A coroner concluded that a bus driver was “overtaking in a manner within the Highway Code” and an 11-year-old boy cycling home died in a collision when they “without warning, veered to the right”, that after the inquest had heard from a witness who suggested the child was startled by the driver beeping his horn which caused them to lose control.
The events leading to Lucas Ashton’s death were the subject of an inquest at Bolton Coroners’ Court last week. The 11-year-old boy was cycling home along Vernon Street in Bolton when he was hit by the driver of a bus on 30 December 2022, the Bolton News reported from the inquest.
CCTV clips were played, one from the bus and another from a care home, footage showing the driver of the bus turn onto Vernon Street where Lucas was riding his bike on the left-hand side of the left-hand lane. As the driver overtook he beeped his horn before Lucas turned right sharply and a collision occurred.
A senior paramedic with the North West Ambulance Service, who was the first member of the emergency services to arrive at the scene “shortly after 1pm” said she “immediately recognised” that it “would not be possible to save Lucas”, the coroner subsequently confirming the cause of death was a “traumatic head injury suffered in a road traffic collision”.
Coroner Peter Sigee concluded the driver was “overtaking in a manner within the Highway Code” but “Lucas suddenly, and without warning, veered to the right so that a collision occurred”.
However, the events around the collision were subject to conflicting accounts, the inquest hearing from PC Martin Davies, a forensic collision reconstruction officer who investigated the scene and footage, who told the court there was “no evidence to support that it was a loss of control” from Lucas that caused him to turn into the driver’s path.
“In this particular case, I was able to establish that if the bike carried on in a straight line it wouldn’t have happened,” the police officer said. “In regards to why or how Lucas turned the bike, I wasn’t able to establish why. There’s no evidence to support that it was a loss of control. There was no reaction from Lucas and no indication that Lucas had heard the horn before it happened.”
The police officer also claimed the driver’s exact speed “wouldn’t have much of a difference” after establishing that the bus was being driven at a speed between 20 and 24mph along the 20mph route when the collision occurred.
However, one passenger on the bus at the time of the collision, Victoria Lester, who was sitting “right behind the bus doors” reported Lucas’s riding was “absolutely fine” and recalled seeing the 11-year-old “jumping at the sound of the horn” before he “seemed to be losing control”.
Ms Lester reported that the driver was extremely upset following the collision, saying “what the f*** have I done?” before she told him there was “nothing you could have done”.
A second passenger, David Spencer, told the inquest he was “happy with the driver’s skills” and “felt safe as a passenger” as the vehicle was “being very careful driving into Vernon Street”.
A vehicle examiner deemed that the bus was in working order and would have passed an MOT at the time of the collision.
The coroner read a statement from Lucas’s mum, Sarah Heaton, who said “people flocked to” her son and that his sense of humour was “so lovely to be around”.
On 30 December, the family had visited Lucas’s grandad, Lucas travelling by bike and on the way home he had gone ahead.
Coroner Sigee said: “You gave him the keys to the house, said you loved him and went on, expecting to see him at home.
“You said you feel empty, your whole world seems empty, and you tell me about the things you miss. The quietness in the house is the worst, you miss the chaos he brought, and his giggles were missing – he had the best laugh, it was contagious. He’s left a gap in the lives of everyone who loved him.”
The coroner concluded that the collision occurred when Lucas “suddenly, and without warning, veered to the right” and that the driver had been “overtaking in a manner within the Highway Code”.
“I recognise how distressing a situation like this is for everyone involved,” he told the inquest. “While the grief of the family exceeds that of everyone else, I recognise the impact this would have on the bus driver as well. Lucas was unseated from his bicycle and he suffered an unsurvivable injury. Before I close this inquest, may I reiterate my condolences to everyone involved.”























65 thoughts on “11-year-old boy died cycling home after bus driver “beeped and startled him” before collision — but coroner concludes driving in line with Highway Code”
Awful.
Awful.
Remind me again – how loud is the horn on a double-decker bus?
From what information we have
From what information we have, this just sounds like a tragic accident. It does hopefully bring home how dangerous motor vehicles are and how much care and attention drivers need to pay around cyclists. It also perhaps explains why the only really safe infrastructure for cyclists is separate from cars. I would love to see a world where most children get to school on a bike or their two feet.
Ironically its often the people who are the danger that won’t let their kids bike or walk to school or around their local area because its so dangerous.
I was astonished the other day when a woman came flying around a bend in a 20 when there was a single lane due to parked cars. Must have been doing close to 40. Had 2 kids in the back of her car. Its OK though, she was in a massive 7 seater SUV so no doubt had she crashed, her kids would have been OK.
There are many aspects to
There are many aspects to this that don’t add up.
Why did the bus driver beep his horn whilst overtaking? Surely they do not do this habitually when passing cyclists?
Did the bus driver leave ‘as much room as you would a car’, i.e. the 1.5m minimum safe distance? Which in this instance the bus ought to have been fully in the opposing lane whilst passing.
Why does the police report emphasise: “In this particular case, I was able to establish that if the bike carried on in a straight line it wouldn’t have happened.”, when cyclists often cannot maintain a straight line, due to road defects, gusts of wind, etc.
No mention of the fact a cyclist will often drift slightly to the right as a consequence of looking over their right shoulder. Something that you might expect them to do should they hear a horn behind.
I’m also quite curious why
I’m also quite curious why the bus needed to be doing 20+ mph to overtake an 11 year old cyclist, that seems like it would be a huge speed differential.
Its not about adding up – its
Its not about adding up – its about not speculating and trying to second guess the result of a coroners court.
Except he’s not speculating,
Except he’s not speculating, is he? All he’s doing is suggesting there are things that don’t add up according to the report of proceedings. They may have done in court, though.
I’ve been travelling by bus a
I’ve been travelling by bus a lot lately. My bus route between home and work is invariably a double decker.
And I have not yet seen a cyclist overtaken at 1.5 metres or greater distance
I was on a First bus in
I was on a First bus in Colchester last year, if the driver gave the cyclist he overtook more than 1ft I’d be surprised.
The First buses, same company different depot, round here are better than that at least, largely as the result of riders lodging formal complaints with them till they got better.
I’m still wary of our borough buses but don’t encounter them that much.
Simply cannot imagine what
Simply cannot imagine what the family have gone through since that god awful day.
Then, to have their faces shoved into sh*te beggars belief. No reason for Lucas to swerve, really? Talk about covering up for yet another idiot driver. The police officer and coroner should resign immediately.
Ah yes. Because some random
Ah yes. Because some random on the internet has a better view of events than the Coroner who trained for a minimum of 5 years and does this for a living, and directly viewed both the footage and the police report and actually spoke to the witnesses under oath. 🙄
Just give your head a wobble.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Blind respect for authority figures is not a sensible or good look.
The evidence given was that the victim showed both ‘no reaction’ to the sound of the horn and also that he ‘suddenly […] veered to the right’. The witness and the coroner seem to have taken it as an article of pure faith that the response and the stimulus weren’t connected despite the obvious interpretation that someone jumping after a loud noise was indeed jumping *because* of the loud noise.
You might remember that several years ago a police officer shot an innocent person in the head multiple times for no better reason than he’d been told to, and the corroner decided that wasn’t unlawful killing, not because there was any lawful basis for it, but simply because they didn’t want it to be.
Just because a coroner rubber stamps something that doesn’t mean it’s true.
The_Ewan wrote:
Tangent alert: that still makes me absolutely furious and the memory of it has been brought back by the news that there is going to be a new TV drama about those events. I still find it absolutely astonishing that a coroner is permitted to tell the jury that they are not permitted to bring in one of the verdicts allowable by law. I hope if I ever find myself in such a situation on a jury I would refuse to return a verdict, or if I believed the evidence merited it that I would return the verdict that I believed to be correct whether or not the coroner had said it was permissible.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
So coroners, police, drivers are never wrong are they? The death of Lucas has been swept under the carpet, filed “nothing to see here, move along”.
I just hope no-one in your family is ever killed by a motorist and it is dimissed as nothing, as according to you coroners/police are always right.
I’ve noticed the bus drivers
I’ve noticed the bus drivers here in Nottingham are far more aggressive with both the use of their horn and general driving style than they were pre-Covid.
Surely there would be no need to be travelling between 20 – 24mph on a 20 limited road. As in many instances on here, a tragic accident, but some rather large presumptions made.
😮 I thought they’d be quite
😮 I thought they’d be quite good. Edinburgh Buses are still a arms length council owned business and there great. I thought Nottingham and Blackpool were similar.
Lothian buses? Most of them
Lothian buses? Most of them are pretty good, but I can confirm that the odd one is indeed arms-length (away).
Condolences to the family.
Condolences to the family.
What a tragedy.
On my cycle commute between
On my cycle commute between Farnham and Guildford the only vehicles who consistently gave me safe space when overtaking were Stagecoach bus drivers, probably not the expectation of many but that was my experience.
In Oxfordshire, Stagecoach
In Oxfordshire, Stagecoach bus drivers seem to be a lot better with cyclists than those who work for other companies. I know a few well enough to chat from time to time, and they all take pride in being considerate to vulnerable road users – it’s part of their professionalism.
Ok but that is of marginal if
Ok but that is of marginal if any relevance to this case.
Simple question, the coroner
Simple question, the coroner states that the driver was driving in accordance with the Highway Code. The Highway Code states that you are not to use your horn unless it’s to give a warning. If Lucas was riding in a manner which required a warning, why did the driver not slow down and stay behind him instead of sounding his horn and proceeding? If he was not riding in a manner which required a warning, why did the driver sound his horn at all? Oh and one other simple question, how is driving at a speed between the speed limit and 4 mph over the speed limit in accordance with the Highway Code?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Good question. The coroner appears, from the report, to have made no reference to the use of the horn at all.
“The police officer also
“The police officer also claimed the driver’s exact speed “wouldn’t have much of a difference” after establishing that the bus was being driven at a speed between 20 and 24mph along the 20mph route when the collision occurred.”
So the police have found that the driver was going over the speed limit when overtaking and using the horn.
If the driver felt the only way to overtake was to exceed the speed limit then isn’t that by definition dangerous driving as it is not careless to speed?
If the driver had instead sensibly stayed behind (not gotten too close) and not used the horn then this whole tragic incident could have been avoided.
But no.
Must. Overtake. Cyclist.
My question to the police and coroner is why wasn’t the driver prosecuted for causing death by careless or dangerous driving?
I can only hope that the driver sees the child’s face everytime he interacts with any family members of the same age.
mitsky wrote:
Nope. The police didnt say that. Read it again. It says
“establishing that the bus was being driven at a speed between 20 and 24mph along the 20mph route when the collision occurred”.
ie they cant rule out that the driver wasnt within the limit.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
They can’t rule out that the driver wasn’t over the limit at the time the collision occurred either. However they have also established that at some point the driver was exceeding the speed limit, haven’t they. If he was approaching Lucas in excess of the speed limit that could well be a contributory factor to the incident, whether or not he had slowed to within the speed limit at the time of the contact.
Policeman plod couldn’t
Policeman plod couldn’t establish why Lucas lost control, that’s because he died. He also ignored Lucas seeming to lose control after the driver beeped the horn, despite a witness stating this. Lucas family have been badly let down by this
That’s one of the astonishing
That’s one of the astonishing things, isn’t it, the police officer saying there is no evidence when there is literally an eyewitness contradicting that.
Don’t know the ins and outs
Don’t know the ins and outs here – and none of this brings the child back.
No doubt some coroners are more “searching” than others. Ultimately they have to work from facts / statements and their opinions of them. Example: the case in Grimsby where the forensic collision investigator seemed to focus on or assert some things which sounded dismissive of the responsibility of the driver (at least to some here) – but the coroner went with the expert.
But – is part of the process
But – is part of the process lacking in the UK? For road deaths specifically we only seem to focus on “accident or are other persons potentially at fault?” *
We obviously have to examine legal responsibility but I think we can / should address a “safety and public wellbeing” aspect. Not just “accident/whodunnit” but “why did this happen? Has something similar happened before? Could this reasonably be prevented and if so how?”
That is what “safe system” approaches do. And we do have those … for “accidents” which do not even result in death. But not for roads – for our air, rail and marine investigation e.g. the bodies AAIB, RAIB and MAIB.
But … we don’t a Road Safety Investigation Branch. One was announced years back but nothing has come of this as far as I’m aware. Meanwhile several other countries have versions of “safe systems” approaches which cover this function – most familiar to me being the Dutch Sustainable Safety framework.
* Yes, coroners can issue “Reports to Prevent Future Deaths” – but essentially these are just “please answer a question this one time”. A specific road safety body ought to be able to given some more expert analysis, set these in context and track trends over time. (Although that doesn’t necessarily prevent motornormative “they should have stayed out of the way of the car” / “they must have not been visible” biases…), And (hopefully…) isn’t just e.g. National Highways marking its own homework.
chrisonabike wrote:
Hell, we explicitly removed the ability of the coroner to require changes be made to prevent reccurance.
Literally its now on the council to do a design inquiry and decide if changes should be made;
So the people responsible for the original design and paying for any necessary safety changes are responsible for determining what are necessary safety changes… Really strong motivation for them to recommend changes rather than only offering contracts to review design safety to companies with a history of going ‘yep, this is fine’ regardless of what happened (/sarcasm)
There is also an argument
There is also an argument about when a horn was used.
If you think the cyclist needs to be aware of your presence, then the horn needs to be used at a point they can look and aknowledge it, before any manouvre is made.
I wish I had kept my rear cam footage of an ambulance demonstrating how to use audible warning correctly – switched on siren when approaching me cycling, with enough time for me to look round, ride a decent distance to next junction (30-50m), pull in and do a u-turn before the ambulance came past without having slowed down for me at all; (The audible warning being necessary because had I not pulled in they would have been behind me on a blind, narrow humped bridge with no opportunity to pass safely…)
Rendel Harris wrote:
Irritatingly, the first thing that jumped into my head upon reading this headling is that dim prick Ashley Neal. He could not fathom why we were upset with the video where he just pointlessly lays on the horn when passing two cyclists travelling in a straight line with no hazards in sight (and even came here to double, triple, and quadruple-down on it). Sounding the horn “as a warning” is totally pointless if you’re not actually warning anyone of anything tangible that they can do anything about. Turns out startling the hell of a cyclist can make them lose control of the bike, which was everyone’s whole issue with that video.
But no, he’s taught his 170K subscribers that a healthy horn blast is the correct course of action when overtaking cyclists. Maybe this bus driver was one of them…
I see you have entirely the
I see you have entirely the wrong perception of his advice – apparently it’s in no way “get out of my way” or “once I’ve let you know I’m there, it’s all on you”. No, it’s a “friendly toot”!
I think what makes it disappointing is not just “from a driving instructor” but he’s mostly sound. Though he does sometimes have takes which (from a vulnerable road user perspective) sound tone-deaf – including a couple of really strange ones with regard to cycling.
To his credit he has reviewed at least one of his opinions following some feedback (in the case of a collision at the dangerous Edinburgh layout around the tram construction at Picardy place). And he does actually cycle. Although that may just mean the standard car-centric view and “as a cyclist myself…”
I have been nearly hit by
I have been nearly hit by buses over taking numerous times in various areas ie different bus companies . A motorists first reaction is to lie there heads off and blame someone else and they often carry on with the lies even when witnesses and cctv say different. Bus drivers at work have killed numerous children but somehow it’s never their fault.
And yet the coroner reviewed
And yet the coroner reviewed 2 seperate pieces of CCTV footage and *still* determined it wasnt the drivers fault.
Occams razor suggests that rather than it being a conspiracy to protect the bus driver…maybe…just maybe… the driver did nothing wrong.
They weren’t able to conclude
They weren’t able to conclude beyond all doubt that the driver was at fault from (probably silent) CCTV, but a witness (a front-seat passenger with probably a better view than either of those sources of CCTV) was happy to testify that the boy was riding perfectly happily in a straight line until the totally unnecessary horn blast scared him into losing control.
Forgive me for maintaining a healthy scepticism of a system that has been consistently lenient as fuck towards dangerous drivers for the entirety of living memory.
So whatever happened to the
So whatever happened to the old idea of slowing down, giving a lot of space, and being prepared to stop if necessary when encountering a child pedaling a bike down the road? These sorts of collisions are not “accidents.” They are the results of human errors. It’s possible the child errored here, but shouldn’t the adult be expected to be prepared for that?
That idea has gone out of the
That idea has gone out of the window. The new idea is that if you see a cyclist you honk your horn and watch what happens. It ended very badly in this case in multiple ways. Condolences to the family.
The bus driver was exceeding
The bus driver was exceeding the speed limit. A boy was killed. They say “speed kills” – except when it’s a cyclist death, when it “made no difference”, apparently.
Sriracha wrote:
Hmmm. You’re willing to accept that the collision forensics officer has enough experience to determine the bus *may* have been speeding but simulataneously disregard his opinion that the use of the horn had no impact on the collision.
Double standards or just seeing what you want to see?
Perhaps it was that the speed
Perhaps it was that the speed was measurable, and measured (tachograph, onboard data-logger, the CCTV evidence) and thus an objective fact the collision forensics officer could not do anything but report as such. Whereas the finding of whether the sounding of the horn affected the collision or not had enough room for interpretation that the officer could apply their biases to exonerate the poor innocent *speeding* bus driver?
Isn’t the issue that speed
Isn’t the issue that speed limits are not seen as “never exceed” limits but apparently “speed you should be going normally”. Hence for fairness we have to have an allowance above that. Which … drivers may misinterpret as well (e.g. “I should be fine doing 24mph in a 20mph limit!”). And I think that understanding does in fact feed back into the police / judicial system.
That is leaving aside that of course the limit should sometimes be moot as conditions will determine the safe speed to drive. Doesn’t matter what number is on the sign if you can’t see clearly ahead (sun), grip on the road is reduced or … the street is full of children!
A very sad story and why,
A very sad story and why, regardless of what the Highway Code says, never use a standard horn in close proximity to other road users.
I’ve been toying with the idea of putting one of these in my van so that if I see cyclists up ahead on a country road , I can press a button 100m behind and let them know I’m there without the angry sounding beep.
https://www.fiammhorns.com/12v-vehicles-without-air-supply/Fiamm-Tour-Horn-12v-MT3i
You don’t need to do anything
The highway code doesn’t say “If you are approaching a cyclist from behind sound your horn”.
You don’t need to do anything other than approach with caution. Unless the cyclist is hearing impaired they will hear either the roar of your engine, the roar of your tyres on the road or both. If they don’t hear it in time you are driving way too fast.
Sounding a horn means there must be some additional peril. A vehicle approaching from behind should not be perilous in itself.
The problem with horns nowadays is they are all too often used to mean “Get out of my way” or “I don’t like what you just did”. Neither is a legal use of the horn.
Pub bike wrote:
No, but it does in fact say “Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence.”
So, unless you’re actually there in person, how about you just let me decide when to use it and when not to, instead of making theoretical judgements on hypothetical scenarios?
Except that the kind of horn
Except that the kind of horn you are proposing to fit is illegal to use so who knows what other laws you are planning to break with your use of your horn?
Drivers are not allowed to use their horn in built-up areas between the hours of 11pm and 7am, in stationary traffic, to get the attention of other road users or used in frustration, or repeatedly.
In the UK, while you can technically adapt or replace your car horn, you are not allowed to fit a bell, gong, siren, or two-tone horn according to The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. The regulations state that no motor vehicle shall be fitted with a bell, gong, siren, or two-tone horn. The horn must produce a continuous and uniform sound, and it cannot be harsh or grating.
“except when another road
“except when another road user poses a danger.”
Pub bike wrote:
Ah, but Mark1a is proposing a three-tone.
I’m ambivalent about using the horn. Most of the time it isn’t warranted, but as long as it isn’t used as an “I’m coming through regardless, move” I don’t mind – that’s how I use a bell. I can think of one truly shocking (reported) pass on a country lane where I would have been happy to let them through if I’d had an advance warning beep, but was totally oblivious to their approach (wind noise) until they were alongside me.
It would have a separate
It would have a separate switch and would not be replacing the standard horn, which will remain in place of course.
Pub bike wrote:
I haven’t decided yet, but when I have, I’ll be sure to come back here and let you know.
Bus driver here.
Bus driver here.
Based on my experience, there are two types of bus drivers (slight simplification)
1. The ones that have none or hardly any collisions (regardless of their liability)
2. The ones that do but they usually get away with it because “they followed the highway code” “they were following the speed limit” “they had priority/green” “they just weren’t able to see someone”,etc.
The standards to which commercial drivers are held to, are not high enough. What also doesn’t help is the fact that the driver training process doesn’t put strong enough emphasis on advanced/defensive elements of the craft. Once you get a cat D, there isn’t much in a way of developing your skills other than learning “on the job”.
Which type are you?
Which type are you?
As per usual police don’t
As per usual police don’t care, they’re blaming the child ….how have we gone backwards in standards either way this bus driver should be delt with he wouldn’t have done if it was a pensioner on their mobility scooter! So Bee buses need to be held accountable! Last time I checked beeping your horn at a more vulnerable road user counts as intimidation….as far as I’m concerned GMP and it’s sister forces have turned into the SS!
Born_peddling wrote:
No they haven’t.
Beg to differ
Beg to differ
Begging denied. It’s nonsense
Begging denied. It’s nonsense.
mdavidford wrote:
No they haven’t.— Born_peddling
Do you reckon that one deserves a cry of “Godwin”?
Well, let’s see – they both
Well, let’s see – they both like wearing black, they have “powers”, er…
Driver beeped horn at a
Driver beeped horn at a cyclist and they caused the death of lad on bike, simple. In fact it was well known driving instructor Ashley Neal (YouTube) who done exactly the same and videoed it and defended the action to ‘i was letting the cyclists know I was there’ – beeping of a horn was questionable when i 1st learnt of the action many years back and still is!
Yet again the driver gets away with causing a death
Sounds like unnecessary horn
Sounds like unnecessary horn use scaring the poor lad. If the horn was used whilst overtaking then the driver is 100% at fault. If he tooted his horn BEFORE starting the overtaking manoeuvre then that’s different. No mention of timing in this article.
mjc2669 wrote:
“However, one passenger on the bus at the time of the collision, Victoria Lester, who was sitting “right behind the bus doors” reported Lucas’s riding was “absolutely fine” and recalled seeing the 11-year-old “jumping at the sound of the horn” before he “seemed to be losing control”.”
Given that the driver was close enough and going fast enough to be unable to avoid hitting Lucas when he (Lucas) lost control, it seems pretty clear on that evidence that whether he was starting to overtake or was in the process of overtaking he was too close to be sounding his horn at a very vulnerable road user; he should be slowing and waiting in that situation. If there was enough space and time safely to overtake leaving a minimum 1.5m gap, he shouldn’t have needed to sound a warning, if there wasn’t he shouldn’t have been attempting the manoeuvre at all.
Rendel Harris wrote:
“However, one passenger on the bus at the time of the collision, Victoria Lester, who was sitting “right behind the bus doors” reported Lucas’s riding was “absolutely fine” and recalled seeing the 11-year-old “jumping at the sound of the horn” before he “seemed to be losing control”.”
Given that the driver was close enough and going fast enough to be unable to avoid hitting Lucas when he (Lucas) lost control, it seems pretty clear on that evidence that whether he was starting to overtake or was in the process of overtaking he was too close to be sounding his horn at a very vulnerable road user; he should be slowing and waiting in that situation. If there was enough space and time safely to overtake leaving a minimum 1.5m gap, he shouldn’t have needed to sound a warning, if there wasn’t he shouldn’t have been attempting the manoeuvre at all.— mjc2669
And yet the same witness goes on to state that the driver did nothing wrong, and the flinch isnt visible on 2 sets of CCTV. On balance you can see why this part of the Witnesses statement isnt given much weight.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
No, she doesn’t. She goes on to say that she said to the driver “there was nothing you could have done” after Lucas swerved in front of him. She does not say that he did nothing wrong and specifically says that Lucas appeared to jump at the sound of the horn and then lose control. Why do you wish to give weight to what you think she said (which she didn’t) but ignore the other things she said? What motive do you think she would have to have made up her story?
You have no more idea what is shown on the CCTV than I do, if (as seems likely as the report states that only one clip from the bus was shown) there was only one forward-facing camera then it is highly probable that Lucas would have passed out of the camera’s field of view as the bus passed him and as the driver hooted. As for the CCTV from the old people’s home, we have no idea how far away that was, from what angle it was shot or what it shows.
The coroner concluded that
The coroner concluded that the collision occurred when Lucas “suddenly, and without warning, veered to the right”
Who among us doubts that the conclusion would have been the same had I been killed in any of these incidents?
https://upride.cc/incident/cd10wer_audiq7_closerpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/kv69zns_sprinter_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/dp14fym_insignia_closepassdwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/ku71cuk_montgomery44tonner_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/sk19evw_stagecoach42_closepass/
It would have been all ‘thoughts and prayers’, ‘the driver didn’t mean to do it’, ‘the cyclist must have swerved out or the driver wouldn’t have hit him’, ‘the cyclist came out of nowhere’ and the ‘insufficient evidence’ would have been written before the police drivers got out of their car- it’s never going to be beyond doubt that the driver was at fault
In accordance with the
In accordance with the highway code ? bus driver was breaking the speed limit, overtaking a child on a bicycle, he should’ve as far right as possible and doing a max of 15 mph,