in the road. My point was purely that it was absolutely not the van driver's fault and suggesting that he ran over the cyclist because he was too close/driving too fast was a ridiculous statement to make.

KiwiMike wrote:

no. No. NO. N-O.

"...causing him to lose his balance and fall under a passing van"

He did NOT 'fall under a passing van'. You cannot 'fall under' something. You fall over, then IT runs OVER you.

The van driver was following too close, did not react to another road user in front of him, and RAN HIM OVER.

Had the van driver been travelling at a safe distance behind, or been passing with 1.5m of space, or passing at an appropriate speed, then he would not have ran him over.

That's it. End of.

This reply sickens me almost as much as this horrible accident, so I'm going to play devils advocate here.

1. If a driver is looking somewhere else (perhaps looking at their child in the back seat of their car) and they hit a cyclist, who's fault is it ?.... but a cyclist who takes their eyes off the road, hits a lamppost and falls over, they are then struck by a van and its still the van drivers fault... really ? glad you pointed that out.

2. The article has no mention of what happened after the lamppost was struck, I doubt the poor bugger went straight down, what happened if he swerved off line by say 1.5 metres and then fell right, given the height of a typical person that would add another 1.5 metre to the distance making him 3m from the side of the road, also if that happened just as the van was about to pass there is no way it could of been avoided.

End Of.

mikeprytherch wrote:

KiwiMike wrote:

no. No. NO. N-O.

"...causing him to lose his balance and fall under a passing van"

He did NOT 'fall under a passing van'. You cannot 'fall under' something. You fall over, then IT runs OVER you.

This reply sickens me almost as much as this horrible accident, so I'm going to play devils advocate here..

Whilst I might apologise for your illness, I make zero apology for my reply. Maybe in a tiny, *tiny* percentage of KSI collisions there was genuinely nothing the driver could have done - such as a cyclist veering head-on into the path of a vehicle with no warning. But what many people on here have shown is just how pervasive the 'there but for the grace of god go I' attitude is in the UK. No wonder so many juries acquit drivers who could have and should have taken a lot more care.

As the operator of the heavier vehicle you have an obligation to defer to other more vulnerable road users, to allow for their errors. That seems anathema to 99% of UK drivers.

That's what is sickening, because it kills people every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvLaTupw-hk