Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

75mph driver involved in fatal collision with 15-year-old cyclist was never prosecuted

Motorist said cyclist veered towards him as he tried to overtake

The driver involved in a fatal collision with 15-year-old cyclist Kadell Bartlett near Selby in 2018 was never prosecuted, an inquest has heard. Bartlett’s friend, who had been riding with him at the time of the incident, said Matthew Clark passed “like a lightning bolt" without giving the two boys any room.

Hull Live reports that Bartlett died two days after he was hit on the A19 near to Eggborough Power Station at around 9.10pm on July 16, 2018.

Bartlett’s friend said he had been riding on the left-hand side of the carriageway, ahead of Bartlett, when he heard the vehicle approaching.

He said he turned to warn Bartlett of the vehicle’s approach by shouting "car," but didn't think he was heard.

He said the driver, "didn't give us any room," and that he felt, "a big gust of wind," as the vehicle passed.

He said he heard Clark accelerating before the collision but didn’t see it happen as he was facing forwards.

For his part, Clark said he was driving home from his job at Arnold Clark and had put the car in cruise control at 60mph when he went onto the A19.

He said he saw the two boys as he passed the junction with Selby Road and approached them at, “about 50 or 60mph”.

He said Bartlett was riding his bike close to the centre of his lane. He said he touched his brakes and entered the right-hand carriageway to try and overtake.

He said the cyclist then made an "immediate turn to the right" and that the collision resulted in the boy going over the roof of his car.

There are no right-turn options at that point in the road.

Clark said that it, "all happened in a split second".

"It was an unfortunate event,” he said. “It was two people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"It was an accident. There's no other way for me to summarise. If I was five minutes down the road it would not have happened. It's an 'if, what and but.'"

After analysing CCTV evidence pointing down Tranmore Lane – shortly before Eggborough Power Station – police estimated that Clark was travelling at "around 75mph" when he was 38 metres from the point of impact.

The footage was said not to have met the evidential threshold for a speeding charge because the vehicle needs to be measured over a minimum distance of a quarter of a mile.

Forensic collision inspector, Steve Kirkwright, predicted that Clark would have been doing around 60mph at the moment of collision.

After assessing the damage to the car, Kirkwright concluded that Bartlett would have been turning to the right at the time of the impact, but said it was possible Clark had also been turning.

He backed up Clark’s claim that the collision occurred while his car was entirely in the right-hand lane, contradicting witnesses in the car behind who said they saw the driver swerve to the left before hitting Bartlett, then swerve the right of the carriageway before stopping.

Their evidence was questioned by Clark's representative, Kevin Langton, who pointed out the two had made no mention of this in their police statements at the time.

The other boy said Bartlett may have 'smoked a bit of a spliff' earlier in the day and that he may have been wearing one or both earphones.

The coroner recorded a verdict of death due to road traffic 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.

Add new comment

17 comments

Avatar
antigee | 3 years ago
0 likes

No mention of the driver having an exemplary driving record so I would be assuming he didn't ?

Avatar
Gus T | 3 years ago
0 likes

And then you get this:   

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/police-off...

Spot the difference, one involves a plod

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Gus T | 3 years ago
1 like

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/police-off...

Seriously - spot the difference?

Did you actually read or watch any of the article ?

Avatar
Gus T | 3 years ago
3 likes

I know that road, unfortunately it's a well known rat run between Selby and the M62, locals regularly exceed the national limit along what is a fairly straight road. I'm not sure which Police "Service" it comes under but I suspect from the lack of prosdecution that it was North Yorks Police. The arguement put forward by the driverthat the car was limited to 60mph by "adaptive cruise control" is an out and out lie, it's fitted to my VW and all that means is that the speed of the cc can be adjusted up or down whilst driving without turning the cc off and then on again. Poor investigating by the police and yet another example of why we need Implicit Liability.

Avatar
nikkispoke | 3 years ago
2 likes

This is sad news and more frustrating in that no mention seems to have been made that no infrastructure to allow those boys to cycle safely alongside the road is present nor seems to be planned ? Why are not the highway planners or authority being held up for aggrevated manslaughter ! The justice system is flawed but the true culprits are those who do not provide a safe place to ride no matter how obvious.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
1 like

Unfortunately the Police need enough evidence to present to the CPS for a realistic chance of succesful prosecution before the case ever reaches court.

Unless the Police bungled the investigation and missed vital evidence, though there is no mention of this in the report, then the cock and bull story of the crash survivor in the car sets the narrative and a coroner's investigation is as much as the unfortunate Master Bartlett is ever going to get.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Mungecrundle | 3 years ago
4 likes

True, up to a point, about being at the mercy of the process - needing to satisfy the CPS thresholds.

However you never read in the press that "something must be done" to address the shockingly low rate of prosecution or conviction where the victim is a cyclist.

Whereas in other situations, where the process is deemed to be an impediment to justice, we do hear such cries, loud and often.

Prosecuting drivers for offences against cyclists does seem to be like pushing water uphill. If a speeding motorist kills an errant child, the excess speed is often enough to attribute blame to the motorist. Whereas a child cyclist is deemed to have thrown himself under the wheels of the car.

What galls me here is that this incident is the foreseeable outcome of police steadfastly ignoring mountains of close-pass evidence. In industry H&S they figured out long ago that to save one fatal fall from a ladder you need loads of prosecutions for lesser H&S infractions, until the near misses stop being an everyday normality.

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 3 years ago
3 likes

I think it should be a legal requirment to slow down when cyclists are present just like for horses.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Bungle_52 | 3 years ago
1 like

That would just be used as an excuse for banning cyclists from any main roads...

Avatar
the little onion | 3 years ago
18 likes

RIP Mr Bartlett

 

However, I'm going to say it - this is a disgrace. Enquiries not followed up, ludicrous explanation (a classic "single witness suicide swerve") bought hook, line, and sinker.

 

Institutionally anti-cyclist. Working on the assumption that the cyclist is at fault for their own demise, then looking for evidence to work out exactly why they are at fault.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to the little onion | 3 years ago
11 likes

It's funny how CCTV is used against cyclists but somehow in favour of drivers.
How does these speed cameras work that they require 400m to allow a judgement?

Avatar
PRSboy replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

I think it's to do with the frame rates of video cameras, and the errors that can arise as a result which will then to make the evidence unreliable.

Speed cameras use lasers or radar to calculate speed very quickly and reliably. 

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to PRSboy | 3 years ago
0 likes

I dispute the reliably aspect. That why there needs to be a secondary aspect with static cameras, marking s on the road. Laser needs hit a flat surface perpendicular to beam or laser slip can occur. The operator can induce slip by moving the laser device whilst firing the beam.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to the little onion | 3 years ago
3 likes

the little onion wrote:

(a classic "single witness suicide swerve")

I would agree if it were not for 3 other witnesses with contrary accounts, plus CCTV with evidence that conflicts with the drivers account of being on cruise at 60mph. Something stinks here when their testimony carries less weight than the driver and a voluntary collision investigator (is that really a voluntary role?!).

Avatar
David9694 replied to the little onion | 3 years ago
2 likes

60 mph, 75 mph what's the difference?

the driver in what's quoted sounds very "matter of fact" "one of those things" but  about killing someone and as you say, the storyold doesn't add up, l mean us cyclists, we're always randomly swerving out on main roads. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
1 like

Is it 15?

Avatar
David9694 replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

The age of the deceased.

Latest Comments