Police investigating a collision which caused the death of a Hampshire-based cyclist, who was killed when a motorist suddenly pulled out of a junction and struck him, causing him to suffer traumatic brain injuries, concluded that the collision “could not reasonably have been avoided” and that officers were unsure as to whether the driver’s failure to look properly or the cyclist’s lack of hi-vis clothing were to blame for the fatal crash.
David Davenport, a popular member of Southampton’s Sotonia Cycling Club, was cycling with his friend James Martin on 8 June 2021 when, as they approached the junction of Woodman Lane and Sarum Road, near Winchester, he was struck by motorist Natalie Robson, who claimed she did not see the cyclists until the moment of the crash.
The 59-year-old suffered a serious brain injury in the collision and died eight days later at Southampton General Hospital.
According to an inquest into his death, concluded at Winchester Coroners’ Court on Wednesday, Davenport and Martin were riding two-abreast on Woodman Lane, at around 2.30pm, when they spotted Dr Robson stopped at the crossroads in Sarum Road, waiting to move off, the Hampshire Chronicle reports.
The crossroads from the Sarum Road direction, where David Davenport was fatally struck in June 2021
Mr Martin told the court that he had assumed the driver had seen them approaching to her right, before she suddenly pulled out, causing Mr Davenport to collide with her car. Mr Martin, meanwhile, riding on the inside of the road, said he manged to avoid the collision through “sheer luck”.
Speaking as part of the inquest, Dr Robson, who said she drove the same route to work every day, claimed that she had not seen either of the cyclists as they approached, and only became aware of their presence when she heard the impact of Mr Davenport colliding with her car.
Following the crash, Dr Robson administered CPR to Mr Davenport before paramedics arrived and he was taken to hospital.
According to a report conducted by Hampshire Constabulary as part of their investigation into the crash, read during the inquest by area coroner Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp, the police concluded that “the collision could not reasonably have been avoided”.
The police’s report also stated that Mr Davenport was not wearing a helmet on the day of the collision, and that both the victim and Mr Martin were not wearing “high-contrast clothing” during the ride. The report also acknowledged that both cyclists were not wearing lights, due it being a summer afternoon, and that the motorist’s view may have been obscured by trees and signs.
“I am aware that the family have found that report difficult. I am sorry for their distress,” PC Anthony Clifford said.
“I do not know why Dr Robson did not see the two cyclists, if it was for lack of high contrast clothing or lack of vision.
“While the general advice is to wear a bike helmet for protection, we will never know if this would have made a difference.”
Coroner Rhodes-Kemp added that the impact statement provided by Mr Davenport’s family had detailed the effect “his death had on them, his friends, and the wider cycling community.”
“My condolences to the family in this case. It has been very sad and difficult,” she concluded.
82 thoughts on “Police unsure if driver’s “lack of vision” or hi-vis and no helmet to blame for “unavoidable” collision that saw motorist pull out and kill cyclist, inquest finds”
talk about stealing a salary,
talk about stealing a salary, how can anyone be employed as a traffic cop and come to this conclusion. 2 epople riding thier bikes through a junction where they had priority, and a driver of a vehicle with giveway lines failed to give way. Sounds fairly cut and dried to me
I think those give way lines
I think those give way lines being worn were perhaps taken as a mitigating factor. But if that is the case, then that is appalling, it was the driver’s commute! They would know that junction and it’s priorities very well. Plus, there is a Give Way sign there too.
https://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/19921313.road-markings-return-fatal-crash-crossroads-near-winchester/
What a huge pile of crap of a
What a huge pile of crap of a decision.
Its clear that the killer failed to look and that the Police failed to do their job fully and correctly. The court also failed the victim.
RIP.
Yet another cyclist failed by a corrupt system. Strange handshakes alround no doubt.
Edited to add. Take a look at Google Maps. The Killer would have been able to see clearly for at least 100m each way. Even at 50mph…. the average cyclists speed (sic), that’s nearly five seconds in view. Sick and nonsense decision.
Amazingly the chronicle
Amazingly the chronicle comments are critical of the outcome.
If you don’t look, it’s doesn’t matter what people wear.
Did the officer recreate the incident?
“the collision could not
“the collision could not reasonably have been avoided”.
It could easily have been avoided by not pulling out from a give way without first looking properly. What is this garbage?
If this collision really “could not reasonably have been avoided”, there would be thousands of dead UK cyclists per day. Fortunately, the vast majority of motorists don’t pull out right in front of clearly visible cyclists.
I’ll help: it’s because the
I’ll help: it’s because the driver DID NOT LOOK
This was an avoidable incident
#institutionallyanticyclist
I hope that more cyclists
I hope that more cyclists are now coming to the conclusion I reached several years ago, and which I have inflicted on these pages several times, that it is difficult to fail to despise the police.
I think it is a bit sweeping.
I think it is a bit sweeping. I hate most police officers in terms of how they treat cyclists, but some are good. But I also hate the rest of the criminal justice system in terms of how cyclists are treated.
It’s not often I am left so
It’s not often I am left so stunned by the police response, this is beyond belief.
Unfortunately we are well
Unfortunately we are well used to the levels of bad driving not being met to charge someone with dangerous driving but how on earth is this not careless driving?
As per previous comment funny handshakes at play?
Is there no route for one of the cycling associations legal team to challenge this decision?
Article wrote:
Here is part of the problem. People drive a regular route, approach something like a Give Way and routinely get away with a rolling approach – not stopping, cursory look, off we go…
This is not credibly explained other than she did not take effective observation. Nothing is that invisible.
The presence of signs and trees is not a mitigating factor; it is a reason for the driver to take more care.
The solution to 1. is not the same as the solution to 2.
The helmet is a red herring. It made no difference to whether the driver pulled out.
Regardless of the truth behind the helmet debate, the fact that “we will never know” is always the overriding statement of fact, we should totally remove the onus on the cyclist to wear one, because it shifts the blame comments where a cyclist doesn’t.
The Highway Code and regulations should be amended to state that insurance claims must not make any amendment to liability based on the use or otherwise of helmets.
Can these inquest conclusions
Can these inquest conclusions be challenged? How can statements like this ever be allowed to pass?
lesterama wrote:
The answer may lie in this (House of Commons Library, dated 12th October 2023)
lesterama wrote:
They can be challenged in the High Court on the basis that the coroner has exercised their powers incorrectly or unreasonably, has misinterpreted the law or been fraudulent or new evidence has come to light. In a matter like this one where it’s a matter of opinion and interpretation (however blatantly foolish and wrong the opinion and interpretation seems) there would be no chance of overturning the verdict.
Words fail me. This was a
Words fail me. This was a totally avoidable collision. Mid day, Miy summer, two cyclists, clear lines of sight.
My condolances to the family of David Davenport, which will be totally inadequate.
Attached is a Google Streetview image of the location from the point of view of the cyclists approaching the junction. The car will emerge from the junction on their left.
The surviving rider stated that he could see the car waiting to emerge from the cross roads. Absolute law of physics – If I can see you – You can see me. The cyclists were there to be seen.
Arguments for not making Hi Vis compulsary are that whilst it makes cyclists more visible it does not seem to reduce the number of collisions, but it opens the door to victim blaming if it is not worn. I think the above is clear evidence of those facts.
Cycloid wrote:
There was also a case reported here where the coroner concluded that the hi-viz may have made the victim blend in with the surrounding foliage…
It’s perfectly possible.
It’s perfectly possible.
Your visibility depends on the contrast between you and your background. You can choose what you wear, but you cannot choose your background. Statistically speaking though, traditional Hi vis coulours still give you the best chance of being seen.
Agreed – just pointing out
Agreed – just pointing out that hi-viz can be used against us whether we wear it or not.
Cycloid wrote:
Pedantry: in fact it’s quite possible for cyclists to see a motor vehicle but the driver in it not to see the cyclists – and not just because A-pillars / “only looking for cars”. Looking at it approximately head-on the bike adds very little size to the person on it, but viewing a car from the side there is a lot of it still visible when you can’t see the driver (and by implication they can’t see you).
Of course I agree with the substance of the issue – whatever happened the driver made a manouever without prior effective observation. Yet somehow this was just “unavoidable”.
I guess I’d be more understanding if the inquest had explicitly said “Given there is mass motoring, and given we’re not going to do much to redesign our infra so that cyclists are not always required to depend on drivers for their safety this is in general unavoidable”. I think unfortunately there’s truth in that – the mass of humans (better or worse drivers but statistically fallible) plus cars (lead to much more serious outcomes) do mean that e.g. Vision Zero cannot reach zero. I think we can get a bit closer though – and more importantly have a LOT more people able to cycle without fear.
“If I can see you (the drver)
“If I can see you (the drver) then you can see me”. In this case if we can trust the image, the case against the driver is so overwhelming that unless she was deilberately hiding behind an A Pillar it is difficult to understand how she could have failed to see the cyclist.
Two cyclists riding abreast, present an image the size of a small car. One of them must have been in the prime+ position on the road, just where you would expect to see a car. I cannot believe the driver looked up the road and only saw the gap between the cyclists. At 25 – 50 metres the cyclists would have been inside the driver’s central vision if she had looked. No excuse.
It IS possible to encourage /
It IS possible to encourage / teach people to make better observations. There are well known methods for this.
But we prefer to blame “invisibility” and encourage drivers to believe that they can’t be blamed, and so there’s nothing they can do to prevent something like this
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Oh – we should be doing all
Oh – we should be doing all that!
And it doesn’t have to be that way. And in fact – it mostly isn’t. For example – this driver was driving this route frequently, without incident. (Wise to apply a bit of skepticism to that thought – and this looks like a very low traffic location [ not a local ] so of course it’s possible that the driver had failed to observe many times before…)
BUT actually I think our system will continue to be this way. Even if we somehow got a bit better at attributing fault to the appropriate party. (Which is very often those who significantly increase the danger to others by their choices and are tacitly encouraged by us all *.)
Asking for better humans – we may hit a law of diminishing returns. I suspect that there is more mileage in better understanding humans and then making our systems more human-tolerant than e.g. making our courts less human-tolerant.
* Again not privy to all the details of the incident / inquest – but from the outside it does look a bit like the police, coroner etc. saying “yes, we know they ended up under the elephant in the room – but we can’t say why. And there’s an elephant in the room so there’s nothing which could prevent that.”
In general I agree, and this
In general I agree, and this is why road positioning can be so important (don’t ride in the gutter!).
But in this case, the cyclists were riding two abreast. They therefore should have had visibility akin to a car, whether they were wearing high Viz or not (!!).
Cycloid wrote:
Not altogether true. If you are in shade you might not be visible, esp. if you are e.g. looking through net curtains or a periscope! Anyway, the cyclist said he could see the car, but he didn’t say he could see the driver.
Thank god for that. Every
Thank god for that. Every thing is OK then.
Unfortunately hi-viz does not
Unfortunately hi-viz does not work, for the past few years police have been reporting an increase in near misses and collisions with officers, sorry I can’t find my source but I think it was actualay on this site, because there is so much hi-viz on and around roads that drivers are now blanking it out.
Retorically I’ve had this happen to me several times at a nearby junction.
One study I know of came to
One study I know of came to the conclusion we are going “Hi Vis blind”.
They selected a scenario in which people had to walk along a street from a car park to a shopping centre. Workers along the route sometimes wore standard Hi Vis jackets and sometimes wore bright non standard jackets. When questioned in the shopping centre fewer people remembered the Hi Vis wearers’
I need to check the source. When everyone wears Hi Vis, no one is wearing Hi Vis.
You have to wonder whether
You have to wonder whether the police were influenced by the fact the driver was (apparently) an acute/emergency medic and decided to give her some latitude
It would appear to a classic case of “looked but didn’t see”, and the fact the cyclists were two abreast should have meant they were more visible.
But, yet again, police are allowed to perpetuate the myth that cyclists not wearing high-vis are literally invisible and it’s therefore perfectly OK to just “not see” them even when it’s bright daylight and no obstruction (again, despite police comment about trees and signs, the cyclist testimony was explicit that they saw the driver clearly and with sufficient time to assess that the driver had seen them, so again some kind of black magic is applied to determine that while the cyclists could see the driver, simultaneously maybe the driver literally *couldn’t* actually see them – because it’s too troubling to concede that maybe, just maybe – the driver *could* see them but just didn’t)
The most likely scenario, which funnily enough, doesn’t appear to have even merited a mention from the police, is that the driver was looking for cars and – as studies have shown can be the case – simply did not process the fact that they had seen cyclists.
The famous example of the video experiment where you count the basketball passes and then get asked if you saw the person in a gorilla suit walk into the middle of the court, look at the camera and throw their arms in the air is an example of just this kind of thing
So, instead of discussion about how we can help drivers to ensure that they look better, we have this nonsense about ‘maybe this wouldn’t have happened if they’d had a different colour jacket on’. And 99% of the population will go on thinking “ah very sad, but nothing the driver could have done …. hope that doesn’t happen to me when I’m driving”, rather than “what are some ways I can practice good observation at junctions, so that I don’t do this to someone one day”.
Velo-drone wrote:
Cough – cough – killer driver Dr Helen Measures – cough – cough.
How many cyclists have to die
How many cyclists have to die before Hampshire County Council fixes this obviously dangerous junction? Two, then a wait of five years, as with Ipley Cross, perhaps? At least this one it would only require the cutting down of a single tree. (Not that it excuses the driver from all blame, as she should’ve inched out if her view was blocked.)
Alternatively, imply the victim was at fault, and save the bother.
Why would the council need to
Why would the council need to cut down a tree? It is a really clear view. And Mr Davenport did not collide with the vehicle of the woman who killed him. She collided with him in her vehicle.
There is so much wrong with the reporting and conclusions in this that it must make all of us cyclists weep. I certainly did, in grief for his family and his poor friend who was with him, and anger at the appalling conclusions.
If Mr Davenport’s family or a cycling organisation would like to set up a legal protest against this biaised result, I will be most pleased to contribute to it.
So PC Clifford admits he has
So PC Clifford admits he has no idea whether either hi viz clothing or a helmet would have made any difference, but mentions them both for a bit of casual victim blaming anyway.
How can this collision have
How can this collision have been anything but 100% the driver’s fault??
Indeed; how is:
Indeed; how is:
[I]”Dr Robson … claimed that she had not seen either of the cyclists as they approached, and only became aware of their presence when she heard the impact…”[/i]
anything less than evidence of culpability? It is the driver’s obligation to look and see. Yet it seems that the very lack of looking and seeing is what exonerates them.
It’s utter madness. We have a system where drivers can go about not noticing vulnerable road users until the point of impact, and the fact itself is exculpatory! What driver is ever going to claim they saw the cyclists and then proceeded to collide with them?
Sriracha wrote:
It’s the old “Incompetence paradox” again, maybe?
I just recalled another “bushes … didn’t see the cyclists” collision where there was in fact a prosecution – charging sometimes seems a bit random?
This sounds like the driver who killed Rebecca Comins and was convicted of dangerous driving – perhaps unusually given no reported evidence of drink / drugs / phone use / speeding / didn’t just drive off). He initially admitted he’d seen the cyclist in front of him on a clear, straight road. I can’t help wondering if he’d simply said “I can’t remember” this would have resulted in a lesser charge?
Did the driver not face any
Did the driver not face any criminal charges?
So it’s down the the Coroner to investigate if there were any systemic failings and whether there are any actions that need to be taken to prevent future deaths?
Surely, at the very least, the coroner should request that the signage should be moved and the trees cut back to improve visibility (if this truly was a significant contributing factor)?
Were the family of Mr
Were the family of Mr Davenport represented or supported by anyone or any organsiation at the inquest who could have questioned PC Clifford about the police report, or were they there just on their own?
Ah no what we need to do is
Ah no what we need to do is keep nicking people doing 76 on a clear motorway. If anyone kills or injures a vulnerable road user then that’s just a little accident, especially if they’re a respected professional.
The whole system is upside down. There is no framework for encouraging or promoting competence. Deterrants are based around punitive punishments for rules infringement. Acts of gross negligence resulting in death or serious injury are treated as “accidents”. The Police are victim blaming in this situation because they genuinely don’t understand what needs to be done.
Not sure how “nicking people
Not sure how “nicking people doing 76mph on a clear motorway” is connected with victim-blaming? That being clearly illegal speeding, above the the margin of error of speed recording devices, which in any case you’re unlikely to get “nicked” for and certainly not prosecuted.
The idea of “encouraging or promoting competence” is indeed lacking. Unfortunately I suspect there’s a limit to how far that can go – especially where we have “mass motoring”. That’s a LOT of extra learning and dedication we’re proposing there! It seems likely that other conditions which might allow this to happen would not be accepted. E.g. we don’t have yearly driving tests – and certainly not competitive “good driving competitions” (losers to lose licences)! Or perhaps people would “get it” if motor vehicles were made out of light cardboard, with the driver sitting directly above the fuel tank and the steering wheel featuring a centrally mounted spike? Or maybe we’d just end up with fatalistic Mad Max-style drivers?
As for deterrence “based around punitive punishments for rules infringement” – I think we should try it! Currently deterrence is based on the occasional crackdown in a particular location, or a short-lived campaign at a particular time – and … er, that’s it.
No, could it be that it’s our whole model – a primarily “legalistic” approach to behaviour on our roads – that’s the issue?
As with any system we do need negative feedback. But in the UK it seems unlikely that is mostly being provided by the police and the courts. Or at least – it could only be via a less-than-well-founded belief in people “getting nicked straight away” and “the book being thrown at those who break road laws”.
Instead – we could look at a “safe system” approach? Not as a replacement for the legal system but to reduce the need for this. Completely prevent or disincentivise dangerous behaviour in the first place. Provide “instant” and consistent feedback when people go wrong (by error or intent). Finally – mitigate the consequences of rule breaking.
Here’s an example. And in fact we already do quite a bit of this kind of thing (e.g. dual carriageways / motorways with central dividers, to prevent crashes at e.g. 76 mph becoming ones with a closing speed of twice that). Some places go further with that idea and even prevent overtaking in may locations!
After all it’s probably a waste taking people to court unless they’re alive. And it helps if the witnesses are so they can give evidence.
The Safe System includes post
The Safe System includes post-collision response and I believe that the justice system, including inquests sits firmly within this pillar. Any deaths on the roads are inherently avoidable and corners should routinely be issuing Prevention of Future Deaths reports to feed back into the other four pillars of the Safe System. Unfortunately, coroners in the UK are not permitted to make “recommendations” in the PFDs they issue; contrast this with New Zealand where, by law, they can make “any recommendations or comments on the avoidance of circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred, or on the manner in which any persons should act in such circumstances, that, in the opinion of the coroner, may if drawn to public attention reduce the chances of the occurrence of other deaths in such circumstances.” Further, the NZ Transport Agency specifically states that “Coroners play an important part towards creating a system that protects people from death and serious injury when mistakes occur.”: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/partners/road-safety-resources/vision-zero-for-coroners/. Why can’t we do this in the UK?
Thanks – didn’t know that
Thanks – didn’t know that about NZ.
In the Netherlands this is of course part of their “sustainable safety” approach I believe.
In the UK I believe you are correct – reports to prevent future deaths essentially state the coroner has concern x, and they believe that person / organisation y has the power to do address it. I think legally those addressed must make a response but I don’t think there are many stipulations about the nature of the response – certainly not about making anyone do anything other than respond. It’s definitely an “honour system” / “mark your own homework”.
We do have bodies which do take a more “health and safety review” approach – for the air sector (AAIB), rail sector (RAIB), marine sector (MAIB). (They’re not equipped with great powers but they do seem to be more or less taken seriously).
… AND just a couple of of years back the government said they were launching a similar body for the roads – the RAIB!
… and then – after tumbleweed blew by – said a year ago that they were “still committed” to this. Since then “there the matter rests”. This is apparently in limbo, and looks set to remain that way.
(On coroners – Last reviewed 2016):
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-5-reports-to-prevent-future-deaths.pdf
Middle of a summer day and
Middle of a summer day and they think high vis will make any difference!?!
Photo shows an open junction with limited shade.
And green background means standard high vis yellow is second only to green in being difficult to see…
My understanding is research has found high vis in daytime only works when people are actively looking for it, which they can only keep up for short time.
So roadworks/signed railway works – short periods where they are TOLD someone in high vis will be around (by the presence of the works). Or construction sites (Anything moving/hazardous (people, equipment, barriers) will be bright yellow/orange). It works for school groups – but only because having seen one kid in a high vis vest, you look for the rest…
On a random bit of road; People won’t be actively looking for high vis any more than they are actively looking for cyclists already. So drivers who fail to see cyclists will fail to see cyclists in high vis…
edit: And note that for at least some of these cases, the reason for high vis is at least partially to reduce cognitive load – construction sites have EVERYONE in high vis. So you no longer have to look for people; Just look for high vis. But we can’t make every hazard on or around a road high vis, so we can’t reduce cognitive load as the driver still needs to look properly…
qwerty360 wrote:
Yes, black could easily be more visible than yellowy-green hi-viz against a greeny backdrop.
Utter nonsense from the police.
“I do not know why Dr Robson
“I do not know why Dr Robson did not see the two cyclists, if it was for lack of high contrast clothing or lack of vision.”
This question could have been answered if the police had done a reconstruction at the scene, with cyclists wearing similar coloured clothing and with similar weather conditions / time of day etc.
They had the vehicle, they knew the circumstances, it wouldn’t have taken much effort to produce some video evidence of the driver’s likely view.
But quite frankly, unless the cyclists were practically invisible (unlikely!), there’s no mitigation. The two scenarios are in no way comparable. A lack of high contrast clothing is not illegal, failing to adhere to a ‘Give Way’ sign is.
The obvious question is, the
The obvious question is, the obligation is on the motorist to look out for vulnerable road users and when pulling out of a side road to only do so when it is safe. Against that backdrop, surely the default position is, if you pull out and hit someone, you need to be able to make a positive case as to why you didn’t see them that cuts the mustard.
“I didn’t see them” shouldn’t be a defence when you have a duty to look!
My feeling is that if you hit
My feeling is that if you hit a police person & claimed you didn’t see them (sun in your eyes, moment’s inatention, it’s never happened before etc, etc), they wouldn’t state “the collision could not reasonably have been avoided” and let you on your way?
(Please don’t walk around, wildly swinging your fists)
The normal sequence of events
The normal sequence of events is for a prosecution to follow after the inquest, depending on the evidence.
I assume that in this case, after the glowing police report, there will be no proscution and that the driver can now proceed with litigation against the cyclist’s estate and claim for vehicle damage and personal trauma.
Disagree. Normally Coroner
Disagree. Normally Coroner would open the inquest and adjourn it if a criminal prosecution was pending or likely. That is so any evidence presented would not compromise a criminal trial
History repeating ?
History repeating ?
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict
Jitensha Oni wrote:
Crikey. Thanks for the link. Driver hits cyclist from behind leaving a dent in the bonnet. Driver had to be stopped after leaving the scene and then claims she did not see a cyclist at any point. Driver says the dent could have been caused by a sack of potatoes falling from the sky. CPS decides not to prosecute. Driver allowed to continue driving without further consequence despite a private prosecution by Cylists Defence Fund.
Unbelievable.
Not a death, but another
Not a death, but another attempt at a private prosecution (brought by an actual barrister) after no-one would act on a close-pass case.
…which failed.
Sadly once the police / CPS have decided not to bother (inexcusably in the Michael Mason case I would say… more on the inquest here) I think that private prosecutions are a very long shot.
In the case I linked above above the plaintiff wrote “The evidence has to be strong, very strong and then if you can stronger still. I think in hindsight my evidence was simply strong.”
Just the day before yesterday
Just the day before yesterday I thought about this high-vis bullshit that goes on and on and on: it was middle of the afternoon, on a normally bright day. There was a cyclist in front of me with a black jersey, and I could very clearly see him from over 400m away…
The RAF made a conscious
The RAF made a conscious decision a few years ago to change the colour of their Hawk training aircraft to black, because black was more visible. So hi-vis is misleading anyway.
The police officer quoted in the report stated that “the motorist’s view may have been obscured by trees and signs,” which doesn’t make it the driver’s fault that she couldn’t see – in fact it probably makes it the local council’s fault – but it doesn beg the question why she took a punt and pulled out anyway.
Given the above, is there a case against the council for corporate manslaughter based on the failure to maintain the road and verge to a safe standard?
MattieKempy wrote:
More visible in the air presumably – might not apply on the ground. In the air, black is by definition hi-viz. Though (a) I like to think I’d see a Hawk of any colour if it was taxiing down my road; and (b) I’m not suggesting hi-viz would have helped the victim here.
Yes it’s for visibility
Yes it’s for visibility against all types of daylight sky, obviously not much use at night, and also ease of application & maintenance of the air frame.
quiff wrote:
I think black may also be more visible when the background is the ground – i.e. a variety of greens, reds, etc.
Sure – my point was just that
Sure – my point was just that what is hi-viz for a plane is not necessarily the same as what is hi-viz for a cyclist.
It certainly is the drivers
It certainly is the drivers fault, as he is recognising that he went into an intersection without looking. Also the council created a risky situation.
aitorbk wrote:
From the photo that road layout does not look particularly risky. Junction near my parents is far worse
It reminds me more of this
It reminds me more of this junction and you would not believe the number of crashes caused by people pulling out of Bell Lane there.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dvQA7jUbZZmtNLVWA?g_st=ac
There are situations where a
There are situations where a driver has little choice other than to pull out blind, very slowly, and hope other road users will see him before he can see them. But from the picture this doesn’t look like one of them. And if it’s being suggested that hi-viz might have made a difference, that too suggests there was nothing blocking the motorists view of the cyclists. I’m puzzled as to why the collision couldn’t reasonably have been avoided.
john_smith wrote:
Little choice, because they had to drive where they couldn’t see… OK, that’s how it is. But we teach drivers that these situations are exceptional and therefore they should think about this very carefully and do all they can to assess things, right? Perhaps emphasise that what you can’t see might be a Challenger tank bearing down (with “priority”) – or maybe a glass carnival float full of poorly
squirrelskittens?So we’re insisting that at the least drivers stop and move their heads around to see if they can get a better view, wind down their windows so they can listen, maybe giving a “friendly toot” to alert anyone unseen first, obviously?
… and where identified local authorities are tasked with immediately ameliorating such “accident blackspots waiting to happen” – ideally by more than just “stick up a mirror”?
Indeed … it could have been. Only … humans. We take shortcuts (a single glance / just roll out a bit slower), we have periods of low arousal / awareness (maybe going home after day at work), we develop habits (we learn there’s never any traffic here, we train our visual systems to e.g. only look for the cars), we have other systematic failings (the driver stopped long enough for the cyclists to notice – then pulled out – perhaps they were distracted by something?)
Presumably the collision only
Presumably the collision only became unavoidable once the driver failed to see them and pulled out. That failure to see them should mean they are charged with causing causing serious injury by careless driving, at an absolute minimum.
How can the statement “police
[Edit: having read on into the comments I see that it’s clear we feel the same way. Looking to see and not crashing your car into a cyclist would have prevented this death.]
How can the statement “police concluded that “the collision could not reasonably have been avoided”.” when is quite clear it could have been. “motorist Natalie Robson, who claimed she did not see the cyclists until the moment of the crash.” and the statement “and that the motorist’s view may have been obscured by trees and signs.”. It’s clear that if the motorist had looked for and been able to see the cyclist she would not have crashed into them causing one of them to die.
Has Matthew Briggs been
Has Matthew Briggs been contacted for a comment?
Or any of our amazing politicians, who do such a sterling job?
Yes he said it was a killer
Yes he said it was a killer cyclist so deserved it
Perhaps, in cases like this
Perhaps, in cases like this the cycling world should have some sort of legal fund so we can take out private prosecusiotns against the driver for their carelessness, and the police for their incorrect conclusions. I’d happily chip in towards it – maybe someone like Cycle Law Scotland (is there an English / Welsh equivalent?) / Good Law Project could be involved?
Bigfoz wrote:
A nice idea, but it would stray dangerously into further dividing road users into cyclists/drivers and could be seen as a political statement. It would be much better if it was a fund that covered all road users as pedestrians are often victims of traffic crime, but then maybe we should be calling for a functioning justice system that isn’t afraid to remove dangerous drivers from the road.
Cylists Defence Fund?
Cylists Defence Fund?
RIP to the victim and my
RIP to the victim and my condolences to the family. I can’t understand why the police are thinking this way. The driver pulled out from a side road without looking properly. I can’t see how that can be anything but the driver’s fault.
“the collision could not
“the collision could not reasonably have been avoided”.
Staggering incompetence/lying/cheating by the police. It is absolutely obvious that the collision could easily have been avoided if the driver had followed the law and actually looked. If I was a relative of David Davenport, I would be thinking very seriously of opening a complaint, as the report was inaccurate, misleading and just plain wrong.
As others have said, almost certain that the driver has a relationship with the police, and anyone else would have been held responsible and prosecuted. I’d suggest a private prosecution, but as we know from the Mick Mason case, overwhelming evidence doesn’t convince a jury of drivers.
In other news, Hampshire
In other news, Hampshire constabulory are also launching a public enquiry to help officers distinguish between arse and elbow!
I think they came to the
I think they came to the correct conclusion.
We let mentally and physically unfit people drive vehicles so safe they cannot be hurt by their own incompetence and don’t do enough (if anything at all) to correct their behaviour therefore cyclists and pedestrians being killed cannot be avoided.
Horrible to say, but I agree.
Horrible to say, but I agree. “I didn’t mean it” and “sorry, I’m sure I looked and didn’t see anyone…” are more-or-less accepted. Because people find it too easy to think “yeah – I’ve done that – they were just unlucky it ended in a tragedy”.
Accepting this kind of human failing is reasonable … in the case that someone has walked into you and even possibly knocked you over.
Add the speed, power, additional attention needed and reduction of control of using a motor vehicle – and we’ve got over a thousand deaths and more serious injuries per year.
Which is in global terms “very safe” and as e.g. Roadpeace remind us – is apparently a societally acceptable level.
* Notes to those worried they might “have the book thrown at them” – do express remorse. Don’t take to social media to victim blame (unless you’re particularly prestigious). BUT don’t directly take the blame – “yeah, I saw them, but I was trying to avoid them” might lead to trouble, but “I didn’t see them” or “I can’t remember” should help. Being a “useful member of society” will be in your favour (doctor / medic, copper, “promising young graduate”) etc.
Yet another inadequate
Yet another inadequate investigation. That junction has adequate visibility . It never ends . Up our way a jury swallowed the ‘ blinded by the sun excuse on a wide open bit of road . I’ve heard the excuse elsewhere ‘ the yellow hi Viz blended in to the autumnal leaves colour ” so someone got killed .
We need specialist knowledge brought in to fatal cycling accidents . Cycling organisations need to get together to find expert resources and carry out independent investigations .
Didn’t this government
Didn’t this government propose, and instantly shelve, a road crash investigation organisation?
I would say that cycling
I would say that cycling organsiations should be involved in inquests involving cyclist deaths as formally Intersted Persons so that relevant questions can be asked of witnesses including the police and other collison investigators and be able to call their own expert witnesses if necessary.
The driver was a doctor?
The driver was a doctor?
If they were charged and proven guilty they would likely be struck off, therefore the police and/or other interested parties have decided not to prosecute.
Without a shadow of doubt should be taken further by the cyclists family as justice has not be given.
Obviously a doctor is far more important than some bloke on a bicycle.
Either the driver, police, or coroner need to take a long, hard look at themselves and wonder what would have been if the ” boot was on the other foot”.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
For drink/drug driving or deliberate aggression leading to a fatality, possibly, for a death by careless driving charge (as this would most likely have been charged if justice were done) almost certainly not.
Lack of hi-vis at 2:30pm in
Lack of hi-vis at 2:30pm in June?
What happened to the
What happened to the insurance claim?
Did her insurers pay up for the loss she caused?
Or…
with this judgement does Dr Robson now claim repair expenses from her victim’s estate?
Disgusting comments from
Disgusting comments from police, ” officers were unsure as to whether the driver’s failure to look properly or the cyclist’s lack of hi-vis clothing were to blame for the fatal crash.” Then to add, Mr Davenport was not wearing a helmet on the day of the collision, and that both the victim and Mr Martin were not wearing “high-contrast clothing” What difference would that have made.A man lost his life because the driver would have been in a rush and didn’t “think once think twice,think bike” I was knocked off on a roundabout the driver said to me while lying on ground “Sorry mate I never seen you” I had that much Hi Viz on I looked radioactive,he admiited he was in a hurry as was late for appointment .I’m just surprised no road tax and insurance wasn’t mentioned GRrrrrr. Both Cycling UK and British Cycling need to get this across to motorists that road tax was abolished in 1930s and we are insured if were with one of those,maybe it will calm a little of the hatred aimed towards us.