Renewed appeal over time trialist killed in dual carriageway collision

Agreed. Having ridden on the A1 in the wee north of Ireland, some of which is at motorway standard, but which then degrades to typical dual-carriageway:

- the motorway standard section was fine to cycle on, as you effectively had a whole lane to yourself - though care needed at exits with traffic coming across.

- once it went to normal DC standard, it was _horrendous_ and _terrifying_. Cars whizzing close by in the same lane at 120+ km/h. I had to quickly get off it, taking a significant and slow detour on my journey.

Motorways with hard shoulders are _much_ safer for cyclist than DCs.

I rode on the A2 on Saturday, and yeah, surprisingly relaxed.

I even was very cheeky and turned onto the A282, joining as the M25 ended. Made sure to get the fudge out of dodge before the hard shoulder ran out, though!

Was it definitely a hit and run? None of the articles I see via Google, either from the current appeal or from the time of the incident, mention that the driver failed to stop. They all appeal for independent witnesses to the crash and or the manner of driving prior to the collision which says to me that the driver probably stopped but the police want more evidence to support any charges they may subsequently recommend.

Fair points but none of the reports I've seen contain any of the usual indicators that it wasn't a hit-and-run, if you see what I mean: no "the driver, who stopped at the scene, was spoken to by police", "the police interviewed the driver and released him pending further enquiries" etc. The fact that they are making an appeal for witnesses at such a late stage would seem to imply that they didn't have a suspect at the time but have now. I'm sure all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

I would hope - maybe naively - that the abscence of any clear statement either way is more indicative that the driver did stop than the contrary. I.e. if it had been a hit-and-run, I would think that would have been reported more prominently. 

I would also think that the appeal specifically asking for people who witnessed "the collision or the manner of driving of the van immediately beforehand" suggests they know who was driving the van and want evidence as to the circumstances of the collision/potential offences. If they did not even know who was driving, then they would be appealing for anyone who could help identify the driver, a much wider pool.  

It was a genuine question as I have no idea. To me, it reads as if they have a driver who is putting forward a version of events that places little / no blame on them and they can't prove / disprove that version of events from the physical evidence so are hoping that a witness to the events or the lead up may still come forward. The wording of the current appeal is very similar to the one issued at the time. I think this is just a timely reminder of the appeal on the anniversary of the incident rather than a sudden new appeal that hasn't been made before.

LeadenSkies wrote:

It was a genuine question

I didn't suggest it wasn't! Either scenario is possible, as I said I'm sure we will find out eventually and hopefully there will be an outcome that will give the poor woman's friends and family some measure of closure.

Yes, https://granfondodailynews.com/2022/06/30/time-trial-competitor-killed-b... which is why the appeal was made on the anniversary of Cheryl's death, as the police often believe such dates will hold significance to those involved and prompt them to come forward.

which is why they also rarely if ever mention "hit and run" in any of their appeals as they also believe that puts off those individuals handing themselves in for fear of being already found guilty in the eyes of the police.

lets face it if the police had already identified the driver and spoken to them, they wouldnt be waiting around a year to ask people for any more dashcam evidence, people dont keep a years archive of dash cam evidence, their case would already be built, or most likely there wouldnt be enough evidence to prosecute at all and theyd release the driver without charge, because the driver claimed the sun was in their eyes, or the rider swerved in front of them, or there was completely another van involved, or they simply forgot it had happened at all.

Thanks for confirming it was a hit and run. My only comment would be Dash cam evidence isn't the only evidence, witnesses can come forward years after the event because friendships and allegiances change, or they only realise the significance of what they saw at a later date. Anyway, hopefully the appeal brings results and justice can be done belatedly.

It's very similar to how Ben Jacobs death has been handled by local media and police, they just mention a collision with a car, appeal for witnesses/dashcam & nothing else, again the driver didnt stop at the scene and I dont believe has been traced yet.

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/23602204.ipswich-hundreds-attend-cele...

Don't forget that (allegedly) it's very easy to not notice that you've hit a cyclist, and so long as you say you were completely ignorant of the collision then you're fine and you'll get a slap on the wrist...