Cyclist died after crash with walker

Brian Drury popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on
and said

Quoted message said:

He told the hearing: "Both parties were unable to avoid the
collision.

Surely the "walker" could have stepped back or stopped .
It is "easier" to change velocity whilst walking than it is cycling.

Quoted message said:

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Dr Matthew Orde
said "I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very
sad accident.

**** like this makes me very angry the "walker" swore on oath
that he had looked before stepping in front of the cyclist so either
he was lying to the court ;had some sort of death wish or simply
hadn't seen the cyclist, from the report it is not clear what the
cyclist
was wearing;whether the "walker" was looking into the sun or give
any reason why the "walker" didn't see the cyclist.

--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

Brian Drury said:

Brighton Argus Thursday 28 October 2004:

Cyclist died after crash with walker

by Sam Thomson

A teacher died after cycling down a steep hill and running into a man
walking his dog, an inquest heard.

Andrew Faulding was riding down Coldean Lane, Brighton, on a clear
summer's morning when he ran into Graham Durrant.

The 32-year-old teacher, of Walpole Terrace, Brighton, was thrown into
the air on impact and landed several metres down the road.

Despite wearing a protective helmet, Mr Faulding suffered severe head
injuries.

The inquest, held at Brighton Magistrates Court yesterday, heard he
was unconscious when he arrived at the Royal Sussex County Hospital,
Brighton, at about 10.30am on August 16.

His condition deteriorated and he died the next day.

PC Mark Forshew, of Hastings police, told the hearing he was driving
north along Coldean Lane when he saw Mr Durrant emerge from woods
beside the road carrying his white West Highland terrier under his arm.

He said: "I was concerned because the pedestrian didn't seem to look
where he was going.

"I felt something was going to happen because he walked out at such a
quick pace.

"The cyclist tried to swerve into the middle of the road but it was
too late."

Michael Hooper was driving in the same direction with his wife and saw
the incident in his rear-view mirror.

He said: "As we drove up the road, I saw this chap step out from the
woods. We carried on driving and saw the cyclist coming towards us.

"I remember having the feeling of impending doom. Then I saw them
collide. It was like they exploded."

Mr Durrant suffered a broken nose and fractured sternum.

He was knocked unconscious in the collision.

He told the hearing he remembered pausing and looking in both
directions before trying to cross the road.

Mr Durrant said: "I looked up and saw a car turning right and then
looked down before I stepped out.

"That's the last thing I remember before being woken up by the
ambulance chaps."

Didn't suffer any memory loss then! I can never actively recall any of
the times I've looked when crossing the road and I'm sure I do it every time

Quoted message said:

Sergeant Marc Clothier, of Brighton and Hove road traffic department,
said a full investigation into the accident had concluded that no one
should face prosecution.

He told the hearing: "Both parties were unable to avoid the collision.

Really!

Quoted message said:

"Although Mr Faulding took evasive action, he did not have the time or
the distance to do anything."

Mr Faulding had been teaching at a school in Hove for two years.

He had been due to move next month to a school in St Albans, where he
had been appointed head of economics.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Dr Matthew Orde said
"I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
accident.

Caused by a stupid numpty walking into the road without looking!

Quoted message said:

"I offer my sincere condolences to all Mr Faulding's family and
friends."

For which I'm sure they are really grateful.

No news about the dog? I guess it must be OK then

I WILL try to calm down now!

JulesH

"Julesh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian Drury said:

Brighton Argus Thursday 28 October 2004:

Cyclist died after crash with walker

by Sam Thomson

A teacher died after cycling down a steep hill and running into a man
walking his dog, an inquest heard.

Andrew Faulding was riding down Coldean Lane, Brighton, on a clear
summer's morning when he ran into Graham Durrant.

The 32-year-old teacher, of Walpole Terrace, Brighton, was thrown into
the air on impact and landed several metres down the road.

Despite wearing a protective helmet, Mr Faulding suffered severe head
injuries.

The inquest, held at Brighton Magistrates Court yesterday, heard he
was unconscious when he arrived at the Royal Sussex County Hospital,
Brighton, at about 10.30am on August 16.

His condition deteriorated and he died the next day.

PC Mark Forshew, of Hastings police, told the hearing he was driving
north along Coldean Lane when he saw Mr Durrant emerge from woods
beside the road carrying his white West Highland terrier under his arm.

He said: "I was concerned because the pedestrian didn't seem to look
where he was going.

"I felt something was going to happen because he walked out at such a
quick pace.

"The cyclist tried to swerve into the middle of the road but it was
too late."

Michael Hooper was driving in the same direction with his wife and saw
the incident in his rear-view mirror.

He said: "As we drove up the road, I saw this chap step out from the
woods. We carried on driving and saw the cyclist coming towards us.

"I remember having the feeling of impending doom. Then I saw them
collide. It was like they exploded."

Mr Durrant suffered a broken nose and fractured sternum.

He was knocked unconscious in the collision.

He told the hearing he remembered pausing and looking in both
directions before trying to cross the road.

Mr Durrant said: "I looked up and saw a car turning right and then
looked down before I stepped out.

"That's the last thing I remember before being woken up by the
ambulance chaps."

Didn't suffer any memory loss then! I can never actively recall any of
the times I've looked when crossing the road and I'm sure I do it every
time

Quoted message said:

Sergeant Marc Clothier, of Brighton and Hove road traffic department,
said a full investigation into the accident had concluded that no one
should face prosecution.

He told the hearing: "Both parties were unable to avoid the collision.

Really!

Quoted message said:

"Although Mr Faulding took evasive action, he did not have the time or
the distance to do anything."

Mr Faulding had been teaching at a school in Hove for two years.

He had been due to move next month to a school in St Albans, where he
had been appointed head of economics.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Dr Matthew Orde said
"I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
accident.

Caused by a stupid numpty walking into the road without looking!

Yet had he walked into the path of a car, no doubt we'd see lots of blame
apportioned here for "speeding motorists"?
:-)

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Brian Drury said:

PC Mark Forshew, of Hastings police, .....

.... said: "I was concerned because the pedestrian didn't seem to

look

Quoted message said:

where he was going.

Mr Durrant ......

......told the hearing he remembered pausing and looking in both
directions before trying to cross the road.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Dr Matthew Orde

said

Quoted message said:

"I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
accident......

....caused by a numpty walking out into the road without looking and
then denying it in court IMO.

Tony

Julesh vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Brian Drury wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Dr Matthew Orde said
"I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
accident.

Caused by a stupid numpty walking into the road without looking!

Is that what you'd be saying if same stupid numpty had walked in front of a
car ? I seriously doubt it, not that it'd get reported in URC anyway, but
if it did it'd be cries of 'speeding motorists' ...

Maybe the cyclist was also travelling too fast for him to stop in distance
he could see to be clear ...

Why do people try to apportion blame when they know only what a newspaper
(whatever) reports ?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Paul - censored said:

Maybe the cyclist was also travelling too fast for him to stop in distance
he could see to be clear ...

You can't allow for people suddenly appearing out of the bushes, or your
speed would have to be 0mph.

Zog The Undeniable vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

Maybe the cyclist was also travelling too fast for him to stop in
distance he could see to be clear ...

You can't allow for people suddenly appearing out of the bushes, or your
speed would have to be 0mph.

"He said: "As we drove up the road, I saw this chap step out from the
woods. We carried on driving and saw the cyclist coming towards us."

Suggests it was more than 'suddenly appearing' .. but again, none of us
really know.

All I'm suggesting is that the constant 'cyclist has an accident, but it
wasn't his fault' posts seem to use the same, or similar, arguments that
cyclists use to decry other road-users with .. 😉

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Paul - censored said:

Julesh vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Brian Drury wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Dr Matthew Orde said
"I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
accident.

Caused by a stupid numpty walking into the road without looking!

Is that what you'd be saying if same stupid numpty had walked in front of a
car ? I seriously doubt it, not that it'd get reported in URC anyway, but
if it did it'd be cries of 'speeding motorists' ...

Maybe the cyclist was also travelling too fast for him to stop in distance
he could see to be clear ...

Why do people try to apportion blame when they know only what a newspaper
(whatever) reports ?

As far as I'm concerned if he had walked out in front of a car (speeding
or otherwise) he would still be a stupid numpty - but a possibly a
stupid numpty that would have personally suffered the result of his own
actions. The eyewitnesses seem to be in agreement that he simply didn't
look. This doesn't surprise me as, in my experience, too many people
seems to listen for motor traffic, rather than looking to see if there
is any risk of being killed by a quiet something, before stepping out
into the road

The report also seems to imply that he stepped out of woodland onto the
road so it's possibly he was not visible until unavoidable. I quite
agree with the point (argued at length in this group) about safe
stopping distances but this is generally discussed in relation to
visible hazards.

I totally agree with your point that trying to analyse road accidents on
the basis of newspaper reports is futile. As a cyclist, motorist (cycle
miles this week = 0, car miles this week = 720 [1]) and pedestrian any
loss of human life on the roads saddens me[2].

Julesh

[1] Half term - kids - distant relatives in need of visiting.
[2] And isn't this Usenet - the spiritual home of accurate and reasoned
debate?

Quoted message said:

Surely the "walker" could have stepped back or stopped .
It is "easier" to change velocity whilst walking than it is cycling.

I'm guessing the walker did, which was why the cyclist hit. The report
said the cyclist swerved, and I presume the ped unfortunately moved the
same way.

Regards the smidsy, the cyclist may have been hidden by the car, or the
walker was looking for cars rather than bicycles. Smidsy's are
surprisingly easy to do.

Julesh said:

... in my experience, too many people
seems to listen for motor traffic, rather than looking to see if there
is any risk of being killed by a quiet something, before stepping out
into the road

Ditto my experience.

Quoted message said:

The report also seems to imply that he stepped out of woodland onto the
road so it's possibly he was not visible until unavoidable. I quite
agree with the point (argued at length in this group) about safe
stopping distances but this is generally discussed in relation to
visible hazards.

I feel compelled to point out that deer have a habit of doing much the
same thing in wooded areas. If a cyclist riding down a steep hill was
killed in a collision with a deer that had suddenly emerged from woods,
would people be saying that it's all the deer's fault for being a stupid
numpty?

Legally I would think it's entirely the cyclist's fault, after all peds
always have right of way. Morally I think I'd have to place most of the
blame with the ped, who should have known better than to step into the
road without looking. If it /had/ been a deer then I'd view the matter
somewhat differently, as you wouldn't expect a deer to know any better.

Ultimately, ISTM that the cyclist was riding too fast for the
conditions. One can reasonably expect to have to stop quickly when the
road passes through woodland, because you never know what wildlife might
appear. If it's a deer, a badger or a boar, the chances are it'll do
you some serious damage if you hit it.

It's hard to condemn a cyclist for going fast downhill in an area where
it sounds like peds wouldn't usually be expected, though. How many of
us would really be able to resist the tempation to get up a bit of speed?

Quoted message said:

I totally agree with your point that trying to analyse road accidents on
the basis of newspaper reports is futile.

Very true.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Paul - censored said:

Is that what you'd be saying if same stupid numpty had walked in

front of a

Quoted message said:

car ? I seriously doubt it, not that it'd get reported in URC

anyway, but

Quoted message said:

if it did it'd be cries of 'speeding motorists' ...

Yes, if he shot out of the woods into the road without looking.

Quoted message said:

Maybe the cyclist was also travelling too fast for him to stop in

distance

Quoted message said:

he could see to be clear ...

It would seem that he could see it to be clear until numpty shot out of
the woods and into the road.

Quoted message said:

Why do people try to apportion blame when they know only what a

newspaper

Quoted message said:

(whatever) reports ?

In this case there was at least on policeman who saw it happen and said
that numpty didn't look. The other driver implies but doesn't say the
same thing. Its only numpty who thinks he managed to look without
seeing.

As I said just my opinion

Tony

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:50:46 +0100,

Danny Colyer said:

Julesh said:

The report also seems to imply that he stepped out of woodland onto the
road so it's possibly he was not visible until unavoidable. I quite
agree with the point (argued at length in this group) about safe
stopping distances but this is generally discussed in relation to
visible hazards.

I feel compelled to point out that deer have a habit of doing much the
same thing in wooded areas. If a cyclist riding down a steep hill was
killed in a collision with a deer that had suddenly emerged from woods,
would people be saying that it's all the deer's fault for being a stupid
numpty?

Legally I would think it's entirely the cyclist's fault, after all peds
always have right of way. Morally I think I'd have to place most of the
blame with the ped, who should have known better than to step into the
road without looking.

Well I have seen people who when they see a bike bearing down on them
first take a step forward than step backwards. This can make it to
avoid them if you are trying to second guess them.

Quoted message said:

Ultimately, ISTM that the cyclist was riding too fast for the
conditions.

Not necessarily, we do not know if the cyclist tried to stop or if he
could have stopped in time (although that seems unlikely - but I do not
know the hill or the speed the cyclist was going). The way the article
was written implies that he tried to avoid the collision by trying to
swerve around the pedestrian. Of course still the cyclist's fault.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:34:55 +0100 someone who may be "Brian Drury"
<briandotdruryatdsldotpipexdotcom> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Brighton Argus Thursday 28 October 2004:

Quoted message said:

Despite wearing a protective helmet, Mr Faulding suffered severe head
injuries.

Then it wasn't protective.

Is it just this journalist that is an idiot, or are the editors as
well?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

David Hansen said:

Then it wasn't protective.

Is it just this journalist that is an idiot, or are the editors as
well?

I'm just amazed they mentioned the fact. The wearing of a h*lmet is
usually omitted in press articles if it failed to work - I smell a PC
conspiracy theory.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Surely the "walker" could have stepped back or stopped .
It is "easier" to change velocity whilst walking than it is cycling.

I'm guessing the walker did, which was why the cyclist hit. The report
said the cyclist swerved, and I presume the ped unfortunately moved the
same way.

That was what happened when I hit a ped. I was soundly beaten for it.
The ped was a knuckledragger on its way to work at a dodgy nightclub.

I do pick em...

Richard Webb

To summarise:

The cyclist was travelling too fast to be able to stop striking someone who
walked out into the road unexpectedly. That doesn't necessarily mean his
speed was reckless.

The pedestrian didn't check well enough that the road was clear before
stepping out, probably relying too much on his hearing rather than sight.
Hands up anyone who's never done that.

Having heard all the evidence, coroner Dr Matthew Orde said
"I am drawn by the evidence to conclude this was simply a very sad
accident. "
which sounds like a fair conclusion to me.

"Brian Drury" <briandotdruryatdsldotpipexdotcom> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

He said: "I was concerned because the pedestrian didn't seem to look
where he was going.

"I felt something was going to happen because he walked out at such a
quick pace.

I frequently see pedestrians stepping onto the road without checking
properly for traffic.
Would this cyclist still be alive an Air Zound horn had been
fitted and used? Would he still be alive if he had been riding a
recumbent? I'm not a darksider but I presume that on a 'bent would be
less likelyhood of being thrown over the bars. Would either of these
be better protection than a plastic hat?
Iain

Zog The Undeniable said:

You can't allow for people suddenly appearing out of the bushes,

You do if you ride along past Clifton Downs late at night

Two of them. Only one pair of trousers. Laughed so much I damn near
fell off.

Julesh said:

Caused by a stupid numpty walking into the road without looking!

Unless we assume the total cluelessness of the coroner, then a
decision made in court, with all the evidence in front of it, has to
carry just a little more weight than newspaper-based Usenet ramblings.

Sometimes [censored] does just happen.