- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Police tape (CC licensed by freefotouk on Flickr)Cyclist killed after crash on 'inadequately marked crossing'
A cyclist died after being hit by a motorist on an 'inadequately marked and controlled crossing' an inquest has heard.
Luke McNicholas, 21, was riding on the Heritage Trail on 16 January over the Curragh Road in St Johns, Isle of Man, when he collided with the vehicle.
He was taken to Noble's Hospital and later died from his injuries.
Coroner of Inquests Jayne Hughes said the markings on the crossing gave "no warning of the approaching danger".
The inquest at Douglas Courthouse heard how Mr McNicholas, emerged on to the crossing at about 15:15 GMT, immediately in front of a black Honda Civic.
The crossing, which is coloured pink with a white Celtic knot design, goes over a 40mph zone, and was first painted by the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) in July 2020.
Mrs Hughes said the design "did nothing to warn [Mr McNicholas] of the approaching danger", and the crossing was "inadequately marked and controlled" at the time.
The court heard how parts of the project had not been done at the time of the compliance officer's death due to the DOI's issues with a contractor, the BBC reports.
These included the installation of large warning signs and the trimming of trees and shrubs on the trail's approach to the crossing, as well as fixing the gates into a chicane position, which were all changes that were made after the incident.
Mrs Hughes said the fact these had not been completed at the time had contributed to the collision, and Mr McNicholas's family "may ask why this had not been done sooner".
She made recommendations that the DOI commission a road safety audit into the crossing, consult with partner agencies including the police, and take any action recommended by that audit.
Recording a verdict of accidental death, she also passed on her condolences to Mr McNicholas's family.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 0 sec ago
Thanks to locals for reviews. And obviously the people who got this through!...
- Wheelywheelygood 5 min 23 sec ago
When are they going to start fining bikers for all their crazy manovers
- Mr Hoopdriver 25 min 10 sec ago
OT & Just for you https://www.popsci.com/animals/squirrel-leap-skills/
- Rendel Harris 51 min 48 sec ago
We're so many different towns in one city - large portions of what are effectively the Home Counties forming the outskirt boroughs. They are where...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 6 min ago
Welcome, hope it works!
- ROOTminus1 2 hours 45 min ago
And if I tried to inspire you that critical thinking isn't just about finding problems with someone else's logic?...
- jonah1961 3 hours 1 min ago
Same here Luca, I subscibed this morning but wonder whether the creaky website takes a while to update?
- David9694 3 hours 17 min ago
Castle Fields car park extension in Tonbridge abandoned but charges remain on Sundays and Martin Square in Larkfield and Bailey Bridge in Aylesford...
- Dnnnnnn 3 hours 17 min ago
Having used them hundreds of times with only a couple of lost parcels, my experience is the opposite, and better than with Royal Mail and UPS....
Add new comment
19 comments
To be honest this could happen to anyone of us who cycle regually. How many more lives have to be lost until people realise that driving a motor vehicle requires care at all times. Looking at the pictures of the crossing posted by others on here suggest that there was no indication of a crossing to warn motorists. Maybe the idea of flashing warning lights, similar to those on railway crossings on the approaches to these crossings, to make motorists more aware could help. There could be sensors placed either sides on the cycle paths say 150 meters before the crossing, that are triggered by the cyclists riding past them on the cycle path. These sensors would then make the warning lights on the road section flash, which would then warn motorists of the approaching crossing. The hope is to save lives.
Actually I don't think it could. It's far more likely to result in hurting a novice or casual cyclist who rides less defensively.
Blaming the motorist isn't right for this one unless they were driving illegally. 99% down to the people who built such a poor crossing.
Someone on here recently posted an insightful link to how crossings should be designed. The gist was that the crossings should be made to look like a continuation of the pavement rather than the more confusing alternative of a surface that is different to both the road and the pavement - it sows uncertainty about priority as in this case.
Raised "table tops" are never a bad idea, makes the motorist consider slowing.
The problem with raised sections in this country is that there's a discontinuity between the pavement and the table top - it sends the message that motorists have priority.
Was it these? Ranty Highwayman, Robert Weetman's series (I'd recommend as much of his site as you've time for) [1] [2], a collection from the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain (I think they're just here for the Ferrero Rocher), Not Just Bikes. Edinburgh has about 4 different generations of these, most are "cargo cult" quality e.g. junk. The latest efforts are almost there but still missing the most important thing. That is making it totally clear the car is entering a pedestrian / cycling space. So the driver should a) expect pedestrians and cyclists to be there and b) not park / linger while waiting for the road to clear / bully others out of their way because it is not their space.
Raised tables - a bit like speed bumps I'm not a huge fan because of course in the UK you end up having to go over them on your bike. It normally hurts you more than a driver. Plus in my experience they tend to wear faster than the surrounding road surface and then you've got a cyclocross facility.
Thanks, that first link was what I was thinking of.
With respect, I disagree. Table tops and sleeping policeman simply encourage more 4x4 vehicles with long travel or air suspension that can be driven without due care and attention over such obstacles. I suggest that better alternatives exist, e.g. alternate priority reduction to single track. Thus one track must give way to the other and slow down regardless of suspension properties. Typically these are used so that leaving the area has priority over entering. I don't know if that is appropriate in this case, but it's often a good answer.
With respect I don't think there is any evidence to support that statement.
if a zebra crossing is not appropriate because the road is 40mph, then raised table tops are surely not appropriate. Much as I want to reduce car dominance, I don't think launching them is a good idea.
I would think starting with a 30mph limit and a zebra might be best, if that is not acceptable, then lights with a button controled crossing. And not press the button wait for a minute then cross, just change immediately, there is no reason to believe that motorists who might be arriving in 60seconds will be less inconvenienced than motorists who might be arriving now, I don't see why pedestrians are normally subjected to this wait, is it supposed to disincentive crossing the road
The real objection is probably that zebra or pelican crossing will require power to the location where currently there is none.
I realise this has just been copied and pasted from the BBC article, but shouldn't road.cc review items like this to ensure they're in line with the road collision reporting guidelines before repeating them verbatim?
Before and after pictures in this article.
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=60625&headline=New%20signage%20...
Based on the coroners verdict it sounds like the crossing should never have been opened in its original form.
Potentially corporate manslaughter - if that exists in the IOM?
Thanks for the link - those are good photos.
It appears that it is possible to cross the road from the path without having to slow down; if that's the case, it surprises me. Round here, we have lots of 'staggered bollards', such that on your bike you HAVE to slow down. They can be a pain in the neck (or worse), but must surely be better than being wiped out by passing traffic.
Hmm... if they're worse than a pain in the neck (eg. you come off and break yours) then not better than the traffic.
Again - having no "official crossing" might be entirely appropriate in this particular circumstance. My complaint is that where we roll out the bollards / pedestrian fences to "keep people safe from the cars" it rather begs the question. Why should people walking and wheeling divert so that the motor vehicles can go straight on? Or rather when we design a road and spend tons of money on it why can't we make it so people can cross the road safely and conveniently? "Grade separation" where needed.
The other one is "slow down the cyclists". a) The numbers suggest that this is not really a problem and b) if cyclists and pedestrians are coming into conflict maybe consider giving them their own space.
Having just looked at the pictures supplied by Flintshire Boy I find myself thinking not so much inadequately marked but overdone, painting across the road like that suggests that the cyclists have the right of way and that vehicles have to give way.
Some photos of the crossing.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3076099845799392&id=415645...
Thanks - it looks like it's here on Google streetview. So a trail crosses an A road and then continues alongside a side road.
Reading their comments:
"A number of options were considered how to treat this crossing.As Zebra crossings are not permitted in 40mph zones this option was discounted. A Puffin crossing would be need to be a 3 way system due to the proximity of the Western amenity site junction. This option was discounted as being inappropriate for a rural road. It was concluded that highlighting the presence of the existing informal crossing was the most appropriate solution"
It depends - if this is just "occasional recreational" then I'd probably agree. If this trail was either more heavily used or also envisaged as a "route" then that answer is simply saying "we're not going to pay to do a properly safe job". (To be fair it looks like they have done some work on the far side of the road crossing to connect it with the onward trail.) Their design is pretty but - as with everything we seem to do in a non-standard fashion - doesn't actually convey anything to the average road user. That's why we have standardised signs and road markings / layout - like you can find in the highway code (bingo!).
Sounds like lowering the speed limit to 30mph was also discounted.
Well it's an A road, innit? Can't suddenly have 30mph on an A road.
This is exactly my point about many other interventions to protect vulnerable road users. The logic always starts with "convenience for the motorist" as the first, given point. Then everything else is made to fit "as best we can" given a much smaller budget. Because we expect to spend large sums of money on the roads and not on cyclists and pedestrians because that's how it is. Even though you may actually have as many or more non-car users who use or want to use a particular route. Despite any "hierarchy of road users" in practice and in people's mindsets the motor vehicle is at the top.
Again - in this particular case it might be a perfectly reasonable compromise. It may make sense to impede those on this path, make them wait and put the risk of crossing a road with fast traffic on them. * I would certainly hope this prompts a re-evaluation of ways to alert the drivers in advance though. Which should be done in a standard way which clearly conveys what the hazard ahead is. So not just a spash of Celtic knotwork on the road, nice though that looks.
* Taking into account relative volumes of traffic, constraints of the site, costs etc. Being aware of arguments like "the road was there first" That may be true but has little bearing on the now. And of course the pedestrians, horses and carts were usually there first if you want to get historical...