Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Speeding driver won't face prosecution over cyclist's death due to lack of speed limit sign

Cyril Harrison sustained fatal injuries after collision in Norwich on road coroner says presents a "significant risk" to cyclists...

A speeding driver who killed a cyclist in Norwich will not be prosecuted because the road the fatal crash took place on did not display the correct signage notifying drivers of the speed limit, reports the Eastern Daily Press.

An inquest last week at Norfolk Coroner’s Court also heard that lack of enforcement regarding people parking cars on the road where Cyril Harrison sustained fatal injuries created a danger to cyclists, because they force other motorists into the contraflow cycle lane.

According to evidence given by a police officer, that was not a factor in this case, with CCTV footage showing that Mr Harrison was riding outside the cycle lane when he was involved in a head-on collision with a Ford Fiesta driven by Craig Hawkes.

The victim died in Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, on 25 January 2016. He had been taken there after the collision on Newmarket Road, Norwich, two and a half months earlier on 9 November 2015.

The cause of death was given as respiratory failure, with the 67-year-old also sustaining spinal and chest injuries.

The motorist did not respond when evidence was presented to the inquest that suggested he was driving at 45mph in a 30mph zone.

He told the court: “I saw a light in the distance and assumed it was a cyclist,” he said. “I could see his head was down towards the ground as if he was looking at his feet.

“I had no chance to avoid him. I hit the brake hard and he hit the front of my vehicle and went up over the bonnet.”

Safety concerns regarding the stretch of road concerned had been raised in a survey of the site and will be addressed under Norwich’s Cycle City Ambition project, police collision investigator PC Paul McKay told the court.

He also said that had the motorist been travelling at 30mph, or if Mr Harrison had been riding within the cycle lane, the collision may not have happened.

“The contraflow system precludes any vehicle from travelling in the cycle lane, but with there being no enforcement for parking - any vehicle that did would force other vehicles into the cycle lane,” he said.

“By saying it is a mandatory cycle lane we are forcing people to do something they should not be doing.

“A speed repeater sign was missing which presents issues in terms of any prosecution for speed. If the signage is incorrect it is a legal defence to the offence of speeding.”

He added: “Had Mr Hawkes been travelling at 30 when he began to react it is possible the injuries would not have been so severe or the collision might have been avoided.

“Had Mr Harrison remained in the cycle lane it is likely the collision would not have occurred.”

The fatal crash was witnessed by former police officer Steven Jones, who retired just a fortnight later.

“The first thing I noticed was a white light which flew through the air,” he said.

“What caught my attention was a light going from the sky down to the ground. It was followed by something in fluorescent clothing.

“I thought somebody had thrown a Guy Fawkes into the road - it was surreal.”

Mr Jones added: “The cycle helmet had actively cut off his air supply so I removed the helmet and started chest compressions.

“In the space of minutes somebody identified herself as a doctor and together we kept him stable until paramedics arrived.”

Coroner Yvonne Blake said she would contact Norfolk County Council to request details of works planned for the road where Mr Harrison was killed, which she concluded presents a “significant risk” to cyclists.

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.

Add new comment

38 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like

That's a road and cycle lane?

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 6 years ago
1 like

I'm still trying to work out what the speed limit has to do with anything.
Hit a tree? Blame the speed limit signs. Really don't see any logic in this.

Avatar
antigee | 6 years ago
1 like

Terribly sad - badly designed road contributed big time but presumably the investigating officer for some reason put successfully prosecuting the speeding driver in the too difficult box and used the information which he probably would have to provide to the drivers defence to cut off prosecution rather than build a case that over rode the issues identified.

Bit puzzled as to Mr Harrison's road position shown in the cctv and in google streetview its location easily identifiable by the triangular warning sign - the 5 year old street view shows weeds and poor surface in the cycle lane but as a cyclist I'd suggest that Mr Harrison was probably nearly completing his move into the cycle lane having used the extensive area of dropped kerb just beyond the car in the image below (by the ivy covered pole) to cross the traffic lane (rather than the short section signed for cyclists a further 50m or so up the road)  The image shows what it shows but  as hard evidence that he continued outside the cycle lane is speculative unless the crash scene evidence was conclusive.  Surely  the drivers speed and failure to respond must be considered as being at least careless driving.   Without all the facts and reports its very hard to feel that the outcome fits, though sadly  maybe a jury  would decide its's just one of those things and not a crime.

Incidentally the triangular warning sign in the CCTV image is a "Beware Cyclists" warning presumably because cyclists would be crossing in the next 100m - in the 5year old google street view it doesn't face the traffic though!

 

 

Avatar
WillRod | 6 years ago
1 like

I have used contraflow cycle lanes a few times. Cycling that close to incoming traffic was not fun, even in a 20mph zone. 

In my view they are a half-arsed attempt to broaden cycle networks. In a medieval town, they may be one of the few ways to provide cycle lanes, but in this instance there was plenty of space to widen the road and make proper provision. Cost cutting by the road planners yet they could have used a section 106 agreement with the nearby development to put in a dedicated off-road path which greedy property developers can easily afford, and yet shirk their responsibilities and appeal against, to great effect.

Driving to the conditions, with more awareness and cycling with more awareness could have prevented this tragedy along with better road layout.

 Hopefully you will all stay safe and avoid contraflows where possible.

Avatar
kitsunegari | 6 years ago
1 like

Pretty shocking, but getting off on a technicality is part of the game isn't it.

Avatar
Neil Gander | 6 years ago
1 like

"The cycle helmet had actively cut off his air supply ".

 

What do people make of that?

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Neil Gander | 6 years ago
2 likes

Neil Gander wrote:

"The cycle helmet had actively cut off his air supply ".

 

What do people make of that?

Don't tell Nationwide building Society.

Avatar
DaveE128 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Ok, look at this:

https://goo.gl/maps/DwKQvs8tqBT2

This is close to where the offence occurred. I don't know the exact location.

I can see why a cyclist might be on the edge of their lane or even wander out of it when passing a vehicle parked on the opposite side - to attempt to deter oncoming traffic from squeezing them against the wall. I'm not sure I'd take that approach, but I can see why one might.

Now, anyone that thinks that driving on that road at 45mph is safe is a complete idiot that shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle.

Utterly appalled by the whole thing.  2

Avatar
Vehlin replied to DaveE128 | 6 years ago
2 likes

DaveE128 wrote:

Ok, look at this:

https://goo.gl/maps/DwKQvs8tqBT2

This is close to where the offence occurred. I don't know the exact location.

I can see why a cyclist might be on the edge of their lane or even wander out of it when passing a vehicle parked on the opposite side - to attempt to deter oncoming traffic from squeezing them against the wall. I'm not sure I'd take that approach, but I can see why one might.

Now, anyone that thinks that driving on that road at 45mph is safe is a complete idiot that shouldn't be in charge of a motor vehicle.

Utterly appalled by the whole thing.  2

 

Everything about that road is wrong. In the short term they need to ban parking on it. Longer term they either need to find a way to widen it or get rid of the contraflow cycle lane and make the footway wider and shared use. That would at least stop the cars being able to encroach on it.

Avatar
P3t3 | 6 years ago
0 likes

From the look of the streetview I think it would be a struggle to do 45mph down that piee of road!!  Its narrow, has a slight left bend reducing visibility and driveways.  I am not surprised that at that speed he hit Mr Harrison, he just wont have had time to react in the distancehe could see.  

Avatar
Bez | 6 years ago
0 likes

One more point I forgot to add to the previous list:

  • The crash location marked in the satellite image in the EDP report is incorrect; it is roughly 150m too far west. The recorded location is actually outside the AF Howland building, around 15-20 metres west of where Harrison appears in the CCTV image. Therefore the CCTV image in the article is likely to show Harrison approximately 2-3 seconds before the collision.

@IanW1968: It was stated that the collision occurred in the eastbound lane, not in the westbound cycle lane.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/3481/

Avatar
IanW1968 | 6 years ago
5 likes

This really is appalling. The CCTV shows the rider outside the cycle lane briefly and before not during the collision. 

The driver has sped along a road whilst in a cycle lane he should not have been in. 

The fact he was "forced" into that lane should have resulted in more not less caution. 

Police and CPS are bloody useless TBH. 

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 6 years ago
3 likes

Excellent work Bez, as always.

Avatar
Bez | 6 years ago
11 likes

Addressing some inaccuracies in the article and the comments:

  1. This was an inquest, not a trial. So there are no "charging errors" or suchlike in this context.
  2. The absence of the repeater sign makes it difficult to prosecute the driver for speeding. It does not mean that he cannot (as per the EDP headline) or will not (as per the Road.cc headline) be prosecuted, because it does not prevent prosecution for careless or dangerous driving, or for causing death by either of those. Equally, it may be that Norfolk Police do not charge the driver (and I suspect this is likely). If they do not then it would be interesting to know on what basis they make that decision. It may be that they have already said they will not prosecute, and this may be what gave rise to the headlines (though the EDP's remain's factually incorrect) but if so then it is curious that their comments have gone unreported.
  3. The nature of a "mandatory cycle lane" is indeed that motor vehicles are not permitted to enter it. Pedal cycles are permitted to leave it, though in this case the only way to leave it is to enter the oncoming lane. This is not an offence, just as moving into the oncoming lane to overtake is not an offence, but naturally anyone doing so does not have priority over oncoming traffic. However, oncoming road users would normally still be expected not to collide with oncoming vehicles: if you approach a part of a road where parked cars occupy the opposite lane and a driver has already begun to pass them, having moved into your lane, you are expected to slow to allow them to pass. If you drove headlong into them then I think most people would expect that to be a culpable act of at least careless driving.
  4. The arrangement of the road is such that parked vehicles tend to appear in the main lane, not in the cycle lane. The remark about "forcing people to do something they should not" relates to drivers having to move into the cycle lane to pass parked vehicles, thereby committing an offence. Those comments relate to the road rather than the collision, which occurred in the eastbound lane. Note that there are no yellow lines in the carriageway, but in theory one might argue that if parking in the lane prevented drivers from legally using the road then such parking would constitute an obstruction and thus an offence despite the absence of markings.

Sadly I suspect the case will be "NFA" and will go quiet in the media now that the public have been misled into thinking that no prosecution is possible, but we shall see.

Avatar
Vehlin replied to Bez | 6 years ago
0 likes

Bez wrote:

Addressing some inaccuracies in the article and the comments:

The nature of a "mandatory cycle lane" is indeed that motor vehicles are not permitted to enter it. Pedal cycles are permitted to leave it, though in this case the only way to leave it is to enter the oncoming lane. This is not an offence, just as moving into the oncoming lane to overtake is not an offence, but naturally anyone doing so does not have priority over oncoming traffic. However, oncoming road users would normally still be expected not to collide with oncoming vehicles: if you approach a part of a road where parked cars occupy the opposite lane and a driver has already begun to pass them, having moved into your lane, you are expected to slow to allow them to pass. If you drove headlong into them then I think most people would expect that to be a culpable act of at least careless driving.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. Exiting a contraflow cycle lane would immediately put you afoul of TSRGD Reg 10 and RTA  s36(1) (Failure to comply with a Road Sign). There was a one way street sign at one end a No Entry sign at the other and a TRO enforcing one way travel on the carriageway in effect. There's always the fallback of  RTA s29 (Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling).

Avatar
Bez replied to Vehlin | 6 years ago
2 likes

Vehlin wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with you on this one.

To be honest I wasn't 100% confident in that statement and you may be right. It's certainly an interesting and unusal scenario, I'll try to check up.

A further detail about the repeater sign:

Google Streetview shows a repeater sign 50m west of the incident location, ie at a point Hawkes would have passed prior to the collision. It's visible in images from 2012 and 2016.

(Streetview links added to the incident page I linked to above.)

Avatar
reliablemeatloaf | 6 years ago
5 likes

More victim blaming.

In the US, at least in my state, the speed for unsigned roads is 35 mph. As others have said, I imagine there is a speed limit in England for unmarked roads as well. This driver was speeding.

If , while driving, you hit someone or something, unless they (it) jumped in front of your vehicle at the last second, you were not driving with diligence. You need to have control of your vehicle, and be able to stop as needed, else, you are driving too fast.

The driver said "I saw a light in the distance..." What distance? ten feet, a hundred, five hundred?

He failed to respond appropriately.

Cyclists can leave the cycling lane at any time; what is the alternative? To say that cyclists that leave a lane can lawfully be hit because they are not where they are supposed to be?  That a cyclist who leaves  a lane is now fair game in a version of "Death Race"? Can you hit an eight year old standing in the street because she is not where she is supposed to be?

This driver should be ticketed for speeding, at least; else, the message is sent that drivers can act as they wish and cause injury and death without fear of reprisal, and that cyclists are wholly to blame for their fate, should they be so foolish as to try to use the roads that they pay for, and which the law allows.

Anyone defending this driver is a spineless toady, and I am sorry you are amongst our ranks. There are, however, employment opportunities in Norwich for you.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
6 likes

Escaped prosecution on a technicality. Someone died, but hey ho.

There must be a lot of job satisfaction working at the Norfolk Coroners Court.

Avatar
IanW1968 | 6 years ago
2 likes

Surrounded by cunts. 

Avatar
Beecho | 6 years ago
5 likes

Bull Shit

Avatar
embattle | 6 years ago
1 like

Poor design and a lack of awareness by all those involved. 

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 6 years ago
2 likes

From my very limited of road traffic law. Once there is a collision, then there is no time limit to bring charges. It would need a complaint/solicitor to chase the police to investigate charge driver with new offence

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
11 likes

The 'saw cyclist in the distance' followed by being unable to stop doesnt make sense at all.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
5 likes

That is so full of wrong, there must be a cycling legal dude or dudette who could rip this to shreds.

Cyclists MUST use cycle lanes?

Disregard speedlimits where there is no signage?

Ileegal parking is OK because no one can be arsed doing their job?

Saw cyclist in distance but couldn't react?

Sleep badly driver, sleep very badly defence lawyer.

This can not be seen as acceptable by anyone!

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
2 likes
don simon wrote:

That is so full of wrong, there must be a cycling legal dude or dudette who could rip this to shreds.

Cyclists MUST use cycle lanes?

If they wish to travel in the opposite direction on a one way road yes.

From the text there are often parked cars forcing vehicles into the cycle lane not cars in the cycle lane forcing bikes Into oncoming traffic.

We are talking about a head on collision here in which the driver was on the correct side of the road.

If we were talking about a head on with the driver on the wrong g side no one would be arguing the cyclist was going too fast for conditions.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to wycombewheeler | 6 years ago
1 like

wycombewheeler wrote:
don simon wrote:

That is so full of wrong, there must be a cycling legal dude or dudette who could rip this to shreds.

Cyclists MUST use cycle lanes?

If they wish to travel in the opposite direction on a one way road yes. From the text there are often parked cars forcing vehicles into the cycle lane not cars in the cycle lane forcing bikes Into oncoming traffic. We are talking about a head on collision here in which the driver was on the correct side of the road. If we were talking about a head on with the driver on the wrong g side no one would be arguing the cyclist was going too fast for conditions.

Cycle lane going against the traffic IS WRONG! Drivers just can't deal with them.

As for defending the driving... laugh

Avatar
brooksby replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes

don simon wrote:

Cycle lane going against the traffic IS WRONG! Drivers just can't deal with them.

I can't disagree with you, here.  Councils put contraflows in because they're ticking boxes being helpful, but don't think through the implications of whether the road in question is actually wide enough.

There's one I use, which is a contraflow lane painted into a bus lane, and buses are surprisingly wide...  https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4568614,-2.5917957,3a,75y,90h,62.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srYaQUeqEoTSRDG_uEzI6uw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Avatar
Supers79 replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

don simon wrote:

Cycle lane going against the traffic IS WRONG! Drivers just can't deal with them.

I can't disagree with you, here.  Councils put contraflows in because they're ticking boxes being helpful, but don't think through the implications of whether the road in question is actually wide enough.

There's one I use, which is a contraflow lane painted into a bus lane, and buses are surprisingly wide...  https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4568614,-2.5917957,3a,75y,90h,62.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srYaQUeqEoTSRDG_uEzI6uw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

In Loughborough they have a contraflow along Baxter Gate that has parking bays on the left of it, meaning drivers have to cross the solid lined cycle lane to get too them.  The street is also populated by take-aways and taxi firms leading to parking across it.  The road then bends 90 degrees in a blind corner, at this point the cycle line becomes dashed, with cars forced into it as buses park on opposite side.  After this it becomes solid again, but then ends throwing cyclists out into the oncoming trafffic.  

Then in Leicester on Granby Street, another contraflow cycle lane passes several busy side roads, I've seen several near misses as drivers look left, but not right, pulling out in front of cyclists.  Also pedestrians step into it.

In my opinion they should be banned or have a raised area between the road and cycle lane. 

Avatar
Supers79 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Horrible for the cyclist but i do have sympathy with the driver here:

As for the speeding, the road is next to a a faster road, there are no street lights to indicate that it is a 30mph zone, therefore if there was no sign then the driver would not have known.

The cyclist was riding outside a contaflow cycle lane!  That is the equivalent of riding in the primary position but on the side of oncoming traffic. 

I can see why the driver was let off. 

 

Avatar
Gus T replied to Supers79 | 6 years ago
6 likes

Supers79 wrote:

Horrible for the cyclist but i do have sympathy with the driver here:

As for the speeding, the road is next to a a faster road, there are no street lights to indicate that it is a 30mph zone, therefore if there was no sign then the driver would not have known.

The cyclist was riding outside a contaflow cycle lane!  That is the equivalent of riding in the primary position but on the side of oncoming traffic. 

I can see why the driver was let off. 

 

What about driving to the conditions, no lights & lots of parked cars, an area to slow down in surely

 

Pages

Latest Comments