- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Broken bike (CC licensed image by garryknight, www.flickr.com)Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist hit by tipper truck on Vauxhall Cross gyratory
The death of cyclist Tafsir Butt has been ruled accidental following an inquest at Southwark coroner’s court reports the London Evening Standard. The 52-year-old was cycling home to Battersea from an overnight shift as a security guard on June 2, 2014 when he was hit by an extra-large tipper truck on Parry Street, part of Vauxhall Gyratory.
Driver Frank Lunnon insisted that he had indicated before moving into Butt’s lane, saying it was something he did ‘automatically’. CCTV from the lorry did not show whether or not this was the case and with no eyewitness evidence, police decided there was insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.
The inquest heard how Lunnon had overtaken Butt, but the cyclist had moved back in front as the lorry slowed to 6mph in traffic. Butt was then struck from behind by the truck in what is an unlit tunnel.
An off-duty army doctor initially attended to him before paramedics and an air ambulance doctor arrived. However, Butt had gone into cardiac arrest and died at the scene.
A police investigation concluded that Butt would have been in the driver’s mirrors for 2.6 seconds, but had then ridden into a blind spot. Assistant coroner Philip Barlow said: “On the balance of probability, the lorry was indicating left when changing lane.”
Speaking at the inquest, Butt’s brother, Tauqir, said: “I’m interested in the indicator. There was CCTV — did he indicate or not? I have lost my brother at the end of the day. He is not going to come back. Really, he [Lunnon] has got away with nothing.”
Tauqir had previously said that his brother had crashed at the same junction once before.
“He went to hospital and luckily he escaped with just bruising, but we pleaded with him ‘please don’t use that junction again’ because it is so dangerous.
“But that morning he did for some reason and it’s cost him his life. It was only the second time he’d used it that we know of.”
Vauxhall gyratory is now part of the fully segregated Cycle Superhighway 5.
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.
Latest Comments
- giff77 19 min 39 sec ago
Re the West Yorkshire debacle I unfortunately got drawn into Dominik's thread with one of the contributors who was consistently doubling down with...
- Simon E 22 min 39 sec ago
Given the eye-watering prices they were asking for those shoes and all the other Chpt3 clobber then it damned well be ought to be top quality. But...
- chrisonabike 30 min 54 sec ago
Oh! I know these ones! Is it "if they're going as fast as a car that's too fast" and "tabards"?
- biking59boomer 1 hour 39 min ago
What does it matter how much she cycles as long as she does what Labour promised they'd do?
- Robert Hardy 3 hours 21 min ago
Or the Cambridge case where the tanker driver admitted hanging his coat on the nearside camera monitor screen and still escaped a custodial...
- EddyBerckx 3 hours 23 min ago
Christ people are boring Looks fine to me. You have 20 trillion traditional looking bikes to choose from if you don't like this!
- OnYerBike 5 hours 21 min ago
Not sure it's entirely fair to infer how well this helmet would score based on other models from the same brand. Both the Imperial testing and VT's...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 57 min ago
When for the same money (or half that on AliExpress) you can get a CooSpo CS500 with maps and GPS navigation I really can't see who's going to pay...
- Paul J 7 hours 47 min ago
CO rebreathing, altitude camps, and altitude/hypobaric tents are all trying to exploit the same effect: The body producing more red-blood cells in...
- levestane 8 hours 45 min ago
DOT4 is pretty aggresive stuff (nothing melted), mineral oil is probably OK on EPS hemets. I'm surprised this is allowed on planes.
Add new comment
26 comments
What I fail to understand is how do these trucks pass their MOTs (or equivalent) to drive on public roads when they clearly don't have sufficient visibility? Yes, there will always be accidents/driver errors, but people mention the trucks' blind spots without any discussion of why we allow them on the roads. Surely a couple of cameras could be positioned to provide the driver with sufficient visibility for not much cost?
Well, yes, but it comes down to cost. How many people are killed by trucks a year? Not that many really. Certainly not enough to warrant pulling all exisiting types of trucks out of service. Horrible really, but, the truth.
Clearly there is a move towards these new styles of trucks with huge visabilty but it ain't going to happen over-night.
"A police investigation concluded that Butt would have been in the driver’s mirrors for 2.6 seconds, but had then ridden into a blind spot"
I'm presuming that the blind spot was in front hence the collision.
I'm also presumning that the tipper truck driver was concentrating on the slowing traffic as opposed to looking in his mirrors for that 2.6 seconds so missed him coming in front.
I don't need to presume the following, we've known it for a long time:
I really feel that a lot of road users would benefit greatly from experiencing the road from others points of reference, eg most of the people posting on road.cc getting in a truck and understanding the limited visability and vice versa, users of vehicles experiencing "momentum" and close passes, for example.
Interesting that paving slab vs truck has caused such division. Accidents will happen of course, genuine incidents will be virtually impossible to eliminate. Perhaps self driving vehicles will eliminate the weak factor, invariably human error or in most cases plain indifference and selfish recklessness.
As for the slab yes it would be a foolish thing to do but proving any malice or intent to cause harm to others? Simple accident. As far as motorised killers go they have monopolised the concept of stupidity not being illegal with great but somber effect.
Things happen but usually to the vulnerable FROM the very well protected.
The rub here is role reversal of a motorist suffering at the hands of stupidity from a pedestrian and that goes against every fibre the motoring industry has worked tirelessly towards since the day man first killed another in these wonderful machines.
Yes we owe a lot to the motor vehicle, but hell doesn't it keep taking its pound of flesh.
Am I thick or is the article unclear, but what's the relevance of indicating and changing lanes when the victim was hit from BEHIND?
The fear here is that deceased rider probably did nothing wrong. As a cylist you're not going to take a decision that will endanger your own life yet here we are observing his demise.
However it's his family who bear the brunt of the emotion derived from his passing. The fact that the driver has been cleared of any wrong doing only makes it worse for them. My thoughts to them.
I fear this ever happening to me. I ride in London often, it is a great place to ride with beautiful sights. Sights that you should not be looking at due to the sheer volume of traffic around you at all times. Even on the quiet roads, you need pin sharp awareness and reflexes.
Sometimes I think we should accept that things like this can happen, especially when some cyclists don't consider the possible consequences of riding so close to such a large vehicle. The lorry driver may not be to blame, but he should certainly be held liable. After all, what is he expected to do when he loses sight of a cyclist he's just passed - get out of his cab and walk fully around the vehicle?
Not really comparable is it?
Dropping a paving slab from a bridge onto traffic vs Changing lanes at 6mph ....
your right it's not comparable, a 10 ton truck vs a few kgs of paving slab.
The truck is far more deadly.
In what way is it not comparable if neither the driver nor the slab dropper intended harm? We've established that accidentally killing someone with a vehicle is just fine, so what's the issue about accidentally killing someone with a lump of concrete?
Changing lanes is a reasonable activity and lawful, provided you have a valid driver's licence, insurance and are operating a roadworthy vehicle in accordance with the MUST rules of the Highway Code. Even when following the latter to the letter, accidents can still occur, i.e. collisions due to misunderstandings etc where there was evidently no intention to cause harm. That goes with the territory of being a road user.
I would argue that where dropping a paving slab onto a carriageway is concerned, it would have to be established that you were seriously mentally deficient to do such a pointless thing without an intention to harm.
Even then we are only really talking about the difference between ending up in Broadmoor rather than Belmarsh. Idiot or wicked.
So you think that driving safely is so hard that a few killings a week have to be excused, they are just the cost of doing business, even when they result from the kind of not bothering to look driving exhibited here. To disguise that you waffle on about accidents, and "lack of intention to harm", but then faced with a different variety of unintentional harm are perfectly happy to describe it as criminal or insane.
Quite wonderful the contortions people have to perform to avoid accepting that motor vehicles are dangerous weapons, and that those who use them should genuinely be held to high standards, and punished for failure
No. I think that motorised vehicles are an essential component of a modern industrialised society. They are wonderful examples of human ingenuity that have transformed the way we live, 100% for the better. If you asked me to pick any time from history to be alive, I would choose here and now and certainly not any time before 1950.
I visualise my house, my furniture, the interior of my fridge, in my wardrobe and even at my bike and accessories and back to my mobile to remind myself that none of it would be there without the extensive use of motor vehicles. So as a beneficiary, I would be a fool and a hypocrite to concentrate solely on their deficiencies without acknowledging the incalculable benefits.
The major deficiency is pollution which will eventually be solved by improved technology.
An unavoidable deficiency is that, laws of physics, two heavy objects collide, there is a lot of kinetic energy to dissipate and people get injured. This is true of pedestrian accidents, planes, trains and bicycles. Interestingly the worst carnage I have ever experienced as a cyclist was Ride London 2013, with collisions due to misunderstandings left, right and centre with not a single motor vehicle to blame. And this was with everyone travelling in the same direction!
Talk about pause for thought. Copenhagenize (Ughh!) London? Be careful what you wish for.
So all I ask is that human road users take responsibility and operate their bicycles and vehicles safely to the best of their ability. And accidents will still happen. And deaths and injuries will still occur. Because road users are human, and even when driving / riding safely, misunderstandings occur. And I accept that risk. I accept that could happen to me or a family member or a friend.
Because I don't want to live as a preIndustrial serf, to be born and die in the same village, having barely existed there my whole life.
Where we differ, is that I can separate the consequences from the act quite easily. It seems you cannot or do not want to. Dropping a paving slab from a bridge onto moving traffic, left hooking someone that you have just overtaken, colliding with someone in your blindspot who you couldn't possibly have seen, yanking the chair out from underneath a mate who is about to sit down for a laugh, can all have the same consequence: death. The same consequence doesn't imply the same level of malicious intent, criminality or incompetence or in any way indicate the future level of danger to other members of the public, and therefore they should not all be punished the same way.
At face value, only one of those examples would merit a custodial sentence IMO.
Now I have work to do.
I guess it's much easier to kill someone changing lanes in a lorry, so maybe not.
In other news I accidentally dropped a paving slab onto a car from a bridge. I'd waved to the driver I was going to do it but he didn't get it and died.
As I didn't intend to hurt anyone and there is no evidence I meant any malice it seems the chap merely had an unfortunate accident so I'm in the clear luckily for me.
Poor me, what a clutz I am
Generally, people are innocent unless proved otherwise in our legal system. It is impossible to prove that you were using your indicators. It is however possible to prove that someone was not using their indicators if there is CCTV available or eyewitnesses for example.
That is why the prosecution are required to prove guilt and not the other way around.
None of that is relevant in a Coroner's hearing which is there to establish the cause of death, not apportion blame.
Indicators are irrelevant. 1) he had passed thr cyclist so knew he was there
2) despite not being able to see him in the mirror on order to be certain he was behind he changed lane into a space potentially occupied by the cyclist
3) still no view of cyclist in rear view mirror so he accelerated.
4) runs into back of cyclist
Question - where did the driver think the cyclist was if he wasn't clearly ahead or behind?
Are the rules of the road big vehicles go where they like snd smaller vehicles must get out of their way? If they are publicise the fact snd we will all know where we stand.
A Coroner's inquest is there to establish cause of death, not investigate who is to blame, nor establish the rules of the road. I believe the Coroner established that this was an accident. I have yet to see any evidence to persuade me that the Coroner reached the wrong conclusion.
What's all that about "on the balance of probability he was indicating when changing lane"? Does that mean that because he ought to have been indicating then we are going to presume that he did, even though it cannot be proven one way or t'other?
Aside from that, if he ran into the back of the cyclist then why does it matter whether he was indicating anyway?
What do accidental death and misadventure mean?
Accidental death means that the person died as a result of actions by themselves or others that had unintended consequences.
http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-4-3-verdicts
Unless there is clear evidence that Mr Lunnon deliberately intended to collide with Mr Butt, then the Coroner is correct. Mr Butt suffered an unfortunate accident.
The decision of the Police not to prosecute for careless driving is a separate issue.
So if I'm bombing down the motorway and pull into another lane its fine, it's "just an accident" as long as I indicate?
All our vehicles are fitted with black boxes, they are cheap to install and take up virtually no space so why trucks and the like aren't is beyond me.
How you can drive a vehicle into the back of somebody and not be liable seams insane to me. The standard we expect of people driving vehicles is so dreadfully low.
Why don't commercial vehicles have some kind of 'black box' recorder for these kind of situation to record just this type of thing, of course the driver is going to say he was indicating. But even if he was it sound like the cyclist was in front of the vehicle already, how having your indicator on when you drive into the back of somebody is a get out of jail free card is scary.
I'm completely puzzled by this as well - your indicating or not is irrelevant if you drive into the vehicle in front. If you are in your car and a vehicle hits you from behind, the (insurance) default position is it's the following vehicle 's driver that is at fault, why not the same when you are riding your bike? And does the victim not have a lawyer on the case who would forcefully argue this?
Not only that but he had passed him previously so he knew he was there somewhere. Indicating does not give you priority to change lane!
Horrible junction! I used to ride the old layout back in early OO's which was much nicer. I would not ride this route now...