Coroner: "Misjudged action" cost cyclist his life in bus collision

I use cycle infrastructure a lot (commuting) because it keeps me away from fast, busy traffic.  I've used a similar path layout before (no warning the path was ending) and instinctively treated rejoining the road as turning right (ie stopped and checked the traffic).

My point is, when you're using cycle infrastructure (some good, some not), and crossing/rejoining roads etc, the behaviour of some cyclists is beyond belief; people 'sail' across/between moving traffic with an 'air of invincibility'.  The 'summer cyclists' are pretty good at it and some of the (new) e bike riders are up there.  You just have to look at the disbelief on other cyclist's faces as it plays out.

Well have a look at this from street view. The track is two way, but for some inexplicable reason, the method for re-joining the road going north has been botched. The dropped kerb removed and the bizarre cycle lay-by and 2 metres of cycle lane badly faded. How the judge can’t see a problem with that is beyond me.

Just looked, what I'm wondering though is did the accident occur in the national speed limit point or the 30 zone? If it is in the 30 zone surely you cannot avoid questioning what may have happened if the bus was travelling within the limit?

I don't think any of this is victim blaming, I think it's a sad case of inadequate infrastructure combined with a cyclist who didn't look properly before entering the carriageway.

The track is here:

https://goo.gl/maps/fJ4aqacLino

You can see it's designed so southbound cyclists can mount the kerb and use it at Wellsfield.  There's no similar facility for cyclists heading north to leave it at the same location, except via the dropped kerb around the corner, which is obviously for pedestrians only.

My question to the authorities is, why isn't that track two-way, and widened?  There's room for it if you move the highway away from the house that's halfway along the road.  A proper 2-way track all the way to the camp site should be easy to build.  And northbound, once you get past Wellsfied, there's STILL space for a 2-way track.

Whatever the issues surrounding this shared path though, the guy still hopped off it, into the carriageway and straight into the path of a bus.  It's a manoeuvre I do regularly on a road near me, but I don't do it without first looking back half a dozen times to make sure, and if I can't see, I stop and look.  This poor chap should have done the same.

30mph on a road like that is a perfectly reasonable speed and you'd never get motorists to observe anything lower, not without spending a lot of money on enforcement.  I bet a lot of people will be doing 40mph down there at night.

Not a chance of drivers considering infra BTBS - a few of the cyle lanes in sunny Crewe where i commute have given priority across road junctions, into a doctors surgery and into a little shopping drive by type place. I think in potentially 1,000 crossings by myself that i've seen perhaps 2 cars stop.

A couple of issues, firstgly drivers are shit at the easy things let alone predicting infra, the infra is often shit and how can you know the infra in a completely new town...

They mention the speed of the bus, I'd imagine the road must be faster than 30 for them to say it was only doing this...

I wondr if the coroner would say the same for a motorist/motor vehicle passenger or pedestrian if they were to die from a head injury, if not then their statement and thought process is bias and discriminatory which also leads to more focus on victim blaming and away from what actually needs to be done as pointed out by The little onion above.

Yet more guessing statements about effectiveness yet makes an absolute recommendation based on heresay and zero evidence whatsoever, utterly fucking disgraceful.

What we also need to do in these circumstances is ensure that drivers ARE aware of the infra, afterall a cycle lane that ends and people on that lane are likely to go straight onto the road, this is highlighted in the STATS19 reports regularly as one of the main reasons for cycle/motor collisions and death/injuries.

This is clearly a hazard, a prudent and safe motorist would recognise that this is a hazard, in the same way that the ending of a footpath on a road would mean pedestrians in the road. All too often we see total absolving of motorists responsibility around vulnerable road users, the little girl who was on a narrow cycle path next to a 60mph road, the girl was barely a few feet away from speeding motorists yet none slowed down, all presumed that a small child would ride straight and true and nt er in the slightest. And indeed this was the same for the motorist that struck and killed the young girl when she lost control and slewed a few feet to the right and onto the road.

When I encounter scenarios where I can see that someone is going to be close to me/me to them, that if they or I DO make a mistake I could endanger them or they me, then I'll ride/drive defensively, that might mean slowing down, adopting a differing position in the highway or even slowing/stopping and waiting until that hazard (to either of us) has passed.

You can also actively help the other person to their destination and remove that potential confrontation/collision altogether, this might take 4 seconds in total if letting a pedestrian cross, but it can be the difference between someone stepping out and there being a collision with all the ramifications that that can have and an additional shoulder check, wave of the hand and an easing off of the pedals for a second or two. This should be part and parcel of what you do ALL the time when out on the roads.

The above scenario with the child on the cycle path a few feet from the live lane, slow down, they are the main hazard (you've left a significant gap ahead given you're travelling at/near the NSL), move more toward the right hand side of the lane, look to see what they are doing, how close a parent might/might not be, how old are they etc. Would you swing a sledhammer just a mere few feet away from a small child running about on a pavement without watching out for them, no you wouldn't, so why would you ignore what's going on around you, whether that's a small child on a cycle lane or an adult on a cycle path that you know ends completely and leaves the cyclists no option but to come to a complete stop or will as I mentioned above, continue on/make a mistake.

Could the bus driver have done more, the coroner says not.

Maybe this is yet another reason to have blanket 20mph speed limits in built up areas, maybe this shows that having proper infra that is connected and gives priority over motor vehicles is required ... but then the coroner chose to go down the route of unproven 'solutions' instead of ones that are proven to work to keep people on bikes safe, no surprise really!

Quote:

he was unsure if it would have “made a difference at all” had he been wearing a helmet

I'm pretty sure bike helmets aren't designed to protect you from being hit by a bus...

FFS! Cyclist is on a shared path that comes to an abrupt stop, leaving the cylist nowhere to go but the road, and gets hit by a bus. The coroner then declines to recommend that the council build sensible, safe infrastructure, but instead says that cyclists should wear helmets.

Let's crowdfund a holiday for that coroner to the Netherlands, which of course has a far lower rate of cyclists' deaths per km travelled. And where very few cyclists wear helmets, but where there is plenty of sensible, safe infrastructure. 

It wasn't (solely) the misjudged actions of the cyclist that caused the death, it was the ineptitude of the transport planners.