- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
National Cycle Route 7 (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Shirokazan)“Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules
Two cyclists who were involved in a serious collision on a National Cycle Route, which left one of the riders requiring resuscitation after his heart stopped, have been found equally to blame for the crash by a judge, who said the cyclists were “travelling at twice the safe speed” and were oblivious to each other’s presence when the “inevitable” crash took place.
Joseph Merrick and Nigel Dick, both cycling home from work at the time of the collision, were injured when they crashed into each other at one of the junctions connecting the National Cycle Network’s routes 7 and 75, between Linwood and Johnstone, Renfrewshire, on 26 August 2019, the Glasgow Times reports.
Mr Dick, a 54-year-old senior control engineer, was seriously injured in the collision and lost consciousness at the scene. He was later told that his heart had stopped and that he required resuscitation.
Following the incident, he raised an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland’s highest civil court, seeking damages from Mr Merrick, a 66-year-old teacher.
At the court this week, lawyers for Mr Dick argued that Merrick should be apportioned 75 per cent of the blame for the collision and the serious injuries sustained by the 54-year-old.
However, judge Lord Sandison concluded that both riders were equally at fault for the crash, due to their speed and apparent failure to anticipate each other’s presence as they approached the junction.
“I do not find it possible to conclude that the fault of either contributed more to the causation of the accident and its consequences than the fault of the other, or that one was more blameworthy than the other,” Lord Sandison said.
“Each was travelling at about twice the safe speed for him and each completely failed, for no good reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other until the collision was inevitable.
“Neither had any priority over the other, and the responsibility to take reasonable care for the safety of himself and others was equally incumbent on each.”
Despite finding that Mr Merrick’s role in the crash materially contributed to the loss, damage, and injuries sustained by Mr Dick, the judge said that in the circumstances he considered it “just and equitable” to hold each cyclist 50 per cent responsible.
Lord Sandison also pointed out that it was important to appreciate that national cycle routes “are not roads”.
“They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians, children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,” he said.
“Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite music or a podcast on their headphones.
“Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”
Sandison noted that the case would be continued, if necessary, to assess the level of damages.
This collision isn’t the first time a high-profile crash between two cyclists has taken place on a cycle path near Glasgow.
At the 2023 UCI World Cycling Championships, hosted by the Scottish city, Italian track rider Simone Consonni, an Olympic gold medallist in the team pursuit in 2021, suffered a broken collarbone and wrist after a cyclist on an e-bike collided head-on with him and teammate Francesco Lamon as the pair enjoyed a leisurely spin along the River Clyde ahead of their race the following day.
The e-bike rider, meanwhile, reportedly fell into the river following the collision, which occurred close to the Italian team’s hotel near Glasgow’s Exhibition Centre.
“I wanted to do two hours to stretch my legs ahead of tomorrow,” the 28-year-old former world champion said at the time. “Francesco and I went out and we got on to this narrow cycle path, with this blind left half-turn, and this other cyclist on an e-bike was coming from the other side, with panniers, carrying quite a bit of weight.
“I tried to avoid him by turning to the left but from what I remember he hit me on the right shoulder with his helmet. I did some x-rays, my collarbone is slightly chipped, the left scaphoid is broken.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, 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
- chrisonabike 3 sec ago
Chalk up another data point for something like Jevons Paradox / "what our fathers called luxuries, we term necessities" / keeping up with the...
- Miller 3 min 29 sec ago
That's a shame. He seemed like a decent guy and he had a good no-fuss website. Bought a few things from him over the years and he was contactable...
- chrisonabike 6 min 9 sec ago
(Brunel pictured next to an early bike lock).
- Blackthorne 1 hour 7 min ago
It's mentioned in benefit #2 in the article...
- levestane 1 hour 19 min ago
Pneu ballon and hookless rims are back, I still have some 27" Birmalux rims in the shed somewhere.
- brooksby 3 hours 8 min ago
Well yes, but it is the holidays
- Bigtwin 3 hours 38 min ago
I have the gross misfortune to live on her "patch". The state of roads policing (and the actual roads) and consequent danger everytime one gets on...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 20 min ago
Thank you for that excellent forensic analysis, I couldn't figure out where I'd gone wrong! Must drink more coffee and put on glasses before trying...
- Cugel 5 hours 27 min ago
Strangely, I've ridden all of those roads/routes you describe (and a lot more in Noerthern England) entirely without a gizmo of any kind, other...
- ktache 5 hours 59 min ago
Effective little things. Even have them on my Good Bike, my least reflectored. Still working through packs of them I got very cheap at Tesco.
Add new comment
65 comments
"Sandison noted that the case would be continued, if necessary, to assess the level of damages" if the judge has already said they are both equally to blame how will he be able to award damages? 🤔
AFAICS only teh claimant is going for damages; I can't see any evidence of a counterclaim.
So at 50:50 the claimant will get half of what is assessed.
I built the cycle routes around here between 1986 and 1994. Quite a lot of vegetation seems to have reduced sightlines here, and the path from Linwood descends off the bridge over the A737.
My jaw dropped to read fractures C3 and C4, as that was very lucky - C1 often = fatal C2 = a wheelchair, unless you're really lucky
As its private land there may be HSE consideration in delivering a less hazardous merging detail but it is hard to navigate the narrative
John Franklin delivered an historic review of cyclist fatalities in Milton Keynes, which were almost entirely on Redways, where issues of speed and sightlines played a role
In NL it is notable that many 'junctions' have flows of cycle traffic 'merging' with curve geometry that tends to have all riders travelling with a closer range of speeds
To the West of the crash site the cycle route was interrupted by a light controlled crossing of Barrochan Road, where the old bridge was removed during the construction of A737 by pass, with a climb up from the crossing point
Tje Judgement on this case has now been published here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-d...
This is why I generally prefer cycling on the road.
So ... nothing much here, except a judge confirming what anyone who's used it should know already. That people certainly view the National Cycle Routes as "just some paths" / "for recreation". And they are not designed for "efficient cycling" or the specific needs of cyclists around safety (otherwise they'd look like e.g. this, or this etc.).
Of course parts certainly can be useful for regular A to B "transport" journeys - I do so myself. But if someone brings this up as e.g. "but there's already provision for cycling" simply point at any flattish surface (a field, a shallow culvert, the middle of a wide road) and enquire whether that was specifically provided for walking.
Also you are legally permitted a hollow laugh when Sustrans is referred to as "a cycling organisation". (TBF they've been getting much better, apparently...)
It would be nice if they referenced what speed they were going and what they determined the safe speed to be...
We *all* know that a "safe speed" is one that is appropriate for the surface, weather conditions, experience of the rider and observation being maintained by the rider.
It would appear from 1) a collision occurred and 2) the comments above from the judge, that the speed being maintained by *both* riders was outside of being "safe".
But his use of twice the safe speed implies he had numbers in mind. If it was more vague wouldn't he say above instead?
He said "about twice".
He didn't say "twice" as a definitive.
You can always ask the judge what he meant ... I know as much as you, although unlike others on this site, I'm not prepared to make a mountain out of a mole hill about it and get twisted over an irrelevance.
Seems a reasonable question to me, it would be nice to understand, given his emphasis on speed as a factor,what he considers the safe speed.
You aren't obligated to reply when someone asks a question you don't think is relevant nor know the answer to.
And nor are you obligated to agree with the pack mentality.
Is this a forum ... or an echo chamber?
If two people travelling at a safe speed collide head on then surely they collide at twice the safe speed?
You may or may not consider this to be relevant to your post but it is one of my all time favorite tv shows.
Mythbusters tested this with cars and decided that two cars crashing head on at 50mph isn't like hitting a wall at 100mph but in fact is the same as each having it's own 50mph crash into a wall.
My post was entirely a joke.
The Mythbusters fact is interesting but does make a lot of sense. A wall tends to be static compared to a stationary car, which I feel would have been a fairer comparison.
Thought so, just needed an excuse to shoehorn in a Mythbusters reference.
From the judgement:
Thanks. Is that saying the safe speed would have been 10 and 7mph? Or that they were going those speeds? If it was the later... 3.5mph is literally your average walking pace.
The respondent on NCN7 was on Strava at 20mph.
The claimant on NCN75 was assessed by his own estimated speed, and his 'expert', at about 13mph.
There is imo enough questionable stuff from the experts accepted by the court that the analysis is not very tenable. I did notes for our local cycling group which I may put on a forum thread.
For example, an 'expert' seems to have quoted current LTN 1/20 design speed guidance for England (Scotland has several design speeds), and not what was in place in 198x or whenever.
The judge mentions safe speed in his comments there, specifically as a factor in the crash, but there's no hint as to what he considered the safe speed was or how they worked out the cyclists were going twice as fast as that ?
I wondered that too. 15mph is supposedly the max recommended speed for shared paths, purpose-built ones like this should surely be designed to permit that so is he really suggesting both riders were doing 30mph? Laughable if so.
It's guidance more than a rule, in England at least, not sure about Scottish rules.
But I'm sure we've all met pedestrians on shared paths who see safe speed to be no quicker than their walking pace.
LTN 1/20 is 25mph I believe on recommednation for radii, sight-lines etc.
Sustrans simply suggest "When riding a bike, travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions and ensure you can stop in time."
Of course I believe that this doesn't apply if the sun is in your eyes
PS I actually thought that 12mph was the suggested max speed on a bi-directional shared used path.
The safe speed when approaching a junction is clearly going to be substantially less than the safe speed on a straight, open path away from a junction. The mere fact that the cyclists ploughed into each other is demonstrative of unsafe speed in the situation.
Looking at the respective journeys (Glengarnock-Anniesland and Renfrew-Lochwinnoch) it's hard to see any other viable routes than both were on NCN7 and collided head-on, no turning (or steep descents from NCN75). Re the judge's speed comments, I remain unconvinced that they were warranted - virtually any speed on any vehicle is unsafe if the operator's not paying attention (as it appears at least one mustn't have been).
Anyway, it's a shame that two people doing a reasonable commute by bike (16 miles one-way as the crow flies for the 66yo) ended up in a serious injury and court.
See also: Hoarseman's post below identifying the junction.
No more need for speculation from me (or others) - the judgement's now been published
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-d...
TLDR; Rashomon with aerobars and speed experiments
With added John Franklin (Mr Vehicular Cycling) - does he not hate off-road routes anyway?
Another photo of the junction here: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1183111
very interesting, cheers.
and it nicely documents the speeds, 13.4mph and 20.1mph, though Im not sure Im fully on board with their accuracy.
the judge is saying then a safe speed is 7-10mph. I doubt the majority of cyclists who use shared paths to get around, even with a junction like this, ride at those speeds.
Pages