- 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
news
David Davenport ghose bike, Winchester (Bollo, Cycle Chat)Police unsure if driver’s “lack of vision” or hi-vis and no helmet to blame for “unavoidable” collision that saw motorist pull out and kill cyclist, inquest finds
Police investigating a collision which caused the death of a Hampshire-based cyclist, who was killed when a motorist suddenly pulled out of a junction and struck him, causing him to suffer traumatic brain injuries, concluded that the collision “could not reasonably have been avoided” and that officers were unsure as to whether the driver’s failure to look properly or the cyclist’s lack of hi-vis clothing were to blame for the fatal crash.
David Davenport, a popular member of Southampton’s Sotonia Cycling Club, was cycling with his friend James Martin on 8 June 2021 when, as they approached the junction of Woodman Lane and Sarum Road, near Winchester, he was struck by motorist Natalie Robson, who claimed she did not see the cyclists until the moment of the crash.
The 59-year-old suffered a serious brain injury in the collision and died eight days later at Southampton General Hospital.
According to an inquest into his death, concluded at Winchester Coroners’ Court on Wednesday, Davenport and Martin were riding two-abreast on Woodman Lane, at around 2.30pm, when they spotted Dr Robson stopped at the crossroads in Sarum Road, waiting to move off, the Hampshire Chronicle reports.
The crossroads from the Sarum Road direction, where David Davenport was fatally struck in June 2021
Mr Martin told the court that he had assumed the driver had seen them approaching to her right, before she suddenly pulled out, causing Mr Davenport to collide with her car. Mr Martin, meanwhile, riding on the inside of the road, said he manged to avoid the collision through “sheer luck”.
Speaking as part of the inquest, Dr Robson, who said she drove the same route to work every day, claimed that she had not seen either of the cyclists as they approached, and only became aware of their presence when she heard the impact of Mr Davenport colliding with her car.
Following the crash, Dr Robson administered CPR to Mr Davenport before paramedics arrived and he was taken to hospital.
According to a report conducted by Hampshire Constabulary as part of their investigation into the crash, read during the inquest by area coroner Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp, the police concluded that “the collision could not reasonably have been avoided”.
The police’s report also stated that Mr Davenport was not wearing a helmet on the day of the collision, and that both the victim and Mr Martin were not wearing “high-contrast clothing” during the ride. The report also acknowledged that both cyclists were not wearing lights, due it being a summer afternoon, and that the motorist’s view may have been obscured by trees and signs.
“I am aware that the family have found that report difficult. I am sorry for their distress,” PC Anthony Clifford said.
“I do not know why Dr Robson did not see the two cyclists, if it was for lack of high contrast clothing or lack of vision.
“While the general advice is to wear a bike helmet for protection, we will never know if this would have made a difference.”
Coroner Rhodes-Kemp added that the impact statement provided by Mr Davenport’s family had detailed the effect “his death had on them, his friends, and the wider cycling community.”
“My condolences to the family in this case. It has been very sad and difficult,” she concluded.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 7 min 43 sec ago
Quite a few do take on some water, but in any case you have to factor into that the fact that the world's best marathon runners are only on course...
- eburtthebike 22 min 50 sec ago
Me! Me miss! I've got a suggestion! 20mph speed limit, and if that doesn't work, ban cars. It's cars that are the danger Dawn, so that's what...
- slc 1 hour 51 min ago
Some locals (apart from road.cc regulars) like the scheme. Admittedly in the Beaufort Rd section where the carrot (end of what was pretty...
- S.E. 15 hours 55 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 16 hours 20 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 15 hours 27 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 16 hours 31 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 17 hours 32 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 17 hours 57 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
Add new comment
82 comments
It reminds me more of this junction and you would not believe the number of crashes caused by people pulling out of Bell Lane there.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dvQA7jUbZZmtNLVWA?g_st=ac
History repeating 😡
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict
Crikey. Thanks for the link. Driver hits cyclist from behind leaving a dent in the bonnet. Driver had to be stopped after leaving the scene and then claims she did not see a cyclist at any point. Driver says the dent could have been caused by a sack of potatoes falling from the sky. CPS decides not to prosecute. Driver allowed to continue driving without further consequence despite a private prosecution by Cylists Defence Fund.
Unbelievable.
Not a death, but another attempt at a private prosecution (brought by an actual barrister) after no-one would act on a close-pass case.
...which failed.
Sadly once the police / CPS have decided not to bother (inexcusably in the Michael Mason case I would say... more on the inquest here) I think that private prosecutions are a very long shot.
In the case I linked above above the plaintiff wrote "The evidence has to be strong, very strong and then if you can stronger still. I think in hindsight my evidence was simply strong."
The normal sequence of events is for a prosecution to follow after the inquest, depending on the evidence.
I assume that in this case, after the glowing police report, there will be no proscution and that the driver can now proceed with litigation against the cyclist's estate and claim for vehicle damage and personal trauma.
Disagree. Normally Coroner would open the inquest and adjourn it if a criminal prosecution was pending or likely. That is so any evidence presented would not compromise a criminal trial
“I do not know why Dr Robson did not see the two cyclists, if it was for lack of high contrast clothing or lack of vision."
This question could have been answered if the police had done a reconstruction at the scene, with cyclists wearing similar coloured clothing and with similar weather conditions / time of day etc.
They had the vehicle, they knew the circumstances, it wouldn't have taken much effort to produce some video evidence of the driver's likely view.
But quite frankly, unless the cyclists were practically invisible (unlikely!), there's no mitigation. The two scenarios are in no way comparable. A lack of high contrast clothing is not illegal, failing to adhere to a 'Give Way' sign is.
The obvious question is, the obligation is on the motorist to look out for vulnerable road users and when pulling out of a side road to only do so when it is safe. Against that backdrop, surely the default position is, if you pull out and hit someone, you need to be able to make a positive case as to why you didn't see them that cuts the mustard.
"I didn't see them" shouldn't be a defence when you have a duty to look!
My feeling is that if you hit a police person & claimed you didn't see them (sun in your eyes, moment's inatention, it's never happened before etc, etc), they wouldn't state "the collision could not reasonably have been avoided” and let you on your way?
(Please don't walk around, wildly swinging your fists)
Middle of a summer day and they think high vis will make any difference!?!
Photo shows an open junction with limited shade.
And green background means standard high vis yellow is second only to green in being difficult to see...
My understanding is research has found high vis in daytime only works when people are actively looking for it, which they can only keep up for short time.
So roadworks/signed railway works - short periods where they are TOLD someone in high vis will be around (by the presence of the works). Or construction sites (Anything moving/hazardous (people, equipment, barriers) will be bright yellow/orange). It works for school groups - but only because having seen one kid in a high vis vest, you look for the rest...
On a random bit of road; People won't be actively looking for high vis any more than they are actively looking for cyclists already. So drivers who fail to see cyclists will fail to see cyclists in high vis...
edit: And note that for at least some of these cases, the reason for high vis is at least partially to reduce cognitive load - construction sites have EVERYONE in high vis. So you no longer have to look for people; Just look for high vis. But we can't make every hazard on or around a road high vis, so we can't reduce cognitive load as the driver still needs to look properly...
Yes, black could easily be more visible than yellowy-green hi-viz against a greeny backdrop.
Utter nonsense from the police.
Ah no what we need to do is keep nicking people doing 76 on a clear motorway. If anyone kills or injures a vulnerable road user then that's just a little accident, especially if they're a respected professional.
The whole system is upside down. There is no framework for encouraging or promoting competence. Deterrants are based around punitive punishments for rules infringement. Acts of gross negligence resulting in death or serious injury are treated as "accidents". The Police are victim blaming in this situation because they genuinely don't understand what needs to be done.
Not sure how "nicking people doing 76mph on a clear motorway" is connected with victim-blaming? That being clearly illegal speeding, above the the margin of error of speed recording devices, which in any case you're unlikely to get "nicked" for and certainly not prosecuted.
The idea of "encouraging or promoting competence" is indeed lacking. Unfortunately I suspect there's a limit to how far that can go - especially where we have "mass motoring". That's a LOT of extra learning and dedication we're proposing there! It seems likely that other conditions which might allow this to happen would not be accepted. E.g. we don't have yearly driving tests - and certainly not competitive "good driving competitions" (losers to lose licences)! Or perhaps people would "get it" if motor vehicles were made out of light cardboard, with the driver sitting directly above the fuel tank and the steering wheel featuring a centrally mounted spike? Or maybe we'd just end up with fatalistic Mad Max-style drivers?
As for deterrence "based around punitive punishments for rules infringement" - I think we should try it! Currently deterrence is based on the occasional crackdown in a particular location, or a short-lived campaign at a particular time - and ... er, that's it.
No, could it be that it's our whole model - a primarily "legalistic" approach to behaviour on our roads - that's the issue?
As with any system we do need negative feedback. But in the UK it seems unlikely that is mostly being provided by the police and the courts. Or at least - it could only be via a less-than-well-founded belief in people "getting nicked straight away" and "the book being thrown at those who break road laws".
Instead - we could look at a "safe system" approach? Not as a replacement for the legal system but to reduce the need for this. Completely prevent or disincentivise dangerous behaviour in the first place. Provide "instant" and consistent feedback when people go wrong (by error or intent). Finally - mitigate the consequences of rule breaking.
Here's an example. And in fact we already do quite a bit of this kind of thing (e.g. dual carriageways / motorways with central dividers, to prevent crashes at e.g. 76 mph becoming ones with a closing speed of twice that). Some places go further with that idea and even prevent overtaking in may locations!
After all it's probably a waste taking people to court unless they're alive. And it helps if the witnesses are so they can give evidence.
The Safe System includes post-collision response and I believe that the justice system, including inquests sits firmly within this pillar. Any deaths on the roads are inherently avoidable and corners should routinely be issuing Prevention of Future Deaths reports to feed back into the other four pillars of the Safe System. Unfortunately, coroners in the UK are not permitted to make "recommendations" in the PFDs they issue; contrast this with New Zealand where, by law, they can make “any recommendations or comments on the avoidance of circumstances similar to those in which the death occurred, or on the manner in which any persons should act in such circumstances, that, in the opinion of the coroner, may if drawn to public attention reduce the chances of the occurrence of other deaths in such circumstances.” Further, the NZ Transport Agency specifically states that “Coroners play an important part towards creating a system that protects people from death and serious injury when mistakes occur.”: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/partners/road-safety-resources/vision-ze.... Why can’t we do this in the UK?
Thanks - didn't know that about NZ.
In the Netherlands this is of course part of their "sustainable safety" approach I believe.
In the UK I believe you are correct - reports to prevent future deaths essentially state the coroner has concern x, and they believe that person / organisation y has the power to do address it. I think legally those addressed must make a response but I don't think there are many stipulations about the nature of the response - certainly not about making anyone do anything other than respond. It's definitely an "honour system" / "mark your own homework".
We do have bodies which do take a more "health and safety review" approach - for the air sector (AAIB), rail sector (RAIB), marine sector (MAIB). (They're not equipped with great powers but they do seem to be more or less taken seriously).
... AND just a couple of of years back the government said they were launching a similar body for the roads - the RAIB!
... and then - after tumbleweed blew by - said a year ago that they were "still committed" to this. Since then "there the matter rests". This is apparently in limbo, and looks set to remain that way.
(On coroners - Last reviewed 2016):
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-5-report...
Were the family of Mr Davenport represented or supported by anyone or any organsiation at the inquest who could have questioned PC Clifford about the police report, or were they there just on their own?
Did the driver not face any criminal charges?
So it's down the the Coroner to investigate if there were any systemic failings and whether there are any actions that need to be taken to prevent future deaths?
Surely, at the very least, the coroner should request that the signage should be moved and the trees cut back to improve visibility (if this truly was a significant contributing factor)?
How can this collision have been anything but 100% the driver's fault??
Indeed; how is:
"Dr Robson ... claimed that she had not seen either of the cyclists as they approached, and only became aware of their presence when she heard the impact..."
anything less than evidence of culpability? It is the driver's obligation to look and see. Yet it seems that the very lack of looking and seeing is what exonerates them.
It's utter madness. We have a system where drivers can go about not noticing vulnerable road users until the point of impact, and the fact itself is exculpatory! What driver is ever going to claim they saw the cyclists and then proceeded to collide with them?
It's the old "Incompetence paradox" again, maybe?
I just recalled another "bushes ... didn't see the cyclists" collision where there was in fact a prosecution - charging sometimes seems a bit random?
This sounds like the driver who killed Rebecca Comins and was convicted of dangerous driving - perhaps unusually given no reported evidence of drink / drugs / phone use / speeding / didn't just drive off). He initially admitted he'd seen the cyclist in front of him on a clear, straight road. I can't help wondering if he'd simply said "I can't remember" this would have resulted in a lesser charge?
So PC Clifford admits he has no idea whether either hi viz clothing or a helmet would have made any difference, but mentions them both for a bit of casual victim blaming anyway.
You have to wonder whether the police were influenced by the fact the driver was (apparently) an acute/emergency medic and decided to give her some latitude
It would appear to a classic case of "looked but didn't see", and the fact the cyclists were two abreast should have meant they were more visible.
But, yet again, police are allowed to perpetuate the myth that cyclists not wearing high-vis are literally invisible and it's therefore perfectly OK to just "not see" them even when it's bright daylight and no obstruction (again, despite police comment about trees and signs, the cyclist testimony was explicit that they saw the driver clearly and with sufficient time to assess that the driver had seen them, so again some kind of black magic is applied to determine that while the cyclists could see the driver, simultaneously maybe the driver literally *couldn't* actually see them - because it's too troubling to concede that maybe, just maybe - the driver *could* see them but just didn't)
The most likely scenario, which funnily enough, doesn't appear to have even merited a mention from the police, is that the driver was looking for cars and - as studies have shown can be the case - simply did not process the fact that they had seen cyclists.
The famous example of the video experiment where you count the basketball passes and then get asked if you saw the person in a gorilla suit walk into the middle of the court, look at the camera and throw their arms in the air is an example of just this kind of thing
So, instead of discussion about how we can help drivers to ensure that they look better, we have this nonsense about 'maybe this wouldn't have happened if they'd had a different colour jacket on'. And 99% of the population will go on thinking "ah very sad, but nothing the driver could have done .... hope that doesn't happen to me when I'm driving", rather than "what are some ways I can practice good observation at junctions, so that I don't do this to someone one day".
Cough - cough - killer driver Dr Helen Measures - cough - cough.
Words fail me. This was a totally avoidable collision. Mid day, Miy summer, two cyclists, clear lines of sight.
My condolances to the family of David Davenport, which will be totally inadequate.
Attached is a Google Streetview image of the location from the point of view of the cyclists approaching the junction. The car will emerge from the junction on their left.
The surviving rider stated that he could see the car waiting to emerge from the cross roads. Absolute law of physics - If I can see you - You can see me. The cyclists were there to be seen.
Arguments for not making Hi Vis compulsary are that whilst it makes cyclists more visible it does not seem to reduce the number of collisions, but it opens the door to victim blaming if it is not worn. I think the above is clear evidence of those facts.
There was also a case reported here where the coroner concluded that the hi-viz may have made the victim blend in with the surrounding foliage...
It's perfectly possible.
Your visibility depends on the contrast between you and your background. You can choose what you wear, but you cannot choose your background. Statistically speaking though, traditional Hi vis coulours still give you the best chance of being seen.
Agreed - just pointing out that hi-viz can be used against us whether we wear it or not.
Pedantry: in fact it's quite possible for cyclists to see a motor vehicle but the driver in it not to see the cyclists - and not just because A-pillars / "only looking for cars". Looking at it approximately head-on the bike adds very little size to the person on it, but viewing a car from the side there is a lot of it still visible when you can't see the driver (and by implication they can't see you).
Of course I agree with the substance of the issue - whatever happened the driver made a manouever without prior effective observation. Yet somehow this was just "unavoidable".
I guess I'd be more understanding if the inquest had explicitly said "Given there is mass motoring, and given we're not going to do much to redesign our infra so that cyclists are not always required to depend on drivers for their safety this is in general unavoidable". I think unfortunately there's truth in that - the mass of humans (better or worse drivers but statistically fallible) plus cars (lead to much more serious outcomes) do mean that e.g. Vision Zero cannot reach zero. I think we can get a bit closer though - and more importantly have a LOT more people able to cycle without fear.
"If I can see you (the drver) then you can see me". In this case if we can trust the image, the case against the driver is so overwhelming that unless she was deilberately hiding behind an A Pillar it is difficult to understand how she could have failed to see the cyclist.
Two cyclists riding abreast, present an image the size of a small car. One of them must have been in the prime+ position on the road, just where you would expect to see a car. I cannot believe the driver looked up the road and only saw the gap between the cyclists. At 25 - 50 metres the cyclists would have been inside the driver's central vision if she had looked. No excuse.
It IS possible to encourage / teach people to make better observations. There are well known methods for this.
But we prefer to blame "invisibility" and encourage drivers to believe that they can't be blamed, and so there's nothing they can do to prevent something like this
It doesn't have to be that way.
Pages