The family of a cyclist who was killed when he struck a road works sign, placed on a cycle lane to warn that nearby traffic lights weren’t working, have criticised the placement of the “obstacle”, which took up two-thirds of the unprotected infrastructure, and questioned why the sign wasn’t instead situated on hatched markings adjacent to the lane.
Maurice Rice was riding on a painted bike lane on Pearse Road, outside the Irish town of Sligo, just before 11.30pm on 13 December 2023 when he struck the sign, anchored by a black sandbag, warning road users that an upcoming set of traffic lights was malfunctioning.
The 52-year-old suffered serious head injuries in the crash and went into cardiac arrest. Members of the public, police service, and emergency services attempted to help him at the scene, conducting CPR, before the was taken to Sligo University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead an hour later, RTE reports.

According to a recent inquest into his death, Mr Rice, who was was socialising with his friends in a local bar before cycling home, had 84mg of alcohol in his system at the time of the fatal crash (the legal limit for drivers in Ireland is 50mg), was not wearing a helmet, and did not have lights on his bike.
The inquest also heard that, on the morning of 13 December, Sligo County Council received information that the traffic lights at the junction of Pearse Road and Circular Road were out of order. After carrying out a dynamic risk assessment, council workers placed warning signs at the four roads approaching the junction and informed the public through a social media post.
Paul O’Rourke, the acting senior engineer with Sligo County Council, told the hearing that the erection of the signs was in accordance with the Irish Department of Transport’s signs guidelines and that the staff who installed them had been trained adequately.
The warning sign, Damien Tansey SC, representing the Rice family and the cyclist’s partner Olga Higgins told the court, was anchored by a black sandbag and placed in a single cycle lane on Pearse Road.
Tansey pointed out that the bike lane in question was 121cm in width, below the “desired” width of 1.5m recommended by the Irish government, and that the erected sign was 85cm in diameter.
The court was told that Mr Rice was travelling at 21kph at the time of the collision, regarded as average for an urban area. The warning sign was found at the scene knocked over, possibly as a result of the crash.
However, at the hearing, Tansey suggested that the sign may have been knocked to the ground before Mr Rice began to cycle home, arguing that it could not be ruled out that the cyclist could not see the sign or the black sandbag before hitting it.
The counsel also said there was no evidence that the signs were checked by council workers during the day, and that he believed it had collapsed onto the ground.
Tansey then questioned the council’s decision to place the warning sign in the middle of the cycle lane in the first instance, suggesting instead that it should have been situated on the hatched markings to the left, located between the lane and the footpath, designed to stop motorists from parking in that area.

“The desired width for a single cycle lane is 1.5m. This cycle lane was 1.21m in width and the warning sign deployed was itself 0.85m in width,” Tansey told the hearing.
“The technical witness agreed that the sign was almost a full obstacle… The sandbag itself was black, placed on a black surface and difficult to notice.”
Tansey also told the hearing that it is important that “the mechanism employed to warn road users of that hazard, is not itself, hazardous”.
The Garda inquiry into Mr Rice’s death also found that it was possible the cyclist had crashed because the black sandbag was not visible, with a forensic collision report concluding that Mr Rice did not see the warning sign.
Counsel for Sligo County Council Keith O’Grady accepted Tansey’s argument that the sign was an obstacle, but pointed out that the local authority had complied with the Department of Transport Traffic Manual.
O’Grady added that the placement of warning signs was not a “one size fits all” scenario, insisting that “no council worker went out of their way to harm any road user, in what was a tragedy”.
Following the hearing, the coroner, Fergal Kelly, returned a verdict of misadventure and made two recommendations.
First, Kelly called on that Sligo County Council to review the colour of sandbags used in the anchoring of warning signs on public roads, before encouraging Ireland’s Road Safety Authority to “reiterate the rules of the road for cyclists” as part of a public campaign.
In the wake of the hearing, Mr Rice’s brother Martin said his family were satisfied with the inquest.
“It’s been almost two years. It’s been difficult for our family and everyone who knew of Maurice,” he said.
“We’re satisfied with how today went. It’s a relief to have some kind of clarity. Hopefully, this will bring some closure on this stage of the journey, and we can begin the process of moving on.”
“I’d just like to thank everybody who came to Maurice’s help in his dying moments – those last moments on Pearse Road,” added Mr Rice’s partner Olga Higgins.
“I can’t imagine what they went through, seeing what they did and looking after him. I want to extend thanks from myself and my family.”




-1024x680.jpg)


















10 thoughts on “Cyclist killed after crashing into sign blocking bike lane, as family questions why warning to drivers about malfunctioning traffic lights wasn’t placed on ‘no parking’ zone”
High time to update the
High time to update the Department of Transport manual. Shame the inquest didn’t recommend or require that.
Signs were put on a cycle
Signs were put on a cycle path south of Egham for road traffic, so I moved them all onto the grass verge.
Likewise, though I moved them
Likewise, though I moved them off the narrow pavement and into the road.
Surely, if all the rules were
Surely, if all the rules were followed, but someone died, there is something wrong with the rules? Hard to believe the coroner didn’t make that point, but hey, cyclists are obviously worth as much in the RoI as they are in the UK.
One simple improvement would
One simple improvement would be to have flashing lights fitted to the sandbags to make them easily visible even if the sign has fallen over.
See occasional complaints
See occasional complaints about signage.
Can’t possibly place it in the road (despite it being there to warn drivers) so we will block either footways or cycle paths completely…
The idea that they SHOULD be in the carriageway, because that forces drivers to slow down and react, while having what should be a far less severe outcome on failure (hit sign designed to collapse with minimal damage rather than the far more dangerous situation the sign is warning about…
And sure, the rider should have lights; But having hit a tree branch after a storm in rain (then thanked the driver behind who had both actually followed at a safe distance, and blocked the road while I tried to figure out WTF caused me to swerve far enough to bounce off kerbs on both sides of the road, before dragging the debris off the carriageway) I expect a black sandbag is difficult to see no matter what… WTF aren’t the sandbags railway orange with retroreflective patches (see orlieb panniers).
Call me dim, but I’m
Call me dim, but I’m struggling to see why on the basis of all the information shared, the conclusion was “place a different coloured sandbag blocking the dark bike lane next time” rather than “try to avoid needlessly blocking cycle lanes, especially when there’s an obvious and much safer alternative location available for a sign”
I think the idea is that a
I think the idea is that a light coloured sandbag would be more visible in the dark if the sign has fallen over but I agree it would be far better not to block the cycle lane in the first place.
The suggestion seems to be
The suggestion seems to be that they couldn’t make a general recommendation to not put them in cycle lanes, because there might be some (unknown) circumstance where that really would be the only feasible location. Which does appear to show a lack of imagination – you would think something along the lines of ‘presumption against doing it, insofar as reasonaby possible’ could have been crafted.
mdavidford wrote:
That would be a very unknown circumstance because there is always the road to put them on.