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

Tony W. wrote:

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

Because it doesn't say "must" so everyone can just happily ignore it 

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 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 mentioned, but again "guidance":

Highway Code wrote:

Rule H2 - Rule for drivers, motorcyclists, horse drawn vehicles, horse riders and cyclists

At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

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.

Muddy Ford wrote:

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. 

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 "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:

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?

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?"

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-jayw...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-10/how-cities-responded-...

Muddy Ford wrote:

The highway code states pavement users have right of way if they are crossing or about to cross

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 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:

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'...

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:

Muddy Ford wrote:

The highway code states pavement users have right of way if they are crossing or about to cross

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.

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 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:

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"?

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 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:

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?

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".

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.

Benthic wrote:

Its reassuring to learn that a polystrene helmet would save me from a 12 tonne bus running over my head.

There are people who believe that.

He died from severe chest injuries. If only he had a plastic hat on!!!

EK Spinner wrote:

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

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 bothered to look. 

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?