Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist dragged along by skip lorry appeals for witnesses

Woman suffered multiple injuries but no action was taken due to insufficient evidence

A woman left seriously injured after she was hit by a skip lorry and dragged beneath it for 30 yards is appealing for witnesses after police were unable to take action due to insufficient evidence. Elizabeth Crockett says more must be done to help cyclists and motorists share the roads and has expressed support for this year’s ‘look out for each other’ themed Road Safety Week.

Crockett suffered a fractured collarbone and back, seven broken ribs and friction burns and bruises to her back and body after a skip lorry turned into her path while cycling on Battersea Bridge in London on the 4th of October last year.

“I remember everything about the accident itself which still haunts me to this day. I particularly remember thinking that I was going to die. I remember being alongside the vehicle and knowing there was enough space between myself and the truck but then suddenly realising it was veering into me.”

Crockett, who had been on her way to work, describes being surrounded by a crowd of people in the immediate aftermath of the incident. The lorry itself only stopped when a passer-by flagged it down on Surrey Lane after the bridge.

However, police were unable to pursue a prosecution due to lack of evidence. Crockett has now asked a law firm to investigate and hopes that witnesses to the collision could help her secure a rehabilitation settlement.

Peter Lorence of Irwin Mitchell explained:

“The collision has had a significant impact on Elizabeth’s life as not only has she suffered multiple injuries, but she has also struggled to come to terms with the trauma of what happened. Elizabeth has also had to give up cycling, which she loved because she is simply too terrified to get back into the saddle on the busy roads in London.

“We continue to be contacted by a significant number of cyclists who have suffered injury on the roads and we have long called for the appropriate infrastructure and legislation to be put in place to protect vulnerable cyclists and to help other road users avoid them. We hope Road Safety Week serves as a reminder to all road users about the importance of taking care on the roads to protect both theirs and other people’s safety.”

Organised by the road safety charity, Brake, this year’s Road Safety Week runs from 17-23 November and carries the theme ‘look out for each other’.

Crockett herself said of the campaign:

“I hope that Road Safety Week reminds drivers to be on the lookout at all times for vulnerable road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians, to prevent anyone else from suffering like I have.”

Anyone who has any information about the incident can contact Peter Lorence at Irwin Mitchell on 0207 421 3867 or email peter.lorence [at] irwinmitchell.com.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
a.jumper | 10 years ago
0 likes

Why is she supporting the evil brake road safety week? Does she feel it would have helped if she'd looked out for the lorry better before selfishly throwing herself under it?

Avatar
bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes

Absolutely. It's not guilt though. That's a criminal concept. It's liability, i.e. unless you can demonstrate otherwise, she gets her damages. So it then becomes the lorry driver needing witnesses.

But, on that point, witnesses are not the be all and end all. In the present case the Court simply needs to decide whose version is correct and demonstrates liability. Of course, the parties need to consider the risk of what the Judge may find before commencing proceedings................

Avatar
andybwhite | 10 years ago
0 likes

This is exactly the sort of situation why we should have 'presumed guilt' in cases where a vehicle hits a more vulnerable road user such as a cyclist. This happens in other more enlightened European countries. The onus should be on the vehicle driver to prove that they were not responsible for mowing down somebody rather than the other way around.
 14

Avatar
bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes

Could well be. But, in those circumstances, I would, personally, say "The vehicle overtook me and, initially left plenty of space, then..............."

But, anyway, this is a plea for information rather than debate. I guarantee the police won't change their mind. But it may well assist with her civil claim.

Avatar
bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes

I sympathise. But, what does turned into her path mean? I assumed, on first reading, it was coming the opposite way. That does not appear to be the case. So, she was under or overtaking. Neither excuses the turning but it's fraught with danger. You need to have some sense of "can I complete my manoeuvre?"

We also need to be clear about what she needs witnesses for. The police won't proceed without it. Even with it the CPS may feel that there's no prospect of a conviction. Negligence does not necessarily equate with criminal guilt.

She can make a civil claim. She does not need a witness. It increases her chance of winning if she has one, of course. But it is open to her to continue with her claim and, if she can't negotiate a settlement, begin proceedings.

Avatar
benb replied to bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes

Or the lorry was overtaking her and left hooked?

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to benb | 10 years ago
0 likes
benb wrote:

Or the lorry was overtaking her and left hooked?

From the article and looking at the map it appears she was probably travelling north on Battersea Bridge *Road* when the lorry came alongside and then turned left into Surrey Lane ... taking the lady with it. The Surrey Lane junction is about 700m south of the bridge.

Avatar
harrybav replied to bendertherobot | 10 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

So, she was under or overtaking

How so?

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes
vbvb wrote:
bendertherobot wrote:

So, she was under or overtaking

How so?

How so what? It's a question. What was she doing. It's my surmising. Not better or worse than other suggestions. The article has no clarity on whether this was whilst she was under/overtaking or whether the lorry was. What's clear is both appear to be going in the same direction. Turned into her path generally means coming the opposite way, but, here it seems to be going the same way. It's more likely then to mean it was overtaking her and tried to then turn. But it's just not clear.

But, crucially, if her solicitors want witnesses, then they should be clear about what happened. Her version of events does not need witnesses. They know what it is. So why haven't they said, for example, the lorry overtook, gave space, then closed in to turn left across me. Or, at least, it overtook then closed me down. It may be better to jog people's memories, though, I accept, if you can't recall the woman under the skip lorry, then your memory might be a bit crap.

Latest Comments