- 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
Broken bike (CC licensed image by garryknight, www.flickr.com)Death of cyclist who rode through red light due to “distraction” says coroner
A coroner has said that a cyclist who was killed when he rode through a red light and crashed into a car died as a result of “distraction.”
Karl Freeman, aged 52, died as a result of a traumatic brain injury following the collision on Manchester Road in Whitefield, Bury, reports the Manchester Evening News.
An inquest into his death also heard that Mr Freeman had been riding with his “head down” and that there was nothing that the driver could have done to avoid the crash, which happened on Sunday 26 January last year.
“I think this accident took place because Karl was not paying proper attention to the road,” said Coroner Julie Robinson at the hearing at Rochdale Coroner’s Court.
“This is something that could have been easily avoided and it has resulted in tragic consequences.”
The coroner, who noted that Mr Freeman had not been wearing a cycle helmet, said it was “somewhat unusual” that he had been “cycling with his head down.”
The inquest heard that Mr Freeman rode through a red light at the junction of Sunny Bank Road, crashing into a Ford Fiesta. The driver of the car had been turning onto Manchester Road.
He hit the side of the vehicle and his head hit the ground after he fell from the bike.
Mr Freeman was taken to hospital by air ambulance but died there the following day as a result of his injuries.
The coroner asked his sister, Julie Freeman, whether she thought her brother, who had a history of anxiety and depression, may have ridden into the car on purpose.
“No,” she replied. “Why would somebody do that? Why would somebody cycle into a car deliberately? He didn’t have suicidal tendencies or anything.”
She told the inquest that she had wondered whether he might have been “pursued” at the time, or whether he was being harassed by someone.
However, PC Suzanne Keenan from Greater Manchester Police said there was no evidence to support that theory.
She said there was nothing “to suggest that he was trying to get away from someone or being chased,” and that the crash happened at a speed of no more than 10 and 15mph.
“It just appears he wasn’t paying attention at that particular time,” PC Keenan added, saying that Mr Freeman was holding his handlebars with both hands, and there was no evidence that he had been listening to music.
However, a toxicology report found that Mr Freeman was almost twice the limit for drink-driving, and also had diazepam, cocaine and what was described as “illicit” heroin in his system.
Recording a conclusion of accidental death, the coroner said: “This is a death which has occurred as a result of an accident which was caused by distraction, and by Karl not paying attention to the road conditions.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 33 min 10 sec ago
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...
- kinderje 41 min 12 sec ago
Thank you, someone else who thinks it's yellow and not green And I agree that it doesn't look particularlt exciting either.
- essexian 1 hour 43 min ago
I don't know if it was just on my computer but I got a virus warning when opening the comments on this piece. My machine is tied down harder then a...
- grasen 2 hours 17 min ago
Have lost all faith in active cyclists. What a bullshit comment by Jonas. And Tadej saying they forgot the second part of the test - ha ha ha. The...
- LookAhead 10 hours 18 min ago
Spot on, Kask's chin strap is faux leather (contra the review's claim that it's real leather) and excellent, by far the best I've used. It's snug...
- David9694 11 hours 36 min ago
Live: Audi crashes on to its roof in Honiton town centre https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/live-audi-crashes-roof-honiton...
- wtjs 11 hours 51 min ago
There is now a development of uncertain veracity on this Nissan, with a photo somebody has sent me suggesting it's stolen....
- belugabob 12 hours 25 min ago
Yes, it does seem reasonable - but not in the motonormativity world, where people just don't want to admit where the problem lies.
- brooksby 14 hours 49 min ago
But at least they're halfway there...
- hawkinspeter 16 hours 31 min ago
I definitely agree that we could do with better crossings and junctions....
Add new comment
44 comments
I know the junction pretty well, if he was heading south he would have been going quite slowly - the hill there is reasonably steep. It seems more likely to me he was heading north, which would let him get a bit of speed up as that's a descent.
Drivers do travel quite quickly along the roads around there, and they don't slow for Sunnybank. If he's gone through the lights as she's turning, he's probably behind her A-pillar and difficult to see.
This is tragic. There is no reason to believe that the responsibility sits with anybody other than the cyclist, and we could speculate endlessly around the extent of his background, earlier actions and actions in the moment.
But "there was nothing that the driver could have done to avoid the crash" is not helpful.
If I'm driving a car, I have to take care when setting off at lights. A green light does not make it safe to proceed, it means I may proceed if it is safe. There are things we can do to avoid collisions, even if we believe we have priority. We know people make mistakes; we know that brakes fail; we know there are emergencies. We should not carry on with the assumpton that all is OK unless we can see it is.
I'm not blaming the driver. I'm commenting on the stated assumption (whether that is the inquest or the reporting) that "the driver could have done nothing". Even if there had been something, that doesn't place the blame on the driver, it just means the driver would have missed an opportunity to avoid the collision.
Without further details, I'm assuming the cyclist came from the right as the driver emerged from Sunny Bank Rd (coming from the left would have been uphill for the cyclist, harder work to maintain the speed, more visible for longer to the driver, and more of a glancing blow). In that direction, a cyclist would have been passing railings (why are they there?) and several upright structures that might mask the visual presence of a cyclist. It makes the junction harder to use, and how much scrutiny should a driver give when they already have a green light?
Yet, the full Manchester Road carriageway is visible from the line of the crossing point, 4m or more from the edge of the Manchester Rd carriageway. Deduct the front of the bonnet from the driver's posiiton, it means that there was a small distance that a driver could have used to stop.
We need to get away from adding unnecessary statements from this type of commentary. It would have taken an alert and very cautious driver to spot a cyclist cycling through a red light, visibility is deceptively restricted. There may have been very little a normal driver, exercising normal levels of attention could have done, but not "nothing". Should we expect greater levels of attention?
Meanwhile, can we consider changes to road design? Is there any need for the railings? do they achieve anything?
He did crash into the side of the car though. If the car had hit him then we'd rightly be asking why the driver didn't brake sooner. It certainly sounds like the blame lies squarely with the coked up drunk cyclist in this situation.
Yes, and - just to be clear - my comment is restricted to the use of the phrase, rather than a judgement of the driver.
Tell that to all the motorists who start revving their engines and peel away as soon as (if not before) the lights go green, and woe betide anyone still on the road...
I'm gone as soon as the orange light comes on. The offense is running a red light. Correct me if I am wrong but there is no such offense as "running an orange light". You can still drive through those and you can usually save yourself quite a lot of waiting by driving/riding through them. Again, the safe and clear thing applies.
Many traffic light systems I come across are fucking dreadful. They are set up to stay on red by default, but will flash green during a royal ceremony or when England win a world cup.
Well, actually you can't set off as soon as the amber light comes on, as it comes on *with* the red light. If you proceed when the amber has just come on, you are still running a red light.
You are wrong.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made
"the red-with-amber signal shall [...] convey the same prohibition as the red signal"
and
"the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it"
That's useful to know. Never noticed a red AND amber lights being on, or I did but don't remember it happening. I always assumed the amber or orange is meant to tell you that the light is in transition from or to green and red, more of a heads up. A sudden change to red may trigger panick braking.
I have noticed that you can get a red, then a transition to a green light without amber. In this case that is a "turn left only" or specific filter light. That caught me out once as I was still waiting on the red for a bit.
Red, red 'n' amber, green, amber, red was taught in the old cycling proficiency scheme to 9 year olds. I don't mean to be patronising, but for safety please buy and read a Highway Code.
Red, red 'n' amber, green, amber, red was taught in the old cycling proficiency scheme to 9 year old
Yes! I remember it well. Some people on here appear not to. The problem is rarely drivers setting off too early; as we all know, it's drivers coming through at 50+ on red, having all ignored the 'amber alone' light at which they MUST stop at the stop line, unless they're already part way over it, or if someone behind would likely crash into them if they stopped suddenly. In practice, such drivers accelerate hard when they see amber. Police COULD prosecute for going over the line on amber, but they don't. In Lancashire, they may well do nothing at all for crossing up to 2 seconds after the lights turned red, so the point about the amber could be ignored for now!
Well then you are a dangerous driver
HWC 176
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
Yesterday I had a nice considerate driver who went through the junction whilst the lights were were green to turn. Unfortunately he did it by mounting the central reservation onto the other side of the dual carriageway and rushing down to take the junction and turn right before the the cars and me could get momentum to move on the green light.
It's an offence, not an offense. The offence is Failing to comply with a traffic signal, per the Road Traffic Act 1988 s36(1).
(don't you worry)
Actually, you're right. The offence is Failing to comply with a traffic signal, per the Road Traffic Act 1988 s36(1).
You can, but you mustn't. It doesn't.
...and then it deteriorates from inaccuracy to nonsense.
Except when the amber shows it allows enough time for the majority of drivers to slow down and stop safely. It is not a signal to floor it and beat the red. Only a small minority will run the amber as it appears as they are right on top of the lights. This is the only occasion that the motorist may stop at the ASL without committing an offence. Also when the red/amber phase commences it is a heads up for you to engage gear and prepare to move. There is always a risk that motorists will run the lights from another direction so even when you have green caution should be exercised.
Yup. I shouldn't have to, of course, but I would like to tell drivers that. Maybe once every 5 years when they have to refresh their driving licence with evidence of CPD.
Normally I would agree with that, but not sure I can this time. The fact that the victim rode into the side of the car (doesn't even specify whether the car moving just that it was turning right) makes it very difficult to see what the driver could possibly have done to avoid the crash.
Chances are the car was not moving very quickly and we have no idea whether the sight lines are good enough that the driver should have been able to see the cyclist before moving into the position where the crash took place.
Now and then collisions occur where a cyclist is genuinely the only one who could have prevented it ... just as there are those where the driver is the only one.
I agree with the sentiment, but to assert that is risky. We cannot replay the collision with full accuracy. Nobody has attached blame to the driving. But neither can we assert that there is nothing the driver could have done. That should be asserted with evidence, not assumed from the lack of cuplability.
Even when we think we have priority, we should still take every opportunity to avoid a collision and to look for the unanticipated. That being the case, to assert that there is nothing that the driver could have done is dangerous, because it reinforces the sense of 'go on green', rather than 'go when safe'.
Agan, it's not the judgement, it's the comment I'm criticising.
Whilst it says there was nothing the driver could have done, it doesn't actually say they did nothing. It might be there was nothing more they could have done, but it's just the way it's come across in the article.
I've been past there before and it's a very wide junction. It is uphill that way, so I don't think visibility is a problem.
It says the collision speed was 10-15mph, which could just mean the car was stationary and the cyclist rode into it.
Since the cyclist crashed into the car, wasn't looking where they were going, was on drugs, and drunk, i'm inclined to agree. This one looks quite an easy case to assign blame in.
From Streetview, not personal nowledge, I agree it appears a big, wide junction. I'm assuming the directions of travel (cyclist from the right), because it makes sense for what was described. The size of the junction belies a couple of things.
Emerging from behind the first stop line of the side road is blind. By the pedestrian crossing point, there is a splay across the approach to the junction for some distance. However there is quite a bit of visual clutter that could camouflage a smaller road user such as a pedestrian or cyclist: railings, street/signal lamp posts, and the power/comms cabinets that do not obstruct but do add to the clutter and distraction.
A cyclist (and, ironically, the slower, the worse), could be camouflaged in that scenario, espedcially if other vehicles are slowing for the red lights.
The cyclist must have been visible (since the junction is wide), but perhaps hard to spot and after the car has set off. But it should be in the mind of a driver of a vehicle to take extra care in such circumstances. So, whether the driver was in any way at fault appears to be resolved in the circumstances; but whether they could have taken additional care, noting the evident visual limitations, seems beyond the ability of somebody who wasn't there to determine. Again, no criticism of the driver, just on the report comment that nothing could have been done - it underlines the false assumption that we are simply passengers in life.
Yeah, it's not great wording. Like the reports of 'cyclist in collision with car' when you know it's probably the other way round (although perhaps not in this case).
We cannot expect every road user to have perfect attention the entire time - simply put we do not have 360 degree vision and everyone is human. This is why we have infrastructure such as traffic lights to relieve the burden - build in tolerances for mistakes!
Of course, when setting off at a set of lights you must still be careful, I agree - but we simly do not know any more about the specific case and to expect absolute perfection from every driver is a recipe for disaster.
I'm not actually sure why Mr Freeman is described as 'a cyclist' in this report. By the sound of it he was simply a drunken drug addict who just happened to be riding a bike when he was killed in a collision with a vehicle having ignored the rules of the road.
I see plenty of low-life scum riding bikes, with little or no regard to regulations or the law, but I would hardly describe them as 'cyclists'. I'd imagine that significant numbers of them could more acurately be described as 'banned drivers' due to previous convictions.
Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'cyclist'? Or are you a true Scotsman?
I am completely mystified by your phrase "Or are you a true Scotsman?". Care to explain?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Google is your friend
No true cyclist would need to ask me to explain.
(Brooksby already posted the Wikipedia link - it's an oft-used logical fallacy that I think you're using)
Because the only thing to qualify someone as a cyclist, is to be on a bike, or even own one, and occasionally use it. This is a very strange deflection argument you're making. I don't think the average driver is going to see this and assume we're all on coke.
Pages