Inquest hears driver would only have seen cyclist for less than 2 seconds before fatal crash

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

If this was a broken down vehicle in the road or a disabled person trying to cross, the driver would still have ploughed into them as they clearly could not see or failed to see, or react in time, this says that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed for the conditions as others have said. 18mph was judged to be excessive "deomon" speed for Charlie Alliston, the absence of a front brake had virtually nothing to do with the outcome as Alliston BRAKED from 18mph to 10mph at impact, the prosecution say this in court, he swerved to avoid AND BRAKED to jogging speed, he would not have been able to brake again as the time between the second action of the pedestrian did not give him enough time to react to that second movement unfortunatekly back into his path.

Given previous Alliston should have been charged only with an infraction of Con and Use, same as the motorist who killed 4 cyclists despite the police actually lying about the speed and the bald tyres having nothing to do with the fact the driver skidded on the road.

As I said earlier, speed limit is too high and there's no equitable application of the HC or law when it comes to people on bikes and those in killing machines.

We need to redress this and take steps so that one small error in judgement does not end in a death because another has given no leaway whatsoever.

The police investigation is yet another sham and shows a failure to actually understand the problems at hand as to why so many people including those in motorvehicles and pedestrians are being killed or injured, addressing the known issues benefits EVERYONE!

Bonus marks if you can post without the name Alliston. 

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

If this was a broken down vehicle in the road or a disabled person trying to cross, the driver would still have ploughed into them as they clearly could not see or failed to see, or react in time, this says that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed for the conditions as others have said. 18mph was judged to be excessive "deomon" speed for Charlie Alliston, the absence of a front brake had virtually nothing to do with the outcome as Alliston BRAKED from 18mph to 10mph at impact, the prosecution say this in court, he swerved to avoid AND BRAKED to jogging speed, he would not have been able to brake again as the time between the second action of the pedestrian did not give him enough time to react to that second movement unfortunatekly back into his path.

Given previous Alliston should have been charged only with an infraction of Con and Use, same as the motorist who killed 4 cyclists despite the police actually lying about the speed and the bald tyres having nothing to do with the fact the driver skidded on the road.

As I said earlier, speed limit is too high and there's no equitable application of the HC or law when it comes to people on bikes and those in killing machines.

We need to redress this and take steps so that one small error in judgement does not end in a death because another has given no leaway whatsoever.

The police investigation is yet another sham and shows a failure to actually understand the problems at hand as to why so many people including those in motorvehicles and pedestrians are being killed or injured, addressing the known issues benefits EVERYONE!

You have no idea if your first sentence is correct. We don't even know which direction the driver was coming from.
If it were a stationary car, they may have swerved round them.

Are there any circumstances at all in which you would find a cyclist at fault? That's a rhetorical question if any doubt.

hirsute wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

If this was a broken down vehicle in the road or a disabled person trying to cross, the driver would still have ploughed into them as they clearly could not see or failed to see, or react in time, this says that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed for the conditions as others have said. 18mph was judged to be excessive "deomon" speed for Charlie Alliston, the absence of a front brake had virtually nothing to do with the outcome as Alliston BRAKED from 18mph to 10mph at impact, the prosecution say this in court, he swerved to avoid AND BRAKED to jogging speed, he would not have been able to brake again as the time between the second action of the pedestrian did not give him enough time to react to that second movement unfortunatekly back into his path.

Given previous Alliston should have been charged only with an infraction of Con and Use, same as the motorist who killed 4 cyclists despite the police actually lying about the speed and the bald tyres having nothing to do with the fact the driver skidded on the road.

As I said earlier, speed limit is too high and there's no equitable application of the HC or law when it comes to people on bikes and those in killing machines.

We need to redress this and take steps so that one small error in judgement does not end in a death because another has given no leaway whatsoever.

The police investigation is yet another sham and shows a failure to actually understand the problems at hand as to why so many people including those in motorvehicles and pedestrians are being killed or injured, addressing the known issues benefits EVERYONE!

You have no idea if your first sentence is correct. ..........

Be serious. He doesn't even understand how road junctions work:

Cyclinginbeastiemode wrote:

The investigator makes an assumption that the junction has priority for the motorist when there's no signage, why?

hirsute wrote:

At 40mph it would take 2 seconds to stop according to http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/help-forum/159.html 17.882*9.81*.9 So even at a lower speed, a driver would not stop in time. Remedy - exercise caution when entering a public highway from a driveway and use all senses.

To be honest, that seems to be more part of an argument _against_ the driver than for their defence.

  If they could realistically be expected to 'stop' from 40mph in 2 seconds  then it seems to follow they could certainly have slowed to a speed slow enough to not be fatal in the 'less than 2 seconds' from 44mph.  But those figures seem not to allow for a reasonable reaction time...so not sure they  clarify anything either way.  (What would be a reasonable reaction time, and how would that figure be established?  Seems like it would be more a significant issue than the 2 seconds to physically stop)

hirsute wrote:

[ What hazard warnings? I'm not sure what you mean by distance seen to be clear, I really don't think that includes people entering the highway at random

Sorry, should have clarified I meant  that if the driver had been travelling at a speed where they could stop in the distance they can see to be clear on their side of the road, then there is no way they would have approached the junction at 60mph.   There were markings indicating 'there is a hazard ahead'.  Unfortunately the standard of driver education and testing in the UK means that an average UK driver would approach the hazards far to quickly leaving themselves no where to go. 

hampsoc wrote:

hirsute wrote:

[ What hazard warnings? I'm not sure what you mean by distance seen to be clear, I really don't think that includes people entering the highway at random

Sorry, should have clarified I meant  that if the driver had been travelling at a speed where they could stop in the distance they can see to be clear on their side of the road, then there is no way they would have approached the junction at 60mph. 

 

Where is the evidence that the car was travelling at 60mph?

Where is the evidence that the driver could not see a clear road past the junction before the cyclist emerged from a side road?

hampsoc wrote:

True, but the resultant death because both parties were at fault is rather an unfortuante outcome, I hope you agree. 

Apart from assumptions you have made about the speed, and distance seen to be clear, what evidence do you have that the driver was at fault?  (ie stuff you have made up) The coroner seemed to conclued otherwise.  Sometimes we need to accept that just sometimes, we, as cyclists, are at fault.  (The coroner had access to more information than us. We are even guessing which direction the car was travelling in, let alone his speed and visibility)

Griff500 wrote:

Where is the evidence that the car was travelling at 60mph?

For some reason the investigation could not determine the speed.  However, 1.5 seconds is a poor reaction time.  It might have been that the car was travelling faster or the driver did not react very quickly for whatever reason.  

Griff500 wrote:

Where is the evidence that the driver could not see a clear road past the junction before the cyclist emerged from a side road?

That's the issue really,  they had not passed the hazard at that point in time.   Accelerate into the known and brake into the unknown, in other words.

hampsoc wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Where is the evidence that the car was travelling at 60mph?

hampsoc wrote:

For some reason the investigation could not determine the speed.  However, 1.5 seconds is a poor reaction time.  It might have been that the car was travelling faster or the driver did not react very quickly for whatever reason.  

More assumptions. The report said that he reacted within 1.5 seconds. Not untypical actually. 

Where is the evidence that the driver could not see a clear road past the junction before the cyclist emerged from a side road?

hampsoc wrote:

That's the issue really,  they had not passed the hazard at that point in time.   Accelerate into the known and brake into the unknown, in other words.

Frankly, I don't get your point. A driver is quite rightly expected to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. That doesn't mean he can stop before a potential hazard within the distance he can see to be clear. You are just making assumptions for which there is no evidence in order to attribute shared blame, for which likewise there is no evidence. 

Griff500 wrote:

Frankly, I don't get your point. A driver is quite rightly expected to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. That doesn't mean he can stop before a potential hazard within the distance he can see to be clear. You are just making assumptions for which there is no evidence in order to attribute shared blame, for which likewise there is no evidence. 

My point is simply the approach would have necessitated a reduction in speed due to the hazard. 

hampsoc wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Frankly, I don't get your point. A driver is quite rightly expected to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. That doesn't mean he can stop before a potential hazard within the distance he can see to be clear. You are just making assumptions for which there is no evidence in order to attribute shared blame, for which likewise there is no evidence. 

My point is simply the approach would have necessitated a reduction in speed due to the hazard. 

Doesn't that depend on how fast he was going to start with? If your assumption of 60mph hour is correct, I agree, but you just made up the 60mph figure. 

Griff500 wrote:

hampsoc wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Frankly, I don't get your point. A driver is quite rightly expected to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. That doesn't mean he can stop before a potential hazard within the distance he can see to be clear. You are just making assumptions for which there is no evidence in order to attribute shared blame, for which likewise there is no evidence. 

My point is simply the approach would have necessitated a reduction in speed due to the hazard. 

Doesn't that depend on how fast he was going to start with? If your assumption of 60mph hour is correct, I agree, but you just made up the 60mph figure. 

  

You should give up. A cyclist could do a backflip off an overpass onto the motorway and some people on here would argue it was the driver's fault they got runover. 

hirsute wrote:

[At 40mph it would take 2 seconds to stop according to http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/help-forum/159.html 17.882*9.81*.9 So even at a lower speed, a driver would not stop in time. Remedy - exercise caution when entering a public highway from a driveway and use all senses.

Say they had reduced their approach speed to the hazard down to 45mph from 60mph,  not a huge amount or inconveinience.   Now the cyclist emerges from the junction and the driver still only manages to reduce velocity to 25mph (same circa 20mph reduction in the given reaction/braking time).  Now impact is roughly a third of what it was at 44mph and much more survivable.

hampsoc wrote:

hirsute wrote:

[At 40mph it would take 2 seconds to stop according to http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/help-forum/159.html 17.882*9.81*.9 So even at a lower speed, a driver would not stop in time. Remedy - exercise caution when entering a public highway from a driveway and use all senses.

Say they had reduced their approach speed to the hazard down to 45mph from 60mph,  not a huge amount or inconveinience.   Now the cyclist emerges from the junction and the driver still only manages to reduce velocity to 25mph (same circa 20mph reduction in the given reaction/braking time).  Now impact is roughly a third of what it was at 44mph and much more survivable.

 

 

Or the cyclist could have stopped and checked which is not a huge inconvenience.
I'd have come to a stop in a car before pulling out.

hirsute wrote:

Or the cyclist could have stopped and checked which is not a huge inconvenience. I'd have come to a stop in a car before pulling out.

True, but the resultant death because both parties were at fault is rather an unfortuante outcome, I hope you agree. 

hampsoc wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Or the cyclist could have stopped and checked which is not a huge inconvenience. I'd have come to a stop in a car before pulling out.

True, but the resultant death because both parties were at fault is rather an unfortuante outcome, I hope you agree. 

Not the inquest outcome though.

Mybike wrote:

Is a private road same as a drive way if going from a private road to a public road you need to stop and look before entering on it You are your first line of safety riding a bike is the same as driving you need to look before you go

A private road allows you to block access and egress to the public highway. Also there is no expectation of access to a private road unless for a clear reason relating to the occupants.
A driveway if exclusively for one house is a private road. If a drive way gives access to more than one house, it could be considered public.
However, the road markings in this case are unambiguous.

Philh68 wrote:

If the cyclist was travelling at 13mph or a bit over 20kmh that is a rate of 5.5m/s, which means it would take less than the time the cyclist was said to be visible for the cyclist to cross the road. About half a second less given a 6m wide road and a 1.8m long bike. But at 60mph, which is almost 27m/s would mean the driver only had 48m distance from sighting the cyclist. The reverse would surely apply, the cyclist would only have that distance and time to sight the vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to blame the cyclist for that.

another oddity is stating that impact speed was determined from tyre marks on the road - given that most cars in the last couple of decades have anti lock brakes, and stability control is also common, how were these marks left? Surely the only way to know the driver reaction time to brake application is from ECU data, which would give vehicle speed anyway. Why state tyre marks were used which would be less precise?

The cyclist may only have started crossing once the vehicle was in sight, which might explain the "what is he doing" remark from the passenger.

As for the tyre mark calculations vs the ECU, it may be that the ECU isn't admissible or usable by the police, but I don't know.

Philh68 wrote:

If the cyclist was travelling at 13mph or a bit over 20kmh that is a rate of 5.5m/s, which means it would take less than the time the cyclist was said to be visible for the cyclist to cross the road. About half a second less given a 6m wide road and a 1.8m long bike. But at 60mph, which is almost 27m/s would mean the driver only had 48m distance from sighting the cyclist. The reverse would surely apply, the cyclist would only have that distance and time to sight the vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to blame the cyclist for that.

another oddity is stating that impact speed was determined from tyre marks on the road - given that most cars in the last couple of decades have anti lock brakes, and stability control is also common, how were these marks left? Surely the only way to know the driver reaction time to brake application is from ECU data, which would give vehicle speed anyway. Why state tyre marks were used which would be less precise?

Looking at street view, it is clear caution is required to enter the public highway.
You would not need to see someone, as you should hear them coming first.

hirsute wrote:

Philh68 wrote:

If the cyclist was travelling at 13mph or a bit over 20kmh that is a rate of 5.5m/s, which means it would take less than the time the cyclist was said to be visible for the cyclist to cross the road. About half a second less given a 6m wide road and a 1.8m long bike. But at 60mph, which is almost 27m/s would mean the driver only had 48m distance from sighting the cyclist. The reverse would surely apply, the cyclist would only have that distance and time to sight the vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to blame the cyclist for that.

another oddity is stating that impact speed was determined from tyre marks on the road - given that most cars in the last couple of decades have anti lock brakes, and stability control is also common, how were these marks left? Surely the only way to know the driver reaction time to brake application is from ECU data, which would give vehicle speed anyway. Why state tyre marks were used which would be less precise?

Looking at street view, it is clear caution is required to enter the public highway.
You would not need to see someone, as you should hear them coming first.

Rear tires maybe. Some cars only have anti lock on the front

Philh68 wrote:

It does not seem reasonable to blame the cyclist for that.

Cyclist on what is very clearly the minor road, accelerates towards a major A road, crosses the white line demarking the minor road from the A road, emerges onto the A road and gets hit by a car travelling within the speed limit. Who would you blame?

Very sad, he made a mistake and paid the ultimate price. 

Philh68 wrote:

Surely the only way to know the driver reaction time to brake application is from ECU data...

Maybe you could explain how that bit of magic would work?  Sadly we do not yet have cars with the ECU wired into the driver's brain so we know his thinking time! 

Griff500 wrote:

Philh68 wrote:

It does not seem reasonable to blame the cyclist for that.

Cyclist on what is very clearly the minor road, accelerates towards a major A road, crosses the white line demarking the minor road from the A road, emerges onto the A road and gets hit by a car travelling within the speed limit. Who would you blame?

Very sad, he made a mistake and paid the ultimate price. 

 

Philh68 wrote:

Surely the only way to know the driver reaction time to brake application is from ECU data...

Maybe you could explain how that bit of magic would work?  Sadly we do not yet have cars with the ECU wired into the driver's brain so we know his thinking time! 

 

I would not blame anyone. Neither the cyclist or driver needs to be blamed, people can act according to the information available to them and within the law and still result in tragedy. The cyclist could approach the A road, see it is clear and decide to cross,  only for the circumstances to change rapidly. A give way sign would make no difference in that instance. The driver can approach this intersection without clear sight lines at the legal limit and be unable to avoid a collision.

As for the data, there is no magic. The sight line is easy to determine, therefore the time to point of impact at the speed time stamp recorded by the ECU. The ECU records brake application, also time stamped. The police investigation would have had to use the ECU record to know when the brake was applied relative to the position of the vehicle when the cyclist could have been sighted. You measure the reaction time from when it is possible to act, not when the driver decided to act.

In this instance the countback from impact seems to be brakes applied at approximately -0.3 seconds, line of sight -1.8 seconds. 1.5 seconds is an average reaction time. This tells me that the speed limit on the A road is too high for the conditions. It is to be expected that vehicles will turn at the intersection, the private access is not any additional risk above that. But at 60mph, if the sightline is so short you cannot stop before the intersection in an emergency, the limit is too high. It could easily have been a car turning right instead of a bicycle. To provide the necessary 3 seconds to cover reaction time and stopping distance, the speed limit would need to be lowered to 40. The alternative is to redesign the intersection with turn lanes and a pedestrian island so the road can be crossed in two stages.

Philh68 wrote:

I would not blame anyone. Neither the cyclist or driver needs to be blamed, people can act according to the information available to them and within the law and still result in tragedy. The cyclist could approach the A road, see it is clear and decide to cross,  only for the circumstances to change rapidly. A give way sign would make no difference in that instance.

OK so you've outlined hypothetical circumstances  which may have happened in a different accident and resulted in a different verdict. Perhaps in the hypothetical case you outline, the cyclist had defective hearing and could not hear a car travelling at 60mph 2 seconds away. But I fail to see the relevance here, as that is not what happened.  In this particular instance we know that the cyclist emerged from a minor road while accelerating, without stopping to look and listen. 

(Incidentally, the ECU in a car doesn't record brake application, it records ABS activation, and it doesn't record impact unless the airbags or seatbelt tensioners pop.) 

Philh68 wrote:

This tells me that the speed limit on the A road is too high for the conditions. It is to be expected that vehicles will turn at the intersection, the private access is not any additional risk above that. But at 60mph, if the sightline is so short you cannot stop before the intersection in an emergency, the limit is too high. It could easily have been a car turning right instead of a bicycle. To provide the necessary 3 seconds to cover reaction time and stopping distance, the speed limit would need to be lowered to 40. The alternative is to redesign the intersection with turn lanes and a pedestrian island so the road can be crossed in two stages.

Speed limit is exactly that.  Driver should have been driving to the conditions, which were there to be observed and indicated by the hazard warnings.  Despite the cyclist not giving way, the driver should have been prepared to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, and assume that the cyclist would cross.   Even droping speed down to circa 45 mph would have left enough stopping distance to vastly reduce the impact and make it survivable and hopefully avoidable.

Philh68 wrote:

another oddity is stating that impact speed was determined from tyre marks on the road - given that most cars in the last couple of decades have anti lock brakes, and stability control is also common, how were these marks left?

Simple. They were left by the tyres! ABS systems only limit tyre slip to 5-25%. In fact the the system only works by detecting slip, then releasing the brake and reapplying continually so it oscillates around the slip point. In hard braking under abs, tyre tracks are still left, fainter and shorter lived than locked wheels. A simple search on something like "tyre marks abs" will yield a wealth of information on how they are formed, and more importantly how they are interpreted in the event of an accident.