A police officer has told a coroner’s inquest into the death of a cyclist in Essex who was hit from behind by a driver travelling at an estimated speed of at least 60 miles an hour and was then run over by another motorist that he would not have been visible to them.
Chelmsford Coroner’s Court also heard that a post mortem found that Declan Shea, aged 31, was almost twice over the limit for drink-driving and also had a mixture of prescription and illegal drugs in his system, which led the police officer to speculate that it may have affected his decision to ride along the unlit road, reports the Daily Gazette.
Mr Shea was wearing dark clothing as he cycled along Harwich Road, Elmstead just after 8pm on the evening of 16 September last year when he was struck from behind by a Mercedes driven by 71-year-old Terence Smith.
The impact flung him onto the roof of the vehicle and onto the opposite side of the road, where he was subsequently hit by a Nissan Juke being driven in the opposite direction
Collision investigator PC Kat Burke, who examined his bicycle afterwards, said that tests suggested that neither the front nor rear light was switched on at the time, meaning the only illumination came from the reflectors on his pedals.
PC Burke told the inquest that the collision occurred on a “sweeping bend” at around 50 minutes after sunset, and that Mr Shea was “dressed in dark coloured clothing and not wearing a cycle helmet [It’s worth noting that no cycle helmet manufacturer would claim to offer protection against being hit at 60mph – ed]
“The section of road where the incident occurred was very dark, with no street lights present and no ambient light available,” she said.
Describing how the cyclist was thrown against the windscreen of the car and then onto the roof, she said that “Mr Shea’s movement over the roof suggests the Mercedes was not braking at the time of impact.”
She estimated the speed of the Mercedes at between 60 and 70mph, and as for the driver of the Nissan Juke, who was travelling at 40mph, she said that “With no physical movement, Mr Shea would have been difficult to identify.”
PC Burke, accompanied by a colleague, carried out a re-enactment of the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash, in similar conditions and at the same time in the evening.
She drove behind her fellow officer, who was dressed in dark clothing and had similar reflectors on his bike to those that Mr Shea had.
“Even though I knew the PC was there, I found it very hard to identify him,” she said. “I couldn’t see him or the bike, all I could see were the yellow flashes from the reflectors. I also had that prior warning.
“It made the PC and the bike itself completely indistinguishable on dipped beam headlights.”
Mr Shea was found to have 154mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in his system as well as drugs including cocaine and methadone.
PC Burke added: “Mr Smith had little advanced warning of his presence on the carriageway.
“Mr Shea had a level of alcohol and prescribed and illegal drugs in his system and it is possible this affected his decision.”
Senior coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray concluded that Mr Shea died as a result of a road traffic collision.
Smith, who left the scene and returned later in a different car with his son, did not face charges in connection with the collision itself nor his failure to stop.
He was however given a suspended jail sentence in October this year after pleading guilty to dangerous driving in relation to the condition his car was in as he drove it home after the fatal crash.
Add new comment
43 comments
Pedal reflectors can be visible 100s of metres away if the road is straight enough.
I didn’t know that the police had recognised tests for establishing if bikes light were turned on. For a police officer to make a statement that the cyclist would not have been visible on the basis that their test suggested the lights were not on appears somewhat presumptions and lacking in a robust analysis.
One wonders what test they did. With tungsten filament bulbs you can actually tell if they were glowing when the glass broke. However this isn't true of halogen or LEDs. I really would like to know what test the officer did. Did they try to turn the lights on? After a big shock led lights will often turn off, which resets their on/off cycl switch. I really would like to know how you tell whether led lights were on when they were hit.
Maybe they checked the batteries and discovered that there was no charge?
Obviously I don't know, but off the top of my head that could be a reasonable test that would indicate that the lights were not on.
"[It’s worth noting that no cycle helmet manufacturer would claim to offer protection against being hit at 60mph – ed]"
Too many letters, you could have stopped after "Protection" and been as accurate.
No cycle helmet manufacturer would claim to offer protection, the offer style, colour, weight ( or lack of it ) ventilation , but never , ever any protection.
"[It’s worth noting that no cycle helmet manufacturer would claim to offer protection against being hit at 60mph – ed]"
Too many letters, you could have stopped after "Protection" and been as accurate.
No cycle helmet manufacturer would claim to offer protection, the offer style, colour, weight ( or lack of it ) ventilation , but never , ever any protection.
Not only do they not claim that their product will provide protection, every helmet comes with a notice explaining that they don't.
It would have been interesting to have video of the police experiment. How can you see the road if you can't see a cyclist on it? Ah, but although she couldn't see him, she could see his pedal reflectors (which are quite effective when caught in headlights). Isn't that a pretty good sign there's a cyclist connected to them? Maybe she thought it was a self-propelled bicycle.
It does sounds like someone was blatting through a bend they couldn't see around, perhaps with oncoming headlights in their eyes - but carrying on at high speed in the assumption it's probably fine.
I do hope it was better conducted than the ludicrous Alliston re-enactment. Whatever happened to driving slowly enough to be able to stop in the distance you can see?
Exactly what I was about to type, the operator of any vehicle should be able to stop in the distance they can see is clear,.If that had been a pedestrian (or even a concrete block) then the driver would be at fault for driving into them so he is still at fault for hitting the rider, regardless of whether they were lit up or not.
I also find it strange that he had front and rear lights fitted but hadn't switched them on (though the drink/drugs may be a factor).
The other strange one is that the Mercedes that hit him was being driven at 60-70 mph while the Nissan Juke coming the other way was only doing 40, what was the appropriate speed for the road and conditions, and if the answer is 40.....
didnt road.cc publish a story few years back of a police traffic car doing such an experiment, yet you could see the cyclist clearly even without lights and even without the police cars headlights on I think.
it would be pointless anyway as video cameras still arent anyway near as good as capturing information in low light levels as the human eye can, Ive almost stopped bothering recording nightime commutes as you can barely see anything
And it's official that hit and run killer drivers are ok in the law now??
Ok...he was dodgy enough to leave the scene without checking the guy was still alive or needed urgent help...do we know if he was dodgy enough to turn the bike lights off?
Pages