- 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
Simon Richardson of Endura (via Facebook)Questions remain over death of cyclist in Oxfordshire, says coroner
A coroner has said that questions remain unanswered over the death of a cyclist in Oxfordshire after a leading lawyer told an inquest that contrary to the police’s assertion that Simon Richardson, aged 58, was killed when he crashed into a tree with no other vehicles involved, a close-passing driver was to blame for the fatal crash, reports the Henley Standard.
The inquest at Oxford Coroner’s Court heard that Mr Richardson, who worked as UK and international sales manager for the cycle clothing brand Endura, was a hugely experienced cyclist and had set out on the morning of 4 April last year – Easter Sunday – for a ride from his home in Windlesham, Surrey.
> Endura pays tribute to sales manager Simon Richardson
He was discovered in a ditch by the side of Marlow Road near Henley on Thames with multiple injuries to the left side of his body and in cardiac arrest, and died at the scene.
Endura’s co-founder Jim McFarlane told the inquest: “Simon was a cycling obsessive — he was an expert.
“The chances of him crashing his bike while taking a drink from his water bottle are very small and just not credible.”
One witness, Katrina Fox, who was in a car being driven by her partner David Pratt, said that they had overtaken Mr Richardson, who seemed to be experiencing some trouble.
“We had been walking around Stonor Park and as we were coming up to Marlow Road there were lots of cyclists around,” she said.
Ms Fox said: “We are used to cyclists so we waited until it was safe to overtake.
“But he had started to move in a way that was not normal so after we overtook him we turned back to see if we could see him.
“Something in the way his bike was moving caught my attention and I couldn’t see him on the road anymore.
“As we were overtaking him he got a bottle out but I didn’t see him taking a drink.
“I wasn’t sure what happened to him and all that I was thinking was that we should find somewhere to stop to help.”
The pair turned round and returned to the crash scene, where Mr Richardson was already being treated by Ana Maria Craciun, who had been driving home with her partner when she spotted the cyclist and stopped to try and help him.
But representing Mr Richardson’s family, Martin Porter QC – himself a highly experienced cyclist who has worked on a number of high-profile cycling-related cases – told the inquest that the passenger side wing mirror of the car Ms Fox was travelling in with her partner, who was driving, was damaged and said it was his belief that Mr Pratt was responsible for the fatal crash.
“What I suggest really happened is that Mr Richardson was forced out of the road by Mr Pratt driving too close,” he said.
The motorist insisted however that the damage to the wing mirror had happened several years earlier, and told the inquest: “There was a queue and it became obvious that there was a cyclist ahead of us.
“After we overtook him, we were trying to look behind us to find out what happened. We turned around towards Henley and we saw a car had stopped.”
In response, Mr Porter said: “I’m going to suggest that you could not see where he was and you misjudged the speed and his position on the road.
“I’m suggesting you were expecting him to be closer to the side of the road and you were so close to him, he had to come off the road and your passenger was aware of that and that was why she told you to stop.”
Thames Valley Police forensic collision investigator Luke Webb, who attended the scene, said that officers already present had told him that Mr Richardson, whom he estimated was travelling at 42kph, had crashed into a tree.
“I was not able to identify the point of impact and there might not be a point of impact,” he said. “Mr Richardson could have just fallen off his bike.
“I found no evidence that he was struck by a vehicle, there was no evidence that the bicycle had collided with another vehicle.
“It is possible that he became distracted by taking a drink and riding with one hand. He also could have been distracted by other vehicles driving by.”
Recording a narrative finding, Coroner Joanna Coleman said: “There are still a number of unanswered questions.
“Simon was a very experienced cyclist and prior to the incident he had been overtaken but there’s no evidence that he was struck by a vehicle.
“It’s possible that he became distracted as the overtaking took place but that is not clear,” she added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- HoarseMann 1 hour 40 min ago
Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities......
- HoarseMann 1 hour 58 min ago
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 4 min ago
I agree she might have chosen a different cycle/clothing combo there. Still, if you're riding with a long coat - or indeed a skirt, or bell...
- wtjs 2 hours 44 min ago
no one cares enough to fix it...
- wtjs 2 hours 53 min ago
I won't be getting anything on Friday...
- I love my bike 4 hours 46 min ago
It's in the land of the sidewalk, for better or worse, that driving 'right of way' does exist. . . and many other things they can keep as well!
- IanGlasgow 5 hours 57 min ago
CHPT3 is in receivership. Their website replaced by this notice. https://chpt3.com/
- Paul J 6 hours 26 min ago
So Froome basically chickened out on actually trying against Contador?...
- Supervet 6 hours 43 min ago
I have started holding my breath for 5 x 30 seconds, that increases EPO, rebreathers not required....
Add new comment
30 comments
The only people to see him wobble were also the people in the car with the broken mirror; coincidence? And they went back? At the very least this case deserved thorough investigation, which doesn't seem to have happened. As others have pointed out, the briefest examination of MoT records would show if the mirror had been damaged for years.
If the mirror did hit the cyclist most likely the damage would be to the forward-facing housing, as far as I know that wouldn't be an MOT fail or noted, that would only be if the glass was damaged.
This is why I never ride without a camera. The police may ignore all the close passes and inconsiderate driving but hopefully they'll view the footage when I'm killed and the offending motorist will be brought to book.
RIP Simon and condolences to his nearest and dearest.
I absolutely agree. If some cnut thinks he can take me out for whatever reason. I want my front bar and under saddle 4k, wideangle gopro to cuff the bastard.
Everyone out cycling should cover themselves back to front.
Car insurers are getting away with murder. They are using the lack of evidence to stop paying out for those personal injury claims.
The insurers want us to have big brother in the car (Cameras, blackbox etc). All cyclists should do the same.
CYCLISTS...
WEAR A CAMERA FRONT AND BACK.
THERE'S NO EXCUSE.
Whilst I agree with the ideal of running front and back cameras, they do cost quite a bit, they need recharging, they add weight and you need to remove them if parking your bike up somewhere.
A better solution is if all motor vehicles are fitted with black box type cameras (i.e. not user tamperable) as they can be attached to the battery, and fitted permanently. As they don't need to be waterproof (inside cars) and wouldn't need an additional battery, they can be significantly cheaper.
Surely the solution is just to have another cyclist carry them? To adequately cover front and rear you'll need two but it's better to go for some redundancy in case of failure to charge / other cyclists getting dropped / motor vehicle hitting more than one. To save space on the roads and ensure best fields of view they should probably double / triple up too.
If only there was poster on here who wasn't afraid to speak out of turn - who could propose such a sensible road safety measure? Alas, it seems they disappeared due
to their own unsavoury actionsbullying.As tech improves, bike cams should become smaller and better, but it's irksome that the victims of road crime should be the ones responsible for purchasing and running cameras just to enable justice (for some interpretations of that word) to be done.
I'd like to see a new "danger" tax introduced for all drivers of motorised vehicles (maybe base it on a combination of the vehicle's weight and top speed) that's put into a pool that pedestrians, cyclists, horsists etc. can use to purchase any safety equipment (including cameras) that they deem necessary to be able to mix with the more dangerous traffic.
There are those fuckwit motorists out there who enjoy games of cat n mouse with cyclists. They target cyclists. Their ignorance is appalling.
We have to SNAP them and get plod to notice them at every opportunity.
I actually suspect that day is much closer than the day all cyclists run camera's.
I suspect collecting a car's footage as evidence will become a thing in a few more years. Assuming plod bother of course.
Assuming plod bother of course
The modus operandi of the police is selective collection of evidence, and ignoring the evidence they don't like. That's why the implicit assumption in this topic that many problems would be solved by 'black box cameras' is likely to be incorrect. The excuse Stagecoach gave for this from their on-bus video was that the driver had to pull over onto me because there was a car coming the other way and he wanted to avoid an otherwise inevitable collision. What a saint that driver must be!
For the sake of 250 grams. My camera set up is essential. A couple of spare batteries are 50 grams. So what?
If you don't wear cameras you should stick to cycle paths only.
We all know there's a marked difference in driver behaviour just from the visuals of a cycle camera. But it's for those moments where the driver really is utterly ignorant. Cyclists have a duty to report bad motoring behaviour. If its not you this time. It'll be someone else the next.
There's no excuse. All road cycling should come with a compulsory camera requirement. Regardless of your skillset.
"...could have been distracted by other vehicles driving by."
What, as in, "Fuuuuck that was closer than close they actually made contact"? Yeah, that might distract you.
Imo. If his body didn't show evidence of that tell tale slap from the wing mirror. You can expect the handlebar took it instead. It's got a 42cm+ width and is always the most senior protrusion. Hence the tree collision.
It's just sad to see a lack of intelligence and evidence. Yet a massive abundance of ignorance.
RIP.
This whole story makes me feel sick
"Mr Pratt said the wing mirror had been broken for a number of years and had come off the week before."
I really hope this was not taken at face value and some proof was obtained. Surely the car would have passed multiple CCTV/ANPR cameras within a week. It wouldn't take much investigative work to corroborate this claim.
Yeah - should check whether that was the case. So often in these cases what appear to be very likely lies are accepted without challenge. "The cyclist swerved in front of me". Again - don't have the info but it does seem that lots of these cases involve a collective shrug - "we'll never know the truth". I suspect some more investigation might be possible. (Not that it would be as much in most such cases but compare the level of detail in investigations by e.g. the Rail Accident / Marine Accident investigation boards).
Plus it comes across as another version of the incompetence paradox. That's where you use the fact that you drove badly in some other way / did something else wrong as your defence. Like "The sun was in my eyes" or "I could not have brake-checked him - because my brakes weren't working." "Oh, OK then, case dismissed".
It stinks to high heaven. Without some basic police work on when and how this mirror was smashed, it just reeks of prejudice and negligence.
I mean, the guy could have wobble getting a bottle out, which I've never experienced, seen or heard of, certainly not from an experienced cyclist. But equally, he could have been hit by a meteorite. Both are unlikely in the extreme.
The first thing I would do is get on the DVLA website and check the MOT history. If the wing mirror was damaged, that ought to be flagged up as an advisory at least.
How hard can it be forensically to distinguish between a freshly broken wing mirror, and one broken years ago where rain and road grime has permeated the fracture line and the edges have dulled? But yeah, I guess you'd have to look and take note, like as if you wanted to get to the truth.
Thinking more on this and the comments today about "but finite resources" I'd actually be OK - while we're getting things improved - with:
All I know is the way the current priorities / focus rests when it comes to "walking, wheeling and cycling" although they say this is desirable it is down somewhere around or below "ensuring proper supplies of paper towels for the office toilets" in the day-to-day priorities of many of these organisations.
* I highly recommend having a look at some of these. I think the MAIB ones are probably the simplest. They also cover one of the least-regulated sectors so may be a closer fit to the roads. It's certainly worth it to understand what such bodies might help with and might not. Yes, these can be rather long reads with some technical jargon. Yes you're essentially looking at a forensic analysis of someone else's bad (or last) day. However like police procedurals the chain of events which lead up to a disaster and following the process of investigation is oddly fascinating.
It stinks to high heaven. Without some basic police work on when and how this mirror was smashed, it just reeks of prejudice and negligence
When it's you you probably won't get any basic police work- there will be the police dream evidence: the insufficient evidence, because they make sure it's insufficient. I'm afraid I'm repeating myself here but this just came through today and it may be useful for others to know how badly the police behave- I have at least used a different photo from the other topic! I have tried for 5 months to obtain an official Lancashire Constabulary admission about what was done with this very close pass by a Stagecoach bus on 1.10.21. The online report was submitted along with a 44 MB HEVC FHD video, and a 5 MB .pdf file containing many stills. The final reply from OpSnap Lancs was:
PE01544286GJHBB – No Further Action – No offence made out.
You may think your local force is not as bent as Lancashire and you may be right, but you won't know until you or your surviving relatives put them to the test
I recommend you read the article in the link - but be warned its horrifying.
Its especially worrying that so much weight appears to given to the the accident investigator presuming a bottle wobble. (What does this guy know about cycling?)
I'm pretty cack handed and have dropped my bottle several times but never come near to losing control - and given I'm still on stabilisers compared to this guy I find the possibility dubious indeed.
Feel for his family.....
Read the article and I am dumfounded. Damage to nearside wingmirror, bike moving in a way that was not normal (primary position perhaps?), reaching for a bottle when being overtaken and doing 26 mph (I doubt it), passenger looked back to see if the cyclist was ok (why)? It doesn't make sense.
That stretch of road is a 30mph going to 40mph and seems to be pan-flat apart from a short section that drops a few feet. So he was likely travelling close to the speed limit. The strava segment has a name that implies drivers tend to speed down there.
Awful for his family that they are left with so many unanswered questions.
I agree that a "bottle wobble" is unlikely in those circumstances, especially for a rider as experienced as he was.
There could be reasons other than being close passed by a car, unfortunately there is just not enough evidence to prove anything.
I wouldn't rule anything out. It coud be that he was close passed or been struck but could it not equally be that he suffered a heart attack while riding which may have been the reason he seemed to be riding erratically.... that could have resulted in him falling off the bike.
I do feel sympathy for the family that they never recieved any answers or closure in relation to the incident
Yes, it's possible a medical episode could explain it. A few years ago whilst on an organised group ride, a very experienced rider failed to slow or turn at the bottom of a descent. I didn't see the collision, but other members of the group said they were just motionless on the bike, no shout, no reaction. Sadly they were very seriously injured.
There could be reasons other than being close passed by a car, unfortunately there is just not enough evidence to prove anything.
I wouldn't rule anything out. It coud be that he was close passed or been struck but could it not equally be that he suffered a heart attack while riding which may have been the reason he seemed to be riding erratically.... that could have resulted in him falling off the bike.
[/quote]
I'd say there's enough to call bullshit on the passengers story or at least further investigate it. Nobody in a car has ever given such consideration to my riding, turned to check I'm ok and/or come back...
Totally with you on this... I can't understand why anyone would not question the witness account more rigourously.
Surely the idea that someone would turn around due to nothing more than a hunch is questionable at best. Why didn't the car infront do the same, or the car behind, why only this car?
The one car with the damaged left wing / door mirror? Driven by someone keen to emphasise that they had been around cyclists all day and were consciously courteous towards them.
I think the problem here is that its far easier for the authorities etc. to believe the accident explanation. It avoids so much police work, court time, costs blah blah blah.
Absolutely, and from the accounts it sounds like the first responder on the scene decided Simon had hit a tree so everyone seeks to accept that rather than question it.
Nothing will ease the family pain but this can only hurt them further!
"Hitting the tree" might have caused his death without really being the reason he died.
The reason he died, for example, might have been someone clipping him with the mirror on the side of their car, causing him to come off the road and causing him to hit the tree.
This is the problem. The entire system is set up to deal with collisions between cars or pedestrians being run over. Nobody with expertise of any other mode of transport is part of the investigation. So, the driver comes up with a story that they think sounds reasonable ("he wobbled") - because in their mind, that's what cyclists do, isn't it? They wobble all over the road, because they've only got two wheels. And the police simply accept it, because they also think that cyclists simply wobble all over the road, apropos of nothing. Nobody even seems to have considered the counterpoint that leaving sufficient room to pass safely would have meant that even if the cyclist had wobbled, he would have collided with fresh air.
There's so much about the story that doesn't add up that there has to be more to it.