Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Bike ride held in memory of two cyclists killed at same junction

The 'dangerous' road layout at the junction is due to be changed in September but cycling groups say that action should have been taken after the first death...

A memorial bike ride has been held in the New Forest for two cyclists who died in separate incidents at the same crossroads. 

Mark Brummel and Kieran Dix were both hit by drivers at Ipley Cross, near Beaulieu.

Mr Brummel died in May 2012 and Mr Dix in February 2017.

The ride, organised by Southampton Cycling Campaign, saw cyclists stop at the crossroads for a minute's silence, the BBC report.

Following a campaign by the group, the junction's layout is being changed.

Hampshire County Council said the junction will be reconfigured 'to make it safe'" by changing the layout to create a staggered junction.

A spokeswoman for Southampton Cycling Campaign said: "Sadly, had action been taken more promptly after Mark's death, Kieran would not have had to lose his life as well".

Mr Brummel, a former University of Southampton lecturer, spent much of his time maintaining and restoring bicycles, after taking early retirement from the physics department at the university. 

Mr Dix, from Eastleigh was a design engineer. In a previous tribute, his family said he was a 'serious cyclist' who had independently ridden some of the mountainous stages of the Tour de France.

Shortly after Mr Dix's death, the man who killed him was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving.

Viral Parekh, who admitted causing the death of Mr Dix, was found not guilty of the charge by a jury at Southampton Crown Court.

In his closing speech, Richard Onslow, Parekh’s defence barrister, told the court Parekh had 'made a mistake but simply has always said he did not see Mr Dix', the Daily Echo reported at the time.

Mr Onslow also seemed to suggest that Mr Dix was partly at fault for not wearing brighter clothing when the collision happened.

He added: "The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing but regrettably on [that] day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing."

Work to change the junction is expected to start by early September.

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
srchar | 2 years ago
2 likes

It's only a blind spot if you don't look around it. It's ludicrous that this term has not only been accepted as something that exists, but that it's seen as a reasonable excuse for killing someone.

If you're at a sports event or a concert and end up sitting behind a tall person, you don't sit there and accept that your view is blocked by a "blind spot"; you move your head.

Avatar
Dave Dave replied to srchar | 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't think anyone except idiots who think 'dogs must be carried' doesn't understand that a blind spot isn't an excuse, it's a danger to mitigate.

A lot of people don't have the habit of checking their blind spots anywhere near as often as they should, but they know they ought to.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
9 likes

If a cycle route crossed a busy road, a barrier chicane may well be employed to slow cyclists, often making the route unusable for some cyclists. Yet when a 60mph road crosses another road which has priority, no action is taken to impede drivers progressing at speed straight across.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
1 like

Not chicanes but look at whose fault it will be along this cycle path if there is a colision with a motor vehicle. 

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
1 like

They expect cyclists to give way to someone coming out of their driveway. Why am I not surprised.

Avatar
brooksby replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
2 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Not chicanes but look at whose fault it will be along this cycle path if there is a colision with a motor vehicle. 

Oh.  My.  God!! 

Is that real???

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

Yep, part of NCR 535 when it goes through Birmingham to Sutton Park. The cycle route has been in place for years but if you go back 10 years on the Street view, you can see strangeness where they moved the Giveways. It is only very recently when a section was relaid that they painted extra ones on some of the driveways to make them "more consistent."

Avatar
Dave Dave replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Not chicanes but look at whose fault it will be along this cycle path if there is a colision with a motor vehicle. 

 

ROFL. I guess someone was charging the council by the linear metre  1

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
3 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

If a cycle route crossed a busy road, a barrier chicane may well be employed to slow cyclists, often making the route unusable for some cyclists. Yet when a 60mph road crosses another road which has priority, no action is taken to impede drivers progressing at speed straight across.

Jesus, aside from the sheer insanity of it, just the cost of all that paint....

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 2 years ago
11 likes

"Not seeing someone", whether it's true or not, and then killing them has to be made a serious crime! "Not seeing someone" will then be an admission of guilt and not an excuse. If "Not seeing someone" gets you 15 years minimum, motorists might consider looking!

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
3 likes

If you read the excellent aricle on CBDR, referenced by Ktache below, this collision probably occured because the driver didn't move his head to look round the front pillar blind spot as he approached the junction. I have read that RAF pilots used to have a phrase "Head or dead" meaning that if you didn't make the effort move your head and look around you in a dog fight you would be dead. When driving, unfortunately, not making the effort to move your head when driving can result in someone else's death.

So the obvious question is : should "not making the effort to move your head" when driving be considered careless or dangerous. It was certainly dangerous for RAF pilots and for Mr Dix.

Avatar
Velophaart_95 replied to Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
1 like

I'm sure that article has been on here, (or maybe another cycling website) and what I took from it was to look both ways, including blind spots and repeat until you're sure it's clear; a quick glance misses things. Which is what has happened here.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't disagree. However, the illusion here is quite powerful. The driver will see all sections of the road, none of it remains hidden behind the A-pillar. So the driver has the sense that they have not missed anything, that their gaze has swept and seen the entire length of the cross-road, as indeed it has.

If we rely on car drivers being trained to the same degree as RAF fighter pilots then people will die of disappointment. Now that the facts of junctions such as this are understood they should be redesigned.

Avatar
Tired of the tr... replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
2 likes

In Bez's article there are actually two aspects:

  • The driver can't see the cyclist because he's hidden behind the A pillar, but also
  • The cyclist can't see the car because the car is always in his back (a few degrees behind a right angle, but enough to be outside the field of vision).

So, clearly there's a message to drivers to always move the head and specifically look around the pillars and into the "blind spots" of the car.

But I think it's also important to learn, as a cyclist, to scan side roads fully turing my head in all directions, because I may also fail to see approaching cars (while the driver should stop, it's me who risks my life if they don't, so it's a wise thing to do).

Avatar
Hirsute | 2 years ago
8 likes

He didn't see him because he didn't look nor make the required steps to ensure he could look.
Apparently this ok because it could happen to anyone who doesn't give a shit.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
1 like

Looks like he admitted the lesser charge of careless driving, and was given a suspended sentence. 
The stop signs in the picture were put in after the 2nd fatality.

Avatar
rct | 2 years ago
17 likes

"Mr Onslow also seemed to suggest that Mr Dix was partly at fault for not wearing brighter clothing when the collision happened.

He added: "The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing but regrettably on [that] day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing." "

The highway code does not say that. 

Avatar
TheBillder replied to rct | 2 years ago
14 likes
rct wrote:

"Mr Onslow also seemed to suggest that Mr Dix was partly at fault for not wearing brighter clothing when the collision happened.

He added: "The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing but regrettably on [that] day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing." "

The highway code does not say that. 

I must say I find such a statement from a lawyer utterly reprehensible. Perhaps there was no one in court to contradict him, but lies like that must (in the HC sense) be punished. Lawyers are not supposed to lie in court.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
9 likes

TheBillder wrote:

 Lawyers are not supposed to lie in court.

How on earth would they be able to make a living....

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
6 likes
Captain Badger wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

 Lawyers are not supposed to lie in court.

How on earth would they be able to make a living....

Actually, they are not allowed to lie. They can make a case for their client, which they may themselves not believe in, but they cannot lie. So if I said "I murdered him but you're going to get me off by saying I wasn't there" to my brief Captain Badger QC, you'd have to resign from my case. I'd have to turn to Hawkins Peter QC, and allege that a previously-unknown-to-science giant squirrel had done it and run away.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
0 likes

TheBillder wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

 Lawyers are not supposed to lie in court.

How on earth would they be able to make a living....

Actually, they are not allowed to lie. They can make a case for their client, which they may themselves not believe in, but they cannot lie. So if I said "I murdered him but you're going to get me off by saying I wasn't there" to my brief Captain Badger QC, you'd have to resign from my case. I'd have to turn to Hawkins Peter QC, and allege that a previously-unknown-to-science giant squirrel had done it and run away.

I know, it was a cheap shot that I couldn't resist

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
1 like

TheBillder wrote:
Captain Badger wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

 Lawyers are not supposed to lie in court.

How on earth would they be able to make a living....

Actually, they are not allowed to lie. They can make a case for their client, which they may themselves not believe in, but they cannot lie. So if I said "I murdered him but you're going to get me off by saying I wasn't there" to my brief Captain Badger QC, you'd have to resign from my case. I'd have to turn to Hawkins Peter QC, and allege that a previously-unknown-to-science giant squirrel had done it and run away.

Objection!

 

Avatar
kil0ran replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
4 likes

Southampton courts have previous on this - in the David Irving case the judge specifically advised the jury to remember that the HC guidance to "slow down or stop if dazzled" wasn't law.

David, a work colleague of mine, was struck from behind by the wing mirror of a minibus. The driver failed to stop, and David was run over by the driver of a following Mercedes.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to kil0ran | 2 years ago
5 likes
kil0ran wrote:

Southampton courts have previous on this - in the David Irving case the judge specifically advised the jury to remember that the HC guidance to "slow down or stop if dazzled" wasn't law.

David, a work colleague of mine, was struck from behind by the wing mirror of a minibus. The driver failed to stop, and David was run over by the driver of a following Mercedes.

That's dreadful. I guess grounds for appeal as a mis-directed jury, though putting a bereaved family through yet more pain would be difficult, and it would need the CPS to take it up. I don't know if judges have proper performance monitoring, but suspect not.

I also note that the HC says:

"If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop."

Which is a lot weaker than it needs to be. Surely it should say:

"You are responsible for all movement of any vehicle you drive. You MUST check for other road users, even if weather conditions, road layout or the design of your vehicle make this more difficult. In particular, you MUST be aware of any blindspots caused by parts of your vehicle and / or lack of mirror coverage, and move your head to observe these areas."

But of course this would change little because no one reads the thing after passing their driving test. I passed my motorcycle test about 5 years after my car test, thinking that I knew the code quite well. My m/c instructor was very experienced and found a lot of gaps - things I'd forgotten, had never known, or had been updated a bit.

Avatar
ktache | 2 years ago
9 likes

Bez gives an excellent summery of this junction and it's inhernet dangers

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/

Avatar
mike the bike replied to ktache | 2 years ago
4 likes

This article is a very concise description of something we all know but often forget, thanks for that ktache.

The central problem is the very basic standard to which we train and test drivers.  Society seems to accept driving as a rite of passage that should be denied to almost nobody.  While we let this silly idea run rampant we will always be at the mercy of the barely competent who treat driving as a means to an end rather than a worthwhile skill.  Will anything meaningful ever be done to correct this sad state of affairs?  I live in hope more than expectation.

Avatar
Velophaart_95 replied to mike the bike | 2 years ago
5 likes

Exactly! As I've often said, driving is a privilege, not a right - sadly, it seems to be the opposite. 

Most people aren't interested in becoming better drivers - they passed their test, that's enough for them. When top level advanced drivers (see YouTube) say they're always learning, then you realise how ignorant the majority of dtivers are. 

Avatar
ktache replied to Velophaart_95 | 2 years ago
1 like

When I was litter picking on the M3, we had a driver who was learing to be an truck driver, you could tell he was trying to be a better driver, only one scary thing in 6 or 7 weeks.

My better half did an advance driver thing so she could drive the kids she was caring for in a minibus.  She is a good driver, very consious of speed limits, only thing she could improve is being a little more  of swivel headed when approaching a roundabout, but then I'm a cyclist and roundabouts are one of those things I am very aware about, now anyway, been hit to many times on them.

Avatar
kil0ran replied to mike the bike | 2 years ago
0 likes

There needs to be a multi-layer approach because humans are fallible. The sharply sloping windscreens and bonnet lines in modern cars (created to improve pedestrian survivability in the event of a collision, and also passenger safety in rollovers) probably played a role in the 2nd fatality because they cause very large blind spots Yes, it could have been avoided by Parekh being a better driver, but humans make mistakes. I think the driving test has a role to play because you're encouraged to drive positively, not to hesitate. Give Way junctions & roundabouts are a case in point - so many drivers approach them as "Go unless I have to stop" rather than "Stop unless it's safe to go". Safety is reduced for all road users in the interests of "making progress".

Avatar
Velophaart_95 replied to kil0ran | 2 years ago
1 like

'I'm planning to stop, but looking to go' (from last weeks Reg Local video on You Tube) should be the mantra approaching roundabouts; so, moderate your speed so you can stop at the line - something a lot of people struggle with.

Pages

Latest Comments