Speeding driver won't face prosecution over cyclist's death due to lack of speed limit sign

That's a road and cycle lane?

I'm still trying to work out what the speed limit has to do with anything.
Hit a tree? Blame the speed limit signs. Really don't see any logic in this.

Terribly sad - badly designed road contributed big time but presumably the investigating officer for some reason put successfully prosecuting the speeding driver in the too difficult box and used the information which he probably would have to provide to the drivers defence to cut off prosecution rather than build a case that over rode the issues identified.

Bit puzzled as to Mr Harrison's road position shown in the cctv and in google streetview its location easily identifiable by the triangular warning sign - the 5 year old street view shows weeds and poor surface in the cycle lane but as a cyclist I'd suggest that Mr Harrison was probably nearly completing his move into the cycle lane having used the extensive area of dropped kerb just beyond the car in the image below (by the ivy covered pole) to cross the traffic lane (rather than the short section signed for cyclists a further 50m or so up the road)  The image shows what it shows but  as hard evidence that he continued outside the cycle lane is speculative unless the crash scene evidence was conclusive.  Surely  the drivers speed and failure to respond must be considered as being at least careless driving.   Without all the facts and reports its very hard to feel that the outcome fits, though sadly  maybe a jury  would decide its's just one of those things and not a crime.

Incidentally the triangular warning sign in the CCTV image is a "Beware Cyclists" warning presumably because cyclists would be crossing in the next 100m - in the 5year old google street view it doesn't face the traffic though!

I have used contraflow cycle lanes a few times. Cycling that close to incoming traffic was not fun, even in a 20mph zone. 

In my view they are a half-arsed attempt to broaden cycle networks. In a medieval town, they may be one of the few ways to provide cycle lanes, but in this instance there was plenty of space to widen the road and make proper provision. Cost cutting by the road planners yet they could have used a section 106 agreement with the nearby development to put in a dedicated off-road path which greedy property developers can easily afford, and yet shirk their responsibilities and appeal against, to great effect.

Driving to the conditions, with more awareness and cycling with more awareness could have prevented this tragedy along with better road layout.

 Hopefully you will all stay safe and avoid contraflows where possible.

Pretty shocking, but getting off on a technicality is part of the game isn't it.

"The cycle helmet had actively cut off his air supply ".

What do people make of that?

Ok, look at this:

https://goo.gl/maps/DwKQvs8tqBT2

This is close to where the offence occurred. I don't know the exact location.

I can see why a cyclist might be on the edge of their lane or even wander out of it when passing a vehicle parked on the opposite side - to attempt to deter oncoming traffic from squeezing them against the wall. I'm not sure I'd take that approach, but I can see why one might.

Now, anyone that thinks that driving on that road at 45mph is safe is a complete idiot that shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle.

Utterly appalled by the whole thing.

From the look of the streetview I think it would be a struggle to do 45mph down that piee of road!!  Its narrow, has a slight left bend reducing visibility and driveways.  I am not surprised that at that speed he hit Mr Harrison, he just wont have had time to react in the distancehe could see.  

One more point I forgot to add to the previous list:

• The crash location marked in the satellite image in the EDP report is incorrect; it is roughly 150m too far west. The recorded location is actually outside the AF Howland building, around 15-20 metres west of where Harrison appears in the CCTV image. Therefore the CCTV image in the article is likely to show Harrison approximately 2-3 seconds before the collision.

@IanW1968: It was stated that the collision occurred in the eastbound lane, not in the westbound cycle lane.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/3481/

This really is appalling. The CCTV shows the rider outside the cycle lane briefly and before not during the collision. 

The driver has sped along a road whilst in a cycle lane he should not have been in. 

The fact he was "forced" into that lane should have resulted in more not less caution. 

Police and CPS are bloody useless TBH. 

Excellent work Bez, as always.

Addressing some inaccuracies in the article and the comments:

1. This was an inquest, not a trial. So there are no "charging errors" or suchlike in this context.
2. The absence of the repeater sign makes it difficult to prosecute the driver for speeding. It does not mean that he cannot (as per the EDP headline) or will not (as per the Road.cc headline) be prosecuted, because it does not prevent prosecution for careless or dangerous driving, or for causing death by either of those. Equally, it may be that Norfolk Police do not charge the driver (and I suspect this is likely). If they do not then it would be interesting to know on what basis they make that decision. It may be that they have already said they will not prosecute, and this may be what gave rise to the headlines (though the EDP's remain's factually incorrect) but if so then it is curious that their comments have gone unreported.
3. The nature of a "mandatory cycle lane" is indeed that motor vehicles are not permitted to enter it. Pedal cycles are permitted to leave it, though in this case the only way to leave it is to enter the oncoming lane. This is not an offence, just as moving into the oncoming lane to overtake is not an offence, but naturally anyone doing so does not have priority over oncoming traffic. However, oncoming road users would normally still be expected not to collide with oncoming vehicles: if you approach a part of a road where parked cars occupy the opposite lane and a driver has already begun to pass them, having moved into your lane, you are expected to slow to allow them to pass. If you drove headlong into them then I think most people would expect that to be a culpable act of at least careless driving.
4. The arrangement of the road is such that parked vehicles tend to appear in the main lane, not in the cycle lane. The remark about "forcing people to do something they should not" relates to drivers having to move into the cycle lane to pass parked vehicles, thereby committing an offence. Those comments relate to the road rather than the collision, which occurred in the eastbound lane. Note that there are no yellow lines in the carriageway, but in theory one might argue that if parking in the lane prevented drivers from legally using the road then such parking would constitute an obstruction and thus an offence despite the absence of markings.

Sadly I suspect the case will be "NFA" and will go quiet in the media now that the public have been misled into thinking that no prosecution is possible, but we shall see.

More victim blaming.

In the US, at least in my state, the speed for unsigned roads is 35 mph. As others have said, I imagine there is a speed limit in England for unmarked roads as well. This driver was speeding.

If , while driving, you hit someone or something, unless they (it) jumped in front of your vehicle at the last second, you were not driving with diligence. You need to have control of your vehicle, and be able to stop as needed, else, you are driving too fast.

The driver said "I saw a light in the distance..." What distance? ten feet, a hundred, five hundred?

He failed to respond appropriately.

Cyclists can leave the cycling lane at any time; what is the alternative? To say that cyclists that leave a lane can lawfully be hit because they are not where they are supposed to be?  That a cyclist who leaves  a lane is now fair game in a version of "Death Race"? Can you hit an eight year old standing in the street because she is not where she is supposed to be?

This driver should be ticketed for speeding, at least; else, the message is sent that drivers can act as they wish and cause injury and death without fear of reprisal, and that cyclists are wholly to blame for their fate, should they be so foolish as to try to use the roads that they pay for, and which the law allows.

Anyone defending this driver is a spineless toady, and I am sorry you are amongst our ranks. There are, however, employment opportunities in Norwich for you.

Escaped prosecution on a technicality. Someone died, but hey ho.

There must be a lot of job satisfaction working at the Norfolk Coroners Court.

Surrounded by cunts. 

Bull Shit

Poor design and a lack of awareness by all those involved. 

From my very limited of road traffic law. Once there is a collision, then there is no time limit to bring charges. It would need a complaint/solicitor to chase the police to investigate charge driver with new offence

The 'saw cyclist in the distance' followed by being unable to stop doesnt make sense at all.

That is so full of wrong, there must be a cycling legal dude or dudette who could rip this to shreds.

Cyclists MUST use cycle lanes?

Disregard speedlimits where there is no signage?

Ileegal parking is OK because no one can be arsed doing their job?

Saw cyclist in distance but couldn't react?

Sleep badly driver, sleep very badly defence lawyer.

This can not be seen as acceptable by anyone!

Horrible for the cyclist but i do have sympathy with the driver here:

As for the speeding, the road is next to a a faster road, there are no street lights to indicate that it is a 30mph zone, therefore if there was no sign then the driver would not have known.

The cyclist was riding outside a contaflow cycle lane!  That is the equivalent of riding in the primary position but on the side of oncoming traffic. 

I can see why the driver was let off.