A coroner has said that a cyclist who was killed when he rode through a red light and crashed into a car died as a result of “distraction.”
Karl Freeman, aged 52, died as a result of a traumatic brain injury following the collision on Manchester Road in Whitefield, Bury, reports the Manchester Evening News.
An inquest into his death also heard that Mr Freeman had been riding with his “head down” and that there was nothing that the driver could have done to avoid the crash, which happened on Sunday 26 January last year.
“I think this accident took place because Karl was not paying proper attention to the road,” said Coroner Julie Robinson at the hearing at Rochdale Coroner’s Court.
“This is something that could have been easily avoided and it has resulted in tragic consequences.”
The coroner, who noted that Mr Freeman had not been wearing a cycle helmet, said it was “somewhat unusual” that he had been “cycling with his head down.”
The inquest heard that Mr Freeman rode through a red light at the junction of Sunny Bank Road, crashing into a Ford Fiesta. The driver of the car had been turning onto Manchester Road.
He hit the side of the vehicle and his head hit the ground after he fell from the bike.
Mr Freeman was taken to hospital by air ambulance but died there the following day as a result of his injuries.
The coroner asked his sister, Julie Freeman, whether she thought her brother, who had a history of anxiety and depression, may have ridden into the car on purpose.
“No,” she replied. “Why would somebody do that? Why would somebody cycle into a car deliberately? He didn’t have suicidal tendencies or anything.”
She told the inquest that she had wondered whether he might have been “pursued” at the time, or whether he was being harassed by someone.
However, PC Suzanne Keenan from Greater Manchester Police said there was no evidence to support that theory.
She said there was nothing “to suggest that he was trying to get away from someone or being chased,” and that the crash happened at a speed of no more than 10 and 15mph.
“It just appears he wasn’t paying attention at that particular time,” PC Keenan added, saying that Mr Freeman was holding his handlebars with both hands, and there was no evidence that he had been listening to music.
However, a toxicology report found that Mr Freeman was almost twice the limit for drink-driving, and also had diazepam, cocaine and what was described as “illicit” heroin in his system.
Recording a conclusion of accidental death, the coroner said: “This is a death which has occurred as a result of an accident which was caused by distraction, and by Karl not paying attention to the road conditions.”
Add new comment
44 comments
Because if you're on a bike then you're a cyclist. Maybe not a 'keen' or 'avid' cyclist, but a cyclist nonetheless.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cyclist
cyclist noun - a person who rides a bicycle
Aye. But our Joe is of the persuasion that you can only be a cyclist if you own a full carbon bike, wear kit supplied only by Rapha, totter about on cleats and rattle out centuries ( metric apparently) and scorn mudguards, rim brakes and mechanical shifting. Oh and let's not forget follow the rules to the exact letter.
Bugger! I'm not a cyclist after all...! I really thought I was.
I have ridden a bike for most of my life. Within that time I spent around 25 years where I drank more than was good for me. Does that mean that I wasn't a cyclist?
>> Death of cyclist who rode through red light due to “distraction” says coroner
no, the cyclist died because he had consumed industrial quantities of narcotics. anyone that's used opiates and their derivatives knows very well they can make you feel immortal, which is not a good state to be when riding on public roads, or riding anywhere in fact.
The latter drugs could have been traces when high, however the drink is definitely over the limit for being in charge of any vehicle with those levels means he was an arse. I'm glad that he was on a bike and the only victim ended up as himself. (although the driver might be suffering as well.
He wasn't the only victim. His family and friends will also be trying to make sense of this for years to come, and as you mentioned we don't know the state of the driver involved.
My deepest condolences and sympathy to the family and friends of Karl Freeman.
This! Some of the comments above are beyond the pale. Having alcohol or coke in your body does not make someone scum or mean they are guilty of anything other than being foolhardy in attempting to ride. He was still a human being and had family and people who cared for him.
He was on a bike, he could just have easily been in a car and had the same accident. I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone who is in operation of a vehicle whilst under the influence of anything. In this case it was lucky enough to be a vehicle which when the inevitable happened and only caused harm to himself*. It could just as easily been a kid crossing on red though with him not looking and stopping.
Or do you have the same sympathy for the driver in the other story who took out three cyclists or the drugged up driver from last month who killed a cyclist or the drunk driver who killed the preganant lady from last year?
*although potential mental anguish to the driver.
No one's asking you to give sympathy to him. He's dead - he doesnt care. What is being asked is to be sympathetic to his family. It costs nothing and may just prevent adding to their distress.
He wasn't driving, and no one else was injured, nor were they likley to be. His life choices were his alone, but I personally can't take satisfaction for this as natural justice.
Sympathy? maybe not, but empathy yes. Surely there can be some feeling of "there but for the grace of gods go I"
I don't drink and ride or take drugs. I don't go through red lights and I look around even if I go through green in case. Yes, alot of other events on here I think that "there but for the grace of gods go I" and have sympathy for the innocent victims and not for the offending party. So why should I be different in this case?
As for the "no one else was injured, nor were they likely to be?" Someone could have been crossing on the red light. If the cyclist wasn't paying attention to his surroundings enough to go through a red and hit a car, why would he have seen or avoided a Ped or child?
As I've said, I'm happy that his chosen form of transport that day was a bike when it could have been a car where even more damage was done (albeit he might have survived), but it still doesn't mean he wasn't a danger to others in that state.
As others have pointed out, I made a mistake not extending sympathies to his family as well but that is the extent I can do.
Okay.
Pages