Teenage cyclist killed in collision with driver “should have been on footpath”, inquest hears

NOtotheEU wrote:

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.

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.

Sriracha wrote:

 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.

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:

Quote:

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.

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.

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 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-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 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 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 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 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:

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.

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.