[Closed] Welsh mtber kills a man by cycling into him.

aracer. Have you used a GPS? That info tells us nothing at all about how much the cyclist braked - it's clearly incorrect to suggest that the GPS shows 25.1mph at impact as the resolution of GPS speed data isn't sufficiently good to tell, so that is either poor reporting or dodgy evidence. All you can say is that he was travelling at 25mph just before the impact.

Yes. I do use GPS on a Garmin Edge 500 and FR220. Using Garmin Connect I can have a nice little graph of my speed. Any sudden deceleration shows as a sharp dip. Place the cursor at the top of the graph preceding the dip and it will show the speed before I had to slow down or impacted into someone. I assume the coroner would have had some similar report to draw his conclusion from.

it will show the speed before I had to slow down or impacted into someone

Yes. I do use GPS on a Garmin Edge 500 and FR220. Using Garmin Connect I can have a nice little graph of my speed. Any sudden deceleration shows as a sharp dip. Place the cursor at the top of the graph preceding the dip and it will show the speed before I had to slow down or impacted into someone. I assume the coroner would have had some similar report to draw his conclusion from.

Take Garmin for example - the best data recording interval option you can choose on either my 810 or 910 is every 1 sec, probably the same on your models too. The smart recording option is better in terms of memory use, but makes less recordings. This is pretty crude (at uni doing velocity tests on a car I was using a sampling rate of 1/2000th sec) - we know the cyclist went from 25mph to stationary over the period of a minimum of 1 second but have no idea if that was all in the impact or he was braking heavily for 0.99secs before the impact. There is simply no way of telling.

ON the face of it given the speed & conditions it seems the cyclist has a case to answer IMO.

ninfan - Member
The nature of the pedestrians clothing is a huge factor here

aracer - Member
I'll bet the coroner has never blamed excessive speed for a pedestrian death when hit by a car doing 25mph.

Cars have way better lights and brakes and make noise - all relevant here.

Standard GPSes will only give you an update once a second. That's a navigation update, regardless of the logging frequency

Any vehicle has to be driven according to road conditions. According to the law (Highway Code) the speed limit of [i]any[/i] road is a [b]maximum[/b] and, at all times, it is the responsibility of the driver/rider to ensure their speed is not dangerous. Part of this is being able to stop within the bounds of visibility.

People saying this is just an "accident" or somehow the fault of the pedestrian are astonishingly dim.

It was dark - November evening.
The lane was narrow and poorly lit.
25mph isnt breaking the car speed limits.
Chap walking home along this dark narrow road.
Mtb-er coming home from work, more worried about cars than pedestrians and has a bright helmet light on.
Didnt see chap for whatever reason.

and people are blaming the cyclist? Sure the rider maybe should have been slower but some blame has to lie with the poor fella who died. walking a dark road at night is risky.

Shame but the coroner seems to have got it right, misadventure, an accident.

My only slight concern is the seeming bias towards blaming the cyclist. Or maybe thats all the press picked up on. Either way, accident. Sad for the chap who died and his family but also sad for the rider who now has to come to terms with this. neither good.

ti_pin_man - Member

and people are blaming the cyclist?

see

ti_pin_man - Member

It was dark - November evening.
The lane was narrow and poorly lit.
25mph

See also:

some blame has to lie with the poor fella who died. walking a dark road at night is risky.

Same often said of cyclists killed on busy roads.

[quote=convert ]we know the cyclist went from 25mph to stationary over the period of a minimum of 1 second but have no idea if that was all in the impact or he was braking heavily for 0.99secs before the impact. There is simply no way of telling.

I'm not sure you can even be that accurate based on GPS speed recording - at most you can say he was doing 25mph at some point within a few seconds of the collision.

[quote=cynic-al ]Cars have way better lights and brakes and make noise - all relevant here.

Cars have more mass - also relevant - whilst the difference in braking from 25mph is insignificant. Blaming it on the cyclists inadequate lighting would be fair comment, but that isn't directly speed related. Do you think he's more likely to make such a comment about an electric car?

The Coroner may have also had Mr Jones's side of the story. We're in no position to judge.

aracer - Member
Cars have more mass - also relevant - whilst the difference in braking from 25mph is insignificant.

You've ridden rim brakes in the wet?

Seeing as the poor old chap had 11 broken ribs that says to me its a frontal hit.....which means he saw the cyclist IMO

Are we sure the old bloke hadn't stepped in front of cyclist in an attempt to slow him down?

RIP for the old dude!

I don't know about anyone else but I can not use my head torch in the rain as my view is not dissimilar to the millennium falcon going into hyperdrive. Also when in rain with no glasses I find my self tilting my head down more to try to shield my eyes more from the rain with my visor.

This is very sad, the poor man was killed suffering from severe injuries and I personaly hold the cyclist to blame because for what ever reason he knocked him down.

You've ridden rim brakes in the wet?

[b]chip[/b] - Member
I don't know about anyone else but I can not use my head torch in the rain as my view is not dissimilar to the millennium falcon going into hyperdrive

nickjb - Member

You've ridden rim brakes in the wet?

Have you driven a car with drum brakes and cross ply tyres

Wow, folk are getting desperate. How many cars on the roads have cross ply or front drums? 🙄

You chose the worst bike example so I replied with the (road legal) car equivalent. As I said my bike brakes are better than my normal car brakes. The reaction time is also quicker for bike brakes. Your statement that [i]Cars have way better lights and brakes[/i] is factually incorrect.

People travelling on roads with no pavements don't expect to see a pedestrian at the edge of it. Regardless of how visible you are. Subconsciously they aren't looking for a pedestrian because you aren't expected to be there in the first place!

I found this out the other week, stood at the edge of a NSL 2 lane B road (so wide enough for cars to pass each other without slowing down etc) trying to protect an injured buzzard. I was clearly visible on a straight road, dry and well lit (6pm sun behind oncoming cars on the side I was stood) and in 20 minutes there were multiple skids and me nearly needing to try and leap up a grass bank to avoid being hit.
If it had been night no way would I have stood there.

Seeing as the poor old chap had 11 broken ribs that says to me its a frontal hit.....which means he saw the cyclist IMO

Saw him 30 seconds away or turned to see him 0.0001 seconds before the impact?

I admire your faith in the judicial process but there are some errors in that summing up (the speed on gps taken as impact speed for example) as well as a judge who says he's never seen anything like it (seriously?!) and the police telling the inquest that the investigation was compromised by delays. Seems to me like there was almost as much speculation in the courtroom as there has been on here.

I can't say I have the hugest amount of faith in the system (having had 2 disappointing periods of doing jury service), but the system is the system

Moreover, it's a journalist's paraphrasing and summary of the situation, so it's further removed from the facts.

I'm sure they had more facts than we do, and there's still the option of appeal etc

project - Member
Just a freak accident, sad for the chaps family and the cyclist, but also sad for the management of the hospital; who failed to treat him in time.

Posted 5 minutes ago # Report-Post

Are you assuming that if he'd been seen in say 5 mins rather than 50 he would be okay now?

Are you also assuming that given limited resources, limited staff and limited capacity that it's possible to provide an unlimited service?

I think that's a bit of a leap A&E departments aren't magic and the coroner didn't mention the wait as being a contributing factor - it was tagged on the end by The Fail.

and we all know which government caused the delays by cutting costs and then cutting again, ansd whaile that poor chap was waiting in the backk of a transit van that transit van and staff where unavailable to go go to any other service users calls.

nickjb - Member

You chose the worst bike example so I replied with the (road legal) car equivalent. As I said my bike brakes are better than my normal car brakes. The reaction time is also quicker for bike brakes.

It may be the worst example but it's a very common one.

Your bike brakes may be better than you car ones but that is your experience only and useless as an average.

How are bike brake reaction times better? What if he's not on the drops/hoods?

Your statement that Cars have way better lights and brakes is factually incorrect.

I'd say it's true for the average car vs the average bike on the roads.

As I said my bike brakes are better than my normal car brakes

Mine aren't! There's no way in hell you could stop faster from 25mph on a bike than in a car. Anyone want to do a race?

craigxxl - Member

Quite a lot on unknown facts in this but 25.1mph at impact suggests the cyclists didn't brake because he hadn't seen the pedestrian (too fast for the conditions) or had already scrubbed off speed prior to impact so going much faster prior to braking.

Quite surprised that GPS is accurate enough for this tbh?

Lots of chat about bike brakes, but if the lane was 3.3 metres wide braking wouldn't usually be the best way to avoid a collision anyway, riding round would be.

I'd say it's true for the average car vs the average bike on the roads

As for reaction times, hand eye reactions are typically half a second quicker than foot eye reactions. Your worse case of not covering the brakes is pretty similar to a every motorists who will have their foot on the accelerator and not be covering the brake pedal.

Northwind - Member
Lots of chat about bike brakes, but if the lane was 3.3 metres wide braking wouldn't usually be the best way to avoid a collision anyway, riding round would be.

Yup, of course. Just saying that the brake chat seems to miss the point a bit.

So you are agreeing with what I wrote: Some car brakes are better than some bike brakes, some bike brakes are better than some car brakes

Really? Stick your bike brakes on your car, and tell us how you get on.

Ok 😛 I'll add ...at stopping the vehicle they are attached to

Really? Stick your bike brakes on your car, and tell us how you get on.

D0NK - Member
at the cyclist I wonder what opposing factors there could have been. If the victim had done nothing wrong and was just unlucky to be there at that point in time then "it was all just a terrible accident" doesn't really cut it.

Why doesn't it cut it? Some things are just accidents.

We don't know the exact circumstances, probably never will. The only thing that can be said is the cyclist was going quite fast, maybe too fast for the right of way he was on, in the conditions on that day. Someone has died as a result of him hitting them, he'll have to live with that for the rest of his life.

I'm not sure why the lynch mob has formed on here, someone doesn't always need to go to jail.

Ok I'll add ...at stopping the vehicle they are attached to

😉

The only vehicle I've ever driven that came close to being as poor as the best bike brakes I've used was a 50-year old VW camper with drums and no servo.

Lots of people seem to want to chalk this up to an "accident".
Nearly every road "accident" someone is at fault and the cause.
Whether you were distracted or just plain not paying due care and attention.

The term accident just means "did not mean to do it" not "no one is at fault"

People have accidents every day where no one gets hurt so no need to involve he police,
But when someone is hurt or worse people should be held accountable if the "Accident" was their doing.

Northwind - Member
Yup, of course. Just saying that the brake chat seems to miss the point a bit.

chip - Member
Lots of people seem to want to chalk this up to an "accident".
Nearly every road "accident" someone is at fault and the cause.
Whether you were distracted or just plain not paying due care and attention.

The term accident just means "did not mean to do it" not "no one is at fault"

I accidentally spilled water on the floor just now when filling a bottle. I didn't mean to, it was an accident, but it was still my fault.

Maybe stuff like this should be extra judicial - where there's no aggravating circumstances/intent.

Proper investigation, route cause analysis, focus on what went wrong and preventative action then only if there's major negligence consider criminal action. Appreciate coroner is meant to do this to some extent but they're only responsible for cause of death and its still a quasi-judicial adversarial process with only a limited set of outcomes, none of which address re-occurrence. Or am I just talking mince again.

As is the rather odd "speed limits don't apply to bicycles" idea.

It may be odd, but it's the law.

Haven't read the full 4 pages worth so appogies it this has been covered, but if the cyclist was to be charged what would be the offence? Wanton cycling?

I think its rather pointless to try to speculate what might have happened, what brakes he was using etc. The Coroner would have access to that. We don't.

As for the rather odd comments about speed limits for bikes 😯

And, yes, there is guidance for pedestrians within the Highway Code, including what to do on country roads etc.

[url= https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6 ]https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6[/url]

The way this thread is heading,I am amazed some folks don't want the deceased's estate billed for any damage to the cyclists bike.

The term accident just means "did not mean to do it" not "no one is at fault"

Unforeseen accidents are few and far between, accidentally causing grief/harm while knowingly doing something risky/dangerous is much more common and conflating the two is arguably not a good thing.

Edit see also Bez's [url= https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/tag/low-sun/ ]low sun[/url] articles

If you drive into a space you can’t see, there’s a limit to how surprised you can be to find out that it’s not empty.

Unless I am very much mistaken, does the Coroners verdict of death by misadventure not indicate that the pedestrian wilfully put himself in a risky/dangerous situation, rather than a verdict of accidental death, where he would have been absolved of any blame.

The Highway Code comments could well apply to him, not the cyclist - it's not clear from the reporting.

colloquially it seems to be used by people trying to wriggle themselves or their friends/peers out of any blame.

They are trying to reduce the blame.. it works for kids so people who don't grow up try the same trick.

I've not read the report as frankly it seems a little pointless doing so.

Not being charged is if I'm not mistaken very different to not at fault. I'm of the (likely mistaken impression) nor being charged means little chance of conviction, otherwise it would be no case answer.

On the face of it for the same reason i'd.like to see drivers hauled up every time I'd like to see it go to court, if only to establish his innocence but doing so isn't practical if only because of cost.

The pedestrian had every right to be on the road, at least as much as the cyclist. There is no onus on him by law to not wear dark clothes or camouflage nor to carry a light and not should there be. Much the same is true of the cyclist but there is legal obligation on the cyclist to have a forward facing and functional light fixed to his bicycle (not his helmet) when on a public road. I wouldn't advocate mandatory high viz for either party, it's not my (or anyone else's) responsibility to mitigate the inability of others to control their vehicle by making my self more visible. If purple drove/rode within the limits of their ability to cope with a situation in the first instance this and 90+% of rta would never have happened.

One thing which I am personally amazed by with the article is it says that the incident wasn't reported for three days. Given the scale of the collision to leave the victim in that state I personally would have been on the phone to the police as soon as I'd called the ambulance, or is it expecting too much of most people (mode of transport aside) to feel they should be doing that?

Unless I am very much mistaken, does the Coroners verdict of death by misadventure not indicate that the pedestrian wilfully put himself in a risky/dangerous situation

I live in a village which is impossible to enter or leave without using one of four country lanes, some not only winding but with large dips and peaks.
All these country lanes have houses on them, and it is not uncommon to see a kid walking along carrying a loaf of bread or shopping bag where obviously there mum has sent them down the shops.

Blaming a man for putting himself in danger for not using a pavement that does not exist where he lives.
Should he not go out his front door or maybe we should blame the council for not widening and installing pavements to all country lanes.

The pedestrian had a duty of care to himself, and he failed so he paid the price. The cyclist on the other hand took how many days to hand himself in - in my book that makes him a pretty lame excuse for a decent human being.
It's all irrelevant anyway. The old guy is dead, much wringing of hands take place in the cyclists household (unlikely) and a few singletrack judges pronounce that everyone is guilty.
Learn from it - the world is full of injustice and winging about it on here will make sod all difference

Is the full coroner's report not available online? In Scotland, Fatal Accident Inquiries are available online, although these are done by a Sheriff, not sure if they are the Scottish equivalent but it certainly sounds like the same sort of report.

dangeourbrain - Member

Good post.

There is a interesting way the media reports the event in that they do not list the pedestrian as not wearing hi viz e.t.c Not saying they should but is an example that had the victim been a cyclist it would be all over the article.

winging about it on here will make sod all difference