Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Coroner to write to Tour de Yorkshire sportive organisers after cyclist's death

Coach driver had reversed into side road and was pulling out again

A coroner is to write to the organisers of the Tour de Yorkshire sportive after a rider died in hospital following a collision with a coach during last year’s event. Christopher Dorries said the sportive had been “a well organised event in many regards,” but added that when large numbers of cyclists take part in events on open roads, “the unexpected is not perhaps quite as rare as might be hoped.”

The BBC reports that David Worthington had been cycling at about 30-35mph when he was involved in a collision with a coach as he rounded a "limited visibility bend".

He died in hospital six days later as a result of his injuries.

The coach driver, David Lockley, had reversed into Plank Gate near Wortley after being forced to turn around due to a low bridge. He was then pulling out on to Finkle Street Lane when the collision occurred at about 11.05am on April 30.

Lockley told the hearing he looked in both directions before pulling out.

"There was no traffic whatsoever. I was three-quarters into the turn and I was fully committed when I saw the cyclist. Anything coming round that bend had 50 yards to stop."

Collision investigator Darrell McPherson said Lockley would have been able to see Worthington from about 50 metres away.

"You get to a point when leaving that junction you have to commit and you do not have a view," he said.

A coach passenger, Margaret Crane, said she saw Worthington with his "head down" before braking.

"He did eventually look up and saw the coach and then he slammed on his brakes but he was going so fast that the bike started to wobble.”

Lockley said he had not seen any cyclists on Finkle Street Lane before reversing into Plank Gate and claimed he was not aware of the event taking place.

Dorries rejected that, but did not criticise the driver’s actions, saying there was no "easy solution" to the situation.

Recording a narrative verdict, he said: "The visibility was limited for both cyclist and coach driver. Mr Worthington braked hard and attempted to miss the vehicle but was unable to do so."

He added that he would write to event organisers, Human Race.

"I'm happy to accept that this was a well organised event in many regards... but launching 2,900 cyclists onto public roads, even first thing on a Sunday morning, is a serious undertaking requiring minute planning.

"If nothing else, this case perhaps demonstrates that the unexpected is not perhaps quite as rare as might be hoped."

A spokesman for Human Race said it would "continue to critique our plans and processes to ensure lessons are learnt from this tragedy" and that it would review the coroner's comments.

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.

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
zero_trooper | 5 years ago
2 likes

Struggling to see the difference between the above and this - 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-45347867

Long vehicle makes unusual/awkward maneouvre in limited visibility, blocking the road. Oncoming road user fails to see obstruction in time and collision occurs. If you make you way through the links of the A66 court case, there's no criticism that the car driver was going too fast for the driving/visibility conditions.

Death by dangerous.

The main difference is that in the above the victim is a cyclist, in the A66 collision the victim is a car driver.......

Avatar
mc replied to zero_trooper | 5 years ago
0 likes

zero_trooper wrote:

Struggling to see the difference between the above and this - 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-45347867

Long vehicle makes unusual/awkward maneouvre in limited visibility, blocking the road. Oncoming road user fails to see obstruction in time and collision occurs. If you make you way through the links of the A66 court case, there's no criticism that the car driver was going too fast for the driving/visibility conditions.

Death by dangerous.

The main difference is that in the above the victim is a cyclist, in the A66 collision the victim is a car driver.......

Having looked at the location on google maps, and the description in the articles, it looks like the lorry driver made the concious decision to block the entire eastbound carriageway, while waiting for traffic to pass on the westbound carriageway.

Whereas the coach driver was carrying out what would of been a perfectly normal manoeuvre albeit with restricted views, and not deliberately creating a blockage while waiting for a gap in traffic.

Avatar
Pitbull Steelers | 5 years ago
3 likes

The thing is, he wasn't causing an obstruction at the time of the collision, he was making a normal driving procedure - turning out of a junction. 

If he'd been stopped after the blind bend then, by all means, put out the sign but not if your pulling out of a junction. If we follow your train of thought he would firstly put out the sign, then after pulling out and ultimately driving past the sign, stop and pick up his said sign.

Now he has stopped on the other side of the blind bend so by your way of thinking he should have put another sign out by the junction in preparation of having to stop and pick up his first sign....

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
0 likes

lol, you're clueless.

you clearly don't understand the difference between a coach and a car and how massively longer the obstruction is in place as well as the physical size AND the location.

A personal drive on a bend with limited view on a high speed road is not only rare as rocking horse shit it would generally require someone to stand in the road or have a mirror positioned to see up the road. The LAW as per the driver agency stipulates coach/bus drivers should put a warning of them blocking the road ahead so that other road users are aware of the hazard ahead.

You are causing the hazard, it's your responsibility to let others know, you clearly aren't interested in taking responsibility for the safety of others, when it's you causing the hazard, stay off the roads for fucks sakes!

Oh I forgot, NZer so civilised driving isn't a thing is it over there! The government make the rules for coach/bus drivers, it's there in black and white, you are WRONG!

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
1 like

If you are causing a hazard by your actions and fail to warn others of that unexpected hazard then you are at fault. This is not the same as a fallen tree due to a storm, the driver has made a conscious decision not to warn others of his completely blocking the road with minimal view to others.

When you break down or are obstructing the road you are requested to put warnings up the road, there is no excuse not to do this given the driver has 'committed' to blocking the whole of the road/lane amd is causing an extreme hazard on a live lane especially given it's a NSL road.

This is given by DVSA ffs!

Avatar
madcarew replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
2 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

If you are causing a hazard by your actions and fail to warn others of that unexpected hazard then you are at fault. This is not the same as a fallen tree due to a storm, the driver has made a conscious decision not to warn others of his completely blocking the road with minimal view to others.

When you break down or are obstructing the road you are requested to put warnings up the road, there is no excuse not to do this given the driver has 'committed' to blocking the whole of the road/lane amd is causing an extreme hazard on a live lane especially given it's a NSL road.

This is given by DVSA ffs!

Pulling out of an intersection across a road on an established carriageway does not constitute an obstruction FFS. Do you put out a warning triangle every time you pull out of a road onto a one lane, one way street? The vehicle wasn't broken down, wasnt immobilised. It was simply a vehicle executinga  legal and legitimate manoeuvre as tens of thousands of other vehicles have done at that precise location prevously.  The cyclist wasn't paying attention, was travelling too fast for the conditions. 

Avatar
EK Spinner | 5 years ago
0 likes

I dislike the term "Blind Bend" surely it is a bend with a radius, at all points there is a site line to a point further around the bend, the blind part only comes into it when your speed is such that your braking distance exceeds that site line

Avatar
mattsccm | 5 years ago
2 likes

If you can't stop you are wrong. End. 

Avatar
Butty | 5 years ago
2 likes

So Human Race weren't at the inquest? It may have helped balance the opinion of the coroner and making yet another anti-cyclist BBC story.

Avatar
John Smith | 5 years ago
5 likes

It doesn’t sound like the coroner was critiquing the organisers, just noting how complex their job was, and noted that you cannot plan for for every eventuality. 

 

This is clearly the cyclists fault and I don’t know how anyone can argue otherwise. It could equally have been a broken down bus, horse rider, road works, fallen tree or any number of other things. Sounds like the drivers only mistake was to get lost, but it could also have been a lorry doing a delivery or even a slow moving car.

Avatar
rkemb | 5 years ago
3 likes

*well-dispersed.

Avatar
vonhelmet | 5 years ago
6 likes

It also doesn’t matter whether or not the CPS or whoever apply the rules around going the speed you can see to stop, because the cyclist has ended up dealing with a much higher authority, specifically the law of physics. You obey those laws one way or another, and there is no appeals process.

Avatar
John Smith replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
0 likes

vonhelmet wrote:

It also doesn’t matter whether or not the CPS or whoever apply the rules around going the speed you can see to stop, because the cyclist has ended up dealing with a much higher authority, specifically the law of physics. You obey those laws one way or another, and there is no appeals process.

 

They do it all the time. However some people like to play the victim with no facts.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
5 likes

John Smith wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

It also doesn’t matter whether or not the CPS or whoever apply the rules around going the speed you can see to stop, because the cyclist has ended up dealing with a much higher authority, specifically the law of physics. You obey those laws one way or another, and there is no appeals process.

 

They do it all the time. However some people like to play the victim with no facts.

 Who are 'they' and what is 'it'? 

 

I think probably Mr Worthington made the crucial error in this case, tragically enough.

 

Not sure what it has to do with the Sportive organisers, except perhaps, that sportives in themselves give people an incentive to make such mistakes (going too fast and not looking ahead sufficiently).  Anything that even vaguely resembles racing on a public road could be liable to have that effect, which is why I'm personally not a great fan of such events.

 

[Editted to try not to pick so many fights unncessarily...probably too late though]

Avatar
rkemb | 5 years ago
9 likes

"I'm happy to accept that this was a well organised event in many regards... but launching 2,900 cyclists onto public roads, even first thing on a Sunday morning, is a serious undertaking requiring minute planning."

And how many motor vehicles were 'launched' on to the roads that morning, without and planning whatsoever?

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to rkemb | 5 years ago
4 likes

rkemb wrote:

"I'm happy to accept that this was a well organised event in many regards... but launching 2,900 cyclists onto public roads, even first thing on a Sunday morning, is a serious undertaking requiring minute planning." And how many motor vehicles were 'launched' on to the roads that morning, without and planning whatsoever?

I’m prepared to bet that no one was sending out 2,900 cars in convoy on an unfamiliar route in a definitely-not-a-race.

If you or I tried to organise for 2,900 car drivers to drive a specific route and offered them “electronic chip timing” (but don’t race!) I think there would be more than a few questions, so you can’t really draw a comparison there.

The coroners point is that an event of this magnitude requires enormous attention to detail, including over things like “this is a blind bend with a junction on it at the bottom of a fast descent, is that a good idea?” I don’t want to pore over 70 miles of route in that detail, but there again I’m not being paid to organise a mass start road cycling (it’s not a race!) event.

Avatar
rkemb replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
5 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

I’m prepared to bet that no one was sending out 2,900 cars in convoy on an unfamiliar route in a definitely-not-a-race.

What you say is true, although from the description it sounds like this happened far enough along the route that the cyclists were well-disbursed (otherwise presumably the driver would have noticed repeated groups of cyclists coming past). I also think it was the cyclist's fault for taking a blind corner at speed. But I am frustrated by the automatic assumption that a few thousand cyclists on a Sunday morning is unusual and excessive, when the vast majority of traffic on many of those roads would still have been motorised.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to rkemb | 5 years ago
3 likes

rkemb wrote:

"I'm happy to accept that this was a well organised event in many regards... but launching 2,900 cyclists onto public roads, even first thing on a Sunday morning, is a serious undertaking requiring minute planning." And how many motor vehicles were 'launched' on to the roads that morning, without and planning whatsoever?

Well, at least one professionally-operated coach where the driver ended up on a road he couldn't continue on, but commited to progressing anyway, even after he should have observed a sign pointing out the error. 3-point turn just after a blind bend, not what you expect from a licenced/qualified professional driver. Regardless of who was to blame, the entire situation could have been avoided at numerous points, before the cyclist even got there.

...sorry, I mean the pointless loss of life could have been avoided when a vulnerable road user apparently made an error of judgement.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
6 likes

For sake of argument. Had a car come around a corner with a combination of apparent lack of observation, excessive speed for the conditions and loss of control under braking leading to a collision with a group of cyclists exiting a junction, then I suspect we would have to be following links to the Daily Mail website to find criticism of the cyclists for simply being there.

You could remove the coach from this scenario and replace with; horse, parked vehicle, pothole, cyclist lying in road following an earlier incident etc. As BTBS is wont to say "Don't travel faster than you can safely see to stop". Good advice on open public roads.

Avatar
madcarew | 5 years ago
9 likes

I'm going out on a limb here.

This was absolutely the cyclist's fault. He was going too fast / not paying enough attention to stop in the clear road he could see ahead. (Normally a default position for BTBS). The fact that there was a driveway / lane there means that the driver's actions were largely reasonable, though he might have picked a better spot to execute his manoeuvre, but it could just as easily have been a vehicle from the property leaving. If this was a car going down the hill which had driven into a cyclist in the middle of the lane then we would have excoriated the driver. I'm sorry, the roads were open, the cyclist was riding without due care. That's not to say this was unavoidable, but on the face of it, by far the greatest part of the blame lies with the cyclist. I don't think the organisers have very much to do with it at all.

And anyone who takes 1.34 seconds to react to a road hazard (notice, identify, act) really shouldn't be on the road on any vehicle that goes faster than a jog.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
3 likes

A banksman or even simply getting off the coach putting a warning sign up the road and/or get someone on the coach to warn road users ahead should have been more than prudent to avoid this tragedy.

All well and good saying travel at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear but police don't/won't apply this to motorvehicles when they crash into stuff/people. In fact judges and the CPS ignore this rule ALL the time when it comes to people on a bike being harmed not to mention pedestrians etc.

The simple fact is the driver created a huge and in fact deadly hazard on a bend with limited visibility, he had other far safer options including not trying to chance his arm to go under a bridge that he was simply not ever capable of doing so with his vehicle, clearly that's a inattention problem.

There is an onus on the coach driver not to create a situation that increases danger or to create a hazard, in that he failed and should be held responsible even if in part. The discrimination and putting all the onus here onto the cyclist here by the coroner and others is a disgrace. Yes he might have been going slower but as I said, in other circumstances where blame is placed it would not be on someone doing half the speed limit for that road nor going at a speed they can't see to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, this is simply never applied to motorists to point the finger by the police or by CPS!

At 40mph and a 1.34s reaction time* the stopping distance for a car never mind anything bigger would be 48metres that being 24m thinking and 24m braking.  Therefore there would likely have been a collision even with a car doing 2/3 the speed limit and that in best case scenario.

(the 0.67 time given by the HC is utterly bullshit as this is a reaction time for a known event in best case scenario not an unknown event and 1.5s is what crash investigators state is a usual time to react, in fact it can be much longer in panic/threat scenarios) 

What is even more worrying is that the investogator seems to say it's okay if you can't see, you just press on regardless because you "have to commit" to the maneuovre. WTF!!

"You get to a point when leaving that junction you have to commit and you do not have a view"

I hope the family take a civil case against the driver, they should on the basis of previous cases get a result to help financially help the family.

Typical UK coroner bullshit, one rule for one group and another set of rules for another!

Avatar
vonhelmet | 5 years ago
8 likes

Riding at 30-35mph round a bend with limited visibility doesn’t sound like a great idea, I’ve got to be honest. Sounds like death by misadventure. Yes, the coach driver was in the wrong place, but it happens. It could have been someone turning out of that junction who hadn’t made a mistake in ending up there, and then who would you be blaming?

Presumably the coroner is questioning whether the sportive organisers shouldn’t have sent the route down that road, given the speed attainable and the limited visibility. I’ve seen route markers for sportives that send people down descents towards junctions with major roads and thought that wasn’t too clever.

Avatar
EK Spinner | 5 years ago
10 likes

Fusty To operate a vehicle safely the operator should always be able to stop in the distance they can see is clear ahead, sounds to me like the coach driver could do this and the unfortunate rider couldn't so your calculations in Point 2 are pointless, the 60mph is a Max permitted but not expected in areas of limited visibility.

I seem to remember when sitting my driving test I was asked to pull up on the left and reverse into a road I had just passed, then pull out and turn right, the very manouevre the coach undertook. I certainly was not asked to park on the right . It should also be noted that the reversing operation was carried out without incident. The incident could just have easily happened when bring any other large vehicle out of that junction regardless of wheter they had reversed in there in the first place.

If there was any evidence to suggest that the rider was visible when he started to exit the junction then that would be one thing but the coach driver cannot be expected to take into account any vehicle which is not yet in site, however once that vehicle is in site it should be able to stop within the visible tarmac

Avatar
pockstone | 5 years ago
2 likes

Judicious use of the horn could have saved a life here. Very sad.

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
2 likes

If someone is traveling at 60mph around a blind bend, then they are going too fast.

It's good to hear that some people have never taken a wrong turning in their lives. Perhaps they can be some sort of trainer.

The idea that a large vehicle could reverse around a corner and not have its nearside go into the opposite carriageway sounds a bit fanciful.

Avatar
FustyCopy | 5 years ago
2 likes

Firstly condolences to the familyand friends for this totally unnecessary death.  

The coroner obviously, like some of the current posters wasn't in possession of important facts, and equally ignored wrong doing by Coach driver Lockley!  

Thanks to poster 'antigee' we later posters now have more scene information.

Blame appears to lay squarely on the coach driver Lockley - 'Low bridge ahead' - had this route been cleared for his use?  If not why was he there?  If it was, more heads . . . . .!

But, it also begs rudimantary questions about Lockley's driving abilities :

What don't you do on a blind bend where traffic can pass at 60 mph?

1. Park, or Stop.

2. Stop, reverse into a side lane then, with 50 yards sight both ways  pull out across traffic potentially travelling at 60mph - that's a mile[1760 yards] per minute [60 sec's] or 29.3 yards per second, less than 2 seconds to reach the coach, add in 'thinking' time and  . . . . BANG!

That was what Coach driver Lockly accepted as a reasonable risk in doing what he did.  How fortunate it wasn't motor vehicls that hit his coach!

Accepting Lockley 'was in a pickle' - of his own choosing - he correctly should have pulled over onto the right and stopped facing oncoming traffic, and then reversed in the direction he wished to travel and into a side turning on his side of the road, then left, to retrace, avoiding the bridge.

How do I know that Coach Driver Lockley performed that exercise incorrectly, because done correctly, at no time would he have crossed David Worthingtons path!  

 

What was famously said at Alices Tea Party . . . by the Queen of Hearts?

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes

This is sad, but I don't think the coach driver or the sportive organisers are to blame for this. It was an open road, so the sportive organisers haven't got any control over the traffic. It doesn't sound like the coach driver was doing anything wrong (except getting a bit lost), so it's an unfortunate case of going too quick for the blind corner which is too easily done whilst doing a sportive.

Avatar
fenix | 5 years ago
1 like

Sad but just shows you need your wits about you at all times. 

Avatar
janusz0 | 5 years ago
2 likes

The coach driver did at least have the sense to reverse into the turning and thus have a good view of the road.  Most car drivers wouldn't.  However, this tragedy could have been avoided by observing the road sign, so roll on autonomous coaches with far better powers of observation.

Sincere condolences to the Worthington family and friends.

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 5 years ago
4 likes

"Head down" = in the drops, tucked position (its a nice downhill on a quiet country lane).

Why was a coach on it, and having to do a 3 point turn reversing into another side lane? Bloody sat-navs.

Can't think of anywhere that would make sense for a coach to use this lane rather than the parallel A616.

Pages

Latest Comments