A seven year-old girl was killed after struggling with her gears and swerving into the path of a car while cycling alongside a busy A road near Weston-super-Mare. April Reeves’ parents have called for the 60mph speed limit to be dropped to 40mph and a grass verge to be created between the road and cycleway to prevent future incidents.
The Western Morning News reports how April was riding a small mountain bike along a shared footpath and cyclepath next to the A371 near RAF Locking on Thursday May 28 when she lost control of her bike and swerved into the path of a Skoda Yeti driven by Peter Farmer.
April was riding behind her mother, Wendy, and older brother, Tyler. PC Julian Chambers, who attended the scene, told the inquest:
“Mrs Reeves said she was struggling with operating the gears because she was not used to them. She was riding in sixth gear, which is the last and most difficult gear to cycle in. It is possible April was trying to change gear while she was moving. She lost control of the bike and fell off the kerb.”
Chambers told the inquest there was nothing Peter Farmer could have done to avoid the schoolgirl crashing into the front side of his car.
Jeremy Spearing, who had been driving on the opposite side of the road, said there had been a gap of up to 30m between the three cyclists. He saw April wobbling on her bike before she fell.
“April started to wobble. I could see her wheel turning left towards the road and noticed she was close to it. Within five metres of passing I heard a noise like an empty cardboard box being hit with a baseball bat. I knew straight away she had been hit.”
Peter Farmer said he saw April in his peripheral vision as he drove past, looking unsteady or not in control of her bike.
“I cannot describe the sound. I just knew something had happened and I instinctively veered to the right but there was oncoming traffic.”
Another witness, Shirley Hobson said she was travelling behind Farmer and did not register any concerns about his driving.
The inquest recorded a verdict of accidental death.
Since the accident in May there has been a campaign to lower the speed limit on the 60mph road. After the hearing, April’s father, Garry, said:
“I just want the road changed so the speed limit is lower and there is a safe crossing point especially up by the school. I would like there to be a grass verge running along the side of the road like the rest of the cycle paths in Weston. There is no protection between that road and that path at all.
“Like my little son said, on that day if there had been a grass verge his sister would be here today. We think 60mph is way too fast for speed on that road and prevention is much better than cure. Why wait until more and more accidents and deaths are being reported to then change the road? Why can’t it be done now? Why wait? Why risk more lives when there is a cure?”
Following the inquest, a spokesman for North Somerset Council told the Bristol Post:
“Our sympathies are with the family at what must continue to be a heart-breaking time for them.
“Although it is clear that the road condition and vehicle speeds played no part in this tragedy, we did say at the time of the accident that there were already improvements being planned as a result of the new residential and employment development taking place at Locking Parklands.
“We had been in discussions with the local school and had moved flashing warning lights nearer to the current crossing point on the A371. We have also completed the work in conjunction with the school and parish council to create an extension to the school car park to encourage parents not to drop off children on the main road.
“We are now progressing the planned widened cycle/pedestrian path from Locking Parklands down to the Laneys Drove junction; funding for this has been identified from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. The design work has been completed and we are waiting for confirmation of a start date. Where space allows there will be a grass strip between the road and the footway.
“Design work has also begun on the north-south road link across the site which will require a traffic-light junction on the A371 with new pedestrian crossing facilities. This will enable us to review the speed limit here but no decisions have been made yet as to what that limit should be or the extent of a reduced limit.
“We will carefully study any comments we get from the coroner and respond to them appropriately.”
49 thoughts on “Girl killed during family bike ride struggled with gears and veered into road”
God that’s awful. For
God that’s awful. For everyone.
In the Netherlands, /every/
In the Netherlands, every driving instructor will teach prospect drivers to be cautious near children, and very much so if they don’t look confident.
Considering how ‘patient’ way too many drivers in the UK are around other traffic (including cyclists) ‘nothing he could have done’ raises some questions for me.
Ronald wrote:
Most British driving instructors will teach that too. Doesn’t mean anyone bothers once they’ve passed their once-in-a-lifetime test.
I think it’s also worth remembering that this horror show was in North Somerset, where as a funding wheeze to redirect tiny cycling budgets to improve motorway access, the council built a cycle lane in the central reservation of the approach and junction 21 of the M5 with no way to reach it from any other cycle lane, which the councillor responsible lied that it’s perfectly safe but refused to ride on it when the BBC reporter asked, yet still motorists whine in the local papers about cyclists riding on the road instead of these council deathtraps! I like good cycle lanes but some of North Somerset’s are disgusting.
a.jumper wrote:
In the Netherlands, every driving instructor will teach prospect drivers to be cautious near children, and very much so if they don’t look confident.
Considering how ‘patient’ way too many drivers in the UK are around other traffic (including cyclists) ‘nothing he could have done’ raises some questions for me.— a.jumper
Most British driving instructors will teach that too. Doesn’t mean anyone bothers once they’ve passed their once-in-a-lifetime test.
I think it’s also worth remembering that this horror show was in North Somerset, where as a funding wheeze to redirect tiny cycling budgets to improve motorway access, the council built a cycle lane in the central reservation of the approach and junction 21 of the M5 with no way to reach it from any other cycle lane, which the councillor responsible lied that it’s perfectly safe but refused to ride on it when the BBC reporter asked, yet still motorists whine in the local papers about cyclists riding on the road instead of these council deathtraps! I like good cycle lanes but some of North Somerset’s are disgusting.— Ronald
I regularly cycle through J21 on the M5 to reach the A370 and you’re so right about that cycle path. I’d forgotten it was even there as it is of no use at all. I just stay on the road rather than having to cross an extra lane of traffic to be able to reach the “cycle” path. These days, I mainly ignore cycle paths as they’re so badly designed and not fit for purpose.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It doesn’t have to be that way – just see the recent video of what’s being built in London – but it is in most of North Somerset. 🙁
Just absolutely tragic.
Just absolutely tragic.
Absolutely hideous incident,
Absolutely hideous incident, poor little thing.
However I can’t stand this blame shifting, that road is a 60mph road all day long. Personally I wouldn’t have wanted my daughter riding along that path when she was seven, and if she did she would have been riding where I could see her, not that that would have necessarily made a difference in this instance.
Yes a grass verge seperator might have made a difference, but it might not.
Tragic. Hope her family is
Tragic. Hope her family is coping and hasn’t given up cycling. I wish motorists would slow down when approaching vulnerable road users (e.g. cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders) whether they be using the pavement or the road. It’s considerate and conscientious to do so, IMO.
Sadly she shouldnt have been
Sadly she shouldnt have been anywhere near the road until proficient.
gb901 wrote:
That’s as maybe, but why are our roads so dangerous? This is a tragic accident but it’s worth evaluating what’s more important to us as a society – fast transport or safe environment or maybe some way of having both.
A tragedy but throughout my
A tragedy but throughout my life I have been told that adults should put themselves between children and traffic whether walking or cycling and looking at the poath there was certainly room for this to happen.
I leave it to other commentators to come to their own conclusions but before anyone criticises me for this, look at the comments on the earlier story about the girl who is campaigning for compulsory helmets in Flanders because she fell off a bike and ended up with brain damage. Similar scenario different outcome.
Drivers saw the issue but did
Drivers saw the issue but did nothing…. Would drivers have behaved the same if it was a horse? This also highlights why so many uk bike paths are not fit for purpose, they should be safe for everyone!
Mother didn’t see that there
Mother didn’t see that there was a problem because she was 30m up the road, she did nothing either…
Did the mother kill her
Did the mother kill her daughter?
The driver killed the girl, he may not have meant to. From experience a driver sees a horse and slows, and yes i regularly see horses on 60mph trunk roads before anyone mentions, regardless of being on the pavement or the road. Driver sees pedestrian, or cyclist and doesn’t give a s***.
Bikes wobble, children more so, highway code clearly states to give room. Law is that you can’t go through a puddle and splash a pedestrian, how many drivers obey that one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10590181/Motorist-faces-court-after-splashing-schoolchildren-with-puddle.html
mrmo wrote:
In my opinion, yes.
It is her responsibility to ensure wherever possible that her children are safe. It sounds like the little girl wasn’t competent to ride in such an evironment, therefore she should not have been allowed too. Even if she was a great little rider, her mother should have been in a position to monitor what she was doing and take action if necessary. If the mother wasn’t that good of a rider either, then she shouldn’t have been taking the kids out and riding in such a place.
Bikes wobble, children more so, highway code clearly states to give room. Law is that you can’t go through a puddle and splash a pedestrian, how many drivers obey that one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10590181/Motorist-faces-court-after-splashing-schoolchildren-with-puddle.html— mrmo
So basically all motorists should drive around expecting that the worst is going to happen all of the time?
Obviously I agree that motorists should slow and give room if passing somebody on the road, but this is a very wide cycle path. I really don’t think that cyclists or pedestrians should expect cars to slow down for them.
If you’re driving in a 30mph zone, do you slow down when you’re passing a pedestrian walking along the pavement?
PaulBox wrote:
Actually, preparing for the worst, rather than merely expecting it. It’s what driving lessons teach you and what the highway code expects.
That cycle path is a narrow POS, mostly made by slapping paint and signs on a footway. I know it well, including the awful crossings of the service station, the Locking turn and the beloved helicopter show.
Yes, unless I’m well away from the pavement, so they could fall without risk of me hitting them. All good drivers do that, but bad drivers seem to be in the majority now.
PaulBox wrote:
See? He does get it.
Ush wrote:
So basically all motorists should drive around expecting that the worst is going to happen all of the time?
— Ush See? He does get it.— PaulBox
You’re clever, did you think of that all on your own?
PaulBox wrote:
What’s the point of that response? Morally, yes, motorists should drive carefully. It’s because they won’t that we need far greater efforts to keep them away from vulnerable road users.
Cars are weapons, and need to be regulated accordingly. Our car culture is currently much like US gun culture.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Cars, car ownership and the ability to drive a car legally is very regulated in the UK.
Cars are also cars, not weapons. The industry gets more and more safety regulations piled on it year upon year. Look at the demise of things you don’t even think about like pop-up lights, done for pedestrian safety. All cars look like blobs now because of various safety rules. Cars come with endless electronic safety addons now. Hardly an industry not acting on safety.
Cyclists have killed pedestrians, are cycles weapons?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Not really. You can pass a single test of your competence at the age of 17 and drive for 60 years without any further testing. This is not tolerated in the workplace, why is it tolerated on the roads?
It doesn’t matter what shape you make a ton of anything travelling at 60mph. If it hits you, it will likely kill you. I assert that the level of training and testing undertaken by private car drivers is not commensurate with the level of risk they post to other road users.
Disclosure – I love cars. But I think that the plodders would benefit from more training and the speeders should test their skills on a racetrack.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Cars, car ownership and the ability to drive a car legally is very regulated in the UK. — FluffyKittenofTindalos
It really isn’t. Not when people can just cram to get through a test and then immediately forget at least half of it, and just operate on the single rule “it’s fine if I get away with it”. (And not when there are so many drivers still driving around with huge numbers of points, all pleading ‘exceptional hardship’)
Cyclists have killed pedestrians, are cycles weapons? — Yorkshire wallet
The vast majority of the ‘various safety rules’ that make cars ‘like blobs’ are there for the benefit of those inside the vehicle. And yeah, clearly the industry is _desperately_ concerned about the well-being of those outside the vehicle (who aren’t their paying customers) – that must be why they were so scrupulous about sticking to the spirit of emissions limits.
There’s no comparison in the lethality of cyclists, don’t be silly. Since when has a terrorist ever staged an attack by cycling into a crowd of pedestrians?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Cars, car ownership and the ability to drive a car legally is very regulated in the UK.
Cars are also cars, not weapons. The industry gets more and more safety regulations piled on it year upon year. Look at the demise of things you don’t even think about like pop-up lights, done for pedestrian safety. All cars look like blobs now because of various safety rules. Cars come with endless electronic safety addons now. Hardly an industry not acting on safety.
Cyclists have killed pedestrians, are cycles weapons? — FluffyKittenofTindalos
1800 people a year are killed by these ‘not weapons’ hiow does that stack up against knives? knives are tools, but in the wrong hands can become weapons the same is true for motor vehicles.
cars may be heavily regulated, but any chump can buy any car, regardless of power once they pass a single test, which they may attempt as many times as they like, until they get conditions benign enough for them to pass.
no minimum period between tests, and no requirement for further training.
Motorcycle licences are graded based on age and experience, the same does not apply for cars, relying instead on prohibitive insurance costs to keep inexperienced drivers out of high powered machines.
Considering there are more uninsured drivers on the roads than cyclists this seems to be a vain hope.
By far the greatest advances in motor vehicle safety are aimed at safety of the occupants not vulnerable roads users.
PaulBox wrote:
Yes. This is the basic tenet of driving in a safe, defensive manner. Your incredulity only reinforces my belief that most people don’t give a shit about anything but getting to their destination in the absolute shortest time and bugger everyone else.
I’m reminded of a time when I got a lift from a colleague that involved a section of twisty B-road. He was showing off about how fast his car could take corners. I was just thinking to myself, “it’s a good job there’s been nothing else around these blind bends” when we rounded a corner to find a slow moving tractor, which we piled straight into the back of. No injuries but to the driver’s pride, but it could easily have been someone on a bike.
This is how most people drive.
srchar wrote:
Most people drive under the speed limit from my experiences. As the elderly population increases and the ‘on the phone’ generation increases, this seems to be more likely than speeding. I spend most of my time in the car thinking ‘get a move on’ as some old boy does 35 in a 60 in perfect conditions.
The only place where people seem to actually drive at any decent speed is the motorway but that’s to be expect given its basically a straight line.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Not my experience at all, not remotely. Unless there’s significant congestion (which, admittedly, there is a lot of the time), exceeding the speed limit is almost universal. Usually by up to 10 mph, but late at night or in the early hours it can mean hitting 60 or 70 on 20mph limit roads.
Probably depends on the area of the country.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I suppose it depends on the demographics of your local area, but I agree that dangerous driving doesn’t have to involve excess speed. I’d rather be overtaken by a car breaking the speed limit but giving me loads of room than someone dawdling along, passing me with inches to spare and taking twenty seconds to complete the manoeuvre.
Too many people see driving as a chore, something to be done in the background while you do something more important like read your texts or chat on the phone. They’re bored; they just want to get the journey over with. Inattention and haste are a lethal combination.
srchar wrote:
Worst passers are Honda Jazz drivers creeping past, flat cap on, neck fixed in position, inches to spare….but at least they indicate when they pull back in, once again inches in front of you now.
Some of the speculation on
Some of the speculation on here is not nice, how do we know he didn’t start to slow, or that he wasn’t going significantly slower than the limit.
As has been said below, I try to ensure that my little ones have the knowledge and proficiency but we often do this from a position of ‘ignorance’ because we do instinctively know what to do ourselves. On roads where I am concerned i will still cycle behind my 13 year old and a decent distance wider, it makes the cars either wait or pass me very wide and means if he swerves to avoid an object in the road he is still no wider than myself.
When riding with my younger ones (and they are on the pavement) I will still often use the road to add even more protection. There is always a balance though, i try and be slightly behind in case of veering but if there’s a side road i tend to advance to see how much speed they need to knock off – there is potential in those few seconds for things to happen.
There but for the grace of God go I and thoughts are with anyone who loses a young soul in such circumstances…
absolutely dreadful, for
absolutely dreadful, for everyone involved.
I ride that road on a regular
I ride that road on a regular basis, and the photo does not give a true impression of just how wide the footway / cycle path is, in places it as wide as a single carriageway road. Also the path is at kerb height above the road.
Cars do not slow down for people on the footway, they don’t slow down for the horses that are sometimes seen on the grass verges and they certainly don’t slow down for cyclists on the road, but it is a very wide road, so even with traffic moving in both directions there is plenty of room to pass, which most drvers do safely.
This was just a traguc and very sad accident, if the little girl had wobbled a few moment before or after, she would not have struck the car. I feel terribly sorry for the parents, but really, this road is not anything like as dangerouse as it is being percieved.
truly awful, my heart goes
truly awful, my heart goes out to the family.
Peter Farmer absolutely could have done something to avoid the ‘accident’, he appears to have acknowledged the presence of the danger but carried on driving with the usual impunity drivers enjoy. Peter Farmer could have slowed down, he could have pulled out, he could even have come to a complete stop, Peter Farmer chose to drive past a small child and hope for the best, unfortunately that action was instrumental to her death.
If Peter Farmer happen across this in googling his name then this message it to him…..you are to blame mate, you could have done better and you quite frankly you should have.
You drive to the conditions and the surroundings, notice a kids wobbling on a bike next to the road then to slow the F down and give them room.
the fact that PC Julian Chambers tries to abolish Farmer of all blame boils my piss, it just reinforces drivers attitudes that shit happens and its not their fault.
If the driver had been
If the driver had been driving past his own family cycling along the pavement like that, I give 100:1 odds they would have given a wider berth. That should be the test of culpability.
Whatever the safety implications, it’s horrible and scary walking next to a road where cars are speeding past at whatever speed they like (it’s a 60 limit, so I guess most cars are going 70). Who would put the pavement right next to the road? It’s madness.
Mr C,
Mr C,
Posts like yours boil my piss, were you there?
After an accident you can look back on many thousands of contributory factors, maybe if the weather had been different, if the cat hadn’t moaned to be fed and on and on and on… To suggest he was driving past hoping for the best suggests negligence which would have incurred charges.
Rather than single him out and suggest some Google induced attacks on him, why not equally provide the parents twitter feeds so people can lampoon them about bike maintenance, choice of route, pissing off down the road and abandoning her?
Stupid, ill informed and offensive post!
alansmurphy wrote:
I dont really need to be there to get annoyed at the fact the copper said “here was nothing Peter Farmer could have done to avoid the schoolgirl” it just reinforces the feeling of impunity drivers have (yes I drive). Mr Farmer could have been driving slower when passing a small child on a bike….not saying he saw her and though “f**k it”, sadly its more like the idea didn’t even enter his mind.
So yes it does boil my piss….i deal with people riding past my kids too fast every bloody week as they just cant be arsed to slow down for 30 seconds.
mrchrispy wrote:
I don’t know what you do for a living, but you really should consider contacting the police or CPS. Your ability to do a better job of assessing what happened than a police officer who attended the scene is truly astounding…
Can you tell us how fast Mr Farmer was travelling and what you would advise for the future?
“Peter Farmer said he saw
“Peter Farmer said he saw April in his peripheral vision as he drove past, looking unsteady or not in control of her bike.”
…so he didn’t do anything, just carried on driving straight.
Bikebikebike wrote:
No he didn’t.
“I cannot describe the sound. I just knew something had happened and I instinctively veered to the right but there was oncoming traffic.”
PaulBox wrote:
OK … …so he didn’t do anything, just carried on driving straight, until he hit and killed her. Probably a bit late then.
Bikebikebike wrote:
If you read the article properly it’s quite clear he was passing the girl when she fell into the side of his car, if he’d say slowed down an extra 3-4mph, then she may have fallen right in front of his wheels leaving him equally little change to do anything but leaving him with the lifelongmemoery of seeing her go under his car.
On the other hand, if he’d been going 4mph faster, she might have fallen behind his car and survived wth cuts and scrapes.
It’s clear there was oncoming traffic, he couldn’t pull into the oncoming lane.
One way or another, none of us were there and witnessed the actual circumstances, and this tragic accident highlights various things. A safety margin between cycling infrastructure and busy road can help improve safety, but might not stop all accidents. Taking children out cycling alongside a major road until they are fully competent with all aspects of bike control is probably not the ideal option for a cycle trip.Ifor one am currently teaching my 8 year old (who to make things more interesting has a mild variant of autism) road safety and cycling skills. He’s pretty good, keeps a good line, is aware (generally) of what’s around, but I’d not take him along the side of a major route yet, and that’s despite the fact that over here A road equivalents have an 80km/h limit (50mph) and most shared use paths along them have a divide betweeen the sections.
not getting into an
not getting into an interfloppy argument on a thread about a dead little girl ffs, lets agree to disagree before we both start to look like bellends .
If I was out riding my bike
If I was out riding my bike and I saw a 3-4 year old ambling by several feet from the bike lane on a raised pavement, sure, I would come to pretty much a full stop. But a 9 year old? I’d slow down a bit, if I was aware enough to notice. Is that enough? I hope so. It’s honestly more than the vast majority of cyclists I’ve seen. YMMV.
In a car, on a 60mph road (even at 50 or 40), with far greater braking distances, if someone falls 10 or 20 feet in front of a car going 40mph, a collision is virtually unavoidable. And the potential harm resulting from a collision is far higher. Yet absolutely no driving standard I’ve known calls for people slowing down due to the possibility of pedestrians suddenly jutting out into the street or cyclist a falling from the pavement into the streets. And with reason, as it would make our current transportation system pretty much inviable.
So until the day comes were cars no longer allowed on the roads, these types of accidents (yes, accidents) are going to happen. Lives will tragically be lost. Can we do something about the frequency? Sure, there are measures to be taken. Human drivers being outlawed is probably by far the best of these, in terms of lives saved. And it’s not that far away, IMHO. But would any politically viable measure (as of 2015) have contributed to a better outcome this case? That’s a far tougher question than most here seem to realize.
My heart goes out to the family. But on the information presented here I find it completely irresponsible to blame the driver, even more so to hint at starting a social media shaming campaign. I honestly believe that attempting something like that would be actively unhelpful to the cause of advancing outside support for cycling (I’m not referring to the comments made here, this being a road cycling site with a specific audience).
Carton wrote:
Yes, one politically viable option would be that the drivers of dangerous vehicles are expected to live up to the standard of care implied by the possession of a license to operate said vehicles. It’s something everyone can do for themselves. No need for the government or the police… just fucking accept that it’s a dangerous machine, stop normalizing it and behave accordingly.
Ush wrote:
Is it politically viable though? Lots of things are just and moral and sensible, but politically impossible. That’s how human beings roll.
Carton wrote:
The National Standard for Driving Cars and Light Vans (category B) Element 4.1.2 “Cooperate with other road users” and Element 4.2.1 “Identify and respond to hazards” call for that, saying you MUST know and understand “the importance of predicting the likely actions of other road users, especially vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, children and the elderly” and be able to “use visual clues to predict possible hazards and prepare for situations that may arise”. The associated syllabus also addresses the only-dangerous-is-viable myth by saying “being patient and considerate generally results in everybody getting where they want to more quickly and safely.”
Now, if someone wants to suggest that this isn’t explicit enough that someone falling from a footway into the road is just such a likely action and possible hazard, then I’d suggest that they fall below the required standard for driving! I’m sorry if that isn’t helpful for “advancing outside support for cycling”, but I really care more about this threat to children than that and it’s time to tell a few harsh truths and get the bad drivers away from their killer cars.
In this particular case, there does appear to be more than enough blame to share around: not only the substandard driving, but also the substandard cycle facility built by the council and questions about why no responsible adult was riding behind and overseeing a wobbly child rider.
a.jumper wrote:
I appreciate a well-researched reply. And as I said before, I objected to people hinting at going on social media to try to shame the driver, again, I don’t think that would raise any outside support (quite the opposite). I welcome objections on this forum.
Note the generally. Not always. Not even almost always. You can’t guarantee always. Because accidents do happen.
Though I’ve never cycled there, from all I’ve read she a road user as she wasn’t using the road, she stumbled from the pavement cycle lane into the road.
Well, then there is just no way you can allow cars on the roads (even self-driving ones) if the driving standard is to slow down enough to allow for anyone on the pavement to cross into your path at any time. What’s more, you really couldn’t even allow bikes on the roads either. Because even if you have a 10mph limit for cars and bikes, you wouldn’t avoid every fatal accident involving any infirm person jutting out into the street.
Again, had he be going 40mph, would it have made a difference? Maybe, if she fell 100 ft away. However, if I take his word for it that he didn’t see even see her fall into his path, that means she possibly fell less than 10 ft from his car. There is basically no speed at which you can drive (or ride a bike, even though the potential for harm would be lower fatal accidents would still happen) and account for that.
Maybe she was farther away and he could have done something. Maybe. But you can’t know that. And nothing suggests that. You can still campaign for better infrastructure and more care from drivers. You can even campaign for the banning of all human driving, if you want (way too early IMHO, and again, unlikely to drum up outside support, but it’s your prerogative). But to assume fault from the driver in this case based on current standards and evidence is, again, from in my opinion completely irresponsible.
Carton wrote:
Sure, but the odd case where it wouldn’t doesn’t make the whole system unviable, does it?
Though I’ve never cycled there, from all I’ve read she a road user as she wasn’t using the road, she stumbled from the pavement cycle lane into the road. — a.jumper
A road is more than just a carriageway. A footway is part of a road too.
Trying to dodge the motorist’s culpability with that sort of dictionary pedantry is really ugly… and generally accepted by the legal system and most of society, sadly.
Nice attempt to make this black and white. All I am saying is that he should have at least slowed down and steered wide (the A371 has pretty wide lanes there until it gets into Banwell – it used to serve the old RAF base), rather than apparently kept his foot down and pass within falling distance… I think he’s probably to blame but I also think he’s just the patsy this time. Why aren’t driving standards better known? Why aren’t motorists being encouraged to keep up to date, reread the Highway Code and do some self-testing? Why are the police and legal system so relaxed about killer motoring?
That all means this sort of tragedy will probably happen again and again until we as a society bring motoring back under control.
a.jumper wrote:
Trying to dodge the motorist’s culpability with that sort of dictionary pedantry is really ugly… and generally accepted by the legal system and most of society, sadly.— a.jumper
No, it’s not just a technicality. I’ve never seen anyone ever veer outside their lane to accommodate me walking by on the footpath. It’s never ever happened to me anywhere in the world. And while I’m definitely no jet-setter I’ve had the fortune of traveling here and there in my few decades on this rock. On a bike on the road, most drivers will. Some will give me the whole lane even if I’m hugging the shoulder.
If that’s all that you were saying I agree. Even more so, it’s something I’ll try to keep more in mind when driving or riding.
But even though it seems selfish to bring my own issues to an article about the death of a child again, I think self-examination is key to unbiased reasoning. And again, nearly every week I’ll see pedestrians jumping out onto my way on the cycle path, and though I try to be really aware and slow down (and ride slowly as a general principle) and so far I’ve almost always been able to avoid them; I’m still not sure I’m ready to take any blame when the day comes where I can’t. Maybe most here are or are unconvinced of the parallels.
And then you said a little more. Even though I appreciate you being less categorical, that’s where we differ. Could he have gone above and beyond any driving standard I know? Sure. Would it have even helped? Maybe. Is he legally or morally to blame? I really don’t think so. Call me facetious again if you must, but an ethical code in which a motorist is to blame for someone falling into the path of their car on a primary road is an ethical code incompatible with any sort of motoring on public roads.
Again, I agree.
Unfortunately, yes. But this is very likely the odd case where a tragedy will take place no matter what measures are taken. Avoidable incidents where “bringing back motoring under control” absolutely could’ve helped are posted to this site daily. But the case of someone falling onto the path of a car on a primary road is more-than-probably not one of them.
You can be 7 and inexperience
You can be 7 and inexperience, or 40 and an amateur racer. Doesn’t matter, one mistake yours or a motorists and it’s game over. Also think that it’s wrong to have a 60mph road next to a cycle lane. There’s no time to react if a cyclist has to swerve out to avoid an obstacle, or loses balance.
Not to mention how unnerving it is to ride and have cars fly past at 60mpg within a couple of meters.