- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Broken bike (CC licensed image by garryknight, www.flickr.com)Driver who hit and killed cyclist said victim "seemed the same colour as the shadows"
The driver involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist near Grantham in Lincolnshire told police that the victim “seemed the same colour as the shadows.” 49-year-old Robert Dearing died in hospital after being hit by a Kia Rio being driven by Patricia Crozier on July 3, 2015.
The Lincolnshire Echo reports that the collision took place on Sand Lane near a railway bridge with both parties travelling east in the direction of Branston.
In an interview with police read out at the inquest at Lincoln Cathedral Centre, Crozier said: "I don't know where he came from. I saw the cyclist when he was at the side of me – I saw him go up a bit and then fall. He seemed to be the same colour as the shadows."
The inquest heard that Crozier’s car hit the back of Dearing’s bike, throwing him off. A post mortem report found that he died as a result of a traumatic head injury.
Valerie Ryall was driving along the road at the time of the crash. She said: "The woman walked towards me and I asked if she was ok? She replied, 'I knocked him off his bike.’"
Eyewitnesses said Mr Dearing was wearing a long dark jacket at the time of the collision. One motorist referred to the road as "dangerous".
Coroner Paul Smith concluded that Dearing died as a result of a road traffic collision. He cited the darkness of the road, caused by overhanging trees, and Dearing's clothing as being possible factors contributing to the collision.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Surreyrider 8 min 34 sec ago
Didn't Ineos give out those horrific Land Rover lookalikes?
- David9694 9 min 53 sec ago
was it one of these? https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202411246675771?
- Rendel Harris 12 min 24 sec ago
I may not have expressed myself clearly, I meant that it would be okay for cycle racers because it's banned, rather than that it wouldn't be...
- lesterama 26 min 47 sec ago
Houchen is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt, as readers of Private Eye know all too well.
- hawkinspeter 30 min 41 sec ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7n1l72j9wo
- Geoff H 42 min 42 sec ago
ALERT!!! SAVE 100%!!! Stay home!
- Geoff H 1 hour 1 min ago
Deflect. Deflect! DEFLECT!! If the lad was in the drivers 'blind spot' no amount of high-viz and lights would have done any good. There is NO...
- andyk 1 hour 4 min ago
Hi Griff, unfirtunately one of the key measurements isn't bigger - the stack - it's the same on the 54 SL8 - 544mm, as the 54cm Addict 543.3mm, so...
- Geoff H 1 hour 12 min ago
Didn't the police (in regards to thefts) say solve your own issuses? Without their assistance the police are promoting vigilante-ism. Laz (below)...
- Hirsute 2 hours 12 min ago
"The paste inside is crafted from 100% Fairtrade Arabica beans and sweetened with organic Swiss beet sugar. " Why would I want sugar ?
Add new comment
38 comments
T
This reminds me of the on line video posted a couple of months ago by a driver, heartily congratulating themself on their "excellent avoidance skills" for not knocking down a pedestrian who dared cross the road. He was driving so fast around a bend that he couldn't stop, but it was all the fault of the pedestrian for being in what he called a "non-pedestrian zone". This was apparently in Scotland, and the vid seems to have been taken down, along with the entry in Scotland's Worst Drivers website, which initially posted it to show how great the driver was. I never did get an answer to my question of what he would have done if there had been a queue of stationary vehicles.
There should be a simple rule for operating a machine capable of killing innocent people: if you can't or won't operate it responsibly, society should prevent you from doing so. Why should innocent people have to die because you aren't competent?
Yeah self-driving cars are already looking great in terms of safety record per miles driven. When the tech is fully developed and currently unknown issues that no doubt will crop up are dealt with then the future is definitely cycle friendlier.
cars could have 3 or 4 different sensors looking for people. Visual, movement, heat and more I'm sure. Really smart algorithms that don't just look for something moving, but analyse the backdrop to look for anomalies and interference that may suggest an object for example.
Or my favourite idea, having a standardised chip in your phone that pings all driverless vehicles, like radar. No actual personal info has to be traded.
If the sun is in your eyes then no amount of colour will help. You're at the mercy of the drivers. I don't trust them so I would got off that road as fast as possible.
I really can't wait for self driving cars to arrive. I'm sure we'll all be a lot safer.
If the sun is in your eyes then no amount of colour will help. You're at the mercy of the drivers. I don't trust them so I would got off that road as fast as possible.
I really can't wait for self driving cars to arrive. I'm sure we'll all be a lot safer.
Slower moving, vulnerable road users may well be hard to see. The point about H.C. 126 is that it says, in so many words, if you cannot positively see that the road has no obstacles within your stopping distance, then slow down.
What riles me is that all the advice you ever hear is to the vulnerable. We are told to wear hiviz etc. etc. even though. as kenyond says, it is no guarantee of drivers behaving properly.
What we never hear, from coroners, from police, from road safety advisers, from drivers, even from other cyclists, is anyone even mentioning Highway Code 126.
Yes, it is a good idea to try to be visible, though there is no need to go over the top, but drivers seem never to be told to drive within the limits of their vision. It is taken for granted that they won't, and that they can't be blamed for this dangerous behaviour, and that they will suffer no legal penalty. Naturally they suffer no physical penalty, that penalty is suffered by the vulnerable road user.
Ive got a very bright kit (someone referred to it reminding them of dazzle camoflauge) and still get close passes and SMIDSY's. Its a sad state out there
Darkness caused by overhanging trees is not unexpected. If the Coroner didn't mention slowing down then he's a dick. The driver shouldn't be a driver any more!
It's all well and good everytime someone drives a motor vehicle into a cyclist saying that cyclists should wear bright clothing and use daytime lighting and we all as cyclists acknowledge that there is sense in doing this BUT... by saying this and accepting this you are moving blame onto the victim.
More and more often coroners and magistrates are saying the dead or injured cyclist should have been wearing a helmet: no, this is not a legal requirement, helmets don't cause collisions; should have been wearing hi-vis clothing: no, this is not a legal requirement, clothes don't cause collisions; should have been using lights during daylight hours: no, this is not a legal requirement, lights don't cause collisions.
Vehicles don't cause collisions, drivers do. Helmets, bright clothes, lights don't cause collisions, drivers do.
I've ridden past my training partner on the opposite side of the road before now. Dull day. He was under the trees clad head to toe in black.
I was doing less than 20 and looking for him.
Ifi was in a car doing legally twice that speed and looking through a windscreen it would have been worse again.
We know people aren't great drivers. We knowledge people don't pay attention all of the time. We know windscreens aren't always perfectly clear.
All dark kit won't help any of this.
Drivers should be better. We can't control this. But we can at least control what we do. Wear something bright. Put a light on. It's worth it if it makes you a little bit more visible.
I've ridden past people who were wearing shocking pink and lime green (hideous kit). Sun was in my eyes. If I'd been in a car the same sun would have been in my eyes but I would have been operating a licensed vehicle. I would have acknowledged through a long period of arduous training and the rote learning of a detailed code of behaviour that I needed to change my behaviour in order to avoid killing someone. All the explicit and implicit contracts I would have undertaken to exercise the privilege of operating this specially licensed vehicle would have reinforced this point. Failure to do so would result in the removal of my privilege by the dedicated body of fine, hard-working, over-pressed constables which my taxes fund in order to police this very dangerous mode of travel.
Really, the safest thing is to just ban cyclists during sunlit days.
I'm a cyclist myself, but really you're giving us all a bad name being invisible on sunny days.
Be safe out there and please: wear a bell around your neck so that wildlife can hear you coming. Cyclists are very dangerous to the badger population.
Anyone who thinks it is impossible for a cyclist or jogger to be invisible on the road has no experience. I almost missed a horse rider under dappled shade out on my bike. The driver here sounds entirely innocent and the cyclist the victim of their own stupidity.
Almost missed, ie. within what, a foot of the horse? Love you to explain this situation in detail.
Most drivers can't see the wood for the trees, their eyesight might be a1 but the brain behind the eyes is somewhat lacking in reacting what the eyes see.
Or they just don't give a shit and take pot luck and go for it, just hoping.
What annoys is this,
"Coroner Paul Smith concluded that Dearing died as a result of a road traffic collision. He cited the darkness of the road, caused by overhanging trees, and Dearing's clothing as being possible factors contributing to the collision."
Coroner is not reported as attributing any blame to Ms.Crozier. He does not mention H.C. 126 and its advice to drive within the limits of your vision. One presumes it did not occur to him to suggest that drivers who cannot see that the road is clear should slow down. I wonder if he drives himself?
We all know that being lit up like a Christmas Tree and being draped in eye-burning colours will not guarantee that drivers see you.
Why is so much of the responsibilty laid on the harmless and vulnerable?
I'm sure there are people on here that cycle through Lambourne end/Chigwell as i know its a popular route.
I drive through there 6 days a week while i'm working i keep an eye out for cyclists/horse riders etc as i know its pretty much 100% they are going to be there.
A few weeks back as i came around a bend i was pretty much blinded by the sun being reflected off the wet road under the trees.I immediately slowed right down and caught the slightest glimpse of movement in front of me at ground level,I really could see nothing else in front of me apart from the glare of the sun,
It was a bloke about 6ft tall jogging in the road dressed head to toe in black.
Would i have noticed a 23mm tyre? Who knows
Even travelling at about 10mph i still came very close to ploughing straight into the guy.
I actually pulled over and gave him a lift to further down the road where the forest starts.
You did exactly the right thing. If you cannot see that the road is clear, don't drive there. I believe most drivers just keep going, and if there is something in the way the CPS or the coroner quite understand. "How can you expect a driver to obey the Highway Code and slow down?"
I guess if the darkness turns out to be full of fallen tree, broken down lorry or collapsed stone wall it still isn't the driver's fault. Must be the tree's failure to wear hiviz!
You shouldn't be driving. Anyone who doesn't have the sense to use driving glasses when there is a chance of being blinded by the sun or bright lights is a danger on the roads, as you've just admitted.
And you were actually trying to blame a guy for the way he was dressed?
You're the guy riding around in a three tonne lump of metal blind.
I was wearing them actually prescription ones and i didn't "blame" the guy for the way he was dressed it was just what he was wearing.
BTW the jogger also told me he was completely blinded himself but that's ok he was just in the middle of the road not in a 3 ton lump of metal.
Sounds like the jogger was on the wrong side of the road. Whenever theres no pavement you should face oncoming traffic (i.e on the right handside). I do alot of running on country roads and this makes life alot safer and more pleasant. You see coming vehicles in advance, make eye contact with the driver, and worse case scenario if they don't see you and you see they are not taking evasive action, you've got chance to dive into the hedge.
Also gives you the oppurtunity to high-5 oncoming cyclists!
It's surprising the amount of joggers and pedestrians that don't seem to know this.
What ARE driving glasses? I've no idea what you mean.
Low sun is awful. I'll avoid cycling on roads like that if at all possible. I lost a clubmate thanks to a bad driver and low sun.
Thats tragic, sad to hear it. Was in Tenerife last year and one of the warnings they gave to travellers at the car hire desk was to make sure and wear sunglasses when driving. Loads of cyclists there, especially around El Teide and to the north east, and those are some real windy roads, blind corners etc. Add in the sun and it would be a nightmare if not wearing shades and taking it easy.
Bet they get loads of foreigners bombing around half blind though..
I was all in your story in the 23mm tire thing.
So you can spot a 6ft tall human in black but not a 23mm tire. Did you know, there are 6ft tall riders on top of the bike, its not just a 23mm tire? of course you did, and I call bs on your story.
If you can't see shit when you're driving, you gotta go slower. It won't matter than someone wear hiviz when you already cannot see the road, 23mm or 30 feet long, uh.
Logic, it's hard sometimes.
Then I realized this is just trolling
A good point - you drove according to the conditions as it says in The Highway Code - and you went above and beyond by giving the guy alift. Sadly, not everyone is smart enough to drive they way they're supposed to.
I think coroners are worse than juries. One recently concluded that a car "could not possibly have failed to hit a pedestrian" as the police worked out that the stopping distance at 40mph. on a stretch of road was more than the visibility in fog.
You have to be extremely stupid or a confirmed dyed in the wool car driver not to see the other distinct possibility.
If you can't see a dark cyclist you can't see a sinkhole or a fallen tree. If you can't see slow down until you can, otherwise it can all end in tears.
Exactly. Highway Code paragraph 126 says " Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."
This is positive, not negative. "the distance you can see to be clear", not "carry on if you cannot see whether there is anything in the road or not."
Absolutely right, no argument, should always drive to the conditions, be aware that bright sunshine can give way to shadow or that turning a corner may have you facing directly into a low Sun.
But that reliance on other people being aware and attentive, skilled at being in charge of a motor vehicle and having the ability to anticipate the poor visibility didn't work out to well on that particular road on that particular day for the unfortunate Mr Dearing no matter how guilty the driver may be of negligence. We shouldn't have to, but surely to goodness it is common sense to make some effort to increase our visibility on the road. A half decent light, especially a rear blinky costs less than £20, and unless you are one of those naked cycling weirdos, you have to wear something, so why not bright, contrasting clothing? Even hi viz if that's your thing and definitely something with reflective patches from dusk. Far too many ninja cyclists round my neck of the woods and they add to the negative perception and victim blaming culture of cycling.
I think this is called unconcious irony.
Lights are demanded by the law, but was not this cyclist run into in daylight? Hiviz etc is not. I sometimes wonder if the inanimate objects drivers manage to run into so regularly should be covered in lurid yellow and reflective patches. Bus shelters, road narrowing bollards, fences, hedges, trees etc have only themselves to blame.
Apart from the bollards, none of those things you mention are commonly located in the actual road. Unlike cyclists.
In order to hit them, a driver would have to have (un)intentionally left the road. Unlike cyclists.
Pages