Bow roundabout: "Nobody is to blame" for death of cyclist Svitlana Tereschenko says coroner

About time the police and the CPS were prosecuted for not doing the job they are paid to do

Simply a mind boggling decision.
The driver is not to blame because he distracted himself with a phone call !>!>!

If a court can rule that by no fault of either party fatal colisions can occur on a stretch of road, surely that means that the road design is at fault. This needs to be fixed before others are killed.

Any cycle infrastructure that leads cyclists through dangerous junctions like these must offer them adequate protection, this stretch of the cycle "superhighway" fails cyclists in this respect.

My experience of the London superhighways has been quite negative, they are well signed and direct (unlike most other cycle infrastructure here in London), but they are (legally!) driven and parked in/used as loading zones by motor vehicles even/especially at peak commuting times, and in many spots they lead cyclists into direct conflict with fast moving motor traffic.

Before any more superhighways are rolled out we need to fix the ones we have to an acceptable standard. All the main parties have signed up to LCC's go dutch campaign, so fingers crossed that even if Boris is re-elected we will get these fixed as a priority...

It's quite simple - if the authorities won't blame distracted, highway code breaking drivers for their in-attentative driving causing deaths, then they MUST finance a technological solution to the massive blindspots on the huge trucks. Or ban them from the roads.

They cannot have it both ways. Far be it for me to suggest that if this moron wasn't on his hand free and in a conversation he would have seen the cyclist BEFORE she entered the truck's blindspot. Why is the onus on the cyclist and not the driver who is responsible for a vehicle which poses such a risk in the first place?

Disgusted once again.

So breaches of the highway code are not going to be punished, is that what they are saying

Quote:

PC Christopher Thorne said that although the driver, Mr Shergill had been in breach of the Highway Code for using his phone and failing to indicate he was not breaking the law.

But I thought that Road Traffic Act was in place to cover this?

Quote:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings

SO although breaching the Highway code is not a criminal offence, using those breaches they should have found that the liability was firmly at the door of the driver, for failing to indicate, whether or not he was on a phone. This STINKS if you ask me.

I've been in a car thats failed to indicate before, the blues and two's were straight on and pulled my friend over to explain that under section 103 of the Highway Code....blah blah blah, I'll quote it below, but he got a stern talking to about his driving and how it could constitute careless driving if anything were to happen by him failing to signal before his manoeuvre. If you cannot be punished for failing to signal, why have indicators on vehicle's in the first place. Why mark it down in a driving test?

Quote:

Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see 'Signals to other road users'), of your intended actions. You should always
give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off
cancel them after use
make sure your signals will not confuse others. If, for instance, you want to stop after a side road, do not signal until you are passing the road. If you signal earlier it may give the impression that you intend to turn into the road. Your brake lights will warn traffic behind you that you are slowing down
use an arm signal to emphasise or reinforce your signal if necessary. Remember that signalling does not give you priority

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070289

Another let down by the police and courts.

I'm amazed this hasn't resulted in causing death by careless driving given the driver was on the phone and wasn't indicating.

“There is every likelihood he didn’t see her,” PC Thorne told the inquest. “That is the crux of the matter.

If he hadn't been on the phone, there is every likelyhood he may have looked and seen her.
If he had been indicating, there is everylikelyhood she may have not positioned herself there.

Hmm, so two violations of the highway code and the driver isn't to blame at all? Interesting

For people who want more details the linked Evening Standard article has a lot more information.

For what it's worth I believe the design goals of the CS scheme (in a general sense) to be the primary issue in this case. Ms. Tereschenko was (totally understandably) moving herself to the place she felt safest; at the front of traffic and on the blue paint of CS7. In effect, it was the false feeling of security that the CS designs offer to less experienced cyclists that caused Ms. Tereschenko to move from what was actually a safe position (behind the lorry) to one in just to the left rear of the drivers cab. The CS design philosophy creates the image in the cyclists mind of a safe haven, whereas in reality they are nothing but road painted blue.

Oh FFS!

This is heart-breaking, demoralising and infuriating all at once.

Quote:

... if the lorry had been indicating it might have given Ms Tereschenko some warning ...

Really?!?!? I wondered what those blinking lights were for - AND WHY THEIR USE IS REQUIRED BY LAW!

Seriously - time for a lie down in a darkened room