A forensic collision investigator examining the death of a teenage cyclist, who was forced to ride on the pavement due to parked cars blocking a cycle lane, pushing him into a bus driver’s “blind spot”, has concluded that “had he been travelling in the cycle lane, he would have been seen” and that the Highway Code states cyclists should not ride on pavements.
Meanwhile, the assistant coroner also told the inquest that the “importance of using a cycle lane cannot be understated”, while pointing out that the 16-year-old cyclist was “distracted” by his phone and earbuds at the time of the fatal collision, and was not wearing a helmet or bright clothing.
Rhys Shepherd was cycling to his first day at Franklin College in Grimsby on 11 September 2023, at around 8.50am, when he was struck by a bus driver on Laceby Road, at its junction with Norwich Avenue.
Laceby Road, Grimsby
The driver was turning left onto Norwich Avenue when he hit the 16-year-old, who was riding on the footpath and about to cross the junction, pulling him under the vehicle. Despite passers-by attempting first aid at the scene, Rhys died due to multiple chest injuries.
At an inquest at Grimsby Town Hall this week, forensic collision investigator Christopher Bell said that, as a result of Rhys cycling on the pavement, he was in the bus driver’s blind spot at the time of the crash.
The cyclist could have been seen if he had been using Laceby Road’s unprotected, painted cycle lane, and not the footpath, the officer said.
However, Rhys’ mum, Helen Barass, told the inquest that her son was riding on the pavement to college because the cycle lane in question is constantly filled with parked cars.
“There are always cars parked on Laceby Road,” she said. “A lot of the students going to college use the pavement because there are cars parked. It makes it more difficult to be on the road.
“It is a busy road. There are lots of teenagers. They all think they are invincible. The option of being in the cycle lane is more dangerous.”
Laceby Road and Norwich Avenue junction, Grimsby
In his conclusion, collision investigator Bell said that the Highway Code states that cyclists should not ride on pavements.
“There is a cycle lane, but there are no yellow lines to say it is illegal to park there. There are cars parked in the cycle lane and there is a bus stop in the cycle lane. The pavement was in the bus blind spot. Had he been travelling in the cycle lane, he would have been seen,” Bell concluded.
“At no point was Rhys ahead of the bus. The only way the driver would have seen him in his mirrors is if he had not been in his blind spot. He entered Norwich Avenue as the coach was making a left-hand turn. He would not have been visible to the driver.”
Assistant coroner Marianne Johnson told Grimsby Town Hall that the 16-year-old cyclist was forced to use the footpath to travel to college “because the cycle lane is more dangerous because there are cars parked on it”.
However, she also concluded that other factors, such as Rhys’ “inattention” and failure to wear a helmet or hi-vis gear, contributed to his death.
“There is likely to have been some element of distraction due to him wearing earphones and on his mobile phone, which is what you expect of a 16-year-old,” the coroner said.
“The driver would not have been able to see him. The inattention was there for Rhys. It is more than likely he was in the driver’s blind spot. At no point was he visible to the bus driver. The inattention or distraction cannot be discounted.
“The importance of using a cycle lane cannot be understated. The wearing of a safety helmet is important and being visible to others.
“Teenagers often do not want to look uncool. However, it is such an important measure. It is so important to be visible to others. We have all been 16 years old once and want to look good in front of friends.
“But without a safety helmet and bright clothing you are so vulnerable. Mobile phones are such a distraction. We have all seen people on their phones. How often do we bump into someone who is on their phone? It is a difficult situation for youngsters.”
Rhys Shepherd (Humberside Police)
In a statement read at the inquest, the bus driver who collided with Rhys, who was driving students to Franklin College for PC Coaches, said he had a “good, clear, unobstructed vision of the road” and was driving slowly due to the amount of traffic going eastbound into Grimsby.
However, he said he was running late and decided to turn left into Norwich Avenue to avoid congestion, when he heard a bang which he said sounded like he had “hit a tree branch”.
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and his earphones in his ears.
“I am absolutely devastated and not slept in days. I want to send my condolences to his family and say how sorry I am for what has happened.”
Two students who were on the coach at the time of the crash said they had seen the 16-year-old cycling on the pavement while holding his mobile phone, while a pedestrian who was about to cross Norwich Avenue said she saw the cyclist riding quickly, meaning he was unable to stop in time when the bus driver turned into his path.
At the time of his death last September, Rhys’ family paid tribute to him, saying he was “loved by many”.
80 thoughts on “Teenage cyclist killed in collision with bus driver after parked cars blocked cycle lane – but coroner blames 16-year-old for cycling on pavement, not wearing a helmet or bright clothing, and being “distracted” by earphones”
Remind me again – if you are
Remind me again – if you are intending to turn into a side road and there are cyclists, or pedestrians, or f-ing penguins, crossing that side road, who has priority?
If the bus driver couldn’t see the teenager on his bike ‘because he was on the footpath and not in the cycle lane’ then they wouldn’t have seen him in the cycle lane either and certainly wouldn’t have seen a pedestrian – not even the hypothetical person pushing a pram – on the footpath.
Saying, “but he was in their blind spot” just isn’t good enough
Condolences to this young man
Condolences to this young man’s family.
I agree, but … Presumably you’re referring to the “new” rule H2?
Unfortunately there isn’t really new “law” here – just “recommendation”:
Sadly the legal position is presumably a) it is not legal to cycle here b) there were no “pedestrians crossing / waiting to cross” and c) even if this was that situation it’s still not strict (“MUST”)…
Of the many issues I have
Of the many issues I have with the coroner’s comments – this is the one that’s most ridiculous. It might be argued (maybe they did, and it isn’t mentioned) that bike was going faster than a pedestrian, and the driver would assume they’d have noticed pedestrians as they overtook them on the approach, but was the cyclist going faster than someone out for a run?
The teenager being (it’s presumed) distracted by a phone and headphones is all very well, but isn’t the point that those turning into a side-street are supposed to give way to the more vulnerable user – even if (and perhaps because) they might not be paying attention.
FionaJJ wrote:
The article says that “At no point was Rhys ahead of the bus” so he must have been going faster than the bus, in that case rather than the occasional car that we can see in the pictures above perhaps the road was nose to tail with slow moving traffic. If that was the case then the bus driver may have arrived adjacent to the side road and suddenly decided to try a change of route without checking it was clear and without having recently checked his mirrors because the traffic was only moving slowly.
Hold on a minute – was the
Hold on a minute – was the bus driver distracted by the teenager wearing earphones? Is that why they didn’t bother to check their “blind spots”?
They were distracted because
They were distracted because the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet?
chrisonabike wrote:
Distracted trying to figure out how a cycle helmet would help with chest injuries
Condolences to family and
Condolences to family and friends for this needless death.
“However, she [coroner] also concluded that other factors, such as Rhys’ “inattention” and failure to wear a helmet…..”
and
“Rhys died due to multiple chest injuries.”
Where do they get these coroners from? Are they not trained to examine the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions? Are they not supposed to be familiar with the data on things they pronounce on?
It appears that many of them are suffering from motonormativity and twist the evidence to suit their opinions.
I always wear a helmet, but
I always wear a helmet, but know full well it won’t protect me from every incident, and certainly won’t protect me from chest injuries. If he really was in the blind spot – would hi-viz help? It’s possible the driver would have spotted a bit of hi-viz at some point in the run up which would have encouraged them to take more care, but that’s care they should have taken regardless.
I often wear hi-viz and a hard hat for work, and there’s nothing we love more than a bad joke along the lines of how our hi-viz/hard-hat will protect us from all of the many dangers that they quite plainly cannot protect us from, such as a big concrete block landing on us, or falling into a big hole in the ground. But I feel an inquest into the death of a teenager isn’t the pace for such hilarity.
Clearly not paying attention played a role – although the lack of attention of the bus driver to the highway code’s expectation to give way when turning into a side street or to checking their blind spot was more pertinent.
What would have been helpful was for the coroner to point out the role of the drivers who abandoned their cars in the cycle path to making the supposed safe route impractical. And then gone one further and had a word on the role of those who designed the street in a way that lets drivers park in the bike lane without issue.
FionaJJ wrote:
And demanding that the real issue, lack of safe cycling infrastructure is addressed immediately, not blaming the victim.
I see two issues here:
I see two issues here:
1) Inadequate safe cycling provision for everyone but especially children / more vulnerable people.
There are “advisory cycle lanes” (dashed lines) shown in the picture. These effectively mean absolutely nothing in the UK.
Even “mandatory cycle lanes” are pretty rubbish as we know, because not only is paint not protection, there is almost always no “buffer” zone between these and motor traffic. And as Cycling UK found in fact increasing numbers of these are entirely legal to drive and park in also! Of course, all that is irrelevant because there isn’t sufficient enforcement (any?) to convince people they should not just drive, park or store their stuff in these.
Most important – in the UK we know the most dangerous places are junctions, and it is here were we have the least provision (and what little we do is rubbish like “bike boxes” / “ACLs”). Compare this with the safety and convenience that better places can offer [1] [2] [3].
2) Driving standards and vehicle safety.
The article says the driver suddenly decided to make a turn into a side road and clearly did not observe sufficiently e.g. what is on the pavement. There has been guidance in the Highway Code about this for some years (albeit itself wishy-washy). But apparently a professional driver trusted with the lives of others is not even held to that standard.
We are also far too accepting of “blind spots”. At minimum drivers should be aware of these on any vehicle they’re driving and be taking measures to compensate.
Sorry – issue 3 – massive
Sorry – issue 3 – massive space for motoring:
Look at the size of the “side road”! And despite being a residential area, all of this is potential through-routes for motor traffic.
The general solution to this (that other places have extensively used) is making residential areas non-through routes, and actual “side roads” should get the “continuous footway / cycle way” treatment. But that’s moot here, this is all built to “car city” standards.
Apparently Grimsby (per previous appearances here) is not going to see an active travel revolution any time soon.
I would add to that, look at
I would add to that, look at the curve of the junction. Why do we build junctions in such a way that it facilitates drivers being able to take them at speed? Many corners are designed like tight curves rather than turns. If we squared off the corners of junctions drivers would be forced to slow down and it would also reduce the distance pedestrians had to go in order to cross. If the driver in this instance had to slow right down in order to turn left there would’ve been considerably more chance for him to see Rhys or for Rhys to anticipate his manoeuvre.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You’ve answered your own question, right there, Rendel: junctions like that are built that way because otherwise motorists might have to slow down, and we can’t have that!
brooksby wrote:
More than that, right? This (common) design is sending a clear message to turning drivers: pedestrians are following the curve and the priority is yours.
brooksby wrote:
I guess the logic runs: this is an A road and a main distributor / artery into the city (despite going through in the middle of a residential area, with no “service roads” at the sides). Ergo it’s a “fast road” – so – for safety (!) – by the rules we have to make turn radii sufficient to cope with fast traffic. (There are probably all kinds of rules here e.g. width for sight purposes – I am not a highway engineer!)
But … there’s everything against good results here. This is in Lincolnshire – a large rural county which apparently is proud not to have any motorways within it. Look at the wider network – there’s just been “organic growth” here – essentially farm / drove roads and streets growing and then becoming filled with motor vehicles.
There isn’t even really a proper grid for longer-distance motor traffic which goes *round* the population centres rather than through. Lincolnshire seems to embrace this – as if each small town was worried they’d lose business stabling and watering container trucks and fuel tankers … (or you could see this as “the historic coaching routes have been preserved”?)
brooksby wrote:
Just yesterday I saw a driver (in 4×4) take a slightly sharper corner at speed, very tight to the kerb. In this place there’s a high wall parallel to the kerb so no visibility around the corner and there was absolutely no way they had any chance of seeing if someone was already crossing the road between the dropped kerbs, or for anyone crossing the road to have a chance of getting out of the way.
It struck me that it was pure chance there wasn’t a fatal accident (the speed and size of the car would make that likely IMO), and the driver was presumably entirely clueless.
And don’t get me started on the people who cut corners as they turn right into a street at speed (without indicating), often accelerating into the turn – presumably to avoid having to wait for a later gap in the traffic. As a pedestrian I’ve had to jump out of the way of more than one of them. No doubt if I were a bit less nimble and they’d hit me they’d have insisted they had indicated and something about the sun in their eyes.
My favourite is pulling up a
My favourite is pulling up a bit right of primary to turn right from the minor road at a t-junction, then receiving a filthy look from a driver that would like to cut more of the corner when turning right from major to minor.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Probably designed that way due to the swept path of HGV trailers, which would otherwise go over the pavement.
eburtthebike wrote:
When these were designed in to the new development near us the excuse was ‘well if we didn’t it would be impossible to get a rubbish truck in to lift your bins’. Because apparently people who drive for a living can’t cope with corners.
[Rat-running buses were not mentioned.]
It’s choices again though
It’s choices again though including choosing “no change” – otherwise it’s circular reasoning.
Possible mitigations come to mind – but they all represent “change” and thinking differently. Never mind they’d likely involve some expense, smaller or greater.
Strangely other places seem to manage – albeit some have different systems or sizes of vehicles.
Poor kid. And his family.
Poor kid. And his family.
Obviously a number of factors in this (and any) incident. But FFS.
“There is a cycle lane, but there are no yellow lines to say it is illegal to park there. There are cars parked in the cycle lane and there is a bus stop in the cycle lane. The pavement was in the bus blind spot. Had he been travelling in the cycle lane, he would have been seen,” Bell concluded
So…..the parked vehicles (the ones preventing him from using the cycle lane that apparently he should have been using) ARE a problem. BUT.
“The importance of using a cycle lane cannot be understated.”
Yet again, the fairly obvious elephant in the transport system is wilfully ignored. It’s OK to park in an advisory cycle lane because who wants to walk further or pay to park (so cycle lanes are not that important). But cycle lanes are simultaneously so important & there to “protect” you as a cyclist, that it’s your fault if you get killed because you didn’t use it. Because it’s full of cars.
Of course, depending on when
Of course, depending on when it was created, it’s also legal to park in a mandatory cycle lane! (not that people pay any attention to laws about not driving on to pavements and cycle lanes anyway).
Clem Fandango wrote:
If we accept that a major cause of the collision was due to the victim not using the cycle lane, then surely the motorists that prevented him from using the bike lane should be prosecuted for their part in this tragedy.
Or is this one of those occasions where just the victim is blamed?
No sign of investigating the
No sign of investigating the engineer who chose not to restrict parking here either. Like saying nobody has fallen off this high rise yet so we will only install balustrades after blaming victims.
Perhaps someone with the
Perhaps someone with the knowledge could comment (I don’t have it) but I think there are some significant differences in how and where responsibility for road safety is allocated between UK and eg. NL – and how effectively this is done. (My info here from the video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ya3V-s4I0?t=600
)
Unfortunately lots of inadequate and less safe designs are perfectly normal in the UK.
The status of the “better” cycle infra designs (eg. LTN1/20) is that these are “guidelines”. Which – to be fair – I believe is also the case in NL. Per linked video I think the responsibility for safety is applied more effectively there? Perhaps it also to do with the different focus of their Sustainable Safety principles?
Clem Fandango wrote:
So…..the parked vehicles (the ones preventing him from using the cycle lane that apparently he should have been using) ARE a problem. BUT.
“The importance of using a cycle lane cannot be understated.”
Yet again, the fairly obvious elephant in the transport system is wilfully ignored. It’s OK to park in an advisory cycle lane because who wants to walk further or pay to park (so cycle lanes are not that important). But cycle lanes are simultaneously so important & there to “protect” you as a cyclist, that it’s your fault if you get killed because you didn’t use it. Because it’s full of cars.— Clem Fandango
No mention of the design
No mention of the design process for the cycle lane being looked at? The lane not being usable was identifed as a contributing factor to a fatal accident, but no follow up on the designers HSE responsabilities in installing a non-mandatory lane at that location?
The collision investigator
The collision investigator needs a lesson in basic English. The bus driver COULD have seen the poor lad, not would have seen.
He also, much more importantly, needs a lesson in basic collision investigation / forensics. Stick to facts supported by evidence, don’t get drawn into the realms of what your own bias thinks might have happened. He has absolutely no way of knowing whether the bus driver would have seen the poor lad or not as he has no evidence as to whether or not he made the requisite observations before turning, just that it would have been possible if the lad had been in the cycle lane.
Some of the other stuff mentioned by the collision investigator is just irrelevant. If it was, as he suggests, impossible to see the lad on the pavement then he could have been lit up like Blackpool illuminations and it would still have been impossible to see him. And wearing a helmet correctly will do diddly squat to protect you from catastrophic chest trauma. IRRELEVANT!!!
It seems to be a deg’s
It seems to be a dog’s breakfast by the Assistant Coroner.
A report so full of holes you
A report so full of holes you could use it as a trawler net.
He should use the cycle lane that’s full of cars, (Maybe stop people parking there?)
He shouldn’t wear heaphones (ban car radios ??) Do they have evidence of what the music level was ? Given most cars block out far more sound with the radio OFF that even good (non active sound suppressing) headsets can cut out.
“The driver couldn’t see him” . . We only have the driver’s claim for that.
He should wear bright clothes and a helmet ? Ban black cars, and helmets don’t protect against crush injuries to the chest (or the head from a bus for that)
The driver decided to go off the normal route to “avoid traffic”, was this a last minute decision ? Did he signal ? Did they check if the bus had a black box to confirm this orif witnesses saw he had signalled ?
Were there faults from both sides, absolutely, however the coroners statement reads like a victim blaming excercise and “nothing the driver could do” apart from look better and maybe take the corner slower.
Clearly a tragic incident all
Clearly a tragic incident all round, but it’s hard to imagine the family finding much comfort in the inquest’s findings when they are so clearly nonsensical.
Blaming the cyclist for not using the cycle lane, when he couldn’t use the cycle lane as it was full of parked cars.
Suggesting that the cyclist would have been visible had they been in the cycle lane, but was invisible as he was on the pavement. Unless the mirrors were very badly positioned, that sounds rubbish to me. Plus shouldn’t the driver be checking their “blind spots” – what if it had been a pedestrian crossing the road?
Claiming that the cyclist was in blind spot, but brightly coloured clothing would have made a difference. If the cyclist truly was not visible to the driver as a result of being in a blind spot, then his clothing wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference. If bright clothing would have made a difference, then the cyclist must have been there to be seen if only the driver had looked properly.
Claiming that the cyclist should have worn a helmet, despite being killed by “multiple chest injuries”. Unclear if they think the helmet would have prevented the chest injuries, or would have meant the driver would have seen the cyclist – not sure which claim is more ludicrous.
Have I missed any?
We’re they claiming that the
Were they claiming that the parked car(s) represented a blind spot? Were the choices of the people who permitted parking and who chose to park here investigated? If their choices had been any different this young man may have been unharmed or the negligence of the bus driver clearer and less chewbacca defensible.
So, it seems we’re all agreed
So, it seems we’re all agreed. Based on the story as reported here (and let’s acknowledge a degree of latitude for those elements of what was said in court that didn’t make it here which might make a difference), the Latin phrase, equus cacas, applies to the coronoer’s comments.
The bus driver did not have a “blind spot”; he had a “did not look” spot. It’s hard, at times, but the ultimate onus is on a turning driver to make sure it is safe to do so, not: go unless you can see a conflict.
Much is made of the Rhys’s distractions, but nothing is said in the same terms of the driver running late and choosing a rat run… in. his. bus!
And, as has been said before, what if he had been a pedestrian. A runner, for example? Who would have been travelling at a similar speed. His position on the footway is broadly incidental: the driver should have been looking and should have given way. Moreover, while cars were obstructing the cycle lane, the Boateng-Goodwill principle indicates that this should not be an actionable offence all things considered.
As for hi viz and helmets… what helmet protects against being hit by a 10-ton bus? This was at 8.50am. Sunrise was around 2½ hours earlier. How visible does somebody have to be before just looking is enough?
This is a school bus driver. Whom was he expecting to be around, 400-500m from the college to which he was driving?
We need to stop equating the standard of road use expected of a young cyclist on his first day at college with that of a [presumably] qualified and experienced bus driver.
Blind spots eh. Just a
Blind spots eh. Just a reminder of the lorry driver who was aquitted after killing a cyclist on a roundabout where the jury obviously felt it was asking too much of a driver to take account of the blind spots in his vehicle when on the roads.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24702352.tr … s-ipswich/
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24705235.fe … rash-case/
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24707865.fe … rew-death/
Coincidentally I’ve just had the outcome of a report I put in a year ago where a huge 4×4 pulled out in front of me on a mini roundabout. I avoided a collision and the driver stopped at the exit of the roundabout. I don’t usually exchange words with drivers but it was obvious they were waiting for me so I pulled up along side to hear the driver explain that he hadn’t seen me due to the A post (I think it’s called) and that he was dreadfully sorry. I suggested he might try moving his head and then he drove off.
I wondered whether to report it or not but having had apologies and promises before and been disappointed I decided that some form of contact with the police may reinforce the learning experience rather better than I could. The outcome was an education course. I know some think this is a joke but let’s hope that it worked in this case and the driver takes more care in future.
It’s interesting that blind spots were just accepted as mitigation in these cases when even in Gloucestershire they are not. Mind you it never went to court so may be that’s where the problem lies.
Or the Cambridge case where
Or the Cambridge case where the tanker driver admitted hanging his coat on the nearside camera monitor screen and still escaped a custodial sentence after turning left and rolling over a cyclist he had followed and overtaken virtually on the roundabout entrance. A pathetic two year ban too despite witnesses not seeing the lorry indicate the turn.
Does the coroner say that
Does the coroner say that motorists and pedestrians who received a fatal head injury in a road accident should have been wearing a helmet, if not, why not?
It would be politically
It would be politically incorrect to do so.
presumably the council will
presumably the council will be putting bollards in to protect the cycle lane?
That would not withstand
That would not withstand challenges given it’s an “advisory cycle lane”. So not illegal to drive or park in. In fact in many cases it would make no difference if it were a “mandatory cycle lane” either! The difference between these is one is a complete waste of paint, but the other is just a waste of paint.
Frankly that’s all moot. It doesn’t sound like Grimsby is a place that understands cycling, understands the need for cycling … or in fact understands anything as “a means of transport” on the streets and roads other than cars, and possibly buses.
Sorry for the folks who do cycle, or those who might consider it.
Does no one check your copy
Does no one check your copy before publishing?
The victim was riding on the FOOTWAY
THIS IS NOT
The footpath or the pavement
Was this a crash with a BUS or a COACH
A V Lowe wrote:
Cycling Embassy of Great Britain: “Footway: The technical term for what is commonly called a pavement in the UK, and a sidewalk in the US.” Pavement is a perfectly good term for the pedestrian area at the side of the road, insisting on it being called the footway is like insisting on always saying “highway” instead of “road”. A coach is a type of bus so it is perfectly acceptable to call particular vehicles by either name, although I agree it would be less confusing if the report settled for one or the other rather than using both terms.
Presumably their intervention
Presumably their intervention is in favour of “but they were cycling where they weren’t legally allowed to do (pedestrian danger!)” and “but coach drivers have massive blind spots (which excuses them from looking properly, because it’s more difficult)”?
On the last point – it is possible to engineer situations where in the usual course of things one, or both parties in a collision would not see each other beforehand. Or not without some unusual efforts (see eg. Beyond The Kerb’s article on a “constant bearing, decreasing range” junction layout).
Again, sadly this all looks a lost cause in Grimsby but a good “mitigation” would be a “continuous footway” design to remind drivers they’re crossing a space for vulnerable road users. (and continuous cycle path – but of course the cyclist was on the footway due to a pointless and unusable “cycle facility”).
Of course it does sound like a case of a *sudden* decision by driver of “I’ll just dive down here to avoid the traffic” and likely no, or clearly inadequate – observation as a result.
On a bus the driver has a
On a bus the driver has a fully glazed double set of doors that give a direct view of any cyclist or pedestrian travelling right into the left side at the front corner of the bus AND on every BUS the driver has to be sitting at eye level with any person outside this door
On many coaches the drivers can have a restricted view of the area because the driving position is different
So how about some accuracy?
The very much reads like the
The very much reads like the verdict from a numbskull coroner who has little if any understanding of the Highway Code – or the principles behind it.
horrendous comments and
horrendous comments and attitude from the coroner here, but there does seem to be a but of an elephant in the room., unless the bus mounted the kerb onto the pavement then he was riding on the pavement then left the pavement and crossed onto a road into the path of a moving vehicle. I have been on this plant for many years and that has never been a smart move regardless of the relatively recent changes to priorities in the HC how many of you walk across a junction without being ready to stop/give way to vehicles entering the junction
EK Spinner wrote:
The rhino in the room is that the bus/coach/large-passenger-transporter driver is also supposed to be ready to stop/give way to people crossing the junction.
Bus driver couldnt be
Bus driver couldnt be bothered to look.
It happens so often that
It happens so often that people need to drive expecting it to happen. People walk / jog across the road without looking all the time, particularly when they would need to look behind them to check for turning vehicles.
How fast was the driver going, did he brake? Did he indicate, check his blind spot, was he using his phone? All the coroner’s useless analysis (as reported here, anyway) is focused on the cyclist. Is turning covered in driver training? Will this coroner be culpable if something similar happens in the future?
bikes wrote:
Especially children, near a school, one might imagine? By a bus driver driving children to school?
Obviously people recognise that children will make these mistakes, so to fix things we … drive them to school. (And hope they’re not hit by other school-run drivers right next to it).
EK Spinner wrote:
Anyone who has a driving licence should know that the priorities have not been changed, and that pavement users always had priority over turning/exiting vehicles for a side road where there are dotted lines indicating that priority. These dotted lines are not to show which side of the road the driver is supposed to be on, but to remind the drivers to give way (unless its a solid line which means they must stop before proceeding). First dotted line = give way to pavement users coming from left or right. If turning into a side road they will be on the pavement about to cross and the driver should have been looking for them before turning in. Second dotted line = give way to road users (which could be cyclists in a cycle lane or all vehicles in the main lanes). It’s not a new rule, it’s just been rewritten for idiots because the world is becoming full of them.
Its reassuring to learn that
Its reassuring to learn that a polystrene helmet would save me from a 12 tonne bus running over my head.
Benthic wrote:
There are people who believe that.
He died from severe chest
He died from severe chest injuries. If only he had a plastic hat on!!!
This is shameful PEAK VICITIM
This is shameful PEAK VICITIM blaming. FFS.
Those drivers parking in the cycle lane should be charged wityh culpable manslaughter.
The fucking bus driver should be banned from ever driving a bus again. There is a reason you are taught to do a shoulder check to check your blindspots.
In the age of cheap camera
In the age of cheap camera technology, no licenced bus or goods vehicle has any excuse for having ‘blind spots’. Not that it sounds like it would have made any difference here, other than removing an excuse.
Deflect. Deflect! DEFLECT!!
Deflect. Deflect! DEFLECT!! If the lad was in the drivers ‘blind spot’ no amount of high-viz and lights would have done any good. There is NO helmet that will protect to any degree a massive chest injury. If you create a dangerous situation aren’t YOU responsible, at the very least in part, for any injury that results. Parking in a bike lane is NOT just a parking ticket! The condensending attitude of “We own the road and ‘allow’ you to use some of it” automatically shifts the blame/responsiblility.
“It all happened so fast,”
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and his earphones in his ears.”
If it all happend so fast, was that due to the speed of the bus?
As an opening statement, the second bit really grated on me. It’s like he’s getting the excuses in as soon as possible. Not just horrified he’d run over a kid, but the horror extended to the phone on the chest and earphones in-his-ears.
The highway code states
The highway code states pavement users have right of way if they are crossing or about to cross, and that drivers turning into a road must check before turning in. The blindspot has fuck all to do with not being responsible. The coroner should be sacked for those comments. And what cycle helmet would have protected this kid from a 12 ton bus.
Muddy Ford wrote:
It sounds to me like the coroner was paid off to write a victim blaming statement. Probably either the bus driver or the bus company.
No conspiracy needed! The
No conspiracy needed! The “but this is just how it is?” of motornormativity will direct logic here quite as well:
– Fundamentally the clarification of language in the Highway Code updates haven’t sunk in. There’s still a visceral “keep out the way of motorists” at junctions (in fact in general).
– The testimony sets up “driver looked for cars and pedestrians – but they could not have anticipated a cyclist in the pedestrian and would not have seen them” (“speeding” cyclists appearing out of nowhere again).
– vehicles have blind spots (shrug) – that’s just how it is. Also: drivers can’t look everywhere at once.
– drivers are already upstanding members of the community (by virtue of their financial stake in it, paying taxes, being trained) and professional drivers obviously more so. Unless clear reason not to (eg. they were criminal in some other way) we take their word.
– we know children sometimes run out / aren’t as careful.
– …and this child ticked all the boxes to reinforce a presumption of carelessness, cycling on the footway despite their being a cycle lane, wearing headphones, not wearing a helmet…
Of course it could be a sinister conspiracy too – but again why bother when the job of justifying road death was done generations ago?
chrisonabike wrote:
The coroner’s statements were so ridiculous though that I can’t believe they’d write them without being prompted:
Conspirator: “Go on, mention that they had no helmet”
Coroner: “It was a chest injury though”
Conspirator: “Do you want this money or not?”
Coroner: “Okay, okay. Shall I mention hi-viz too?”
If they were really going for
The assistant coroner seems just to have followed the expert here – forensic collision investigator Christopher Bell. Then further showed she wasn’t doing a lot of critical analysis on this one with the helmet comment.
If they were really going for it they’d have laid in to the victim (or rather his parents for letting him out on a bike) for: selfishly endangering pedestrians (pavement cycling – with headphones OMG), causing trauma to the bus driver and his charges, and causing a major hold up for everyone.
That may sound like a sick parody – but THAT was exactly the line that the young motor industry and its supporters managed to push on the public about a century ago with the invention of jaywalking.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-24/the-invention-of-jaywalking
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-10/how-cities-responded-to-traffic-deaths-100-years-ago
Muddy Ford wrote:
OK, probably going to get grief for this and called a victim blamer, but that’s alright because I know I’m not, but the HC rules at junctions only apply to legal pavement users: pedestrians, wheelchair and mobility scooter users. They can’t be said to apply to cyclists on the pavement because the HC makes it quite clear cyclists aren’t allowed on the pavement. That’s in no way excusing the driver’s lethal carelessness or supporting the coroner’s stupid comments about helmets and hiviz and headphones, but in my opinion the driver can’t be accused of breaking the specific HC rule to which you refer.
Debatable. Rule H3 says you
Debatable. Rule H3 says you should not cut across cyclists, and that this applies whether they’re on a cycle lane, cycle track, or on the road. It doesn’t specifically say that it does or does not apply if they’re on the footway.
However, it then says do not turn if doing so would cause a cyclist to stop or swerve, and doesn’t qualify that at all with regard to where they happen to be.
Also, as a general principle, the fact of one road user doing something illegal doesn’t give you licence to also abandon the Highway Code, or absolve you of a duty of care to them.
One thing’s for sure though – it doesn’t have anything to do with ‘right of way’…
mdavidford wrote:
Ok, ‘priority’ rather than ‘right of way’. Pavement users have priority over turning in or exiting traffic. They do not need to be in the road to have that priority. The dotted lines at the junction imply ‘give way’. One dotted line-give way to pavement users (turning into side road), second dotted line give way to road users as well (exiting side road).
Rendel Harris wrote:
The HC doesnt state ‘legal’ pavement user because that would stupidly imply it’s ok to smash into an ‘illegal’ pavement user. As Boateng advised, in some cases it is ok for people to cycle on the pavement if they feel unsafe on the road. Cars blocking the cycle lane, forcing a child to cycle in the main road where drivers demonstrate a sense of entitlement and give punishment passes to cyclists not using a cycle lane would certainly make a child feel unsafe. It didn’t need the highway code change to make this a ‘give way’, because that’s what a dotted line at a junction has always implied. A professional driver should know this, and should have been penalised. That bus driver momentarily forget he was driving a 30 ton vehicle, and took a sharp left without looking.
It’s apparently all moot
It’s apparently all moot because “that’s just how things are” and HC rules cited here – while possibly feeding in to potential careless driving evidence – are mostly “guidance” ones. (That also includes helmet wearing though…)
Rereading it sounds like exactly the same logic could have been applied if the victim was totally legally jogging. And probably if the cycle lane was clear and he’d been cycling there. The professional investigator discounts poor / no observation by the driver because vehicles have blind spots *. The coroner accepts expert guidance and – being charitable here – decides to try to make some good out of a tragedy by using the opportunity to highlight general safety advice for vulnerable road users: “make yourselves visible kids, always look and listen, wear hi-vis and helmets”?
* TBF perhaps he was diligent here and measured exactly what could be seen from this particular coach, with seat height and mirrors just so, and ran a range of simulations of the child cycling at different positions relative to the coach and different velocities… I don’t really think this would be necessary or make any difference though if we just accept “drivers can change course or speed without proper observation of likely, predictable crossing traffic”. Not looking “everywhere”, just looking where it’s most likely there will be other road users you might interact with…
chrisonabike wrote:
I don’t accept that the coroner was issuing general safety advice as they’re not in any way qualified to do so. Do they issue dietary advice after examining a death due to coronary disease? At least that would be more in line with their medical training.
Technically true although in
Technically true although in fact they can use the “Reports to Prevent Future Deaths” mechanism. Although all that does is requires some person or body to answer a question. It doesn’t mandate any other action or even an assessment of the answer!
But … if they’d done nothing more than accept the “expert advice” (and why wouldn’t they?) but had been a bit more proactive they could have said “OK – in which case I want the police / LA to advise why the cycle lane is frequently blocked with parked vehicles *, the bus company to advise on visibility requirements from their vehicles ** and in fact the vehicle class licencing authorities and bus/coach-building companies to advise why we are still permitting vehicles which – apparently – you ‘can’t see properly out of’ on our streets?”
Of course this would probably be seen as some “fantastical” speculation, wild overreach and in general a coroner going off-the-plot.
However these questions – in fact recommendations to actually do something – are exactly the kind of thing you’ll read in the reports of the other transport regulatory bodies (the MAIB, RAIB, AAIB). And what the (mothballed at birth) RSIB could be looking into.
* Simple answer – because it’s totally legal because we have an advisory cycle lane! OK, make that a mandatory cycle lane. Still may be totally legal to park there! OK, add all the necessary extra markings (double yellows, “no loading” flashes and most importantly legal signs). Now people are still parking there and the police shrug and point out it’s the council’s issue. Council say they’ve firstly that people have to park there because this A road and major distributor runs through a residential area – people have to park by their houses! Plus they’ve no cash for more enforcement (despite parking wardens being cash-cow-milkmaids, according to drivers). “Light segregation” is then proposed (wands etc.) but rejected “because disabled people” / “because trip hazard for pedestrians” etc.
** First responsibility should fall on companies / groups using these vehicles. There are a range of designs, there are aftermarket add-ons. (How) did you assess vehicle safety? Why did you choose the ones you did, and why did you not choose to deal with this safety issue?
chrisonabike wrote:
The coroner could easily have recommended preventing vehicles from using the cycle lanes for parking e.g. double yellow lines or bollards.
But no, they’d rather victim blame a teenager for not wanting to “look uncool”.
A single Broken white line
A single Broken white line across the Carriageway Is a road sign advising road users to procede with extreme caution. In all probability it would have prevented the Fatal collision had the Bus Driver complied with it.
The Coroner should be sacked for gross incompetence. Fortunately a criminal prosecution even a private prosecution for Driving without Due care and attention should be possible
The highway code states any
The highway code states any vehicle turning left must give way to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross, why was this never mentioned? In my experience very few drivers know or implement this rule
Tony W. wrote:
Because it doesn’t say “must” so everyone can just happily ignore it
Because it doesn’t say “must”
Because it doesn’t say “must” so everyone can just happily ignore it
Interestingly, the traffic lights sections only say STOP at a red light- they don’t say You MUST STOP. So these cyclists passing traffic lights at red were right after all, just like all those motorists. Rule 149 about mobiles is full of MUSTs and MUST NOTs, but the police ignore those offences up here- the Highway Code really needs a bold statement on the cover: One Rule to Rule Them All: It’s only an offence if a police officer doesn’t like the offender
It’s only an offence if a
It’s only an offence if a police officer doesn’t like the offender
And they definitely like people in Porsches and BMWs- none of that ‘political correctness’ about number plates in Lancashire!
Can’t object to it being
Can’t object to it being mentioned, but again “guidance”:
Being a “should” not a “must” it’s not law in itself, nor are you subject to criminal penalties for breaking it (of course, going against guidance can be taken into account in other charges like “without due care” etc.)
Since the expert here (forensic collision investigator) appears to have gone straight into giving reasons why it wasn’t the driver’s fault / couldn’t have been prevented (“blind spots, innit?”) then it would have taken some effort by the coroner to challenge or disregard that.
They’d presumably need further evidence to justify questioning that. Recall the expert said “At no point was Rhys ahead of the bus. The only way the driver would have seen him in his mirrors is if he had not been in his blind spot.” Then in conclusion they’d noted the victim was cycling on the pavement. So presumably they were emphasising the driver would not have expected to be looking where the cyclist was e.g. it was fine that they were only directly in the road / adjacent to it. Which is a debateable point of course…
BUT doing more than agreeing here perhaps requires a much “bigger picture” view which the coroner might think was not in their remit e.g. “given there was a cycle lane why wasn’t the driver looking further back?” (A: probably they hadn’t even realised, because a) drivers almost certainly don’t have enough training or experience of dealing with these, especially older drivers b) hard to notice if the cycle lane is under parked cars a lot of the time).
Or “was the driver aware the vehicle had blind spots? If not, why not and why were they allowed to drive it? If so, what were they doing to mitigate this? Why are we still permitting the use of vehicles with large ‘blind spots’ when alternatives are available?” etc.
The bus driver had the
The bus driver had the responsibility to slow down and look to make sure it was safe to turn, looking for pedestrians and cyclists (even if they are on the pavement), he should’ve slowed down and seen him and come to a stop and gave him priority, he obviously didn’t do this and so an opportunity is missed to improve driving for all drivers, highlighting why it’s important to slow down at junctions. Another young child’s life lost ,needlessly, because drivers just can’t be bothered to drive with due care and attention. That’s all it would have took and this young boy would have still been with us. The driver is guilty of taking this young man’s life when all he had to do was show some kindness and let him go first.
That’s a big strong helmet
That’s a big strong helmet that would prevent fatal chest injuries from, I suspect, a wheel of a PSV driving over the casualty.
“However, he said he was
“However, he said he was running late and decided to turn left into Norwich Avenue to avoid congestion, when he heard a bang which he said sounded like he had “hit a tree branch”.
So not only, despite his protestations was he driving without due care and attention:
“The driver would not have been able to see him. The inattention was there for Rhys. It is more than likely he was in the driver’s blind spot. At no point was he visible to the bus driver. The inattention or distraction cannot be discounted.”
Not only did he fail to conduct effective observation but he also deviated from what would have been an approved route.
Nothing about cars parked in the vicinity inhibiting visibility and situational awareness and the need for the bus driver to reduce speed?
Where are the images of the indcident site that would have illustrated the issue with parking in the cycle lane and also the mysterious “branch”?
All woeful, driver for just being shit at his job, investigator for blaming the victim and the coroner for being suckered by the complete charade.