Safe Speed Forums

Or rather the inquest decided "accident"

I think I did report the case when it appeared in the press last summer.

It is a very sad case and one feels for all parties concerned - even the van driver. All suffer badly. I think some cycling journalists forget this in their emotional displays.

Two cyclists from the Reading CC were cyclling on a road in Bix, near Henley. I think it must have been a 70 mph DC given the fact the driver had overtaken cars at an alleged 65 mph .. and there was no allegation in the case of "speeding above the speed limit" per the press releases to date

The driver hit two cyclists from behind. One died. The other suffered serious leg injuries. The driver had allegedly overtaken two other vehicles who testified his speed was 65 mph - given their speed on the overtakes. The van driver returned to lane - but claims the sun momentarily blinded him just as he was returning to lane .. and he failed to see the cyclists as a result

Ah later on in the piece it says







The coroner ruled this to be a very tragic accident last month. The police file was sent on tho the CPS to decide a case - but we also have to await inquest results as the decision made there can help strengthen the evidence. The inquest does look at the entire situation - but does not seek to find a driver or suspected causer of any accident guilty - but the findings can help the courts identify potential loopholes in the case for each side in later criminal courts.

CTC lawyers say the driver should have been prosecuted for "causing death by dangerous driving". CPS said there was insufficient evidence to prove the driving was dangerous on the basis that he was not speeding .. had overtaken two vehicles safely .. and other independent witness evidence at the inquest perhaps backed his claim of a sudden blast of violent sunlight at that tragic second. CPS say they applied the code which we use to determine if a driver's standard is acceptable stringently and could not prove beyond any reasoned doubt that the driver was guilty



True - we have to have a lot more evidence - and believe me - we try to find it. Why do you think we close down roads for hours on end and even return to them later and close them again whilst we try to reconstruct with police drivers and other experts in this forensic accident investigation field?


In this case - CPS had ruled out prosecution before the inquest. Reading CC was hoping the inquest would have liad full blame on the driver instead of ruling "accidental death". But an coroner's court is not a criminal court of law. The job of that court is to investigate the likely cause of the accident and provide some data for us all to use to try to learn and improve safety margins if we can. The law and the courts have to be objective. Raw emotion does not make for sound justice after all and personal opinions of legal folk have to be abandonned in the interests of delivering sound justice and not pure revenge.


CTC lawyers claimed a prosecution would have succeeeded had it got to court. No .. he may have been found guilty of careless or inconsiderate driving since he did not check the gap properly on return to lane after a very legal overtake at legal speed - and even then we would perhaps be on flimsy ground - given other witness statements about the sunshine blast into the eyes at that wrong second. You see - we have to prove beyond any doubt that the driving was dangerous. I concede a careless charge may have stuck if argued rigorously enough by the CPS - given it was reasonably foreseeable that cyclists could be beyond the cars overtaken on an A road in rural Oxford/Berks borders.

And the lawyer answers his own question as to why a dangerous charge would have failed perhaps in this particular case - tragic as it is -





Normally it does - if we can prove beyond doubt. But in this case - there was no evidence of this A claim that bright sunlight blinded him at the wrong second of tragedy - and CPS had to take account of this in their decision making and also it should be remembered that that driver will also suffer the same hell as the bereaved for his remaining lifetime. Oddly enough - most normal human beings who drive cars do not set off intending to kill or hurt anyone .. and if they do - these people suffer the hellish guilty trauma of "if only" for a nasty guilt riddden lifetime.

We have also to aware of this when we demand revenge to susbstitute justice.




I rather think his insurers will pay up the full dues without contest. I take it that CTC will offer services as ambulance chasers here. I trust they waive ther i fee cut of any proceeds and give full compo if they win.

It does depend on which version the judge "prefers" on the day and this family are aware already of a judge stating it is OK to race towards an amber light in one case

I would suggest the family talks to insurance company first as they are liable in the first instance for compo. If they feel this is too little - then that would be when to instigate full civil proceedings against the van driver and his insurers. It would be pointless to seek damages against the personal assets of a driver who may not have the means to pay up and certainly would not be jailed nor given a criminal record by the County Courts - nor would winning the case there lead to a subsequent re-opening of the CPS file. The court will be to decide level of damages with the plaintiff and the insurance company concerned.



Understandably the father of the deceased is disappointed that the CPS dropped the case for lack of proof. He thinks a jury should have decided the case based on the evidence.



Sadly as we know - juries have to decide on the case as presented to them - and there still was no evidence to show "dangerous driving" - even though he was perhaps negligent in not checking the lane on moving back into L1 or not
wearing sun glasses. We all know that a low sun can be as dangerous as thick fog at times and I just do not know the road to know if this was a sudden flash through a gap in tree foliage just as he moved back to lane. That may be part of the reason the CPS dropped the case for all we know.

CW quotes the CPS factsheet



Which means that we make a full and detailed investigation - to prove beyond any doubt.


We seldom get things badly wrong and sadly sometimes a genuine and very tragic accident occurs despite best endeavours..

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Not passing judgement because I wasn’t there and don’t know how the sunlight was affecting visibility, but:

Is it better to abort an overtake if one’s vision becomes so compromised that it isn’t possible to see other road users?
Could the driver assume the way ahead was clear? Surely the answer is no! Given that then surely ploughing on regardless goes against the principle of being able to stop, or otherwise evade, in the distance one can expect to be clear?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It sounds (from the way I read it) as though he had completed the overtake, then the sun got in his eyes and did not see the cyclists, which were now in the carriageway ahead of him.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

you'd hope that anticipation and observing well in advance would have mean being 'temporarily' blinded by the sun wouldn't be a problem as you'd have clocked them well in advance (especially being 2 abreast?) in order to respond appropriately. (when doing my advanced stuff my instructor had me commentating and observing a good 20-30seconds before we encountered them).

as a side note however if getting unexpectedly blinded by the sun, especially knowing there's a car behind following the overtake.... slowing suddenly is probably as unwise as continuing.

Sounds to me like he saw some "slow" traffic, put his foot down without thinking why it might be "slow" (like many I suspect he was solely focused on "must get round thing in front of me" to the exlcusion of any rational thought) got round the front of it and then discovered why the traffic in front of him had slowed in the worst possible way.

Well, that's the typical reaction I see.

That doesn't matter, the driver shouldn't simply blindly plough on. Who knows what hazards will present themselves in that time?


I see what you mean. Slowing would surprise another overtaking driver also is also blinded and is in the process of following through, but then they should be able to respond to the illuminating brake lights from the vehicle in front before they are blinded themselves if they leave an adequate gap to the vehicle in front (or at worst: also brake from the same spot), so there shouldn't be a problem here anyway.

I think I would be more concerned with aborting and cutting back in lane in front of, and close to, a non-overtaker who may also be blinded, but at least a level of control can be maintained.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

There is a real danger that I might agree with you at some level
It is possible to commence an overtake of a slow vehicle without the cyclists being viewable (let alone seen) and safely abort if necessary (been there done that). The problem is that this driver, once blinded, hoped the way ahead was clear and continued on anyway.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

True. It's a difficult one and I do not know the road at all. I do know that some roads just seem have a "clearing" whereby the sun just can be a problem at certain times of the day.


Steve - you hit a reality point in your post.

I think you have to be aware that SUN in summer can be an really serious enemy to all road users. It an also blind a cyclist .. pedestrian just as the driver. If he'd stayed in the oute lane just a second longer .. he'd never have hit them. It's one of his eternal "if only"s. I do not know if the road curved adversely at this poiint to allow the sun to hit hard and also create a "trompe l'oeil" effect


I am sure that the colleagues in that area will have checked well and that the CPS will have really considered all the evidence carefully before making such a decision which will upset the bereaved and even the liable as most of them want punishment to assuage a raging conscience of guilt. I think some think a person simply wants to "justify and squirm out of just deserts"

Not so. I have had folk cling to me in the sheer horrific realisation that someone died as a result of what they did in the past. I have always been very calm .. told them a court has to decide properly and that their honest accounts of what they think happened will help their outcome.. and to wait for our full investigation - even if we charge on suspicion of whatever. We have to prove the suspicion after all. :roll; In the past - as a nasty Black Rat on the roads.. some did babble of remorse and guilt. I had to tell them to stop. Draw breath. I could not submit evidence on pure shocked over-reactions. I used to tell them to calm down.. and when they had done so - I would then take statements from them and by gentle questioning - get at the tuth which would tell me which charges may apply.


But there are some roads which just can give full force of sunlight. Sun? A COAST driver may be aware .. but if it's a sudden blast on an unknown road - even the most COAST aware can be stumped for a split second.

Look I think CPS will have considered very carefully. Someone died .. Another badly injured. No one in police or law regards such as "of no consequence". Had they had the evidence - they would have gone for the jugualr vein here.

Very sad. I gather the club plans a sportive to commemorate the cyclist who died. july19th and my own birthday

He died on July 5th.


The club also plan to set up a fund for the cyclist;'s family to adminstrate. I know our Swiss spon/don team will want to donate to help that family in need as their intention is akin to our own values: to help others in need. The fund will aim to r#provide cycling gear for the underprivileged in society The chap who died donated his used up gear to would be cyclists as I udnerstand

The CC plans a mass ride past the scene or riding and handing out leaflets.


Word of advice from me. DO they mass ride. Ht the press hard. get footmen and women to hand out the leaflets whilst you concentrate on the ride. Have some prints made to wear to show why you are riding past this scene but also spare a thought for a van driver and his family who will have recurring nightmares all the same.

Try to get him to join in with your ride. Build that bridge. I know from the Swiss family experience and the Mad Cats own account of forgiveness without forgetting the enormity of what happened - that it heals wounds .. the most deep and white heat ferocity of pain suffered.

So consider. Inviting the enemy to take part will helpo him and also make him come to terms with/ face up to the sheer enormity of what he caused.


One example was given to me by the Mad Doc's two sisters. The junction between Ellenbrook Road and the East Lancashire Road comes to their minds. The junction was the scene of a nasty death whereby a 14 year old died crossing at those ligts about two years ago and one reason why this road will revert back to 50 mph after its 1978 upgrad to 60 mph. The sun had nothing to do with it - but the Mad Doc posted up a photo of this junction at tthe time... so a search through archives of 2006 posts may track down a photo of the B road.


The ladies in question say the area was re-engineered in the late 80s when houses were built on supposedly protected "green belt land" and this road cut through a field to replace the old picturesque and olde residential Ellenbrook village road which ends in a cul=-de sac where it once crossed the A580 at a shorter crossing. They say the old road was shielded from the sun by a huge house (now a restaurant pub of reputedly excellent cuisine per these two ladies)


I am sure Stephen will be familiar with this junction and its history. Now these ladies are well into the local history of Worsley as it's where the industrial revolution really "kicked off" with the Bridgewater Canal and the first ever mechanised swing bridge (Barton) opened by Queen Victoria - so I trust their word.

Now I have set the scene. I can now address their comments as to "sudden sun blast"


They say this new Ellenbrook can be lethal in low autumn and sping sun - even early morning sun as it justs blasts into eyes as the driver hits a curve at a bollard pinch point They say it is all the worse as a new school was built there to accommodate the extra residential needs of some 700 homes built on previously protected farm and horse stablng land.

They say it becomes "spectacularly dangerous" in their opinion after a sunshine shower of the half hour kind .. which means the road surface and angle at which the sun hits it .. bounce back reflection which they say must have been what must have blinded Saul in reality.

Now I have not driven this road. Or I do not think I have. I have been to Henley-on-Thames and visited various places in the area .. when visiting our kids at Oxford Uni. (One has completed studies.

Joined the police.. Damn. I kind of hoped he stick to being a lawyer.. but no.. he decides to join police on a "fast-track carreer path" in his father/grandfather and uncles and aunt;s footsteps. :banghead; Ah well .. must be in the genes.

My rebellious eldest daughter is still there

But back to topic CPS will have decided objectively. Civil case will be about damages. Family will have to decide what to do if insurers "try it on". I think they cannot have case. If compo is ridiculous - then fight for rightful dues.

Courts would be vicious and van driver will find he may not be able to afford insurance thereafter anyway. Which would effectively be a ban

It may also be the case anyway. I think those who do not drive and only cycle misunderstand loadings of insurers at times :roll;

Oh .. and to the critics .. my time on here today has cost me plenty in use of smiley guys

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Personally (and it it difficult to judge without seeing the scene and no doubt police investigators would have scrutinised the set up very carefully), I think that the overtake is a bit of a red herring in this case. It reads as though the cyclists were immediately in front of the lead car that was being overtaken but considering that the cyclists were probably doing no more than 30 MPH and the lead car was probably doing 55-60MPH (to be able to judge that the van was only doing 65MPH) then the "closing speed" of the lead car to the cyclists would have meant that the cyclists must have been a way in front, overwise the lead car would have had to be braking quite sharply or indicating to pull past the cyclists. I think to judge that the van driver made a bad overtake is wrong. The fact is that not all dual carriage ways are dead straight and the cyclists may have been so far ahead and out of view (perhaps the road had a slight bend in it) when he started the overtake ( he must have covered quite a distance while overtaking two cars especially if his "passing speed" was only a few MPH above theirs).

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I think the case throws up many issues. The judges comments almost imply he thinks that the only thing that makes driving dangerous is exceeding the posted limit.

Any one who works east of thier home knows that for a month or two each year they get blinded going to work and coming home. Drivers are only human, and true accidents do exist.

It is also much harder to see through big cars to see what is infront of them.

Whilst it is tragic and wrong that this accident happened. Two wrongs do not make a right. To punish a driver due to the out come when no intent, neglect or wrecklessness occured would just make matters worse.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

That's true enough. I gather the road I mentioned in small print above has a fairly sharp bend and it;s at this point when the sun hits the traveller.


If the traveller is also new to the area - he may not realise the danger spot exists until it hits and causes a hit.

I do not know the angle or curves here - or how far a low sun may have blinded this driver . I do know that we do apply tests comprehensively. I think we charge more often with dangerous driving than we used to - if a death occurred for any reason. This also includes police officers who are involved in fatals whilst on police business. But accsuing on suspicion of is one thing. Proving beyond any doubt in a court of law is a different matter and based on the matters of fact produced in evidence. In this case - despite the cyclist's death - no one could supply evidence to show the driving was dangerous.


[/quote]

I think you are right. People seem to think the driver deliberately sets out to have a crash with a cyclist or pedestrian. They don't. The normal average who makes up our society are, for the most part, decent individuals who , along with their own families, will be just as traumatised and shell shocked as the grieving families and the seriously to mildly injured. These are not the thugs who drive illegally for the thrill of illegality

And to graball - the wild is right as always when she goes into "attack mode" on speed.


She's perhaps going back to her foreign roots by saying the two second ruling is a good "rule of thumb" but that we have to understand how far we travel in one second. At 65 mph = he's covered about 33 yards per second. Given he would have to give a two second margin to the overtakee - this means, assuming he gives such margins, that he would be moving into L1 some 66-70 yards ahead of the lead car. Wildy is perfectly correct here in her formula of (k/ph/10 *3 ).

I think we in England /UK do fail to address how far we actually travel per second. It's when you do - that you realise and begin to "feel and understand speed" properly. This understanding helps us plan overtakes much more effectively and with the correct safety margin.

Unfortunately - it may not help with the flash of sunlight at a tragic second just as the driver returns to lane at the same closing speed of 33 yards per second.

To Reading CC if they lurk - try to encourage the driver to participate in the ride. It will help all to heal and maybe help him to pass on a message to others be aware of road and bright sunshine which can be as lethal as dense fog.


There are various things to look out for though..

Shadows on the road could tell you that whatever casts those shadows may recede and that you may get hit by the blast on the curve ahead.

Do re-read the chapter on Observation in "RoadCraft". It puts flesh on the COAST advice

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

There are too many people who shout "guilty til proven innocent". We had a case of an old couple who plowed into two lorries near us recently. The press was full of "lorry drivers are always speeding at 70MPH along this road and overtaking everything in sight, regardless of the fact that they aren't capable of 70MPH and shouldn't need to overtake anything that is doing a reasonable speed. It turned out that the old guy had a heart attack but everyone was keen to blame the lorry drivers.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

We've also got too many people that would automatically defend terrible driving through solidarity with somebody just because they are behind a petrol engine...and hit some cyclists...who shouldn't be on the road in the first place...

I nearly went across somebody's bonnet once cos he turned right into a side road just in front of me.

When I questioned why he had done so he said, "Sorry I couldn't see a thing, the the sun was blinding me".

Yes, cars in front slowing down, which sadly seems to makes most people "angry" and perform silly agressive overtakes without really considering why the cars in front are actually slowing down...

I think you're being a bit overdramatic there.
Most people won't even bother to try to overtake. Also, most won't even be frustrated when delayed for a while; however, I do accept there are a few who will act inappropriately but that's only after being delayed after a period of time when the reason for the slowness isn't readily noticeable. No-one would dare venture onto roads if things were as you describe.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign