- 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
Wilmslow Road, Manchester (Google Maps)Cyclist found not guilty after collision with pedestrian, who died eight days later
UPDATE: A cyclist who was charged with causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving after colliding with a pedestrian, who died eight days later from a brain injury sustained in the crash, has been found not guilty.
23-year-old property manager Cornelius de Bruin was cycling on Wilmslow Road, south Manchester, on 20 June 2020 when he struck pedestrian Ian Roland Gunn as he crossed the busy road.
Mr Gunn, 56, whose injuries were believed at the time not to be life-threatening, was taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary. His health soon deteriorated, and he died eight days later.
Following a three-day trial at Bolton Crown Court, a jury found Mr De Bruin not guilty after almost two hours of deliberation, the Manchester Evening News reports.
Announcing the not guilty verdict, Judge Timothy Clayson thanked the jury for their assistance in the “short but obviously serious case” and gave his condolences to the Gunn family.
The original story can be read below:
A cyclist has denied riding “aggressively and recklessly” in the moments before he struck a pedestrian, who later died from his injuries, and insists that he was travelling at an “appropriate speed” at the time of the tragic collision.
23-year-old property manager Cornelius de Bruin was cycling on Wilmslow Road, south Manchester, on 20 June 2020 when he struck Ian Roland Gunn, 56, as the pedestrian crossed the road.
Mr Gunn, who drifted in and out of consciousness several times while being treated by paramedics at the scene, was then taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary, where his injuries, mostly to the back of his head and his abdomen, were not initially deemed to be life-threatening.
However, his health soon deteriorated, and he died eight days after the collision due to what prosecutor Simon Blakerough described as a “traumatic brain injury”.
> Cyclist who killed London pedestrian jailed for two years
Mr De Bruin has been charged with causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving following the pedestrian’s death, which he denies.
He told police at the time of Mr Gunn’s death that he “tried to move out of the way but could not avoid the collision”, and while he accepts that he struck the 56-year-old, he did not mean to harm him, the Manchester Evening News reports.
CCTV footage shown on the opening day of the trial at Bolton Crown Court on Monday depicts De Bruin riding along Barlow Moor Road, where he jumped a red light at the junction with Palatine Road, before turning onto Wilmslow Road. Mr Gunn can later be seen in the footage exiting a Tesco Express before attempting to cross the road, when he was struck by the cyclist.
One witness, Peter Clare, claimed that Mr De Bruin was “going very fast” and “at least 20mph” when he passed his Land Rover shortly before the incident.
Clare told the court that he could remember thinking ‘if anyone steps out’ they would collide with the cyclist, and added: “Before I could even finish my thought, he had already hit the chap.”
Other witnesses described hearing the “screeching sound” of Mr De Bruin’s brakes as he attempted to avoid hitting the pedestrian, but that his “momentum” catapulted him into Mr Gunn.
Carolina Orzsic, who was driving in front of the cyclist shortly before the incident, said she noticed Mr Gunn walking “slowly and unsteady” in the middle of the road and that he was looking “ahead and not left or right” as he crossed. Ms Orzsic told the court that she was forced to slow down and turn to the right to avoid hitting the 56-year-old, and that neither man could be blamed for the incident as they “just saw each other at the last second”.
> Government to crack down on “reckless” riders with causing death by dangerous cycling law
The jury also heard that when questioned by police following the incident, Mr De Bruin – who was unhurt – said that his speed of roughly 23mph was “appropriate” for the conditions.
“If cars can go 30 miles an hour why can’t cyclists go 30 miles an hour? Not that I advise to go 30 miles an hour,” he was recorded as saying to police.
Describing himself as an experienced, “intermediate” cyclist, the Dutch-born property developer also told police that he had been riding bikes “all his life” due to his upbringing in the Netherlands.
While being questioned by his defence barrister in court, the 23-year-old explained that he was “pretty familiar” with the road, and was speeding up to reach the cycle lane after determining that there were “no obstructions” ahead.
The cyclist said that he “doesn’t know” why he hadn’t seen Mr Gunn cross the road and enter the cycle lane, and was in shock after the collision.
He remained at the scene until the pedestrian was taken to hospital and spoke with a paramedic who assured him that Mr Gunn was going to be “alright”.
> Jail for pavement cyclist who rode off after fatally injuring pensioner
During the cross examination with prosecuting barrister Simon Blakerough, the cyclist admitted that he “did not know why” he ran a red light moments before the incident and that it was not something he did regularly.
He also claimed that the volume of music he was listening to through earphones was at a “reasonable level” and that he could still hear “traffic and conversations”.
Mr De Bruin, who was on a post-work leisure ride on a familiar loop at the time of the incident, was then asked if he had been “on a time trial and didn’t care what happened ahead of him?”, to which he replied, “No, I did care”.
The court also heard yesterday how Mr De Bruin got in touch with the police the day after an appeal was launched to find the cyclist following Mr Gunn’s death.
“One of my friends, they saw the news on the BBC News,” he said. “They told me about the tragic accident and I thought it was the right thing to do. To come forward and say that I was involved in the accident.”
> “You’re not going to prison for this,” judge tells teen cyclist who injured pedestrian
During his closing speech, prosecutor Blakerough again suggested that the 23-year-old was “on a time trial” at the time of the incident, and was “racing himself on a powerful racing bike” at 23mph while listening to music on a busy road.
He argued that the cyclist had displayed ‘wanton and furious driving’ by “burying his head in the sand to what was an obvious and serious risk”.
During his closing speech, Mark Fireman pointed to Mr De Bruin’s history of no convictions and argued that the cyclist was “well within the speed limit” and that his use of headphones was no different to motorists listening to the radio while driving. He also stated that the cyclist’s running of a red light “800 metres away” had no bearing on the tragic incident.
He told the jury that what they “are dealing with a good man” who “handed himself in because he knew it was the right thing to do”.
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
- RoubaixCube 1 hour 33 sec ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 1 hour 21 min ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 25 min ago
Opinion piece on B24/7. I found it a bit placatory towards the people against LTNs, but then I'm just sick of motornormativity driving city and...
- Geoff H 1 hour 36 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 1 hour 46 min ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 2 hours 48 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
- David9694 2 hours 59 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
- belugabob 3 hours 7 min ago
If that's their bag...
Add new comment
161 comments
So again I will ask the question that you repeatedly dodge.
What was the speed differential between the cyclist and Ms Orzsic?
Now bearing in mind the fact that Ms Orzsic said she would have to slow down..... what speed was she doing when she thought she had to slow down? If she was travelling along the road at 25mph was she driving recklessly?
Would you consider a driver (driver 1) who was travelling marginally faster than a driver (driver 2) in an adjacent lane to be reckless/careless/dangerous or participating in wanton or furious driving in the event that a pedestrian stepped in front of driver 1 emerging from in front of driver 2 resulting in a collision?
I think in the thread Rich_cb has over-egged a couple of arguments but I'm generally in agreement with his fundamental premise: I don't think you can boil down appropriate speed to an assessment of simply the speed differential - obviously you are trying to assert that if the car is going at a speed then the cyclist is equally safe.
If a cyclist was occupying the road lane and cycling at a similar speed to traffic, then I would agree that a cyclist is at least as safe as a car, and generally the only problem cyclists have is that pressure to ride perhaps a little too close to the car in front in response to perceived threats from following motorists - to demonstrate, in part, that we are keeping up (a response that many motorists themselved seem to show where they follow the speed of the traffic flow rather than independently deciding to limit themselves to the speed limit).
In this case, the cyclist appears to have been in the cycle lane, so in the general case there are two problems that the car does not have - dooring and a pedestrian stepping forward into the lane to take a look (that's disregarding the aimless wander). The latter is something pedestrians do, for example when walking out from behind a van, they don't expect a vehicle to be passing close to parked cars so may step forward of the parked vehicles. so there are two factors that dictate that the safe pace in the cycle lane is likely to be lower. As the cycle lane is running next to the parked vehicles, the cyclist is in direct conflict with any pedestrian who does not look properly, whereas a car has the buffer zone.
There is another factor - the invisible cyclist factor - people don't see what they don't look for. Motorists tend to depend on their simple presence detering any pedestrians stepping out - regardless of the HWC, it is clear that there is an expectation for pedestrians to know their place. That does not apply to cyclists, and I think two things can happen, a pedestrian simply does not bother to look for cyclists - or their brain fails to alert them of their presence - and pedestrians may be more beligerent to a cyclist and less inclined to clear the way if they have stepped forward, or possibly even deliberately seek to block a cyclist that they perceive as a nuisance in their difficult task of trying to cross traffic (which they perceve as vehicles, not bikes).
The fact that using a cycle lane dictates a slower speed goes against up to date design guidance, but it is a brave cyclist who deliberately occupies the main lane when there is a clear lane beside them, even when, as in this case, the design is clearly significantly sub-standard.
Note, my take is purely based on the road layout as can be seen in pictures on the thread, not based on any judgements as to this particular case.
You can ask it as many times as you like.
That information isn't available. You know that so why you persist in asking a question that you know there is no answer to is beyond me.
Ms Orzsic was driving when an unexpected hazard occurred. She had the time to warn her passenger and then safely avoid the hazard.
Given that, it would seem her speed was appropriate for the conditions.
Mr De Bruin, in a separate, narrower, lane encountered an unexpected hazard. He was unable to stop in time and ended up hitting and ultimately killing a pedestrian.
Given that it would seem his speed was inappropriate.
Looking at the dimensions and location of that cycle lane I would never consider 23 mph to be an appropriate speed. Hence why I consider the cyclist's behaviour to have been careless.
Would you consider 23 mph to be appropriate in the green cycle lane pictured?
And therein lies my point...... you are speculating on everything from the limited facts provided by a newspaper.
But in the absence of the full facts you have stated repeatedly that the cyclist is guilty.
The relative speed is irrelevant.
23 mph is an unsafe speed in that cycle lane IMO.
It doesn't matter if the traffic is at a standstill or going at 100mph or any speed in between.
I've said repeatedly that the cyclist was careless. I've not said that they should have been found guilty of 'wanton and furious' cycling.
A 'not guilty' verdict for 'wanton and furious' cycling does not mean the cyclist was entirely blameless however. It means the jury didn't feel the evidentiary threshold was met for the specific offence being prosecuted.
This case demonstrates the need for a broader spectrum of cycling offences to enable more appropriate prosecutions in future.
Unless I'm reading that wrong you lost me again. If you're really saying "it doesn't matter what the other traffic is doing" (100mph) it would appear you're saying 23mph on a bicycle in that lane is unsafe full stop. Given the lane is just some paint on a road that would appear to be you saying "23mph on a bicycle is unsafe". I'm pretty sure you don't mean that given you've been over that on a cargo bike!
Does it? Why? This sounds a bit like "I'm unhappy with the outcome, so I want another charge which might succeed". I know this is very similar to the complaints (mine included) around driving offenses but in most of those cases there is a very clear legal standard (the driving test) and apparently requirements to abide by it (e.g. you're licenced). Even though (for reasons I still don't understand) this is not formally referenced in the dangerous / careless driving charges.
I think we should certainly investigate every collision which leads to a fatality - let's see what the Road Safety Investigation Branch start to do.
I'm not opposed to more clarity / a revamp of the cycling offenses (and including scootering etc. if not there already) Currently I'd suggest this is of very low priority. I'd be more than happy if this would be addressed sooner if it was a part of a comprehensive review of road law. Or even better a look at road safety in general including design "standards" which aren't and far too much "guidance" and "advice". (If it's important make it a rule, if not publish it in a guidebook!)
23 mph in a lane that narrow with no room to manoeuvre is unsafe.
If you're on the main carriageway the safe maximum speed is obviously much higher.
The problem we have with cycling offences is that any KSI caused by a cyclist has to be prosecuted as 'wanton and furious'. The terminology is archaic and doesn't cover the broad spectrum of potential offences.
There is no equivalent to 'careless driving' for example. If you cause death through Careless Cycling then the CPS have to either try and get 'wanton and furious' to stick or not prosecute. Neither option is ideal.
I'm not a lawyer so don't understand the relation between the bits marked "offence" in the law and charges. I also wasn't aware that this appeared to be covered by the road traffic act 1988. There careless and inconsiderate cycling is an offence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling...
However that was repealed in the RTA 1991 for some reason.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/7
That leaves:
Dangerous cycling.
(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”
Again I'm not a sophisticated type but frankly I'd think that would have it covered. I do object to the wooliness of "far below". Possibly I missed mention of cycling experts / trainers in as witnesses being brought in? Otherwise how do you judge? The same applies but more so I'd say for motorists and they're licenced given a standard - I think it should just mention that and there would be a "fail a driving test" as part of the evidence. (That evidence can always be tested, you can bring in other evidence etc.) I'd also suggest the issue is "dangerous" (as opposed to "careless") in the case of driving seems to end up being interpreted (by the outcome of cases) in a way at odds with my layman's understanding of the word...
There isn't an offence of 'causing death/serious by careless/dangerous cycling' afaik so 'Wanton and furious' is the only recourse when a serious injury/death occurs.
It does need reform IMO.
I think you've got a bit mixed up, careless cycling is still an offence. In the RTA 1988 it included the line "In this section “road” includes a bridleway", which was subsequently removed. It was just that line that was repealed, not the whole section.
Thanks - so would that answer rich_cb's concerns that there is no provision for prosecuting "careless cycling" because there is no such chargeable offense, or is this just semantics? So could someone who was suspected of committing an offence by careless cycling (per RTA 1988 if that is still in force through the RTA 1991 and onward) be prosecuted? If so presumably that would be charged as "wanton and furious driving" (so therefore that charge does cover the offenses rich_cb felt were missing)?
EDIT: I think it's "wanton and furious driving", not "cycling" as I wrote.
Apologies if I've misunderstood this - not a lawyer...
I think you will find the relative speed is most likely one of the most relevant factors in deciding this case.
If the cars were travelling at 20 mph with the cyclist 23mph then it would be unlikley that this would even meet the bar for careless cycling....
Compare that to stationary cars and cyclist at 23mph, then in all likelihood that would have met the bar for wanton and furious cycling..... resulting in a conviction for the cyclist.
So please do explain why you think IN THIS CASE why the relative speed of the cyclist and motor car is irrelevant, given the fact that the pedestrian stepped in front of the cyclist from the live lane of traffic..... not from the pavement.
I do find it interesting how you seem to think that 23mph in that cycle lane is unsafe under all circumstances..... despite the fact that motorist just a mere metre further from the pavement can travel at 30mph.......
Look at the width of the cycle lane.
It's incredibly narrow with little or no room to manoeuvre either way.
With parked cars on one side and a traffic lane on the other you have very limited visibility and multiple points at which a pedestrian could step directly into the lane whilst you have no easy way to avoid them if they did step into your path.
Given that, you need to be able to stop quickly. 23 mph is too fast IMO to be able to do so.
The space available to the cyclist is the same regardless of the speed of the vehicles in the main carriageway. The relative speed of the cars is therefore irrelevant.
10mph cycling with stationary cars would be safer than 20mph cycling with 20mph cars. The relative speed is irrelevant.
Would you honestly ride at 23 mph in the green strip of paint pictured in the article?
Honestly I'd try not to cycle in that cycle lane at all, as the risk of dooring is too high.
That particular cycle lane appears to be an accident waiting to happen for all involved.
Given that, if I had to ride in it, I'd be going plenty slow.
Same here, but it's not clear whether there were any parked cars when the incident occurred.
I agree that 23 is too fast and I would not be doing anywhere near that (even if I could !)
I just think using the limited reporting it's a bit of a stretch to say he would be guilty of a lesser charge. We still don't really know how the ped was moving or in what direction or if anyone had been cycling at a reasonable speed the collision would have been avoided.
Since the driver had to swerve rather than brake, then they were either going too fast or the ped was indifferent to their own safety and it was fortuitous that the driver avoided them.
You must understand that when you're walking in RichWorld (TM) - I've been there many times myself - his opinions have the status of fact and actual facts are only opinions, he has decided that this cyclist is guilty and that's all that matters.
He won't respond to you rendel as he said he would not and he is not at all like the 2 PBUs.
You may not agree with his conclusions but he is polite, clear, presents a good case and has many valid points.
I know, and that's fine, it's up to him; just as it's up to me to decide whether or not I will still challenge what he says when I disagree with it, no?
Sure
I think you are over egging it a bit for "Ms Orzsic was driving when an unexpected hazard occurred. She had the time to warn her passenger and then safely avoid the hazard."
She avoided the hazard but whether she did it safely is not known without a video. For all we know her swerve took her into the opposing lane and it was fortuitous that there was no oncoming traffic at that point.
Fair enough but if you've got time to warn your passenger that you need to slow down I'd hope you'd have time to avoid any excessive manoeuvres.
Quite possibly going too fast although not sure what the 23 comes from unless the cyclist themselves. Given that Ms Orzsic had to swerve to avoid Gunn and her description of his gait makes me wonder what speed would have safe.
Always a chance of a ped collision unless you are at walking pace.
Not sure why the headphones are relevant to to case.
I'm glad that the cyclist wasn't found guilty as it had numerous ramificaitons. Firstly if the cyclist was found guilty of wanton and furious driving for riding below the speed limit and having an accident it could have set a precident that just going above a set speed on a bike is dangerous, even if that is a speed below the posted speed limit on the road.
I still can't quite understand why the prosecutor thought that an ordinary road bike is a "powerful racing bike"..... unless it had a hidden motor somewhere.
But the pessimist fully exepects the Daily Heil to have a headline story of "Red Light Jumping cyclist escapes jail in fatal collison with pedestrian" in the next few hours.
I dread to think of all the crap that will come out, all of which will no doubt completely overlook any comparisons with the damage a car might cause going at that or most other speeds.
Best none of us click on any link related to the gutter press, it only rewards them.
Not a legal expert but surely that's part of the point of "wanton and furious"? It allows exactly the kind of subjective "quality" judgement that appears as "below the standard of a careful and competent driver" in dangerous / careless driving? Not that I approve of that either.
Do you object to different (lower) limits in principle though and if so why? We already have different limits for different modes. I think it would not be appropriate for the courts to pluck figures out of the air or set road safety standards. Also as things stand this would likely fail over practicality and would do little for safety in practice. In a future of e-everything (cars, bikes, scooters, hoverboards) however...
Overheard: "That's a fast bike there!" "But slow legs..."
When you look at any differential speed limits applied in the UK, it is always those with the potential for greater harm that are burdened with the lower speed limits.
i.e. lorries can only do 50mph on single carriageway roads etc. So if it was a differential limit surely it would be reducing the speed limit for motorised traffic before contemplating reducing the speed limit for bicycles.
My point regarding speed is simply one arising from the fact that a large number of people think that a cyclist is both going too fast and too slow at exactly the same time. They are travelling (as was the case here at 23 in a 30 zone) too slow for the motorised traffic but too fast for the pedestrians.....
Not far off.
"Headphones-wearing cyclist, 23, is CLEARED of 'wanton or furious driving' after smashing into 'slow and unsteady' pedestrian who died eight days later - after he told court 'if cars can go 30mph why can't bikes?'"
Pages