Pothole-related fatal crash

[thirdcrank]

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/loca ... t_pothole/

The rider, Martyn Uzzell, died in 2011 and the inquest has now been concluded. I don't think this has been mentioned on here before.

[gaz]

Very sad to hear.

Edit: Not the first pothole-related fatal crash to be discussed on the forum: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35702

[horizon]

I suppose pothole-related is technically correct but I would have thought that "overtaking cyclist too fast and too close" might also be as appropriate. As would "driving instruction failings related". There are millions of pot-holes on the roads and many other reasons to be careful when overtaking a cyclist. And yet it's the pothole that gets centre stage. As long as courts, coroners and drivers never have to consider driver behaviour then we can all continue to live in fairyland.

I would also look at one or two other questions:

1. Is the A65 sufficiently well signposted and arranged so that cyclists are encouraged to use the old road through Settle itself rather than use the much faster by-pass. Was this looked at by the inquest?

2. Are cyclists themselves putting themselves in danger by choosing fast main roads to achieve high mileages in short periods of time, encouraged by the desire to complete challenge routes? Was the cyclist overtired at the time of the accident. Did the cyclist try to maintain primary position in order to encourage better overtaking?

3. The Settle by-pass is single lane in parts with double white lines. Were cyclists taken into account when this road layout was planned?

I'm not trying by the way to blame either driver or cyclist, just open up more productive lines of enquiry than blaming the pothole.

[thirdcrank]

A review by the Crown Prosecution Service concluded the council's failings should not lead to a corporate manslaughter case or any other criminal charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26504065

This may explain the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the Inquest, although it says nothing about the driver whose vehicle hit the deceased. .

[iviehoff]

I suppose pothole-related is technically correct but I would have thought that "overtaking cyclist too fast and too close" might also be as appropriate.

It is certainly a question worth asking. But we aren't given much clue in these articles as to the detail of what happened. If the cyclist did actually fall off sideways right in front of the car, then I think the cyclist will in practice be hit in a large proportion of cases, and our car-driving culture certainly isn't ready to find that blameworthy. If the car wasn't giving enough room for more typical cyclist problems short of falling over flat sideways, then it becomes more problematic, but juries seem unwilling to find even that blameworthy.

1. Is the A65 sufficiently well signposted and arranged so that cyclists are encouraged to use the old road through Settle itself rather than use the much faster by-pass. Was this looked at by the inquest?

I hope not. It's completely irrelevant.

[Phil Fouracre]

Whilst having every sympathy, I have to ask, why did he not see the pothole? I don't want to sound callous, but, in so many accident scenarios, something has to be to blame. There may be a valid reason for not seeing it, but, it really is the drivers/cyclists responsibility to look where they are going. In so many cases people make SMIDSY excuses, but, surely this must work both ways. Whether you are driving, cycling or walking it is up to you to look where you are going. I have had so many 'discussions' with anti cyclist drivers who don't expect them to be on the road, round a corner etc. I was always told to ride/cycle within the limits of what you can see, or within stopping capability. This has to apply to all modes of transport and not be selective.

[Vorpal]

None of us have enough information to determine who or what was to blame. Maybe the driver had given him plenty of room, but the combination of steering to avoid a pothole and subsequently losing control moved the cyclists laterally by several metres.

Maybe the pothole was concealed by a small dip, a cyclist in front of the victim, or road debris. Maybe it looked like a puddle until the last moment.

Maybe the pothole did deteriorate sudeenly after the previous inspection.

Maybe the inquest came to an entirely correct conclusion, based upon the evidence available.

[thirdcrank]

It's not the role of a Coroner or within the powers of in Inquest to blame anybody.

The first requirement is to ascertain the cause of death: in this case "as the result of a traffic collision." That seems beyond doubt. An inquest may not make any findings which apportion criminal or civil liability (my wording)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents

I do think it's worth considering the time line of events:

5 May 2011 One of two police reports to highway authority
13 May 2011 Inspected by highway authority and logged for repair within a month
10 June 2011 Inspected by highway authority. Need for attention not "spotted"
17 June 2011 Martyn Uzzell killed

The evidence was that the deepest part of the defect was 102mm or 4 inches in the old money.

[iviehoff]

I do think it's worth considering the time line of events:
...
13 May 2011 Inspected by highway authority and logged for repair within a month
10 June 2011 Inspected by highway authority. Need for attention not "spotted"

That is bona fide evidence of negligence at a level which ought to expose them to a suit. Road authorities frequently pay up for damage to vehicles, and one feels these are the kind of circumstances in which they might lose such a (civil) claim. Though the criminal courts may feel manslaughter is a step too far for leaving holes in the road. I see a great many of those on way to the station at this time of year.

Phil Fouracre suggests that someone is to blame for most things, but the usual reality is that there is often a complex coincidence of circumstances to which more than one person contributed.

[Mick F]

Whilst having every sympathy, I have to ask, why did he not see the pothole? I don't want to sound callous, but, in so many accident scenarios, something has to be to blame. There may be a valid reason for not seeing it, but, it really is the drivers/cyclists responsibility to look where they are going. In so many cases people make SMIDSY excuses, but, surely this must work both ways. Whether you are driving, cycling or walking it is up to you to look where you are going. I have had so many 'discussions' with anti cyclist drivers who don't expect them to be on the road, round a corner etc. I was always told to ride/cycle within the limits of what you can see, or within stopping capability. This has to apply to all modes of transport and not be selective.

I don't know if you have ever read my thread about when I hit a pothole?

I won't bore people with it all again, suffice to say that I was going down a familiar hill at 30mph+ in bright sunshine on a dry road. Trouble was:
1. I was wearing dark sunglasses.
2. There had been heavy rains for ages.
3. I plunged into "darkness" under thick tree cover.
4. A massive pothole had developed as a stream had broken its banks and was crossing the road diagonally.
5. Because of the "darkness" and the water, I never realised that there was a pothole a yard across and 6" deep with sheer sides.

I hit the hole, both wheels were wrecked and I slid down the road on my side, still clipped in and still holding tight to the handle bars! I slid along on my side for about fifty yards.

Luckily, the traffic following was far enough back and nothing was coming the other way.
I could have been squidged.

[MikeF]

Whilst having every sympathy, I have to ask, why did he not see the pothole? I don't want to sound callous, but, in so many accident scenarios, something has to be to blame. There may be a valid reason for not seeing it, but, it really is the drivers/cyclists responsibility to look where they are going. In so many cases people make SMIDSY excuses, but, surely this must work both ways. Whether you are driving, cycling or walking it is up to you to look where you are going. I have had so many 'discussions' with anti cyclist drivers who don't expect them to be on the road, round a corner etc. I was always told to ride/cycle within the limits of what you can see, or within stopping capability. This has to apply to all modes of transport and not be selective.

Even if you do see it it's not always easy to do something, especially on a busy road.
"...when he fell from his bike into the path of a car..." is all we know. You can't draw any conclusions from that. It appears him hitting the car was the cause of death, but was that a following car or oncoming one? If it was a following one, was it too close or what??

The only certain fact is that there should not have been a trench around a drain hole, if that's what there was. Unfortunately holes that are hazardous for cyclists are often deemed to be OK if they do not cause damage to cars, but this one had been noted for repair.

[thirdcrank]

... it really is the drivers/cyclists responsibility to look where they are going. ...

This is the rationale for reducing payouts because of contributory negligence. AFAIK, the typical reduction in pothole injury cases seems to be 50%. I suppose each case will be decided on its merits. The highway authority here will be in the bizarre position of having its own experts testifying that the defect was almost invisible to the naked eye when they inspected it.

I can't understand how the deceased's widow seems to have been coping alone with the legal side of things here. Perhaps that's how she preferred it, but I can't help wondering what the likes of the Cyclists' Defence Fund are doing about this. This also seems like a good advert for fillthathole, but make sure your reports include some decent pictures.

[Dynamite_funk]

The A65 at that location is a death trap, very twisty and VERY fast traffic. The route if going west to east out of settle (if you take the back road) involvess one hell of a steep hill, I love it myelf but I can certainly see why many people would be put off.

Tarmacing the towpath (little more than a muddy groove) between Skipton & Settle, as they have in Leeds would be one option to remedy the situation

[Postboxer]

I want to know what the inspection consists of, do they just drive along the road and give it a quick glance, maybe drive over it and determine it's fine in their car so no action needed yet, or do they get out, measure it, consider all road users etc.

[SA_SA_SA]

... it really is the drivers/cyclists responsibility to look where they are going. ...

This is the rationale for reducing payouts because of contributory negligence. AFAIK, the typical reduction in pothole injury cases seems to be 50%. I suppose each case will be decided on its merits. The highway authority here will be in the bizarre position of having its own experts testifying that the defect was almost invisible to the naked eye when they inspected it.

But the road is grey, potholes are grey and flush with the road surface...
I thought at normal speeds drivers/riders are vulnerable to poor surfaces (harder to see at distance than the normal things they have to see at comparable distance such as ordinary pedestrians etc: hence the partial liability of the highway authority?