- 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
David Davenport ghose bike, Winchester (Bollo, Cycle Chat)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
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.
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- john_smith 4 min 24 sec ago
In my comment above I expressed pretty much the exact opposite of what you describe. I don't know who you feel has repeatedly told you you are...
- Tom_77 6 min 20 sec ago
Also, a quick reminder - if you haven't registered to vote, the deadline is midnight tonight (18th June)....
- mdavidford 7 min 13 sec ago
I didn't say 'argue with', I said 'argue for'....
- mattw 26 min 53 sec ago
This is quite gentle, and in Dave Walker's style says both "Hah!" and "WTF?", depending on whether you look at it straight on or sideways....
- lonpfrb 48 min 20 sec ago
Absolutely yes, that's ridiculous so maybe historic....
- Shermo 1 hour 39 min ago
Navigation by Google maps? No thanks it gives terrible routes for cycling! ...
- the little onion 1 hour 47 min ago
democracy is not dictatorship by majority. It's not limited to just a vote.
- chrisonabike 2 hours 56 min ago
Indeed, it took a lot of pushing (and huge sums of money) to get the system going....
- mdavidford 3 hours 10 min ago
Identifying cycling fascists is easy - it's anyone who quotes The Rules with a straight face.
Add new comment
82 comments
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 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 (!!).
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 thing is OK then.
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 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.
Can these inquest conclusions be challenged? How can statements like this ever be allowed to pass?
The answer may lie in this (House of Commons Library, dated 12th October 2023)
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
It's not often I am left so stunned by the police response, this is beyond belief.
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 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.
I'll help: it's because the driver DID NOT LOOK
This was an avoidable incident
#institutionallyanticyclist
“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.
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?
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 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-...
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.
Pages