Dave Davenport - a year on.
- Thread starter Bollo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Vapin' Joe
Formerly known as Smokin Joe
Failed to see?
Failed to look is more likely
"Looking without seeing" is a phrase we used to use. Unfortunately all to common, drivers look for other cars and are often blind to anything smaller - and it's simply because they are not concentrating.
I like Skol
A Minging Manc...
Shocking! @fossyant @Hacienda71 we were there a month or so ago.
grldtnr
Veteran
As far as I am concerned, this was not an unavoidable accident, it's negligence on the part of the motorist, if as I believe from the reportarge, the cyclist were on the main road, and the crossroad was the minor road, then it's the motorist who should have stopped and made sure the way was clear, regardless of whether the oncoming traffic was motorised ,or not,or in this case 2 cyclist.
It doesn't matter that they were not wearing helmets, high Viz clothing, or displaying lights the motorist still hit them ,or one of them.
Is it not within the Highway code that there is a hierarchy of priority predestrians, with livestock, Cyclist, must have right of way at junctions or just crossing the road?
I am commenting, because I myself was a victim of a road collision, I obviously survived, I made not quite a full recovery, but it was at the time deemed serious enough for an Air Ambulance, so risk of life was a fair conclusion.
Whilst I do have sympathy for the driver to some extent, what with her being a presumably Medical doctor,, it doesn't exonerate her from blame, she may well have this on her conscience for the rest of her life, well I sure hope it does, but not in mean way.
Meanwhile, the Davenport family and friends have to live with this too, and I extend my sympathies to them.
This is an incident that cannot be reconciled unfortunately, it was an occasion that wasn't premeditated, but one that could have been avoided, there isn't an appropriate penalty or course of action to be taken against the driver, it's one of those things best described as an 'accident'.
I hope the Doctor involved has found a way to deal with this, it's as bad for her.
It doesn't matter that they were not wearing helmets, high Viz clothing, or displaying lights the motorist still hit them ,or one of them.
Is it not within the Highway code that there is a hierarchy of priority predestrians, with livestock, Cyclist, must have right of way at junctions or just crossing the road?
I am commenting, because I myself was a victim of a road collision, I obviously survived, I made not quite a full recovery, but it was at the time deemed serious enough for an Air Ambulance, so risk of life was a fair conclusion.
Whilst I do have sympathy for the driver to some extent, what with her being a presumably Medical doctor,, it doesn't exonerate her from blame, she may well have this on her conscience for the rest of her life, well I sure hope it does, but not in mean way.
Meanwhile, the Davenport family and friends have to live with this too, and I extend my sympathies to them.
This is an incident that cannot be reconciled unfortunately, it was an occasion that wasn't premeditated, but one that could have been avoided, there isn't an appropriate penalty or course of action to be taken against the driver, it's one of those things best described as an 'accident'.
I hope the Doctor involved has found a way to deal with this, it's as bad for her.
OP
OP
Bollo
Failed Tech Bro
Thanks @Moodyman for the update. I'd assumed that the inquest had happened without any reporting. Maybe it's a good job I never attended as I might have been asked to leave. Seeing as the circumstances are out in the open I'll give my take.
Here's the google maps view that's closest to the driver's view based on the description in the Chronicle story, looking down Woodman Lane from the Sarum Rd junction. Bear in mind that:
- The picture is taken a little back from the junction. I'd expect someone driving a Mini to be closer to the stop line and therefore have a clearer view.
- This image looks like it was taken in winter. The incident happened in summer so the small tree/large bushes would have been in leaf.
- The only signage that apparently obscured the driver's view is the direction sign. I believe but can't confirm that the small 'Unsuitable for HGVs' sign has been added since the incident.
- The incident occurred at 2:30pm and the view is looking north, so sun would not be an issue.
- In summer Woodman Ln does have heavy tree cover further up the hill, but the road becomes clear around (my estimate) 100m before the junction.
- Woodman Rd in the direction Dave was traveling is downhill at a couple of percent. I'd expect a good cyclist at cruising speed would be doing around the mid to high 20s. Motorised vehicle speeds along the road are significantly higher.
- The area is popular with cyclists. Anyone who drives through the Farley Mount Country Park area frequently would be aware that they're likely to come across cyclists.
I leave you to decide whether the junction has restricted sight lines, Dave's speed, attire or lighting were a factor or whether there's anything else that would render the incident "Unavoidable".
I am ****ing seething.
@jay clock your take on this?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Bollo
Failed Tech Bro
Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving, although my understanding is that due to the framing of the law successful prosecutions are difficult.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Bollo
Failed Tech Bro
The Hants Chronicle is an appalling rag so I did a bit of cross-checking. Seems the reporting of the coroner's verdict is accurate.
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
Disgusting. Genuinely makes me nauseous, without exaggeration.
RIP victim.
RIP victim.
grldtnr
Veteran
I made my comments , not knowing the location, now seeing it , the verdict given is complete nonsense!
I was giving a very generous benefit of doubt, but it's plain to see there is a misjudgement,, I feel that there is an element of looking after their own here. A miscarriage of justice, the inquest obviously should establish if there is a case to answer of a charge.
Sat the very least it is inconsiderate driving.
A travesty, is there anyway to appeal this verdict.
I was giving a very generous benefit of doubt, but it's plain to see there is a misjudgement,, I feel that there is an element of looking after their own here. A miscarriage of justice, the inquest obviously should establish if there is a case to answer of a charge.
Sat the very least it is inconsiderate driving.
A travesty, is there anyway to appeal this verdict.
