- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
A170 Kirkdale Road, North Yorkshire (Google Maps)Teenage cyclist killed in collision with driver “should have been on footpath”, inquest hears
Drivers who passed a teenage cyclist on a rural road moments before he was fatally struck by another motorist told police that he “should have been on the footpath”.
Police collision investigator Nigel Varney also told the inquest into 17-year-old Charlie Cornick’s death that the teenager, whose mother had passed away just weeks before the tragic incident, was “not clearly visible” at the time of crash and had failed to follow the Highway Code’s recommendations that “cyclists should always wear light or reflective clothing and have working lights and a suitable helmet”.
Apprentice mechanic Cornick was cycling home from work on the A170 between Kirkbymoorside and Beadlam, North Yorkshire, just before 5.30pm on 19 November 2021 when he was hit from behind by a driver and thrown onto the car’s windscreen near Welburn crossroads.
The 17-year-old, who suffered a serious head injury in the collision, was flown to James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough, where he died the following morning.
The teenager’s tragic death came just weeks after his mother, Susi Cornick, passed away from a terminal illness, aged 46.
The driver who struck Charlie, 26-year-old Rachel Adams, was not arrested or charged in relation to the incident.
“Not clearly visible”
Earlier this week, an inquest at Northallerton’s County Hall heard that several drivers who passed Charlie on the unlit A170 remarked that the cyclist was not clearly visible and “should have been on the footpath”, the Yorkshire Post reports.
According to the inquest Cornick, who was travelling home from his job at Kirkby Mills Garage to a rented property in Nawton at the time of the collision, was wearing dark clothing and did not have working lights or reflectors attached to his bike.
Charlie had told family members that he cycled primarily on the pavement during his commute along the A170, apart from a short section of 50 metres where the path stops, and where the collision took place.
Kirkby Mills Garage’s co-owner Paul Grayson, who gave Charlie the mountain bike after his mother was unable to drive him to work, told the inquest that he had spoken to the 17-year-old about road safety and had advised him to use lights, wear a helmet, and not to have earphones in while cycling.
Grayson, who said that he “cared deeply” about the teenager and was devastated by his death, also noted that Charlie usually wore a reflective jacket but was not wearing it on the night he died.
> Cyclist’s bike ‘snapped in half’ in fatal collision, inquest hears
Motorist Rachel Adams, who lives locally and went to school with Charlie’s sister, told the inquest that she had been travelling at 50mph on the A170 but had slowed as she approached the crossroads. Adams claimed she did not see Charlies as she was “dazzled” by an oncoming car’s lights, and was unable to swerve to avoid the cyclist because another driver was passing in the other direction at the time of the collision.
Nigel Varney, North Yorkshire Police’s collision investigator, said that there was a “clearly defined footpath” along the A170 with a short break section. Varney added that when the scene was searched, a non-working USB light – believed to have belonged to Charlie – was found, but that no lights or reflectors were fitted to the bike.
The investigator also noted that a visibility study established that at 50-60mph, Charlie would only have been visible for between four to five metres in darkness. Varney concluded that Charlie was “not clearly visible”, before pointing to the Highway Code’s recommendations that “cyclists should always wear light or reflective clothing and have working lights and a suitable helmet”.
Senior coroner for North Yorkshire, Jon Heath, recorded a conclusion of death in a road traffic collision.
“A gifted, incredible young man”
“Before she died, Mum depended on Charlie and they were so close,” the teenager’s sister, Ashleigh Brown, said after the inquest. “He had to grow up quickly and he was fiercely independent. Charlie could go into a room with a million people and come out with a million friends. He never excluded anyone and had a heart of gold.
“His personality was so rich. He partied a bit, but nothing excessive. He could turn his hand to any sport – he did regional-level athletics with our brother Jake, football and parkour. He was a gifted, incredible young man.”
She added: “Charlie’s death has changed the dynamics of our family. His funeral was on his 18th birthday and he is buried with Mum. People have been so kind.
“I know the driver and she isn’t a bad person. I loved my baby brother and I will make sure my son knows all about his uncle.”
In the wake of Charlie’s death, friends renewed a campaign to install a cycle path on the notoriously dangerous A170.
Marcie Hughes, whose son was a close friend of Charlie, told the Gazette and Herald last year: “In light of the tragic accident on the A170, I urge Ryedale District Council to consider pushing forward the plans for the Kirkbymoorside cycle path.”
The Ryedale Cycle Forum, working alongside the Kirkbymoorside Environment Group and Kirkbymoorside Town Council, have launched an appeal to raise funds for the installation of an 800m segregated cycling and walking route on the A170, which the group says will mark the “first stage” of a cycling and walking network connecting Kirkbymoorside and Helmsley, through the villages of Nawton, Beadlam, and Wombleton.
Hughes added: “Had the path been in place at 5.30pm on a winter evening, our dear Charlie might still be with us. Instead, I have spent the week comforting my youngest son and his friends, as they try to come to terms with the senseless loss of their beloved friend.
“They are 17-year-old boys – traumatised, devastated and utterly bewildered. Surely this must now be considered to be a priority and possibly named in memory of Charlie.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 41 min 47 sec ago
Thanks – I hope road.cc never acts against random posts that are irrelevant to the topic on these message boards, it would become a ghost town! I...
- chrisonabike 44 min 15 sec ago
Get "rats for LTNs and modal filters" founded immediately or we're doomed!
- chrisonabike 46 min 50 sec ago
They almost never get to experience them... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ngifg--1eW4
- stonojnr 55 min 2 sec ago
its tricky because there are arguably hundreds, maybe even thousands of "problem areas" on any sportive route, that potentially could result in the...
- chrisonabike 54 min 28 sec ago
Unfortunately the key voices on the opposition don't tend to come from a place amenable to logical persuasion. "My friend told me..." or "you can't...
- George Platts 2 hours 32 min ago
47 years ago, as a founder of Cyclebag (7.7.77) and Sustrans I am disappointed by all of this. Our original hopes were to "make Bristol safer for...
- check12 11 hours 55 min ago
Surely please get down on your knees, rappers rap about gats not cats and foil isn't made from oil and can hold your all told
- David9694 13 hours 29 min ago
Elderly man sentenced following serious crash in Ringwood...
- the little onion 17 hours 32 min ago
I didn't remove the sound because I didn't think that it mattered - quite clearly the swearing was in reaction to an act of frankly horrid...
Add new comment
72 comments
This thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Those assigning blame to the vunerable road user should not have a look at themselves. This is a tragic series of events which led to a young mans death. Any blame should lie within the hierarchy of road users and in my eyes, as a cyclist, I would want/expect no less than drivers to be able to come to a halt or slow in all conditions when unforseen obstacles appear, e.g. be in control of their vehicle at all times.
The cyclist could have been a cow, or a sheep, or a pedestrian none of which require lights. Blame isn't the issue here, education for everyone of the dangers facing users of our roads is a solution, alongside harsher punishments for driving offences and a change in the law in seeing having a driving licence as a privilege and not a right.
I have 2 questions about the Police evidence:
If the driver said she was doing 50mph and was slowing, why did the Police Officer quote the visibility period for someone travelling at 50-60mph
and
2) What evidence is there that the rear light was broken before the impact?
Re: the rear light. The garage owner*, who gave him the bike so he could still be an apprentice at the garage when his mum couldn't drop him off, stated the bike didn't have any lights or reflectors. So the light found at the scene was not probably not his anyway. (Plus other vehicle operators who did avoid him stated he had no lights).
The crash investigators evidence does seem suspect in lots of ways (4-5 metres viewing distance?) but I think one rather obvious case of error seems to be that apparently the footpath only disappears for 50m at the crossing. Weirdly it seems to be missing for 1500metres on Streetview. Where they classing the layby on the other side of the road "the footpath"?
*Apparently he treated him like a son. He obviously is not bothered about supplying a road-worthy bike to his son, or paying him pittance to work at the garage. Just that he could turn up reliably.
????????
Apprentice: £4.81 per hour.
edit: Actually was £4.30 during 2021.
good point - presumably the driver was doing less than 50 at the junction. If she was dazzled by lights coming the other way she should have slowed to ensure she didn't hit a pedestrian or an animal crossing the road.
I am outraged at the criticism levelled at the vulnerable road user. AKA. A human being.
The path was inaccessible and cars have lights. Sure. He made mistakes but a human being HAS been snuffed out and no one dares to question the driving performance? Poor lad. RIP.
Nice double-think there. Better not criticise the cyclist because they're a human being, we all should be criticising the car driver (who presumably isn't?).
I'm surprised that the cyclist died tbh. Quite a few commenters have recently put me right about how much safer it is to cycle without a helmet, especially when it comes to head injuries. It seems that this young lad wasn't wearing one, so surely he should have been fine, right guys?
For fucks sake, that is bad. Using someone's death to bolster an argument that you've had BTL.
Please delete.
Oh. Ffs. You're such a clickbait cnut...
I think it was Human League who said it best:
I'm only human
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes
But by your logic the cyclist is human but the car driver isn't.
And you're using the death of a cyclist to vilify motorists, and I'm the cnut. Ok then.
If you're referring to our discussion, then you're badly mis-characterising it. As others have said, this thread isn't the right place to continue it and please have a bit of respect for the victim's family and friends.
I wonder how many of the motoring witnesses used their indicators while passing the lad prior to the collision?
It seems that warning other vehicles around that you are passing slower traffic is not necessary anymore.
I wonder how much more time the unfortunate lady driver would have had to be aware of the victim if the cars in front of her had indicated as they passed the young man.
It's a real bugbear of mine as if there is a line of cars overtaking in a short space of time, by the time it gets to the 4th/5th driver whoever is being overtaken is literally beneath their wheels before they are seen.
Instead of questioning whether the lad should have been on the pavement, perhaps these witnesses should be asking what could they have done better to avoid the situation in the first place.
Just a suggestion, but using your indicators isn't just for turning corners.
This was an appalling incident made worse by a terrible result in court. My sympathies are with the victim's family. RIP
To be clear, this was a Coroner's Inquest, not a trial. Coroner's Inquests are "limited, fact-finding inquiries" and "Coroners are no longer able to consider criminal liability as part of their investigations". The conclusion of "death in a road traffic collision" would seem to be the most suitable one available to the Coroner in this instance. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/coroners
Get out of here with your facts. Where are the baying mob supposed to stick their pitchforks now eh?
Yes - but they can also issue narratives and make "Prevention of Future Death Reports" - and the latter definitely have featured where e.g. the coroner queried some aspect of e.g. a road design.
I could've used this news article in tutor time at school this morning. I was just talking to my students about road safety and the idea that, while motorists have the highest responsibility for road safety, the highest impact of road safety falls on cycles and then pedestrians as vulnerable road users. It was an interesting discussion (bit one-sided, but my students are 15...). We concluded that yes, motorists do have the responsibility of due care on roads, but after said motorists have caused death or serious injury:
- Arguing about who was responsible isn't going to bring the dead or seriously injured back. Therefore;
- Vulnerable road users do have to take some ownership of their own safety, but;
- This should be limited to reasonable measures like lights (for cyclists and pedestrians) or reflective clothing and walking facing traffic (for pedestrians - we were undecided there's a case for high-vis for cyclists in the dark if we already have lights on). So ultimately;
- Motorists are culpable for their actions if they result in the death or serious injury of another road user.
So, I still think this young man was in the wrong if he had not ridden with lights on, but arguing that he was in the wrong doesn't lessen the responsibility on the motorist, nor should it completely absolve them from punishment - merely mitigate it somewhat.
Given that discussion they should potentially lessen the age for learning to 15... but then probably remove all licenses from 18 to death!
I have 5 rear lights on my bike, different heights different patterns and a minimum of 3 on the front. I would potentially be up for mandatory high vis based on a few chenges:
- All cars to be painted high vis (black cars, are they crazy?!?!)
- Immediate 1 year ban for any driver 10% above the speed limit
- 1st ban always a minimum of a year (any offence), 2nd 3 years, 3rd lose license
If we are going to hold cyclists accountable to the Nth degree as a vulnerable road user, why are motorists given many chances (even when caught)?
I should probably point that I'm not quoting verbatim, simply acting as interpreter. Teenage mumbling under the breath, shrugs and general chat doesn't usually translate well to text! However the content of the conversation was right.
I wouldn't, still, I think. My stance has always been that high vis immediately designates cycling and road use as inherently hazardous activities, which apart from the actions of the notable minority (and bad road users ARE a minority) they are not. I think the optimal end goal should be that sharing roads safely should be an incidental, unquestioned happening. Sanctioning and depriving road users of their privileges if they act dangerously (as per your second two points) would help create this atmosphere. Creating a high-alert atmosphere of high-vis, I argue, would not and might even put new road users off riding bicycles completely.
Twas mostly flippant with the high vis but a price I would pay for the other 2 things.
I don't share your belief that the majority are not bad road users, cycling at commuting time I'd say around 50% are giving 1.5 metres before adding speeding, inattention etc.
Just this. There's a yawning gap between what is required in law - for example bikes can be sold without lights! - and what people feel is necessary to compensate for the deficiencies of others. Or the unsympathetic criminal / civil legal system.
Such a gap doesn't appear to apply in the case of motorised traffic. Yes - the emergency services / specialised work vehicles are sticking extra hi-vis / lights on, but I'm not a paramedic or policeman on my bike. I've bought up a bunch of reflectives this autumn to dress the bikes but I'm not seeing people do that with their cars. Why is that?
I would not. I think it is more hassle for cyclists (who already legally have reflectors and lights after dark) and I don't think it would make a huge difference to collision figures. This is because many of them appear to be:
- failure to look at all. Could be phone use, could be "blind spot" (so you didn't look around that) etc. You can't possibly see if you're not even looking
- driver overloaded. They may have noticed the vulnerable road user but they were trying to handle too many inputs at once (e.g. watch something else as well, carry out a manoeuver, deal with a child, talk on the phone...)
- other rule-breaking. Over speed limit, too fast for conditions, incorrect position on road, intoxicated, unlicenced ...
- deliberate
See another one just posted today - come on trollsters, have a go! Perhaps "she's on a dark coloured bike", "she should have lights which shine on both sides like cars do er...", "her tyres aren't reflective", maybe "driver was looking through her spokes and didn't see the bike"...
Exactly and pretty much confirms my stance on it too. It's all about perspective.
As usual (and expected) a big pile on about the driver.
A young man lost his life, an absolute tragedy. Yes, the driver is partially culpable however in my opinion the biggest culprit here is Charlie. No reflectors, no lights and dark clothing - on a main and by the sound of it very busy road. Come on everyone, get some perspective.
Of course there's a lot of wrongdoing on the cyclist's part. The lack of reflectors and lights is illegal.
But I think the main concern was the court finding it ok to be driving at 50mph with 4 metres of visibility.
There are times when driving at night where an oncoming car can momentarily dazzle and make it hard to see the road ahead. But it is only fleeting and prior to that moment the oncoming car headlights actually help illuminate the road beyond the reach of your own headlights. The thing I can't undertstand is just how long and straight the road is, if you were looking ahead, surely the cyclist would have been illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic?
As you also state this things can happen and are momentary - we do not know any more than what we're read on here. I could surmise that it was a momentary dazzle and it just happened to coincide with when the rider was on the road and in an extremely vulnerable position. All of the other drivers who 'saw' him may have seen him on the path as they drove past. Lot of people on here making a lot of assumptions.
Well not a lot about the story made sense to me. The whole "they'd only be visible for 5-6 metres" (others have had a go at that in the comments). The fact that "he should have been on the pavement" - which apparently may not have existed at that point, and it's not clear whether it's legal elsewhere. The fact that there was a "non-functional" light found at the scene doesn't necessarily show it wasn't working before the collision. The driver was "dazzled" but apparently kept their foot down.
Now it may be that this young man was careless - possibly deliberately so following recent events in his life. I'd say there are several others here who may not be criminally culpable but certainly need to examine their actions e.g. firstly the driver (not driving to conditions), whoever supplied / certified the car (if it turns out that the lights were inadequate / incorrectly adjusted) and the council (failure to provide a safe route - which clearly includes "for pedestrians either").
I think that is mischaracterising it. The pile-on is "The UK's attitudes to driving" where expecting the world to fit in with cars while not giving people the tools to do so. Yes, the young lad was foolish, but being foolish should not be a death sentence.
As for the driver, there were quite a few bingo points in there, including the idea that swerving to avoid unexpected hazards is a reasonable and safe way of driving, oddly enough, not something I've come across in Roadcraft. Not so much the driver, but the typical driverist attitude that roads should be clear of all hazards and therefore dealing with them is an optional extra to which no blame should be attached if they fail.
On that last point, imagine if bird strikes were dealt with in the way of this incident - we shouldn't expect pilots to deal with them, plan for them and the airports decide not to install or maintain infrastructure to deal with them. If 25,000 people are year we KSI'd flying a year, wouldn't we expect changes in the aircraft industry?
Yep - reinforced by habit we have the notion that you should drive only ever expecting to find predictable conditions (which clearly don't include "poor visibility", "low sun" etc.). Also habitual is the expectation that the only things you will encounter on the carriageway will be other drivers who are moving in the same direction at similar speed to you and who have the visual signature of another car, or greater.
I'm happy to suggest caution to people when walking, horsing or cycling on the roads and regret when people fail to take measures for their own safety. However I'm also happy to demand more effort to investigate and prosecute those who've chosen to bring the extra power and mass of a vehicle to the same situation but have failed to follow the basic rules to ensure the safety of others (and themselves also).
We see this over and over but because "driving is normal" and "but I passed my test" people don't grasp the asymmetry. Imperfect or even careless behaviour of vulnerable road users is primarily a danger to themselves. A motor vehicle is a force multiplier and makes such faults a danger to the general public.
We should have this comment saved and reposted everytime someone responds to a motorist at fault with 'What about cyclists running iights/pedestrians on their phones/NO HIGH VIZ' etc.
Pages