Drivers who passed a teenage cyclist on a rural road moments before he was fatally struck by another motorist told police that he “should have been on the footpath”.
Police collision investigator Nigel Varney also told the inquest into 17-year-old Charlie Cornick’s death that the teenager, whose mother had passed away just weeks before the tragic incident, was “not clearly visible” at the time of crash and had failed to follow the Highway Code’s recommendations that “cyclists should always wear light or reflective clothing and have working lights and a suitable helmet”.
Apprentice mechanic Cornick was cycling home from work on the A170 between Kirkbymoorside and Beadlam, North Yorkshire, just before 5.30pm on 19 November 2021 when he was hit from behind by a driver and thrown onto the car’s windscreen near Welburn crossroads.
The 17-year-old, who suffered a serious head injury in the collision, was flown to James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough, where he died the following morning.
The teenager’s tragic death came just weeks after his mother, Susi Cornick, passed away from a terminal illness, aged 46.
The driver who struck Charlie, 26-year-old Rachel Adams, was not arrested or charged in relation to the incident.
“Not clearly visible”
Earlier this week, an inquest at Northallerton’s County Hall heard that several drivers who passed Charlie on the unlit A170 remarked that the cyclist was not clearly visible and “should have been on the footpath”, the Yorkshire Post reports.
According to the inquest Cornick, who was travelling home from his job at Kirkby Mills Garage to a rented property in Nawton at the time of the collision, was wearing dark clothing and did not have working lights or reflectors attached to his bike.
Charlie had told family members that he cycled primarily on the pavement during his commute along the A170, apart from a short section of 50 metres where the path stops, and where the collision took place.
Kirkby Mills Garage’s co-owner Paul Grayson, who gave Charlie the mountain bike after his mother was unable to drive him to work, told the inquest that he had spoken to the 17-year-old about road safety and had advised him to use lights, wear a helmet, and not to have earphones in while cycling.
Grayson, who said that he “cared deeply” about the teenager and was devastated by his death, also noted that Charlie usually wore a reflective jacket but was not wearing it on the night he died.
> Cyclist’s bike ‘snapped in half’ in fatal collision, inquest hears
Motorist Rachel Adams, who lives locally and went to school with Charlie’s sister, told the inquest that she had been travelling at 50mph on the A170 but had slowed as she approached the crossroads. Adams claimed she did not see Charlies as she was “dazzled” by an oncoming car’s lights, and was unable to swerve to avoid the cyclist because another driver was passing in the other direction at the time of the collision.
Nigel Varney, North Yorkshire Police’s collision investigator, said that there was a “clearly defined footpath” along the A170 with a short break section. Varney added that when the scene was searched, a non-working USB light – believed to have belonged to Charlie – was found, but that no lights or reflectors were fitted to the bike.
The investigator also noted that a visibility study established that at 50-60mph, Charlie would only have been visible for between four to five metres in darkness. Varney concluded that Charlie was “not clearly visible”, before pointing to the Highway Code’s recommendations that “cyclists should always wear light or reflective clothing and have working lights and a suitable helmet”.
Senior coroner for North Yorkshire, Jon Heath, recorded a conclusion of death in a road traffic collision.
“A gifted, incredible young man”
“Before she died, Mum depended on Charlie and they were so close,” the teenager’s sister, Ashleigh Brown, said after the inquest. “He had to grow up quickly and he was fiercely independent. Charlie could go into a room with a million people and come out with a million friends. He never excluded anyone and had a heart of gold.
“His personality was so rich. He partied a bit, but nothing excessive. He could turn his hand to any sport – he did regional-level athletics with our brother Jake, football and parkour. He was a gifted, incredible young man.”

She added: “Charlie’s death has changed the dynamics of our family. His funeral was on his 18th birthday and he is buried with Mum. People have been so kind.
“I know the driver and she isn’t a bad person. I loved my baby brother and I will make sure my son knows all about his uncle.”
In the wake of Charlie’s death, friends renewed a campaign to install a cycle path on the notoriously dangerous A170.
Marcie Hughes, whose son was a close friend of Charlie, told the Gazette and Herald last year: “In light of the tragic accident on the A170, I urge Ryedale District Council to consider pushing forward the plans for the Kirkbymoorside cycle path.”
The Ryedale Cycle Forum, working alongside the Kirkbymoorside Environment Group and Kirkbymoorside Town Council, have launched an appeal to raise funds for the installation of an 800m segregated cycling and walking route on the A170, which the group says will mark the “first stage” of a cycling and walking network connecting Kirkbymoorside and Helmsley, through the villages of Nawton, Beadlam, and Wombleton.
Hughes added: “Had the path been in place at 5.30pm on a winter evening, our dear Charlie might still be with us. Instead, I have spent the week comforting my youngest son and his friends, as they try to come to terms with the senseless loss of their beloved friend.
“They are 17-year-old boys – traumatised, devastated and utterly bewildered. Surely this must now be considered to be a priority and possibly named in memory of Charlie.”

72 thoughts on “Teenage cyclist killed in collision with driver “should have been on footpath”, inquest hears”
More signs that the highway
More signs that the highway code is apparently about to be updated to legalise cycling on footpaths /s
Also worth noting that the footpath cuts out at those crossroads.
Quote:
I hope that was robustly challenged. Firstly, the speed of “50-60mph” should have no bearing on the throw of the car’s headlamps so I can’t understand how it affects the distance of visibility. Secondly, are we to believe that at night whilst driving with headlamps motorists can only see unlit objects four to five metres ahead of them? The end of the bonnet is probably one metre ahead of them, so the investigator is asking us to believe that motorists are only aware of what is three to four metres ahead of impact and that is situation normal.
Several other drivers managed not to hit the cyclist, why not this driver? Until simpler and more likely explanations have been exhausted – that the driver was on their phone – I don’t think we should be sidetracked by more fanciful hypotheses.
Sriracha wrote:
Mostly agree. The first part of what I’ve quoted: they probably passed when he was on the footway. It seems he was on the carriageway for a short section.
I don’t think we need to find reasons like being on a mobile – plausible though it is – when basic inattention or ability to adapt to shorter range visibility are sufficient criticisms.
The fundamental requirement on a driver is not to continue along any part of the road you can’t see to be clear to the extent that you can stop within that clear part of the road.
The driver’s excuse that oncoming traffic stopped her from swerving us a red herring on two counts:
– swerving is not a dependable response to a hazard (oncoming traffic; risk that the cyclist might also swerve into new path)
– if she recognised the need to swerve, perhaps she did see him, but was outside her ability to deal with it. (I’m mindful that how this was explained in court might have included more nuance than a road.cc summary)
Still, cyclist failed to have lights; and should have had better clothing, given HC guidance and the state of the road. Let’s not give a helmet any credence without more facts. But it remains a driver’s job to see tgat the road is clear
Sriracha wrote:
What concerns me is that the study on visibility is an argument for the prosecution. The Highway Code is fairly clear that you should drive at a speed so that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. If the driver can’t stop within 4-5 metres, then 50-60mph is far too fast for their headlights.
I wonder if the police ever
I wonder if the police ever look to see if a vehicle has automatic or manual headlamp level adjustment?
The number of vehicles I see with their manual level set to the minimum is crazy. Driving along with barely 3 metres of light throw.
Would be interesting to know what level the headlamps of this Tiguan were set to.
Almost certainly self
Almost certainly self-levelling Xenon or LED. I’m not sure recent Tiguans have any other offering.
Which in turn begs the question of why it is being suggested that the headlights are only being claimed to give 5 metres of visibility – a single car length. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I would note that after a drive last light, I was in a car with automatic dipping lights VAG style, and it was impossible to override them when I could see things ahead of the detection system – e.g. the throw of headlights round a bend, not was it possible to switch the system out of automatic once engaged unless the lights were dipped. Back to the manual again. So headlight dazzle from modern “intelligent’ cars is a problem. Edit: have use another switch to set the lights to manual. Not the only person to have been baffled. Most people will not have the gumption to find this out and will live with dazzling people because.
Usually, if you turn the
Usually, if you turn the dipped headlights from ‘auto’ to ‘on’, then the full beam becomes manually operated.
I had a hire car for a week with a matrix auto full beam – an absolute game changer. If it’s an option on my next car, I would get it.
even if theyre self levelling
even if theyre self levelling they can still be set wrong to dazzle, mine were effectively cross eyed when I bought it, because one light was to set to LHD, the other set to RHD, its just a lever on the back of the light instead of having to use those deflector stickers. It might not have passed an MOT like that, but from new it wouldnt have needed one for 3 years.
Interestingly, both our cars
Interestingly, both our cars no longer have a switch, they are designed to fit with the tolerance for RHS and LHS. That might be a problem.
My pet hate is driving lights, used as fashion, replacing broken main lights or selfishly for own vision. They dazzle, and are not designed to be used on clear nights with oncoming traffic, they always dazzle.
well most motorists seem to
well most motorists seem to have trouble identifying stuff immediately beyond their bonnet, how many times do you get overtaken just infront of a red traffic light, so the investigator maybe on to something there.
but I suspect what he was saying is its a lumens/time/space/distance calculation that might have been misquoted, as you are travelling at 22-26metres per second at those speeds, so the 4-5metres thing is saying you only have a quarter of a second to see things in front of you, which is patently nonsense
Quote:
Been puzzling over that one, makes no sense at all, clearly a car’s headlights can pick up objects further than five metres away. One can only assume that the original court report got it wrong and the error has been replicated here and the investigator said Charlie would only have been visible for four to five seconds; at 50mph five seconds is around 100 metres, about the distance full beam headlights are supposed to illuminate. That does of course leave the question as to why the driver didn’t managed to react for five seconds, but it makes more sense than the original statement.
Adams claimed she did not see
Adams claimed she did not see Charlies as she was “dazzled” by an oncoming car’s lights, and was unable to swerve to avoid the cyclist because another driver was passing in the other direction at the time of the collision
BS. Either she couldn’t see him or she did see him but was unable to swerve, not both.
if only she had been driving a car with lights and brakes.
when the scene was searched, a non-working USB light – believed to have belonged to Charlie – was found
I wonder what on earth could have just happened to cause the light to not be working?
the teenager’s sister, Ashleigh Brown . . . . “I know the driver and she isn’t a bad person”
Very forgiving and a credit to her brother.
NOtotheEU wrote:
The carriageway is between 6.5 and 7m wide at that point, with a (narrow) serious hazard crosshatched box. There was room to swerve several feet.
People can blame whoever they
People can blame whoever they like while descending into the depths of “if drivers behaved properly we wouldn’t need cycle lanes”. It doesn’t matter. The lack of safe infrastructure for vulnerable road users ultimately caused this death. Had it been in place, he’d be alive.
I’ve looked on Google Streetview at the crossroads and the path is visible. And look how massively overgrown with years of soil it is. Look how shitty it is, compared to the billiard-table-smooth carriageway. Councils are criminally neglectful of paths like this across the country, and getting them to fix it is nigh-on impossible.
https://goo.gl/maps/vgsPVSJofGMeudXz8
It is entirely typical of
It is entirely typical of North Yorkshire County Council to fail to make decent cycle provision.
They are spending £69 million to realign the A59 at Kex Gill, including £13 million of the council’s own funds. They have a budget of £0 (zero pounds) of their own money for cycling.
literally acres of verge
literally acres of verge where a decent path could be put in.
I don’t do much night driving
I don’t do much night driving now that I WFH so maybe I’m out of practice, but I do find modern headlights to be dazzling, the light is very white and seems to produce areas of sharp contrast. A further contributory factor is that headlights are higher off the road, due to the prevelance of SUVs and trucks (and I note that the Tiguan is sort of a mini-SUV). I drove back from London on Wednesday night and once off the motorway found that I had to drive well below the speed limit to have adequate visibility, and fully dip my rear view mirror due to dazzling from an SUV behind. This was on the same sort of lanes as this tragic case.
Wholeheartedly agree that infrastructure is the primary cause, but I can also believe the driver here, having only avoided a donkey because I was doing 30mph (40 limit) and I had space to swerve into the opposite lane.
I do find the same thing,
I do find the same thing, though I can’t rule out age being in my mid 50s.
Although I do find that a good cross section of people comment on the ‘too much brightness’ of modern lights. Then you get people who put stronger lights on their car but where the car is not designed for them, causing issues.
And don’t get me started on the number where one headlight is out of alignment.
Yesterday’s night experiences
Tesla with offside beam way too high
Driver with one side light, other headlight shining a thin beam about 5m ahead (my bike light is more powerful than that) on an NSL no streetlights.
Driver with one DRL only on an NSL no streetlights
Several new cars with really dazzling lights.
hirsute wrote:
I do think LED lights on new cars should be banned or required to be tinted some degree of yellow like old French cars. The current situation of how bright and dazzling they are even when correctly dipped is just madness.
Interesting choice: “Adams
Interesting choice: “Adams claimed she…was unable to swerve to avoid the cyclist because another driver was passing in the other direction at the time of the collision.”
So she’d rather run over a vulnerable road user than risk sideswiping another motor vehicle? Personally not the choice I’d make. I’d be slamming on the brakes, giving way and hoping the oncoming motorist had the sense to do the same at seeing me coming in their lane.
well I dont know if youve
well I dont know if youve noticed, but Adams approach is pretty much the attitude alot of drivers take towards cyclists on the roads.
cmedred wrote:
Im not sure this is entirely fair. Its likely that as an instinct reaction you would flinch away from the fast and bright moving object in preference to the dark slowly moving one.
I dont think we can assume her reactions were reasonable or thought about in advance.
“Adams claimed she did not
“Adams claimed she did not see Charlies as she was “dazzled” by an oncoming car’s lights”
Highway Code / Country roads / 154
Take extra care on country roads and reduce your speed … at junctions and turnings … Be prepared for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists … Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
Doesnt apply because cyclist maybe? So fed up with biased car-centric judiciary in this country.
“Make sure you can stop
Perhaps now that cars are computerised we need speed governors that activate with the headlights.
Possibly more pertinent in
Possibly more pertinent in this case is Rule 115:
You should […] slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights.
How many years in jail would
How many years in jail would you get in your legal system, if you took a gun and went to a parking lot and shot some random car driver in the head while he was starting his car?
I’d be interested on how this
I’d be interested on how this would be handled in different jurisdictions – NL, DE, FR?
theslowcyclistxx wrote:
And your actual point other than whataboutery is……?
“The Ryedale Cycle Forum,
“The Ryedale Cycle Forum, working alongside the Kirkbymoorside Environment Group and Kirkbymoorside Town Council, have launched an appeal to raise funds (link is external) for the installation of an 800m segregated cycling and walking route on the A170, which the group says will mark the “first stage” of a cycling and walking network connecting Kirkbymoorside and Helmsley, through the villages of Nawton, Beadlam, and Wombleton.”
The final obscenity; to be safe, cyclists have to raise money while driving safely is paid for by all of us.
RIP Charlie.
“4-5 metres” is strange. Do
“4-5 metres” is strange. Do they mean for 4-5 seconds? 4-5 seconds of visibility at 50 mph works out as being visible from a distance of 100 metres, assuming the headlights work and the road is straight. To me this sounds like a lot of time to react?
I think it means when they
I think it means when they think she would have seen him staring into dazzling headlights.
A similar calculation was made iirc in the case of Councillor Paul James iirc, but that was sun dazzle.
The description makes it
The description makes it sound like driving is really dangerous, requires particular specialist skills, and maybe we should rethink the whole thing.
Let’s once more highlight the
Let’s once more highlight the contradictions of the witnesses. They seemed to agree that the cyclist should have been cycling illegally on a pavement that did not exist where he was hit.
Which raises the question, did the council put up warning signs for pedestrians in the road at that section? And would a pedestrian in the road have been expected to be wearing hi-viz, helmet and lights by the court?
As usual (and expected) a big
As usual (and expected) a big pile on about the driver.
A young man lost his life, an absolute tragedy. Yes, the driver is partially culpable however in my opinion the biggest culprit here is Charlie. No reflectors, no lights and dark clothing – on a main and by the sound of it very busy road. Come on everyone, get some perspective.
Of course there’s a lot of
Of course there’s a lot of wrongdoing on the cyclist’s part. The lack of reflectors and lights is illegal.
But I think the main concern was the court finding it ok to be driving at 50mph with 4 metres of visibility.
There are times when driving at night where an oncoming car can momentarily dazzle and make it hard to see the road ahead. But it is only fleeting and prior to that moment the oncoming car headlights actually help illuminate the road beyond the reach of your own headlights. The thing I can’t undertstand is just how long and straight the road is, if you were looking ahead, surely the cyclist would have been illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic?
HoarseMann wrote:
As you also state this things can happen and are momentary – we do not know any more than what we’re read on here. I could surmise that it was a momentary dazzle and it just happened to coincide with when the rider was on the road and in an extremely vulnerable position. All of the other drivers who ‘saw’ him may have seen him on the path as they drove past. Lot of people on here making a lot of assumptions.
Well not a lot about the
Well not a lot about the story made sense to me. The whole “they’d only be visible for 5-6 metres” (others have had a go at that in the comments). The fact that “he should have been on the pavement” – which apparently may not have existed at that point, and it’s not clear whether it’s legal elsewhere. The fact that there was a “non-functional” light found at the scene doesn’t necessarily show it wasn’t working before the collision. The driver was “dazzled” but apparently kept their foot down.
Now it may be that this young man was careless – possibly deliberately so following recent events in his life. I’d say there are several others here who may not be criminally culpable but certainly need to examine their actions e.g. firstly the driver (not driving to conditions), whoever supplied / certified the car (if it turns out that the lights were inadequate / incorrectly adjusted) and the council (failure to provide a safe route – which clearly includes “for pedestrians either”).
I think that is
I think that is mischaracterising it. The pile-on is “The UK’s attitudes to driving” where expecting the world to fit in with cars while not giving people the tools to do so. Yes, the young lad was foolish, but being foolish should not be a death sentence.
As for the driver, there were quite a few bingo points in there, including the idea that swerving to avoid unexpected hazards is a reasonable and safe way of driving, oddly enough, not something I’ve come across in Roadcraft. Not so much the driver, but the typical driverist attitude that roads should be clear of all hazards and therefore dealing with them is an optional extra to which no blame should be attached if they fail.
On that last point, imagine if bird strikes were dealt with in the way of this incident – we shouldn’t expect pilots to deal with them, plan for them and the airports decide not to install or maintain infrastructure to deal with them. If 25,000 people are year we KSI’d flying a year, wouldn’t we expect changes in the aircraft industry?
Yep – reinforced by habit we
Yep – reinforced by habit we have the notion that you should drive only ever expecting to find predictable conditions (which clearly don’t include “poor visibility”, “low sun” etc.). Also habitual is the expectation that the only things you will encounter on the carriageway will be other drivers who are moving in the same direction at similar speed to you and who have the visual signature of another car, or greater.
I’m happy to suggest caution to people when walking, horsing or cycling on the roads and regret when people fail to take measures for their own safety. However I’m also happy to demand more effort to investigate and prosecute those who’ve chosen to bring the extra power and mass of a vehicle to the same situation but have failed to follow the basic rules to ensure the safety of others (and themselves also).
We see this over and over but because “driving is normal” and “but I passed my test” people don’t grasp the asymmetry. Imperfect or even careless behaviour of vulnerable road users is primarily a danger to themselves. A motor vehicle is a force multiplier and makes such faults a danger to the general public.
chrisonatrike wrote:
We should have this comment saved and reposted everytime someone responds to a motorist at fault with ‘What about cyclists running iights/pedestrians on their phones/NO HIGH VIZ’ etc.
Gimpl wrote:
On a main road for the fifty metres where the council had, for whatever reason, decided that there would be no footpath/shared-use path/rutted track made available for him to ride on.
Gimpl wrote:
Other motorists testified that they they did see him, therefore he must have been visible.
So we must ask, given that he was visible, why did Adams not see him. She has answered that question:
“Adams claimed she did not see Charlies as she was “dazzled” by an oncoming car’s lights”.
So the question of Charlie’s lights and reflectors seems to be a red herring. Undoubtedly Charlie could have been ticketed for his regulatory infraction, but it should not be used to draw fire from the real offence here.
Sriracha wrote:
Exactly. She was completely dazzled by the headlights of an oncoming vehicle, to the degree that she couldn’t see anything in front of her in her lane, and she thought that the best course of action was just to carry on at 50mph in a straight line. Not stop and put on her BOLAS. Not even slow down. Just carry right on…
I regularly drive a 50mph
I regularly drive a 50mph limit winding road. In daylight, you can drive it within your visible stopping distance nearly all the way at 50mph, with a bit of speed reduction on a couple of sharper bends (not a roadholding limit, a vision limit).
At night I wouldn’t drive it at more than 40-45 and with oncoming lights dazzling I’ll reduce to 35ish while looking away from the oncoming car to preserve vision.
Without knowing the road, is certainly be questioning whether the speed at night was appropriate on an unlit road. If the person was dazzled, the first question I would ask is did you slow or brake? This doesn’t appear to be part of the thought process here.
I was driving through a local
I was driving through a local village on Saturday evening, going below the 30mph limit, headlights on, no street lamps, no adjacent houses. A road I know very well as I used to live not 100m further back. Approx 30m – 40m in front something caught my eye for just a fraction of a second at road level. I thought it was the glint of an animals eye. I couldn’t see anything else, even when I then tried hard to make out what was there. Only when I got level with it did it become discernible as 4 people, all dark clothing, no reflectives, walking diagonally across the road. I couldn’t believe how hard they were to spot. Gave me a wake up call, especially as my passenger didn’t see them at all until we were literally right on top of them. They totally blended in with the dark background of hedges and road. I presume what I had seen was a slight reflection from a shoe sole or trainer flash or something but just a split second inattention or looking away and I would have missed it and then I would have been in real trouble. If asked after the event to describe what happened, I would have said I saw them but they weren’t at all visible, exactly as described by witnesses here.
And yet those “several” other
And yet those “several” other drivers did see him and did avoid him, so presumably he was more visible than the pedestrians in your case.
I’m not condoning cycling without lights and reflectors at night. But in her own testimony that was not mentioned by the driver as the reason she did not see him.
I am wary of reading too much
I am wary of reading too much into one media report of exactly what was and wasn’t said at the inquest. Personal professional experience tells me media reports are neither 100% accurate or anything like a complete record of what is said in such circumstances. In my case, I didn’t recognise my own testimony from what was reported in the local rag.
Several folks on here saying
Several folks on here saying “I just can’t see them”. Given we’re all clearly careful and observant when out I’m wondering whether there’s some selection bias e.g. average age here? That has numerous effects on vision (as well as our reaction times) although at least for vision it seems it’s a complicated story.
Just wondering if this suggests our rules may need an update for the current reality e.g. larger number of older people driving, changes in car lights and the lighting environment at night in general?
I could’ve used this news
I could’ve used this news article in tutor time at school this morning. I was just talking to my students about road safety and the idea that, while motorists have the highest responsibility for road safety, the highest impact of road safety falls on cycles and then pedestrians as vulnerable road users. It was an interesting discussion (bit one-sided, but my students are 15…). We concluded that yes, motorists do have the responsibility of due care on roads, but after said motorists have caused death or serious injury:
– Arguing about who was responsible isn’t going to bring the dead or seriously injured back. Therefore;
– Vulnerable road users do have to take some ownership of their own safety, but;
– This should be limited to reasonable measures like lights (for cyclists and pedestrians) or reflective clothing and walking facing traffic (for pedestrians – we were undecided there’s a case for high-vis for cyclists in the dark if we already have lights on). So ultimately;
– Motorists are culpable for their actions if they result in the death or serious injury of another road user.
So, I still think this young man was in the wrong if he had not ridden with lights on, but arguing that he was in the wrong doesn’t lessen the responsibility on the motorist, nor should it completely absolve them from punishment – merely mitigate it somewhat.
Given that discussion they
Given that discussion they should potentially lessen the age for learning to 15… but then probably remove all licenses from 18 to death!
I have 5 rear lights on my bike, different heights different patterns and a minimum of 3 on the front. I would potentially be up for mandatory high vis based on a few chenges:
– All cars to be painted high vis (black cars, are they crazy?!?!)
– Immediate 1 year ban for any driver 10% above the speed limit
– 1st ban always a minimum of a year (any offence), 2nd 3 years, 3rd lose license
If we are going to hold cyclists accountable to the Nth degree as a vulnerable road user, why are motorists given many chances (even when caught)?
alansmurphy wrote:
I should probably point that I’m not quoting verbatim, simply acting as interpreter. Teenage mumbling under the breath, shrugs and general chat doesn’t usually translate well to text! However the content of the conversation was right.
I wouldn’t, still, I think. My stance has always been that high vis immediately designates cycling and road use as inherently hazardous activities, which apart from the actions of the notable minority (and bad road users ARE a minority) they are not. I think the optimal end goal should be that sharing roads safely should be an incidental, unquestioned happening. Sanctioning and depriving road users of their privileges if they act dangerously (as per your second two points) would help create this atmosphere. Creating a high-alert atmosphere of high-vis, I argue, would not and might even put new road users off riding bicycles completely.
Twas mostly flippant with the
Twas mostly flippant with the high vis but a price I would pay for the other 2 things.
I don’t share your belief that the majority are not bad road users, cycling at commuting time I’d say around 50% are giving 1.5 metres before adding speeding, inattention etc.
alansmurphy wrote:
Just this. There’s a yawning gap between what is required in law – for example bikes can be sold without lights! – and what people feel is necessary to compensate for the deficiencies of others. Or the unsympathetic criminal / civil legal system.
Such a gap doesn’t appear to apply in the case of motorised traffic. Yes – the emergency services / specialised work vehicles are sticking extra hi-vis / lights on, but I’m not a paramedic or policeman on my bike. I’ve bought up a bunch of reflectives this autumn to dress the bikes but I’m not seeing people do that with their cars. Why is that?
I would not. I think it is more hassle for cyclists (who already legally have reflectors and lights after dark) and I don’t think it would make a huge difference to collision figures. This is because many of them appear to be:
– failure to look at all. Could be phone use, could be “blind spot” (so you didn’t look around that) etc. You can’t possibly see if you’re not even looking
– driver overloaded. They may have noticed the vulnerable road user but they were trying to handle too many inputs at once (e.g. watch something else as well, carry out a manoeuver, deal with a child, talk on the phone…)
– other rule-breaking. Over speed limit, too fast for conditions, incorrect position on road, intoxicated, unlicenced …
– deliberate
See another one just posted today – come on trollsters, have a go! Perhaps “she’s on a dark coloured bike”, “she should have lights which shine on both sides like cars do er…”, “her tyres aren’t reflective”, maybe “driver was looking through her spokes and didn’t see the bike”…
Exactly and pretty much
Exactly and pretty much confirms my stance on it too. It’s all about perspective.
Cyclist collides with
Cyclist collides with pedestrian in the road and kills them. Police go to great lengths to re-enact riding a bike without a front brake to prove this was the reason the pedestrian was killed and its all the fault of the cyclist and jail them.
Driver collides with cyclist and kills them. Ah it was dark, and it was only a cyclist. Nothing to see here, move along.
This was an appalling
This was an appalling incident made worse by a terrible result in court. My sympathies are with the victim’s family. RIP
To be clear, this was a
To be clear, this was a Coroner’s Inquest, not a trial. Coroner’s Inquests are “limited, fact-finding inquiries” and “Coroners are no longer able to consider criminal liability as part of their investigations”. The conclusion of “death in a road traffic collision” would seem to be the most suitable one available to the Coroner in this instance. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coroners
Get out of here with your
Get out of here with your facts. Where are the baying mob supposed to stick their pitchforks now eh?
Yes – but they can also issue
Yes – but they can also issue narratives and make “Prevention of Future Death Reports” – and the latter definitely have featured where e.g. the coroner queried some aspect of e.g. a road design.
I wonder how many of the
I wonder how many of the motoring witnesses used their indicators while passing the lad prior to the collision?
It seems that warning other vehicles around that you are passing slower traffic is not necessary anymore.
I wonder how much more time the unfortunate lady driver would have had to be aware of the victim if the cars in front of her had indicated as they passed the young man.
It’s a real bugbear of mine as if there is a line of cars overtaking in a short space of time, by the time it gets to the 4th/5th driver whoever is being overtaken is literally beneath their wheels before they are seen.
Instead of questioning whether the lad should have been on the pavement, perhaps these witnesses should be asking what could they have done better to avoid the situation in the first place.
Just a suggestion, but using your indicators isn’t just for turning corners.
I am outraged at the
I am outraged at the criticism levelled at the vulnerable road user. AKA. A human being.
The path was inaccessible and cars have lights. Sure. He made mistakes but a human being HAS been snuffed out and no one dares to question the driving performance? Poor lad. RIP.
Fignon's ghost wrote:
Nice double-think there. Better not criticise the cyclist because they’re a human being, we all should be criticising the car driver (who presumably isn’t?).
I’m surprised that the cyclist died tbh. Quite a few commenters have recently put me right about how much safer it is to cycle without a helmet, especially when it comes to head injuries. It seems that this young lad wasn’t wearing one, so surely he should have been fine, right guys?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
For fucks sake, that is bad. Using someone’s death to bolster an argument that you’ve had BTL.
Please delete.
Oh. Ffs. You’re such a
Oh. Ffs. You’re such a clickbait cnut…
I think it was Human League who said it best:
I’m only human
Of flesh and blood I’m made
Human
Born to make mistakes
Fignon's ghost wrote:
But by your logic the cyclist is human but the car driver isn’t.
And you’re using the death of a cyclist to vilify motorists, and I’m the cnut. Ok then.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
If you’re referring to our discussion, then you’re badly mis-characterising it. As others have said, this thread isn’t the right place to continue it and please have a bit of respect for the victim’s family and friends.
I have 2 questions about the
I have 2 questions about the Police evidence:
If the driver said she was doing 50mph and was slowing, why did the Police Officer quote the visibility period for someone travelling at 50-60mph
and
2) What evidence is there that the rear light was broken before the impact?
Re: the rear light. The
Re: the rear light. The garage owner*, who gave him the bike so he could still be an apprentice at the garage when his mum couldn’t drop him off, stated the bike didn’t have any lights or reflectors. So the light found at the scene was not probably not his anyway. (Plus other vehicle operators who did avoid him stated he had no lights).
The crash investigators evidence does seem suspect in lots of ways (4-5 metres viewing distance?) but I think one rather obvious case of error seems to be that apparently the footpath only disappears for 50m at the crossing. Weirdly it seems to be missing for 1500metres on Streetview. Where they classing the layby on the other side of the road “the footpath”?
*Apparently he treated him like a son. He obviously is not bothered about supplying a road-worthy bike to his son, or paying him pittance to work at the garage. Just that he could turn up reliably.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
????????
Apprentice: £4.81 per hour.
Apprentice: £4.81 per hour.
edit: Actually was £4.30 during 2021.
good point – presumably the
good point – presumably the driver was doing less than 50 at the junction. If she was dazzled by lights coming the other way she should have slowed to ensure she didn’t hit a pedestrian or an animal crossing the road.
This thread leaves a bad
This thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Those assigning blame to the vunerable road user should not have a look at themselves. This is a tragic series of events which led to a young mans death. Any blame should lie within the hierarchy of road users and in my eyes, as a cyclist, I would want/expect no less than drivers to be able to come to a halt or slow in all conditions when unforseen obstacles appear, e.g. be in control of their vehicle at all times.
The cyclist could have been a cow, or a sheep, or a pedestrian none of which require lights. Blame isn’t the issue here, education for everyone of the dangers facing users of our roads is a solution, alongside harsher punishments for driving offences and a change in the law in seeing having a driving licence as a privilege and not a right.