Coroner: Lorry driver "would not have expected" to encounter cyclist he killed

I'd also like to know at what times motorists should "expect" me to be on the road, and on which roads?  Ridiculous.

For what it's worth, legality aside there are certain roads it's clearly unwise to ride on.  I took the A414 between Welwyn GC and Harlow a while back but won't do that again, and apart from the day of Ride London, the A12 between Leytonstone and Stratford is a no-go (although in rush hour when it's nose to tail traffic crawling at 10mph, I'm always tempted).

ok Mr. bus driver, if I see your daughter or son or wife or brother or sister or mother or father in a place that they shouldn't be there whilst driving , I will hit them, yes I will ram my vehicle over them. Is that that what you want? this is dark ages people, this is not 2015!! these are human lifes, not just obstacles that "shouldnt be there" GET A GRIP!!

I came back here just to check the comments after pointing out that the coroner didn't need law training and also only establishes certain things, seems most don't read the comments here, just witter on about it being the coroners fault....I guess the headline doesn't help. As laid out in the article, it wasn't the coroner who even said the quote, but the collision investigator, who's getting no mention in peoples comments....showing they haven't even read the article

Would the coroner have made such an ill-informed comment if the lorry had hit a moped or a motorbike?

Also, has the coroner acted in accordance with their role by making such a prejudicial remark?

There's something about the phrase "public road" that has escaped the coroners narrow scope of understanding.

Should someone of such limited intelectual capability be in a position to make these social judgements?

If that road is really so awful then presumably the cyclist had a reason to be on it... What are the alternative routes like? If they're so poor (quality/directness/distance) that someone chose to ride on a nearly-a-motorway instead, well then shouldn't something be done about that?

The bottom line, as always, must be down to common sense not what is legal to do on our roads. A busy A road dual carriageway in the dark ? No, not for me, ever. Don't be a statistic, use your common sense.

SO perhaps the coroner can point us cyclists in the direction of what time of day us cyclist are not allowed to be on the road. I mean why should we use lights, wear hi viz if it matters not one fuck in the first place. 

Could the coroner please forward me a timetable for when cyclists can or cannot expected to be on the road, please?

@psling, @paul_c thanks, i was sure it wasn't my imagination that there were signs and there was a TRO, and i don't think the signs disappeared that long ago, i am sure i saw one about a year ago. It does appear they are now gone though. 

It is however an example of how crap provision is, the issue is and always has been the M5 junction, a junction that was redeveloped at great expense a few years ago and jack shit was done about a very obvious issue then and nothign has been done yet. The "cycle route" is a joke and i wouldn't even bother. which leaves the old gloucester road. 

However the lorry driver can't assume the cyclist won't be there, but then i can point to plenty of VERY dangerous junctions, In Cheltenham you have the A4019/M5 southbound exit slip, you have every junction on the A417 from the air balloon to the A40. (which is plenty!) 

Road designers simply don't consider anything other than cars and trucks when designing roads.

Time and time again it appears cyclists are second class citizens. In any other realm you could use a form of tribunal to restore equality and right wrongs.

The road, for which we all pay for, clearly has bias towards motorised traffic at the expense of those more vulnerable who are expected to 'put up' with motorist behaviour akin to sexism, racism and any other isms or unjust conduct you can think of.

To get to the point...why arent vulnerable road users able to say enough is enough and demand via a joint action to force government and responsible agencies to sort things out?

If your child was prevented an education after repeated victimisation and authorities refused to ensure safety you could sue the education authority.

If you couldnt access healthcare because your GP practice housed a few Harold Shipmans and the authorities refused to safeguard your care you could create merry hell, it would be a media festival.

So, why do we have to put up with this? Why do we have no voice? How is it ok for government to repeatedly play dumb and allow preventable death over and over purely because of being in the pockets of the motoring industry? I dont understand how this is all ok.

Not so fast my hearties, don't jump to conclusions.  A coroner's court is distinct from a court of law and does not apportion blame.  Its job is to decide what happened and only that.  It is not part of the coroner's brief to say who was guilty or innocent.

It now falls to the police and the CPS to decide if there should be charges brought.  I'm sure we shall find out soon if the driver was lacking in some way.

Why is everyone jumping on the coroners back?

If you read the article, the quote comes from Sergeant David Parry, "But in the late evening, he would not have been expecting to see a cyclist travelling on that piece of dual carriageway."

So by that, it was the police saying it and the coroner was using the evidence provided to come to a conclusion??

And what if it was a fire engine parked there wouldit have been ok to smash that up the road because it was unexpected. Or road works or traffic police etc etc.

I sincerely hope that CTC aren't going to let this ridiculous judgement rest.

perhaps we can all complain about katy skerret. Coroners.office [at] gloucestershire.gov.uk

mrmo is correct that there was a Traffic Regulation Order on that stretch of dual carriageway some years ago but it was since removed partly because of the weight of objection by local cyclists on the grounds that it is an A road and a direct link between Gloucester/Cheltenham (the alternative route  by bicycle is through the village of Churchdown). There are cycle paths across the A40 / M5 slip roads as described above taking you part way down the slip road to a give way at 90' to the slip road, cross and rejoin. These are in poor state and overgrown, partly due it has to be said because the route is very little used by cyclists. There is no denying that most local cyclists that know the road would not go anywhere near it because it is a motorway in all but name.

But, it is legal to use it and other users if competent to drive should be aware of this and should drive and observe accordingly. How can it possibly be a defence that  a driver should not expect to see someone perfectly entitled to be there. The coroner needs some training before making such comments that must cause enormous distress to the family and friends of the cyclist killed by the lack of awareness of a lorry driver.

Gotta love the title of the linked article:

"Cyclist, 42, died in accident on the A40 despite being warned not to ride on busy roads"

Next up: 

"Tourist, 65, died in Central Park after accidentally colliding with a bullet despite being warned against vigorous exercise"

So the cycle was apparently correctly illuminated and the cyclist was augmenting the required lighting with high visibility, reflective clothing. One assumes that a Caregory C driver holding Driver CPC (Certificate of Professional Competence) will have learned all about safety margins far beyond the standard of a Category B licence holder. Road conditions at night require greatly enhanced safety margins. Combine that with adverse weather conditions and increase safety margins accordingly.

Would the driver have been culpable had he collided with the rear of a black car with dirty rear lights? Almost certainly. A glowing cyclist is hardly difficult to see in any conditions.

The Highway Code clearly states that, as with pedestrians (who don't have to be lit up) cyclists are road users and have every right to use roads from which there is no prohibition.

Ths system of signage advising that cyclists must cross over the slip road and then re-join the dual carriage way, avoids cyclists having to cross the exit road of fast moving traffic joining the dual carriageway. Which makes them very vulnerable, especially at night.

So it's now acceptable to run into or kill  someone/something that you didn't expect to be there? What a f-ing disgrace! You drive according to the conditions (if it's p-sing it down then you slow down).  I thought that you act according to what's happening or existing, not what you think *might* be happening...