A coroner has said that a “misjudged action” may have led to the death of a 71-year-old cyclist in West Sussex last year after he rode into the path of a bus.
An inquest at Crawley Coroner’s Court heart that Robert Edmond, a retired accountant from Itchenor, Chichester, would go cycling most afternoons, reports the Chichester Observer.
He died on 8 September last year in Southampton General Hospital from head injuries sustained the previous day in a collision with a bus on Cakeham Road in West Wittering.
Collision investigator PC Stephen Ashby told the inquest that Mr Edmond had been cycling north on a shared path on the east side of the path then left it, crossed the southbound carriageway and entered the northbound carriageway into the path of a bus.
“CCTV footage shows three seconds elapses from the point he leaves the cycle path to impact,” he said.
He added that either Mr Edmond did not look behind him, or did but did but either failed to see the bus or misjudged its speed, noting that the sun would have been directly in his line of sight.
Jeremy Norris, the driver of the bus, which was travelling at a little more than 30mph, swerved but could not avoid hitting Mr Edmond.
He said in a statement: “I have played the event over and over in my mind. I truly believe there was nothing I could have done.”
Assistant coroner Chris Wilkinson, who described the collision as “a tragically timed incident,” said that Mr Edmond’s manoeuvre was “a misjudged action.”
The victim’s son James raised concerns about the shared use path at the inquest, saying that further on from where Mr Edmond left it, the path came to a stop, but there was “nothing to suggest what you should do.”
The coroner said that although the layout of the shared use path had “potential” to cause risk, there was not sufficient evidence for him to report it.
“It may have been that Robert was aware of the deficiencies of the cycle lane and decided to exit at a safer point,” he said.
“I don’t know what was going through his mind at that point.”
Concluding that Mr Edmond died as a result of accidental death as a result of a road traffic incident, he noted that he was unsure if it would have “made a difference at all” had he been wearing a helmet.
He added: “I can only advocate in the interests of safety that, given a choice, people do wear one.”
13 thoughts on “Coroner: “Misjudged action” cost cyclist his life in bus collision”
FFS! Cyclist is on a shared
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.
the little onion wrote:
Surely the other option was actually stopping then?
the little onion wrote:
… Forch, in Switzerland.
Quote:
I’m pretty sure bike helmets aren’t designed to protect you from being hit by a bus…
I wondr if the coroner would
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!
Not a chance of drivers
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…
alansmurphy wrote:
I know, but they should, it’s part and parcel of hazard perception. One can’t presume anything with regards to the road, there’s no mention of the speed limit and as we know the limit is the maximum in ideal/perfect conditions with no obstruction or hazard nearby.
Lower speeds mean more thinking time and shorter braking distances, it also allows for errors in judgement much, much more because of this.
As always though, coroners will focus on things that have no evidence of working and ignore the things that does, at the same time making unfounded statements and promoting something they would not promote for other road users. It’s all rather shit as per usual.
I don’t think any of this is
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.
Just looked, what I’m
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?
Well have a look at this from
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.
HoarseMann wrote:
Thanks for that. This is the view a bit farther on, where north bound cyclists are apparently supposed to rejoin the carriageway, facing oncoming traffic, on a bend, at a junction on a road with a speed limit over 30mph. If I was riding northbound, I too would have left the cycle/footpath before the bend. The path is clearly dangerous and the coroner is wrong about it, and the helmet comment is frankly crass.
burtthebike wrote:
Thanks for that. This is the view a bit farther on, where north bound cyclists are apparently supposed to rejoin the carriageway, facing oncoming traffic, on a bend, at a junction on a road with a speed limit over 30mph. If I was riding northbound, I too would have left the cycle/footpath before the bend. The path is clearly dangerous and the coroner is wrong about it, and the helmet comment is frankly crass.— HoarseMann
It’s possible that street view is out of date, but if they have removed the existing (if poor) facility for north bound cyclists re-joining the road without considering the alternative, that is surely negligent.
If I was riding that path, I would probably be tempted to keep going on the footpath where the cycle track ends, so I could re-join the main road from that side road junction.
I use cycle infrastructure a
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.