Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules

According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other until the collision was inevitable”

Two cyclists who were involved in a serious collision on a National Cycle Route, which left one of the riders requiring resuscitation after his heart stopped, have been found equally to blame for the crash by a judge, who said the cyclists were “travelling at twice the safe speed” and were oblivious to each other’s presence when the “inevitable” crash took place.

Joseph Merrick and Nigel Dick, both cycling home from work at the time of the collision, were injured when they crashed into each other at one of the junctions connecting the National Cycle Network’s routes 7 and 75, between Linwood and Johnstone, Renfrewshire, on 26 August 2019, the Glasgow Times reports.

Mr Dick, a 54-year-old senior control engineer, was seriously injured in the collision and lost consciousness at the scene. He was later told that his heart had stopped and that he required resuscitation.

Following the incident, he raised an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland’s highest civil court, seeking damages from Mr Merrick, a 66-year-old teacher.

At the court this week, lawyers for Mr Dick argued that Merrick should be apportioned 75 per cent of the blame for the collision and the serious injuries sustained by the 54-year-old.

> Cyclist hit by truck driver has compensation cut after judge says lack of helmet contributed to injuries

However, judge Lord Sandison concluded that both riders were equally at fault for the crash, due to their speed and apparent failure to anticipate each other’s presence as they approached the junction.

“I do not find it possible to conclude that the fault of either contributed more to the causation of the accident and its consequences than the fault of the other, or that one was more blameworthy than the other,” Lord Sandison said.

“Each was travelling at about twice the safe speed for him and each completely failed, for no good reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other until the collision was inevitable.

“Neither had any priority over the other, and the responsibility to take reasonable care for the safety of himself and others was equally incumbent on each.”

Despite finding that Mr Merrick’s role in the crash materially contributed to the loss, damage, and injuries sustained by Mr Dick, the judge said that in the circumstances he considered it “just and equitable” to hold each cyclist 50 per cent responsible.

Lord Sandison also pointed out that it was important to appreciate that national cycle routes “are not roads”.

“They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians, children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,” he said.

“Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite music or a podcast on their headphones.

“Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”

Sandison noted that the case would be continued, if necessary, to assess the level of damages.

> Glasgow e-bike rider crashes into Italian pros on cycle path, falling into river and ruling Simone Consonni out of world championships

This collision isn’t the first time a high-profile crash between two cyclists has taken place on a cycle path near Glasgow.

At the 2023 UCI World Cycling Championships, hosted by the Scottish city, Italian track rider Simone Consonni, an Olympic gold medallist in the team pursuit in 2021, suffered a broken collarbone and wrist after a cyclist on an e-bike collided head-on with him and teammate Francesco Lamon as the pair enjoyed a leisurely spin along the River Clyde ahead of their race the following day.

The e-bike rider, meanwhile, reportedly fell into the river following the collision, which occurred close to the Italian team’s hotel near Glasgow’s Exhibition Centre.

“I wanted to do two hours to stretch my legs ahead of tomorrow,” the 28-year-old former world champion said at the time. “Francesco and I went out and we got on to this narrow cycle path, with this blind left half-turn, and this other cyclist on an e-bike was coming from the other side, with panniers, carrying quite a bit of weight.

“I tried to avoid him by turning to the left but from what I remember he hit me on the right shoulder with his helmet. I did some x-rays, my collarbone is slightly chipped, the left scaphoid is broken.”

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.

Add new comment

65 comments

Avatar
Tom_77 replied to Secret_squirrel | 5 months ago
0 likes

Settling claims on a knock-for-knock basis makes sense if both parties have first party (or comprehensive) insurance, and the loss to each party is a similar amount.

In this case it's likely that insurance (if any) will only be 3rd-party, and it seems that Mr Dick's losses are greater than Mr Merrick's.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 months ago
1 like

Judge's comments seem fair, except "or lost in their favourite music or a podcast on their headphones.". Surely if you are taking yourself out of the "aware of your surroundings" area, you start losing ground on the 50/50 argument. This could be applied to anyone that decides that the paths are their own private playgrounds and is not in the same league as the infrim or who are able to see/hear well less well.

Avatar
imajez replied to don simon fbpe | 5 months ago
2 likes

He wasn't talking about the two cyclists involved in this incident, but path users in general.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to imajez | 5 months ago
0 likes

I know.

Avatar
Kronsteen replied to don simon fbpe | 5 months ago
3 likes

Infrim, infrim, they've all got it infrim. Aye thank you.

Pages

Latest Comments