Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Police officer tells inquest that cyclist hit from behind at 60mph would not have been visible to driver

Officer also suggested drink and drugs may have affected Declan Shea's decision to ride along unlit road...

A police officer has told a coroner’s inquest into the death of a cyclist in Essex who was hit from behind by a driver travelling at an estimated speed of at least 60 miles an hour and was then run over by another motorist that he would not have been visible to them.

Chelmsford Coroner’s Court also heard that a post mortem found that Declan Shea, aged 31, was almost twice over the limit for drink-driving and also had a mixture of prescription and illegal drugs in his system, which led the police officer to speculate that it may have affected his decision to ride along the unlit road, reports the Daily Gazette.

Mr Shea was wearing dark clothing as he cycled along Harwich Road, Elmstead just after 8pm on the evening of 16 September last year when he was struck from behind by a Mercedes driven by 71-year-old Terence Smith.

The impact flung him onto the roof of the vehicle and onto the opposite side of the road, where he was subsequently hit by a Nissan Juke being driven in the opposite direction

Collision investigator PC Kat Burke, who examined his bicycle afterwards, said that tests suggested that neither the front nor rear light was switched on at the time, meaning the only illumination came from the reflectors on his pedals.

PC Burke told the inquest that the collision occurred on a “sweeping bend” at around 50 minutes after sunset, and that Mr Shea was “dressed in dark coloured clothing and not wearing a cycle helmet [It’s worth noting that no cycle helmet manufacturer would claim to offer protection against being hit at 60mph – ed]

“The section of road where the incident occurred was very dark, with no street lights present and no ambient light available,” she said.

Describing how the cyclist was thrown against the windscreen of the car and then onto the roof, she said that “Mr Shea’s movement over the roof suggests the Mercedes was not braking at the time of impact.”

She estimated the speed of the Mercedes at between 60 and 70mph, and as for the driver of the Nissan Juke, who was travelling at 40mph, she said that “With no physical movement, Mr Shea would have been difficult to identify.”

PC Burke, accompanied by a colleague, carried out a re-enactment of the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash, in similar conditions and at the same time in the evening.

She drove behind her fellow officer, who was dressed in dark clothing and had similar reflectors on his bike to those that Mr Shea had.

“Even though I knew the PC was there, I found it very hard to identify him,” she said. “I couldn’t see him or the bike, all I could see were the yellow flashes from the reflectors. I also had that prior warning.

“It made the PC and the bike itself completely indistinguishable on dipped beam headlights.”

Mr Shea was found to have 154mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in his system as well as drugs including cocaine and methadone.

PC Burke added: “Mr Smith had little advanced warning of his presence on the carriageway.

“Mr Shea had a level of alcohol and prescribed and illegal drugs in his system and it is possible this affected his decision.”

Senior coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray concluded that Mr Shea died as a result of a road traffic collision.

Smith, who left the scene and returned later in a different car with his son, did not face charges in connection with the collision itself nor his failure to stop.

He was however given a suspended jail sentence in October this year after pleading guilty to dangerous driving in relation to the condition his car was in as he drove it home after the fatal crash.

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

43 comments

Avatar
bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
0 likes

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
4 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

The problem is the mitigating circumstances always seem to be weighted very heavily in favour of the motorist.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
7 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

The guy was moderately drunk, had evidence of historical drug use, and potentially failed to switch his lights on. 

No evidence of being out of control, swerving into paths etc., the only contributing factor was the potential lack of lights. That is indeed a mitigating circumstance, but, it should not simply be carte blanche for a motorist to mow down anyone on a dark highway who isn't lit up like a christmas tree. 

If a devout christian care worker with no history of drug or alcohol use had been walking on that road that night, they'd be equally dead. 

And thats the point. Its not defending cyclists no matter what, its about calling bullshit on teh pitifally low standard of driving accepted by society and the court system.

Avatar
bigbiker101 replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 5 years ago
0 likes

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

The guy was moderately drunk, had evidence of historical drug use, and potentially failed to switch his lights on. 

No evidence of being out of control, swerving into paths etc., the only contributing factor was the potential lack of lights. That is indeed a mitigating circumstance, but, it should not simply be carte blanche for a motorist to mow down anyone on a dark highway who isn't lit up like a christmas tree. 

If a devout christian care worker with no history of drug or alcohol use had been walking on that road that night, they'd be equally dead. 

And thats the point. Its not defending cyclists no matter what, its about calling bullshit on teh pitifally low standard of driving accepted by society and the court system.

The article started with... "Chelmsford Coroner’s Court also heard that a post mortem found that Declan Shea, aged 31, was almost twice over the limit for drink-driving and also had a mixture of prescription and illegal drugs in his system"... if a car driver had ventured onto the road almost twice the legal limit and hurt somebody they would rightly of had the book thrown at them... but a cyclist... well that's OK then.... "there is no evidevnce that he was out of control", the fact he was almost twice the limit suggest he would not be in full control, sorry but you are not really reading the facts here.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
3 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

The guy was moderately drunk, had evidence of historical drug use, and potentially failed to switch his lights on. 

No evidence of being out of control, swerving into paths etc., the only contributing factor was the potential lack of lights. That is indeed a mitigating circumstance, but, it should not simply be carte blanche for a motorist to mow down anyone on a dark highway who isn't lit up like a christmas tree. 

If a devout christian care worker with no history of drug or alcohol use had been walking on that road that night, they'd be equally dead. 

And thats the point. Its not defending cyclists no matter what, its about calling bullshit on teh pitifally low standard of driving accepted by society and the court system.

The article started with... "Chelmsford Coroner’s Court also heard that a post mortem found that Declan Shea, aged 31, was almost twice over the limit for drink-driving and also had a mixture of prescription and illegal drugs in his system"... if a car driver had ventured onto the road almost twice the legal limit and hurt somebody they would rightly of had the book thrown at them... but a cyclist... well that's OK then.... "there is no evidevnce that he was out of control", the fact he was almost twice the limit suggest he would not be in full control, sorry but you are not really reading the facts here.

No one's saying its Ok, that's never been said... what is being said is that the points you are keen to focus on, are being used to entirely excuse speeding, and knowlingly driving at a speed beyond what you can effectively see what is in the road ahead. 

Again, no one is denying the fact the driver was driving at the upper end or exceeding the speed limit, around a bend, at night, with dipped head lights. This is accepted as fact... and accepted as totally OK, because...

...the potential drunkeness of the cyclist (remember that cyclists are not restricted by the same alcohol limits as drivers, and twice the alcohol limit is in the land of tiddly not pissed) and drug slur (prescription drugs could be paracetamol after all, although i can't comment on the illegal drugs), seems to have totally trumped the failings of the driver. 

The dude on the bike failed in his responsbilities, no one is denying that, but what is seemingly being denied by the court is the failiure of the motorist to meet his responsbilities... that is my point.

More succinctly... two wrongs do not make a right... unless its a motorist and a cyclist it seems. 

 

Avatar
John Smith replied to bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
4 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

I agree that lack of lights do offer some mitigation for the driver in this case, however it must be remembered that the driver appears to have been over the speed limit and, at best, driving carelessly, as he was driving when he has admitted that he could not see what was in the road. Yet the lack of lights has been taken as full mitigation and the driver absolved of all responsibility.

Avatar
bigbiker101 replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
0 likes

John Smith wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

I agree that lack of lights do offer some mitigation for the driver in this case, however it must be remembered that the driver appears to have been over the speed limit and, at best, driving carelessly, as he was driving when he has admitted that he could not see what was in the road. Yet the lack of lights has been taken as full mitigation and the driver absolved of all responsibility.

I have not absolved the driver.... but I am also not laying full blame on him either unlike pretty much everybody else on this forum.... lets not forget... it is illegal not to have lights, it is illegal to be cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (it is called cycling under the influence of drink or drugs), but hey... none of that matters, as a cyclist we should be able to do what we like whilst out on the road,  I for one completely disagree with that view point.

No matter what state this guy was in, he should not of been run over and killed, I am not saying he deserved it in anyway, he was foolish and paid the utlimate price, but he has to take some of the blame, and so does the driver, I am after a balanced view on this, but 99% of the posts here think the cyclist did nothing wrong and it was completely the car drivers fault.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
4 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

I have not absolved the driver.... but I am also not laying full blame on him either unlike pretty much everybody else on this forum.... lets not forget... it is illegal not to have lights, it is illegal to be cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (it is called cycling under the influence of drink or drugs), but hey... none of that matters, as a cyclist we should be able to do what we like whilst out on the road,  I for one completely disagree with that view point.

No matter what state this guy was in, he should not of been run over and killed, I am not saying he deserved it in anyway, he was foolish and paid the utlimate price, but he has to take some of the blame, and so does the driver, I am after a balanced view on this, but 99% of the posts here think the cyclist did nothing wrong and it was completely the car drivers fault.

I agree that the cyclist was at fault, over the alcohol limit, with drugs in the system and without lights it is impossible to argue otherwise. He was in danger of being hit by any driver travelling along that road.

The issue I have though is would changes to those issues have any of that made a difference to this driver? If it had been a pedestrian walking along that road (likely as there are no pavements along that road) who has no requirement for lights would the driver have managed to avoid them?

Given they were breaking the speed limit as they were going around a bend, I suspect the answer is no. In which case the driver should be found guilty regardless of the victims circumstances as there is not a scenario where he would have not have been killed.

If I am swinging an axe around, I would not expect mitigating circumstances because the person I hit was not visible to me and drunk so therefore unable to duck in time.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
6 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

The issue I have though is would changes to those issues have any of that made a difference to this driver? If it had been a pedestrian walking along that road (likely as there are no pavements along that road) who has no requirement for lights would the driver have managed to avoid them?

Given they were breaking the speed limit as they were going around a bend, I suspect the answer is no. In which case the driver should be found guilty regardless of the victims circumstances as there is not a scenario where he would have not have been killed.

If I am swinging an axe around, I would not expect mitigating circumstances because the person I hit was not visible to me and drunk so therefore unable to duck in time.

This to me hits the nail on the head. 

The current status quo is seemingly this.... 'if you do absolutely everything right, and by right, I mean taking steps beyond your legal requirements, you may, and I say may, have the right to feel aggrieved should you fall foul of the motorist, anything less, and you did it to yourself'. 

Avatar
John Smith replied to bigbiker101 | 5 years ago
3 likes

bigbiker101 wrote:

John Smith wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

I agree that lack of lights do offer some mitigation for the driver in this case, however it must be remembered that the driver appears to have been over the speed limit and, at best, driving carelessly, as he was driving when he has admitted that he could not see what was in the road. Yet the lack of lights has been taken as full mitigation and the driver absolved of all responsibility.

I have not absolved the driver.... but I am also not laying full blame on him either unlike pretty much everybody else on this forum.... lets not forget... it is illegal not to have lights, it is illegal to be cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (it is called cycling under the influence of drink or drugs), but hey... none of that matters, as a cyclist we should be able to do what we like whilst out on the road,  I for one completely disagree with that view point.

No matter what state this guy was in, he should not of been run over and killed, I am not saying he deserved it in anyway, he was foolish and paid the utlimate price, but he has to take some of the blame, and so does the driver, I am after a balanced view on this, but 99% of the posts here think the cyclist did nothing wrong and it was completely the car drivers fault.

 

I was referring to the police/CPS where the driver has not been charged with anything for the death despite the fact that he appears to have been driving too fast.

Avatar
DaSy | 5 years ago
2 likes

The Police managed to prosecute the driver for driving a car with a human shaped dent in it, but not to prosecute him for putting that human shaped dent there, which seems lazy at best.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
1 like

Even slightly defective eyesight is made worse in the dark.  I know of far younger people who don't like driving too much when it goes dark, and are therefore drve far more cautiously, when they have to.

I don't know about my awful eyes, bicycle lights have improved so much , I don't know if I would get so much enjoyment as I do if we still were lighting our way with 1-2W filament bulbs.

I find pedal reflectors to be excellent, I know they are old school refective material but they seem to work very well and says cyclist from a long way away.

The police collision investigator in the Mick Mason case made a ridiculous statement about drivers not being able to react for 5 seconds.  Now that would have made for an interesting video.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

ktache wrote:

Even slightly defective eyesight is made worse in the dark.  I know of far younger people who don't like driving too much when it goes dark, and are therefore drve far more cautiously, when they have to.

I don't know about my awful eyes, bicycle lights have improved so much , I don't know if I would get so much enjoyment as I do if we still were lighting our way with 1-2W filament bulbs.

I find pedal reflectors to be excellent, I know they are old school refective material but they seem to work very well and says cyclist from a long way away.

The police collision investigator in the Mick Mason case made a ridiculous statement about drivers not being able to react for 5 seconds.  Now that would have made for an interesting video.

Yes, a pity the same investigator wasn't relied upon by Alliston's defence, it's such a crock of shit!...

Avatar
birzzles | 5 years ago
0 likes

Invisible cyclist killed by his own stupidity.  Some sympathy for motorist.  It really is possible to be invisible.  Definitely a case of who cares?

Avatar
John Smith replied to birzzles | 5 years ago
6 likes

birzzles wrote:

Invisible cyclist killed by his own stupidity.  Some sympathy for motorist.  It really is possible to be invisible.  Definitely a case of who cares?

 

Do you genuinely believe that or are you trolling? If the former then please hand in your driving license. If the latter then please go away.

Avatar
Griff500 | 5 years ago
5 likes

This one is beyond me. I've been driving for 40 years, yet I cannot imaging driving at 60mph towards uniform blackness, unable to distinguish between road, bike or person, and think that was an acceptable speed to drive. If headlights aren't giving enough definition of the road ahead, whether due to fog, rain, terrain, whatever, you slow down, simple as!

Avatar
Shades | 5 years ago
2 likes

What kind of person runs into a human being (enough to hit the windscreen) and then leaves the scene??!!  'Lack of moral compass' is too generous a comment.

Avatar
madcarew replied to Shades | 5 years ago
3 likes

Shades wrote:

What kind of person runs into a human being (enough to hit the windscreen) and then leaves the scene??!!  'Lack of moral compass' is too generous a comment.

This has been covered before on this story. Someone in shock. Nothing to do with moral compass or anything. A 71 year old who has just had the most frightening experience of his life and is in shock. The world is full of stories of the strange things people do (both good and bad) after a terrible shock. It's called displacmement behaviour. He did come back, and take responsibility, which shows some kind of moral compass (and yes I know, it was with his son, in a different car. But clearly his son had a moral compass, which he would have got from somewhere etc etc)

Avatar
Jimbonic | 5 years ago
2 likes

OK. So, it was an hour after sunset, in the countryside. So, not pitch black. Was it raining? The Friday and Monday around that date were dry and clear. Although, there are sections of the Harwich Road without lights. Do we know where on the Harwich Road? There are a number of sweeping bends. But, the only bends I can find are either preceded by a SLOW sign on the road, in the 40 mph limit at Balls Green/Hare Green (I think) or in open land with no/very low hedges with good visibility - oh, and a stables with a look out there are horses sign. Except for one near a garden centre (and a Reliant Kitten - lucky to capture that rare beast on camera!).

Of course, I might have been looking at the wong road on Google Maps...

As has been said before, the driver of the Merc was obviously speeding and was not driving at a speed in which they could stop in the distance they could see.

The cyclist may not have had their lights on. But, they did have reflectors. And, would have presented some sort of silhouette. They were intoxicated. However, being drunk or high is not a reason to be killed. They may have swerved, of course. But, that is why Rule 163 asks drivers to overtake as if the cyclist were a car. Did they swerve all the way over to the other lane?

I don't have all the facts. But, the information I do have points to the driver not driving in a manner that would be acceptable for you to pass the driving test. That 70 mph on a national speed limit road may not get you nicked is irrelevant. It is over the speed limit. And, as can be clearly seen from the outcome, not appropriate for the conditions or lighting levels of the car he was driving.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 5 years ago
9 likes

Wow.

I get it. The dude arguably wasn't using lights, was aarguably pissed up. 

The driver was just driving along... within the confines of accepted normal driving behaviour. 

However the reported bullshit that has been spouted to defend that position is worrisome. 

End of the day, as mentioned, travelling at a speed where you cannot see sufficiently to stop or control your vehicle in response to a hazard is not acceptable driving.

This needs to be called out. It may be 'normal' but normal does not mean right. 

The other point is that yeah, do you know what, sometimes on A roads, when you are dipped and travelling at 60mph, you genuinely can't see enough. That being the case, what do we do, do we keep on going through these mickey mouse inquests / trials, or do we accept that the speed is too high for the conditions and make changes to speed limtis / infrastructure so that this stops happening.  

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 5 years ago
1 like

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Wow.

I get it. The dude arguably wasn't using lights, was aarguably pissed up. 

The driver was just driving along... within the confines of accepted normal driving behaviour. 

However the reported bullshit that has been spouted to defend that position is worrisome.

I thought the same, and it appears possible that the police decided that the cyclist was a local junkie and expendable, and set out to clear the driver, not to find out the facts, exactly the opposite to the Alliston case.  Our entire society would appear to be grossly biased in favour of drivers and against cyclists, from the laughably called justice system to the media.

Cyclists are the new n*****s.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 5 years ago
1 like

What hasn’t been mentioned is that this road is part of the Sustrans National Cycle Network. There is signage (although not prominent), as a local, the driver must have been aware that there’s an increased likelihood of encountering a cyclist on this road.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 5 years ago
3 likes
  • The road in question is a single carriageway road then the speed limit cannot be greater than 60mph (it is 40mph in parts)
  • The incident happened on a sweeping bend, after sunset and in an area without street lights so the vehicle should be travelling under the speed limit

The Nissan Juke travelling the opposite direction was travelling at 40mph which would match with the above picture of the scenario

The Mercedes was travelling over the speed limit at between 60-70mph in the same conditions.

Regardless of what the cyclist did or did not do/have on, the driver was being recless and dangerous and it is likely that the cyclist would have been hit regardless of any steps taken on the cyclists behalf.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
3 likes
ClubSmed wrote:

Regardless of what the cyclist did or did not do/have on, the driver was being reckless and dangerous and it is likely that the cyclist would have been hit regardless of any steps taken on the cyclists behalf.

That's what I would like to know.
I've gone round a bend not far from me in my car before but slower than most I observe do, to find an ambulance in attendance and had to stop, to leave myself looking in the rear view mirror for a driver coming round the bend too fast and into me.
At 60-70 could the driver have stopped for anyone, even a stationary vehicle?

Avatar
brooksby | 5 years ago
3 likes

So it was a dark road with no street lights or ambient light sources, eh? Oh if only motor vehicles had some sort of built-in light source...

Avatar
Legin | 5 years ago
0 likes

Welcome to Brexit country where the self entitled do what they like and get away with it. He left the scene lock the bastard up!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Legin | 5 years ago
0 likes

Legin wrote:

Welcome to Brexit country where the self entitled do what they like and get away with it. He left the scene lock the bastard up!

This has got fuck all to do with the majority of people wanting to leave a corrupt cabal, this shit has been going on for decades and the actions of police same, covering up criminal actions of motorists and blaming victims!

Avatar
HoarseMann | 5 years ago
5 likes

It was on a slight left hand bend. A cars headlights on dipped beam have a cut off that rises up on the left side, so should have provided better illumination of the cyclist than had it been on a straight road. That’s if the cars lights were levelled correctly. It amazes me how many I see driving with the headlights pointing at the ground rather than the horizon.

Weird that there were lights on the bike, but alleged to be not illuminated. But I can imagine an impact of that force causing a light to break or turn off.

I’m now also wondering if the use of pedal reflectors will no longer be a legal requirement. As the police have basically stated that even when they are clearly visible, they are of no use in identifying a cyclist??

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
5 likes

More bs.
What was the test?
What was the sweeping bend?
If the cyclist was lit up, and a driver at 60 - 70 mph, was there enough space going round a bend to stop?
I've been along that road and 60-70 is too fast.

Avatar
fenix | 5 years ago
1 like

Pedal reflectors can be visible 100s of metres away if the road is straight enough.

Pages

Latest Comments