A cyclist who failed to check if the road was clear before turning right at a junction, causing the death of a motorcyclist, has been found guilty of careless cycling.
Garry Kopanycia-Reynolds, from Poole, Dorset, was issued with a £1,000 fine*, the maximum penalty possible for the offence of careless and inconsiderate cycling, at Poole Magistrates’ Court yesterday.
The 59-year-old cyclist was turning right at a busy traffic light-signalled crossroads towards Fernside Road, at just after 7am on 21 December 2021, when he collided with motorcyclist Callum Clements, who was travelling straight on from the opposite direction at the junction.
23-year-old Clements was killed in the collision, while Kopanycia-Reynolds sustained life-changing injuries, reports the Bournemouth Echo.
Appearing in court yesterday, Kopanycia-Reynolds denied cycling carelessly and without reasonable consideration for other road users (a lesser charge than the more serious cycling-related crime of wanton and furious driving, which can result in a custodial sentence).
> Jail for pavement cyclist who rode off after fatally injuring pensioner
However, District Judge Michael Snow ruled that the cyclist had failed to properly check if the road was clear before turning right at the junction, into the path of Mr Clements. While both men were travelling through green lights, the motorcyclist had the right of way as he was continuing straight on from Longfleet Road onto Ringwood Road.
“When [the defendant] gets to the junction, what is quite clear having viewed the recordings is he doesn’t stop,” Judge Snow said, referring to footage of the incident captured on a lorry driver’s cameras.
“He doesn’t obviously check. He just cycles straight on and at the point he makes that turn Callum is in the junction itself. He did not check I am afraid. He just continued straight on.”
“An absolute tragedy”
Prosecutor Stuart Ellacott told the court that while Mr Clements was riding at 40mph in a 30mph zone at the time of the crash, the excess speed could not be used as part of the cyclist’s defence as the road the motorcyclist was travelling on was visible for 150 metres from the centre of the crossroads.
“Either the defendant failed to see Mr Clements, who was there to be seen over a distance of some 150 metres for a period of some seven seconds, or he saw him and decided to risk making the turn following the vehicle in front of him and not pausing and misjudging his ability to make that turn,” Ellacott said.
When questioned as to why he made the right-hand turn with the motorcyclist approaching, Mr Kopanycia-Reynolds – a keen cyclist who knew that particular road “pretty much off by heart” – replied: “I made that turn because I obviously felt that I had the space and time to make that safe manoeuvre.”
“I would not have attempted it unless I would have made it safely.”
He also told the court that he was “totally” sure that the manoeuvre was safe and that he had seen the motorcyclist’s lights coming from the opposite direction but believed that they “were in the distance”.
Judge Snow, describing the incident as an “absolute tragedy”, accepted that the defendant was generally a competent and careful cyclist, but concluded that on that particular day his actions fell below these standards.
Kopanycia-Reynolds was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £450 in costs and a victim surcharge of £190.
“It was not Callum who made the wrong decision, but he paid the biggest price”
Reading a victim personal statement in court, Mr Clement’s mother described the 23-year-old as someone who was “so full of life and lived for the moment”, and who would now miss out on watching his six brothers grow up and starting his own family.
Addressing the defendant, she said: “These are moments that you have stolen not only from Callum but from his friends and family.
“On that day my son died and part of me died with him. I will never be the same person I was before.”
She also claimed that Callum had been let down by the law and argued that cyclists should be held more accountable for their actions on the road.
“It was not Callum who made the wrong decision, but he paid the biggest price. He lost his life,” she said.
Police Constable Leanne Howes, of Dorset Police’s Serious Collision Investigation Team (SCIT), said in a statement: “This is a very sad case that has seen Callum’s family lose their loved one and the cyclist involved has also sustained significant life-changing injuries.
“Our investigation was able to prove that the defendant clearly turned in front of the motorcycle, which had right of way, and this resulted in the collision.
“This is a demonstration of the truly awful consequences that can be caused by any road user failing to pay sufficient care and attention.”
Our original version of this story said that the fine issued was £2,500; however according to the Bournemouth Echo, the court later clarified that the maximum fine available was £1,000.
70 thoughts on “Cyclist found guilty of riding carelessly in crash which killed motorcyclist”
[/quote]Prosecutor Stuart
I really don’t understand this, a cyclist is pulling across the junction having assessed that he has sufficient time to do so and is hit by a motorcyclist driving at 30% over the speed limit, but the motorcyclist’s speed cannot be used as part of the cyclist’s defence? If the cyclist would have had time to clear the junction before the motorcycle arrived if the motorcyclist had been sticking to the legal limit, surely the excess speed is massively relevant?
Obviously this is a tragic
Obviously this is a tragic incident and horrible to read about, but these were my thoughts exactly. If the motorbiker was travelling too fast then that would directly affect 1. The ability of another road user to judge distances and times when manoeuvring, and 2. The motorbikers ability to slow down (!) and take evasive action. How on Earth is this fact irrelevant?
Agreed, it seems very
Agreed, it seems very relevent. Particualy as the prosecutor mentions how many meter the motorcyclist would have been visible for, but the time they would have covered this in wold have been much less due to the excess speed.
It appears that the cyclist
It appears that the cyclist was following a lorry turning right AND it was dark. So it would be interesting what actual length of time the cyclist had to make the decision to ensure it was clear. It doesn’t excuse the cyclist who shouldn’t have lemming (we see enough of that from cars). I suspect the lorries CCTV, if it is ever released to the public, would give more of an idea on how stupid it was from both sides.
I’d say that the cyclist was
I’d say that the cyclist was probably cutting it a bit fine, but you’re quite right, if the motorcyclist had been travelling at the posted speed limit there wouldn’t have been a collision. A very near miss though.
30mph – 13.4m/s, 40mph – 17.9m/s
That means the motorbike must have been closer than 20m to the cyclist when they started their turn, don’t think I’d of done that even if I was sure the approaching vehicle was only doing 30mph.
carlosdsanchez wrote:
Only mention is that the motorcyclist was in the junction at the time the cyclist turned, given that typical lane width in uk is 3.7m even allowing for widening at the junction we are probably talking of the order of 10m across and the motorcyclist was already in the junction according to the report – so less than 10m seperation – which is why the prosecution were stating that speed of the motorcyclist could not be used as mitigation for the careless cycling.
I think the cyclist is guilty as charged (as found by a court who had access to far more evidence than on here) – it may be debateable as to the harshness of the penalty when compared to similar cases involving motorists.
Whilst the excess speed of the motorcyclist is no excuse for the cyclists lack of care – it may have played a role in the outcome i.e. he would have had a greater chance of survival at 30mph, it is not clear if this was taken into consideration in terms of charges brought or sentencing.
which is why the prosecution
0
I don’t believe it’s for the
I don’t believe it’s for the prosecution to deny, rule or dictate on what contributing factors the defence can use or not.
Wouldn’t that be for the judge to decide?
On the one hand:
The evidence of ‘unsafe’ speeding treated as irrelevant and not up for debate – had the cycle rider been driving a car, their defence likely would have challenged this rigorously as a critical factor – Mr loophole would likely have seen to that had he been involved in the defence.
On the other hand:
The failure to yield as the only relevant and contributing fator to the terrible collision.
This court ruling will probably embolden speeders, never mind the approaching junction or other hazzards – and does’t do much for the message: ‘speed kills’
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’d say that the speeding was a factor, but the onus is on the person performing a maneouvre (turning right) to ensure that it is safe to do so. Not being able to judge the speed/gap required is using incompetence as an excuse – if in doubt, let the other vehicle continue straight and turn after they pass.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Absolutely, I have no doubt that the cyclist made a bad misjudgement, just wondering why the motorcyclist’s excess speed has apparently been deemed totally irrelevant? As I said on the main news thread, one suspects that if the cyclist had been killed and the motorcyclist survived he would’ve been on a charge himself for hitting somebody when driving at 30% over the speed limit.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Possibly, but it was the right turn that created the situation.
I tend to agree with what you
I tend to agree with what you’ve said, but I am left wondering under what circumstances exceeding the speed limit would be seen as relevant, beyond simply a speeding ticket. In other words, is the speed limit there purely for its own sake, or is there some rationale behind it?
Sriracha wrote:
Well, the judge seems to consider the distance that the rider was visible for to be a major factor. If they were speeding around a corner, then I’d guess that the case would have been very different.
I was a motorcycle cop and a
I was a motorcycle cop and a big part of the reason speed limits exist, along with the road design, is making traffic predictable for road users; this includes driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions, so even keeping to the speed limit may be deemed unsafe during fog, rain or at night.
It would also be interesting
It would also be interesting to know the basis for the 40mph calculation. Further, at a junction, was 30mph an appropriate speed. A frequent observation is that being within the speed limit does not necessarily make the speed appropriate. In this case, of I’ve understood it, the motorcyclist’s view of the road is obscured by the lorry yet they’ve continued at high speed, not having clear sight of the road ahead. So, although it seems the cyclist caused the collision by not properly ensuring his path was clear to proceed, the motorcyclist failed to do the basics of defensive riding and surely the speed was a factor in failing to cope. After all, if a pedestrian stepped out into the road without looking, would the blame be entirely on the pedestrian for their fatal mistake or would the police consider that someone exceeding the speed limit contributed?
Further, how likely is it that the motorcyclist have would have survived a crash at 30mph rather than 40mph?
IanMSpencer wrote:
I agree that speeding in the dark through a junction, just behind a lorry is not what I’d consider careful riding, but it’s a case of comparing a lack of defensive riding with an unsafe maneouvre. One of them created a situation and the other failed to avoid it.
Yes, and the motorcyclist was
Yes, and the motorcyclist was not on trial and I feel that what was being assessed was the incident not the consequences. The fault is there whether there was a collision or not – a test of careless driving is that another road user had to brake or change direction, not there was a collision
Perhaps the culpability of the motorcyclist was part of the CPS decision not to go down the path of a more serious charge, and therefore the trial was avoiding getting into that area, perhaps in part to spare the relatives of the rider.
Quote:
From the description, the motorcyclists lights were in the front camera and then the collision was shown in the rear one, (and the mention the cyclist followed the other vehicle without checking it was clear), the assumption I had was the lorry was turning right across the path of the motorbike similar to the cyclist, just that he had more time to do it.
A large vehicle crossing right ahead of me would have still had me off the accelerator / pedals and ready on the brake simply because something might stop them completing the manouvre or the person behind the lorry could just follow like a lemming though.
As mentioned, it would be interesting if the the CCTV does get released so more clarity could be shown on time difference between the two right turning vehicles etc.
hawkinspeter wrote:
An average of 47mph in a 30mph limit is not a lack of defensive driving – it’s dangerous driving.
jh2727 wrote:
I do agree, but in this instance it wasn’t the direct cause of the collision.
100% this, but I see we still
100% this, but I see we still have armchair experts trying to conclude differntly.
From the photo it looks busy enough to warrant traffic signals but there is no filter light for right turn, so additional cauton should be taken when turning right.
well for a pedestrian, so
well for a pedestrian, so this may not track the same way for a motorcyclist as they have to wear a crash helmet, but its still a useful comparison I think. At 40mph, a pedestrian only has a 1 in 10 chance of surviving, at 30mph they have a 8 in 10 chance.
It was foolish of the cyclist
It was foolish of the cyclist to assume the motorcyclist was not speeding when judging it was safe to turn; I’m very much ‘better safe than sorry’ when sharing the road with other users, but I would suggest the onus is on the motorcyclist to not speed, if they wish to avoid culpability for a collision.
Agree. This is an example of
Agree. This is an example of less than 30% over the limit, with good visibility, where the speeding was deemed a factor. https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/haverhill/news/dashcam-footage-showing-moments-before-fatal-crash-released-9252652/
It was 40mph at the time of the crash, so after any braking the motorcycle might have done. It can be difficult to judge the speed of looming headlight in the dark.
Surely the motorcycle rider would have seen the cyclist looking to turn right at the junction too? Approaching a potential point of conflict at such a high speed is also an error of judgment.
We have to be careful with
We have to be careful with making assumptions that 40mph not being a contributing factor.
My 3rd/4th reading is thats the prosecutors argument – not necessarily a statement of fact or law. ie its possible the defense solictor could make the opposite statement.
Could but not reported he did
Could but not reported he did. Actually no mention of any defender making a case so I wonder if he even had one. However the Judge did give the maximum sentence he could* so he decided that the speeding motorcyclist was no mitigation.
*Although weirdly, the term “offence of careless and inconsiderate cycling” seems to come under careless cycling which according to this site (not dated but referring to articles less the 10 years ago), that is a fine of £1000. £2500 is for Dangerous Cycling which is different offence. Of course they might have been changed since but I can’t seem to find any official lines for this on the web which keeps on defaulting to driving offences**.
Surprised neither comes up with a jail term though. Could have been at least suspended, or community service, (although cyclist full injuries are not described so the latter might have been beyond them).
** Which brought up this page from Road.cc about the driver who killed two cyclists on the A40. This line seemed very pertinent.
If Mark is still around and posting, maybe he can shed more light on this one.
That does seem odd. If the
That does seem odd. If the careless/dangerous cycling follows a similar logic to the driving offences, then I’d consider a misjudged right turn at a junction to be careless – it’s not an otherwise illegal manoeuvre.
but there are alot of
but there are alot of unknowns with this case, the newspaper only picks the choice quotes to make their story, that might be misleading to the full detail of the evidence presented. The point at which the cyclist is in conflict with the motorbike such that they collide is probably the key to it.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
That is an extremely good point… however it is somewhat worrying that a CPS prosecutor thinks* that an average speed of 47 mph in a 30 mph limit, resulting in a collision at 40 mph is not relevant – when it is blatently obvious that:
a. there would have been no collision had the motorcyclist been riding within the speed limit.
b. if there were still a collision, the impact would have been greatly lessened.
* ofcourse what a prosecutor argues on a given day, to win their case, bears no resemblence to what they might think.
Interesting comparison of
Interesting comparison of fairly similar circumstances, where it’s been fifty fifty in the speeder dieing or is the killer – but the inconsistency by the courts and judges stinks – speed is relevant when a driver is killed by a speeder but not when a speeder is killed by colliding into a surviving cyclist, who scrutinised to the bone (as cyclists typically are), but no scrutiny on the speeder despite hazardous conditions.
Correct; this seems a very
Correct; this seems a very poor judgement going on available facts; I was a traffic cop and from experience, was able to accurately assess vehicle speed before using my speed check device; this however is not normal for the average driver, who will assume oncoming vehicles are travelling no faster than expected, which is a big part of why speed limits exist.
So this wasn’t even that Mr
So this wasn’t even that Mr Kopanycia-Reynolds hadn’t looked both ways, but that he had (simply?) misjudged the speed at which Mr Clements was approaching? That happens all the time – how is that even careless?
It certainly shouldn’t attract the death penalty, but in all fairness, Callum did decide to break the posted speed limit…
This is bad all ways round –
This is bad all ways round – the cyclist “sustained life-changing injuries” and someone’s dead.
If it’s a case of misjudging speed, I’d say it’s fair to prosecute under careless. Even if the other party has not helped you by going faster than the posted legal limit. Judging speed / the time you have to complete your manouever safely is an essential road skill requirement. The only question is the time available to assess this (or whether the motorcyclist suddenly accellerated – but no evidence produced in this case). Clearly that’s a factor of speed but the evidence was this was 7 seconds. The court thought this ought to have been sufficient.
However if this is “careless” then driving over someone when they were fully visible in front of you simply cannot be in the same “careless” category. Or doing something risky / illegal yourself (e.g. speeding, crossing double-white lines) then hitting someone (note it’s agreed here the cyclist had a green light – just that they should have ceded priority to the traffic going straight on). Or e.g. illegally modifying your vehicle (tinted windscreens) etc.
Anyway, I’m sure the current government will be picking up that review of road traffic law any day.
This is a horrible incident,
This is a horrible incident, as most have pointed out. If the cyclist was following the lorry, which also turned right, how close to the lorry was he? If he was close enough to the lorry to have his vision blocked, then surely the lorry also took a risk?
If he was further back, surely the speed of the motorcycle (in the dark) is a factor?
It’s easy for us to be wise after the event I guess.
I’d be interested to know if it had been a car the motorcyclist crashed into, would the case have been dealt with the same, and what would the sentence have been?
Got to say that does seem a
Got to say that does seem a little rough on the cyclist. He does have the basic responsibility of proper observation and ceding priority but if the motorcyclist had been travelling within the speed limit, then the cyclist’s judgement of available time in which to make the turn might well have been reasonable. At what point does speeding ( in a 30mph zone) make such an incident the fault of the speeder? Twatting over the horizon at 120mph? 40.001mph? Speed limit + 10% leeway?
As for accountability? An error of judgement was undoubtedly made the consequences of which were catastrophic and the cyclist has been held accountable and punished, arguably far more so than any number of motorists who have committed similar offences.
As my other comment – this
As my other comment – this simply comes down to observation time. As long as motorcyclist wasn’t changing speed rapidly or there was some unexpected factor making observation harder e.g. had no working lights and road was unlit. And the article doesn’t mention that. Haven’t read the court detail but the report says there were seven seconds to observe (presumably from “possibly seen” until “collision”?) The court appears to have concluded that that was enough time to both observe and judge speed (or at least know if you didn’t know).
If another vehicle was blocking the view that doesn’t change things for me – it’s a case of “couldn’t see (or assess movement) – shouldn’t proceed”.
I’d say you could question whether the amount of time given was correct etc. but the general principle seems fairly applied – from my skim of the article.
Again this is terrible for all concerned, particularly the relatives. The motorcyclist’s speed may well have had a critical outcome on their fate but – in this case – apparently not on responsibility for the crash.
Mungecrundle wrote:
When they say 40mph that is likely a very conservative estimate and then rounded-down speed, in reality it was probably close to 50mph. 40mph is still 33% over the speed limit… it does make it much harder to make safety assessments when the oncoming traffic is travelling far in excess of what it should be.
Worth noting that a high proportion of motorcyclists use an illegal overpowered headlight bulb, if this as the case it would also have added difficulty in assessing speed accurately.
Accurately assessing speed and condfidence in accurate speed assessment are also two different things. It can be harder to accurately judge a speed due to certain conditions without perceiving that extra difficulty. So you could believe you’ve accurately judged speed but you’ve been tricked by conditions that should not be present.
This feels like box ticking
This feels like box ticking because someone died rather than justice. It doesnt say how life changing the cyclists injuries are but I’m pretty sure a fine of 2.5k would hurt most people who are carrying a life changing injury – possibly more than jail time would have.
As for the mother’s comments? I would have been biting my tongue. I fail to see how the speed couldn’t have been a contributing factor. At 30mph the rider would have had 3 more seconds to take evasive action (8s vs 11s)
It doesnt mention the defense lawyer either. I wonder if they were a bit shit tbh. Though dont forget the full fine is part of the “punishment” for not pleading guilty earlier.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I feel conflicted over this. The fine does seem fairly high for what would appear to be a simple mistake, but then again it did cause the loss of someone’s life. Also, I would consider that there’s about zero chance that the cyclist would ever make a similar mistake again, so the high fine is hardly going to act as a deterrent.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Hmm is this excuse viable for motorists?
makadu wrote:
I’d expect if the cyclist was driving a car, they’d probably have received a much smaller fine even though they most likely wouldn’t have been injured themselves. By a ‘simple mistake’, I mean the cyclist did see the motorcycle and considered that they had enough time to make the turn – there didn’t seem to be any aggression or MGIF attitude from the cyclist. But yes, I consider the cyclist to be at fault.
The motorcyclist was speeding
The motorcyclist was speeding, which clearly is contributory negligence; part of the reason for speed limits is that other drivers need to be able to predict how fast other vehicles are travelling when using the road; allowing others to make turns safely across the path of other vehicles is a big part of why drivers should not speed, along with being able to take corrective actions when other drivers make mistakes; eg, I regularly slow to avoid drivers that fail to see me, even though I have right of way.
On my way to and from work I
On my way to and from work I cross the A369 here:
https://goo.gl/maps/R1xQMA9ukZGbeRuM7
Long straight road, with the crossing point at the bottom of a big dip. The speed limit was lowered from 50mph to 40 mph a couple of years ago, although in all fairness the majority of motorists actually went faster than 50. They certainly go faster than 40, now. When the council put in the crossing refuge, they said that they could not put in a light controlled crossing because it would “hold up the (motor) traffic” as that road is a commuter route into Bristol from Portishead and the M5.
Where was I?
Ah, yes, my point was just that whenever I cross that road I do it on the assumption that the cars are being driven at over the speed limit, and I wait until there is a BIG gap to enable me to safely cross.
My record so far is 32 cars in one direction, then a wait on the island, then another 12 in the other direction.
Tragic as it is for all
Tragic as it is for all parties the cynic in me wonders, if a driver had pulled out in front of a speeding motorcyclist would speed have been an issue
Something seriously wrong
Something seriously wrong with the design of that junction if both the cyclist and motorcyclist could have proceeded through green lights. A massive rethink in design is needed there.
Jay_Bee wrote:
They were travelling along the same road in different directions and it was only due to the cyclist attempting to turn right at that junction that they collided.
With respect, I would add
With respect, I would add that the motorcyclist by exceeding the speed limit by 33% was also a contributory factor in the accident. However, this does not gainsay my original point that a junction which permits road users travelling in potentially conflicting directions to both pass green lights is poorly designed.
Whilst you may have a point
Whilst you may have a point there are many many examples of this and its essentialy no different to a standard right turn across oncoming traffic. Plus the cyclist was a local so no excuses there.
Perhaps this tragic incident will prompt the local council to make it filter on green?
Jay_Bee wrote:
I’d agree that the speed should have been a factor.
As far as I’m aware, just about any light controlled junction allows traffic to pass green lights and come into conflict by turning (maybe not roundabouts though). For a typical cross-roads junction to avoid that, it would require the traffic lights to have at least four phases – one for each direction. Having just two phases allows more traffic flow, but does mean that turning traffic has to wait for a suitable gap.
Might be a poor design, but I
Might be a poor design, but I would estimate that 90% of them are like that in the UK so anything different is the exception and not the rule.
The ones I hate and are definitely a bad design are the when the lights initially change to green for both paralell directions, then change to red for one direction, but stay green for the other. I’m waiting to turn right, see my lights start changing to red so would automatically think the same for the other direction and start moving. There are no warnings when approaching these lights that the other direction stays green for longer.
Indeed. Isn’t there some
Indeed. Isn’t there some fundamental difference in how standard phasing works at signalised junctions works in the UK vs. NL? I think the general idea is that phases work to ensure better if not full protection. I’m not just talking about “advanced green for cyclists” / “leading pedestrian intervals“. Example:
https://beyondtheautomobile.com/2020/08/11/signals-for-change/
In the UK if you can see a green then unless there are split signals for particular lanes / directions it’s GO! so you can go straight, turn left, turn right etc. At a 4-way the opposite direction can do the same. So there will absolutely be crossing traffic.
In a “full Dutch” treatment of course some directions are “protected” by default e.g. you can very often make a right turn (they drive on the right and normally single-direction cycle paths are in the same direction) when cycling (or walking) without waiting for the lights at all as you don’t cross the path of motor vehicles.
Clearly nonsensical to state
Clearly nonsensical to state that a junction which permits road users travelling in potentially conflicting directions to both pass green lights is poorly designed; most road junctions I use with light controls allows drivers going in both directions to turn on green when safe; in my area, only major multi-lane intersections have dedicated turn arrow controls.
Very sad story. It seems to
Very sad story. It seems to me that the lorry blocked the view of both of them and if either had taken extra care there would have been no crash.
Just goes to show vulnerable two wheelers (whether powered or not) unfortunately have to bear the consequences of not only their own actions but others actions as well.
I had a similar experience shortly after I got a motorbike. On a roundabout a lorry slowly pulled out in front of me and got me very annoyed. I dropped a gear and accelerated behind the lorry towards my exit only to find an even slower cyclist directly in front of me. I hit the brakes instead of the cyclist but it taught me a valuable lesson, if you can’t see it’s clear it might not be.
The motorcyclist speeding
The motorcyclist speeding clearly contributed to the collision; consider this example from the U.S.; a policeman speeding without lights/siren collided with a driver that turned in front of him; despite this driver who died, failing to give way and having a blood alcohol level over the limit, the policeman was found at fault purely because of his excessive speed.
Obviousy tragic for both
Obviousy tragic for both involved.
I do find it weird that when a cyclist is a victim it is pertinent to question our headgear, clothing, the style of our cycling, lights (during daytime) etc. but in this case the victims speed is irrelevant.
Also, are the calculations on the time/distance the motorcycle was visible for based on the 30mph or the correct speed. Surely anyone with sense would have told both stories which would have shown how relevant the excessive speed was!
well the calculations cant be
well the calculations cant be based on 30mph as that would be 13.4 metres per second, which would give you roughly 11 seconds over 150metres, assuming they measured the distance accurately.
and I think theyve taken the timeframe from the videos off a lorry they reference.
why it doesnt get highlighted that the prosecution are actually proving the motorcyclist was travelling at a much higher excessive speed in their evidence if the court are prepared to do the maths, or the prosecution went as far as to say the speeding could not be used as a defence, is a mystery.
but I think the point at which the cyclist moves into the collision path of the motorbike might be the crucial point, if you moved at the last couple of seconds into its way when its only metres away, then thats very different to moving whilst its still 150m away, regardless of the speed its travelling at.
I guess victim blaming is
I guess victim blaming is only a bad thing when directed at cyclists. F*** me these comments are shameful.
Which ones? I’m not seeing
Which ones? I’m not seeing shameful victim-blaming.
Many people have pointed out this is a tragedy all round. I personally disagree with those on here who have mentioned “contributary negligence” (depending on how defined – I’m not a lawyer). My own take is that on information here the cyclist was at fault for the collision as they appear to have had enough time to assess if they should have proceeded (I’ve not read the trial transcripts). So the courts had that right.
There does seem to have been an unchallenged mistake by the prosecution in mentioning speeds. You could question that. The motorcyclist’s speeding very likely had an impact on the severity of the outcome. I think questioning how that affects the penalty is fair. It’s not a “but they weren’t wearing hi-vis / a helmet” or “they were seen undertaking 3 minutes before” – certainly victim-blaming. Or even “they were on a stolen vehicle” (not the case I hasten to add) – it’s a positive choice someone made to do something illegal which is almost certainly a direct factor in the severity of the outcome and may have contributed to them not being able to avoid the cyclist after their mistake.
Or are you privy to information not aired here already e.g. that the cyclist deliberately set out to cause the crash, or was doing something illegal, or managed to accellerate to 30mph and hit the motorcyclist from the side?
I might agree if it weren’t
I might agree if it weren’t for the fact that any objective and pragmatic look at the countless “NMOTD” posts, suggesting any portion of fault to the cyclist elicits a tirade if accusations of victim blaming and being a troll.
Adam Sutton wrote:
The NMOTD posts are mostly selected by the cyclists themselves and are instances of poor driving, so why are you expecting that the videos would show the cyclists to be primarily at fault?
Do you have any particular example of an accusation of victim blaming that you believe to be incorrect?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I haven’t said there is an expectance of videos showing cyclists at fault, as stated it is about being objective and looking at the whole scenario. I gave up paying attention to them after having the temerity myself (after being clear that the driver was in the wrong) to mention that the cyclist in questions road positioning didn’t help matters.
I expect it depends on the
I expect it depends on the NMOTD. Alot will blame a cyclist for being too far out or too far in or too fast or too slow or not wearing a helmet or…… None are breaking any laws of the road and does appear to be blaming the cyclist when driver is the one pulling the illegal manouvre. We still have comments of “wouldn’t have filtered there” or “cyclist should have been aware of the gap left for right turning vehicles” which are normally fair.
In this case, the cyclists actions caused the death of another road user, and seriously injured himself because he appeared to lemming across following the lorry. This is not in dispute. However the motorcyclist, as admitted in court by the prosecution, was going at least 33% faster then legally allowed on that road, in the dark. We all know speed kills, so the speculation is “if the motorbike had been going legal speeds, would the incident have still happened, and would they have died?” I don’t know any NMOTD where the cyclist obviously breaks road laws as well as the driver, but if there were, and the cyclist was being exonerated by commenters and others being jumped on for “dissenting”, then you would have a comparable point.
It would have been interesting if the cyclist had actual professional legal counsel, what the outcome might have been.
I do try and make a comment
I do try and make a comment on what could have been done better but 95% of them there is not a lot.
The only one I can recall where it was the cyclist’s fault was one where they came off the main road round a blind bend and complained about someone doing a three point turn.
As it always said, you should be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, as the three point turn could as easily have been someone waiting to turn right.
Hmm… well I can’t claim
Hmm… well I can’t claim that I’d agree with every single post I’ve ever read here criticising a motorist. And of course we’re all more sensitive to injuries to us (or people we identify with). There certainly are one or more regular individuals here who’re all about trying to wind up the whole room and get a reaction. Plus “internet” so people type first and consider later.
However your claim was about this particular case and victim blaming. So I was responding to that claim – asking about examples for this particular case.
If you want to drop that and widen this to a general “taking the side of the cyclist not other road users…” it might be fairer to ask if you switched the roles in this case would that generate the same questions and degree of concern? This gets difficult though as it’s unlikely a cyclist would be doing nearly 50mph.
I guess it’s what you’re “looking for” – I’ve missed / misread some things here because of my preconceptions. However there certainly are some people who have questioned the details of the cyclist’s actions in some NMOTD articles and they’re not accused of trolling. In fact IIRC that is not uncommon.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Really? Take away the outcome and look at the bare bones of the case: a cyclist making a right turn at a crossroads on a green light was hit by a motorcyclist doing at least 47 mph in a 30 mph zone in the dark. Given those facts, which seem to be undisputed, I don’t see how you can say that attributing at least part of the blame for the incident to the motorcyclist could be described as victim blaming.
Hear, hear. As someone on the
Hear, hear. As someone on the receiving end of a similar collision (me motorbike, them car), but without me speeding, everyone (including Avon and Somerset police) passed it off as an ‘accident’.
I don’t understand why the car driver in my collision was not ‘careless’ but this cyclist was. It’s it because I only could have died? The outcome should have nothing to do with it, when looking at RTA 1988.
Re: 47mph. 150 metres and 7
Re: 47mph. 150 metres and 7 seconds. It would be interesting where they got those figures from. However, I noticed the title picture and the road the motorbike is coming from is downhill with a crest of the hill. A quick measurement shows the hill is about 150 metres away. So they have taken that as the length. Now the 7 seconds, I’m guessing is the time he appeared on the camera of the truck until the time of the accident.
If the lorry was the vehicle being followed by the cyclist, it does seem disingenous to state he had such a clear view, although doesn’t excuse the cyclist at all. However if they took the 7 seconds from when the lorry turned and the cyclist could see, to when the incident occurred…. (however the speed wouldn’t corroborate with the the prosecutions claims then). But might not have been that high is what I’m stating.
Main point really is probably best to go on the legally stated “above 40mph” then “47mph” when disussing this. It still is above the speed limit so is relevant in the discussions, but doesn’t start to stray into Martin/Rakia area of “facts” when we have no idea on that.
I see what you’re saying but
I see what you’re saying but it’s still logical, isn’t it, to assume from the figures stated by the prosecution that the motorcyclist would have been visible to the cyclist from 150 metres away for seven seconds that he was travelling at a speed that enabled him to cover the 150 m in seven seconds, i.e. 47 mph? But even if you take the prosecution’s admission of 40 mph it surely still has to be regarded as a contributory factor. It would be interesting to see where the prosecution got their 40 mph figure from, if accident investigators determined that the motorcyclist was travelling at 40 mph at the time of collision then it would be a reasonable assumption that they were travelling faster on the approach.
Just glanced at the Bournemouth Echo report which rather than stating (as it does here) the prosecution said the motorcyclist was travelling at 40 mph says the prosecution said he was travelling “in the region of 40mph”. If nothing else this case, as discussed elsewhere, shows the importance of securing legal representation when accused which the defendant doesn’t appear to have done; any decent defence brief would have immediately been asking what “in the region of” meant and where the figure came from.
The prosecution stated that
The prosecution stated that they would have been visible, but that still leaves a raft of questions. For example, what sort of headlight did the motorbike have, was this a modern bright one or an old yellow one? A single light in the dark is harder to judge – which actually argues for more caution from the cyclist – but a quick glance, notes light is far away, and with a shrug of the shoulder swings across road. It seems that the cyclist did see the motorcylist and unfortunately dismissed the rider as not being a threat – though I would guess the cyclist does not really know what happened from his phrasing. In that context, excessive speed would be a factor, and should have been taken into account. As others have said, lack of representation is a problem, and even having a friend in court could have helped.
I get a sense of what
I get a sense of what happened here… cyclist was following the lorry in front super tight. Likely made the assumption that there could be nothing coming from the other direction that would be close enough to the lorry for the cyclists position to be a problem.
Alas, in this instance, there was a speeding motorcyclist approaching.
The cyclist was careless, rightly convicted for causing a collision.
However, the mother to be calling for tighter legislation, is potentially a massive home goal.
If this went to court as a death by dangerous cycling case, then the motorcyclists speed, and position would absolutely be examined as part of the trial process.
The collision, was caused by the cyclist’s actions. The death however… well the motorcyclists speed would very much be contributory…