- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Rhys Shepherd (Humberside Police) and Laceby Road, Grimsby (Google Maps)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
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”.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Miller 59 sec ago
Jake Paul is exceptionally hateable but as the photo shows him using Campagnolo group and wheels, he can't be all bad. So there's that.
- brooksby 20 min 47 sec ago
Fight Club: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE
- FionaJJ 21 min 32 sec ago
Perhaps, but it might be worth letting the residents stew in the juices of their own making. Those who are genuinely concerned about the trees...
- wtjs 32 min 5 sec ago
Norfolk Police said the woman has since been reported for driving without due care and attention. Motorists charged with the offence face a fine of...
- Rendel Harris 41 min 3 sec ago
Yes, unfortunately with all local authority contractors there always has to be the caveat "if it's done properly".
- chrisonabike 10 hours 23 min ago
Presumably a) expense b) for something that (mostly) works against your customers' convenience? And the usual "but emergencies - what about when...
- quiff 14 hours 49 min ago
I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I've been...
- quiff 17 hours 45 min ago
"No darling, I said a cactus bike holder, not a bike cactus holder."...
- Andrewbanshee 20 hours 9 sec ago
I have visited Guernsey and my wife goes there a few times a year for work. This act of premeditated violence shocks me. There are quite a lot of...
- hawkinspeter 20 hours 26 min ago
You could well be right. Personally, I think Avonvale Rd is just a disaster for having two way traffic. So many drivers think the traffic calming...
Add new comment
77 comments
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).
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.
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?
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
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 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.
presumably the council will be putting bollards in to protect the cycle lane?
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 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 incorrect to do so.
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 4x4 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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It seems to be a dog's breakfast by the Assistant Coroner.
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!!!
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?
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 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 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.
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!
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.
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"?)
Just yesterday I saw a driver (in 4x4) 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 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.
Probably designed that way due to the swept path of HGV trailers, which would otherwise go over the pavement.
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.]
Pages