Curious coroner's remarks.

[glenn forger]

That seems to me to only make sense had the coroner previously referred to breaches, but I can't see that he did.

 

[Simontm]

In 2012 Which? did a test of superminis' braking distances from 62mph to 0. Ten times using GPS for distance.
Top five:

1. Volkswagen Polo - 34.2m
2. Ford Fiesta - 34.7m
3. Skoda Fabia - 34.9m
4. Mini Cooper S Convertible - 35.7m
5. Volkswagen Up - 36.1m

Bottom five:

1. Citroën C1 - 44.1m
2. Toyota Aygo - 43.1m
3. Suzuki Alto - 42.5m
4. Nissan Pixo - 42.4m
5. Kia Picanto - 42.1m

So even three years ago, modern braking systems outdid the 30 year old braking distances.

However...there are still cars out there that perform as badly, if not worse, than the recommended braking distances so you may avoid the issue ahead and find trouble behind.

Personally, I think sticking to the two second rule is a good start.

 

[PK99]

That seems to me to only make sense had the coroner previously referred to breaches, but I can't see that he did.

the only reason you are on your high horse about this, is because a cyclist was criticised

Wind it in, prat!

 

[Simontm]

That seems to me to only make sense had the coroner previously referred to breaches, but I can't see that he did.

I was referring to your comment: "I would have thought that maybe the words in brackets were inserted by the reporter"

 

[glenn forger]

I was referring to your comment: "I would have thought that maybe the words in brackets were inserted by the reporter"

Yes, I see, but the first mention of breaches was in parenthesis. Unless I'm confused?

 

[Simontm]

Yes, I see, but the first mention of breaches was in parenthesis. Unless I'm confused?

The coroner would have made opening remarks - which will be noted by the stenographer and on the official report. I guess, since I wasn't there, that there was an initial reference to the Highway Code and so when he mentioned "They" the reporter had to clarify what "they" was as it wasn't noted up article, well either him, editor or sub.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Riding/driving at a speed enabling the rider to stop in order to avoid unexpected obstacles...

And in the event of step out? Say 6 feet in front of you? I'd suggest the only safe speed in this event is not riding/driving at all.

Ride/drive to the conditions is a very easy but blanket statement to make, however there are an infinite amount of variables contained within "The Conditions", not all of which are readily apparent, or can be planned for or anticipated. <snip>
.

Hmmmm. having had the six foot step out and managed to not run over and kill the ipod idiot, it is entirely within the realms of reason to anticipate or at least consider the possibility of such things and self regulate in advance. The key is not to be so riding far in excess of anticipatory factors that last moment eventualities mean collisions become unavoidable.

In this instance I would suggest a wet, narrow road, dark by both inadequate street lighting and half of his own lighting not working & still going at 25mph did not meet even a basic risk self assessment to protect himself or anyone else from harm if something unexpected happened.

 

[glenn forger]

In that case the rider could have had the most rubbish, but road legal, front light which did a far worse job of illuminating the road in front and the coroner would have not mentioned anything about breaches?

 

[glenn forger]

Just to clarify standard practice: The journalist reported verbatim what the coroner said- "Had they not occurred it could well have meant..."
The [...] is the clarification of what the coroner meant when he said "they".

You're right;

Recording a verdict of misadventure Mr Brunton said there had been “significant breaches” of the Highway Code.

“There is no doubt that it was a substantial speed for a pushbike bearing in mind the atrocious conditions.”

The cyclist “should have been travelling at a reasonable speed for the conditions,” he said adding that “poor street lighting” and “excessive speed for the circumstances” caused the collision.

“Had they [the breaches of the Highway Code] not occurred it could well have meant that the collision would not have occurred,” said Mr Brunton.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/57...ding-cyclists-pensioner-death-25mph-collision

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Dunno. Is it definite that the coroner is referring to the bike lights as breaches then? I've not seen that clearly reported, on reading the report I'd taken breaches as the inadequate street lighting as much as anything else I may have surmised.

TBH I've never owned a head torch I'd be comfortable cycling at pace with, however bright a light they throw out its more of a round plate of light than a directed cone. Lumen for lumen I would trust a bike light far more readily than a head torch as my principal means of seeing far enough to go at 25mph in the dark and wet.

IME they're more suited for blundering about a campsite or woods at walking pace than riding a bike rather fast.

Also while surmising, that the rider had turned off his bike light with flat batteries would suggest some semblance of use and recognition that it was necessary in those conditions.

 

[glenn forger]

Dunno. Is it definite that the coroner is referring to the bike lights as breaches then?

.

By no means, the only specific references are to the street lighting, which have nothing to do with the HC, and what he describes as "excessive speed".

 

[Simontm]

By no means, the only specific references are to the street lighting, which have nothing to do with the HC, and what he describes as "excessive speed".

Yeah, the original report from the Cambrian Times wasn't that clear either.

"Mr Brunton said he “should have been travelling at a reasonable speed for the conditions” and found that the the “poor street lighting and the excessive speed for the circumstances” caused the collision"
I presume the reasonable speed/excessive speed are the breach mentions for failure to take due care of the road conditions.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

The original point at discussion is the valid description of 25mph being excessive in this case versus the reluctance of coroners being prepared to criticise car drivers in similar fashion where a legal limit is not being exceeded. Glenn's point is perfectly valid.

I didn't think there was a legal limit for bikes.

Lets be fair about this though, 25mph on a bike would be decent going in broad daylight and dry roads.

To try and conflate 25mph on a bike and in a car is a tad disingenuous

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Yes and no. Look at it from the point of view of someone crossing the road.

ok, braking in a car at relatively low speed for that type of vehicle as opposed to braking on a bike at relatively high speed for it, and the number & size of the contact patches/chances of losing grip of the respective tyres, particularly on a wet road allied to those respective speeds per vehicle....

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Are you going to legislate a different, lower, speed limit for bicycles?

What on earth makes you think that? I've got no legislative powers have already recognised there's no speed limit for bikes, but I don't need to pretend a bike and a car are the same physical or kinetic beasts to try and bolster my opinion.