Another Edinburgh cyclist killed

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Wallace Shackle, Feb 16, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. A cyclist has died nine days after being injured in a road accident.

    Tristan Hewins was hurt when he collided with the back of a Rover 200 car in Edinburgh on 5 February
    as he left Napier University.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3492413.stm

    --
    Wallace Shackleton,

    Kinross, Scotland.

    Cycling in Kinross-shire www.cyclekinross.org.uk

    Perth & Kinross Cycle Campaign www.bycycle.org.uk
     
    Tags:


  2. > A cyclist has died nine days after being injured in a road accident.
    >
    > Tristan Hewins was hurt when he collided with the back of a Rover 200 car in Edinburgh on 5
    > February as he left Napier University.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3492413.stm

    For other lazy people/offline readers:

    A cyclist has died nine days after being injured in a road accident. Tristan Hewins was hurt when he
    collided with the back of a Rover 200 car in Edinburgh on 5 February as he left Napier University.

    But the 25-year-old's condition deteriorated and he died on Saturday, Lothian and Borders
    Police said.

    Mr Hewins, who was from England, suffered the fatal injuries during the collision with the car on
    Craighouse Road which was turning into Meadowspot.

    The student, who lived at Morrison Circus, was taken to hospital by ambulance and at the time his
    injuries were not thought to be life threatening.

    Witness appeal

    However, his condition worsened and he died on Saturday.

    A force spokeswoman said: "Traffic police would like to hear from anyone who witnessed the accident.

    "The area was busy with a large number of people particularly students leaving Napier University."

    She added that a report would be sent to the procurator fiscal.

    Those with information can contact Lothian and Borders Police Traffic Department on 0131 311 3814.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.587 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 12/02/2004
     
  3. Elyob

    Elyob Guest

    "Wallace Shackleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:hFaYb.6130$Y%[email protected]...
    > A cyclist has died nine days after being injured in a road accident.
    >
    > Tristan Hewins was hurt when he collided with the back of a Rover 200 car in Edinburgh on 5
    > February as he left Napier University.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3492413.stm
    >
    >

    I hopt to God that I never appear in a thread on here ....

    Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into the
    back? Not that it'll help Tristan RIP.
     
  4. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into
    > the back?

    I know that was proposed for insurance purposes last year but I don't know what came of it. I would
    think in the instance of riding into the back of a vehicle then there would be no issue of proof as
    the proposal was for cases where there was any level of dispute.

    In this case "collided with the back of a Rover" does seem to place the blame firmly on the cyclist,
    which may well be justified or may be a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no way of knowing
    from the article.

    Graeme
     
  5. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "elyob" <[email protected]> writes:

    > Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into the
    > back? Not that it'll help Tristan RIP.

    That's Europhobe FUD.

    The purpose of the directive is to put the primary burden of care where it belongs - with the
    primary cause of danger. It doesn't excuse anyone being stupid, but applies to cases where there's
    no immediate blame that'll stand up in a lawcourt, and assigns a presumption of responsibility.

    In other words, it says that when you wield a deadly weapon, it's up to you to take care with it,
    not up to everyone else to get out of your way. But it still is up to everyone else not to jump out
    into your way.

    --
    Nick Kew
     
  6. mij

    mij New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I read the original report of this incident it said the cylist collided with the back of a Rover car which was turning left.

    The turning left bit seems to have been omitted from other reports.



    QUOTE]Originally posted by Graeme
    "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into
    > the back?

    I know that was proposed for insurance purposes last year but I don't know what came of it. I would
    think in the instance of riding into the back of a vehicle then there would be no issue of proof as
    the proposal was for cases where there was any level of dispute.

    In this case "collided with the back of a Rover" does seem to place the blame firmly on the cyclist,
    which may well be justified or may be a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no way of knowing
    from the article.

    Graeme
    [/QUOTE]
     
  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    elyob wrote:
    >
    > I hopt to God that I never appear in a thread on here ....
    >

    Too late, you just have ;-)

    > Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into the
    > back? Not that it'll help Tristan RIP.

    It doesn't always blame cars, it puts the onus on proving fault on the driver. In a clear cut case
    of cyclist fault its still the cyclists fault but in those marginal or no evidence/witnesses the
    driver is assumed to be at fault.

    Tony
     
  8. On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:37:18 GMT, Graeme <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > In this case "collided with the back of a Rover" does seem to place the blame firmly on the
    > cyclist, which may well be justified or may be a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no way
    > of knowing from the article.

    Unless the car was reversing!

    Colin
    --
     
  9. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Following on from Colin Blackburn's message. . .
    >> In this case "collided with the back of a Rover" does seem to place the blame firmly on the
    >> cyclist, which may well be justified or may be a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no way
    >> of knowing from the article.
    >
    >Unless the car was reversing!
    Bizarre I know, but cars reversing into bikes is not as unusual as you might think. The two cases I
    know of were one on the road waiting at traffic lights and another where a car reversed out of a
    drive onto the road. (Sourced from local STATS-19 traffic reports)


    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the e-commerce business came to a .
    [email protected]
     
  10. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    mij <[email protected]> wrote in news:JcnYb.76738$eC.9938
    @fe17.usenetserver.com:

    > When I read the original report of this incident it said the cylist collided with the back of a
    > Rover car which was turning left.
    >
    > The turning left bit seems to have been omitted from other reports.

    Hmmm... very interesting. That throws an entirely different light on things. That manouvre is fairly
    common when cars overtake bikes, so it is fairly believable unfortunately.

    Graeme
     
  11. Simon Proven

    Simon Proven Guest

    Graeme <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into
    > > the back?
    >
    > I know that was proposed for insurance purposes last year but I don't know what came of it. I
    > would think in the instance of riding into the back of a vehicle then there would be no issue of
    > proof as the proposal was for cases where there was any level of dispute.

    > In this case "collided with the back of a Rover" does seem to place the blame firmly on the
    > cyclist, which may well be justified or may be a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no way
    > of knowing from the article.

    Given that the detail of the article says that the car was turning into a side road at the time it
    depends whether the cyclist came up behind the vehicle or the vehicle had overtaken then cut in
    front of the cyclist and braked sharply for the turning, as frequently happens. Perhaps it would be
    best to wait and see.
     
  12. On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:54 +0000, Peter Fox
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following on from Colin Blackburn's message. . .

    >> Unless the car was reversing!

    > Bizarre I know, but cars reversing into bikes is not as unusual as you might think.

    I know. I have been in the situation more than once where after pulling up behind a stationary car
    the car has decided to reverse without considering what I can do about it. In one case the driver
    assumed that the appearance of his reversing lights would somehow work as a prompt for me to put the
    bike into reverse and ease back, not realising that bikes don't work like that especially when one
    foot is clipped in. I now leave a bigger gap!

    Colin
    --
     
  13. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:05:36 GMT, elyob <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > I hopt to God that I never appear in a thread on here ....
    >
    > Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into the
    > back? Not that it'll help Tristan RIP.

    No, that was just what the daily mail would have you believe.

    In essence, it required that all cars had insurance that would cover teh situation that IF an
    incident occurred and IF the car driver was deemed to be liable then the insurance would cover it.
    That is, that insurers would not be able to sell policies that didn't cover injuries caused to
    cyclists. It was extending to cyclists the cover that is already compulsorily applicable to
    passengers.

    The directive explicitly stated that it did not alter affect or change in any way teh rules of
    process for determining liability.,

    Rather a long way from what teh tabloids would have you believe.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  14. Gavin

    Gavin Guest

    My wife arrived at the scene on her bike just a few mins after the accident. The approach to the
    scene from Napier Uni is down a particularly steep hill. Immediately at the foot of the hill there
    is a small turning on the left into a minor road. She came down the hill from Napier to find the
    cyclist in a foetal position adjacent to the left kerb just before the junction. The car was already
    stopped in the minor road and had left the major road. The cyclist was being tended by two people
    who informed my wife that the ambulance had been called. The bike was in a state - very damaged at
    the front and was into the minor road beyond the cyclist.

    It is highly likely that he hit the back end of the car. But, whether the car was crossing the
    cyclist, overtook and then braked, or merely turned into the minor road is from wife's perspective
    merely speculation.

    The police are conducting considerable enquiries at Napier to find witnesses. Hopefully, they will
    find a good independent witness.

    Gavin
     
  15. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    "gavin" <[email protected]> writes:

    > My wife arrived at the scene on her bike just a few mins after the accident. The approach to the
    > scene from Napier Uni is down a particularly steep hill. Immediately at the foot of the hill there
    > is a small turning on the left into a minor road. She came down the hill from Napier to find the
    > cyclist in a foetal position adjacent to the left kerb just before the junction. The car was
    > already stopped in the minor road and had left the major road. The cyclist was being tended by two
    > people who informed my wife that the ambulance had been called. The bike was in a state - very
    > damaged at the front and was into the minor road beyond the cyclist.
    >
    > It is highly likely that he hit the back end of the car. But, whether the car was crossing the
    > cyclist, overtook and then braked, or merely turned into the minor road is from wife's perspective
    > merely speculation.
    >
    > The police are conducting considerable enquiries at Napier to find witnesses. Hopefully, they will
    > find a good independent witness.

    Which roads were these? Judging by the hill, you're implying either he was going down Colinton Road
    (not very steep), Moooorningsaide Road (horrible - too much traffic for the width of the road but
    not all that steep) or Viewforth where I went to school (narrow and really quite steep). But neither
    Mooooorningsaide Road nor Viewforth really have a 'turn off on the left at the bottom of the hill',
    so presumably turning off Colinton Road into South Gillsland Road?

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    'there are no solutions, only precipitates'
     
  16. Frank X

    Frank X Guest

    "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:54 +0000, Peter Fox
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Following on from Colin Blackburn's message. . .
    >
    > >> Unless the car was reversing!
    >
    > > Bizarre I know, but cars reversing into bikes is not as unusual as you might think.
    >
    > I know. I have been in the situation more than once where after pulling up behind a stationary car
    > the car has decided to reverse without considering what I can do about it. In one case the driver
    > assumed that the appearance of his reversing lights would somehow work as a prompt for me to put
    > the bike into reverse and ease back, not realising that bikes don't work like that especially when
    > one foot is clipped in. I now leave a bigger gap!
    >

    Yep a couple of months ago a car pulled into my shared drive, my nethew pulls up behind her on his
    scooter, waiting for her to move on so he could get to my house. She then reversed with out warning,
    trapping him under her car.

    He was unhurt but he still hasn't recieved any compensation for the damage she did to his
    scooter :eek:(
     
  17. Sarissa

    Sarissa Guest

    That junction is on my (irregular) commute home. It's right at the foot of a hill maxing at 15-20%
    on which I can easily get up to 50-55kph in a few seconds. Guess I'll check my brakes tonight.

    Sarissa

    Graeme wrote:

    > "elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    >
    >>Isn't there a European directive that always blames cars over cyclists, even if you ride into
    >>the back?
    >
    >
    > I know that was proposed for insurance purposes last year but I don't know what came of it. I
    > would think in the instance of riding into the back of a vehicle then there would be no issue of
    > proof as the proposal was for cases where there was any level of dispute.
    >
    > In this case "collided with the back of a Rover" does seem to place the blame firmly on the
    > cyclist, which may well be justified or may be a misrepresentation of the facts. There is no way
    > of knowing from the article.
    >
    > Graeme
     
  18. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Which roads were these?

    Napier Uni is all over Edinburgh these days, having taken over all sorts of colleges over recent
    years, so it might not be the ones around Morningside/Colinton. They've even got a place out in
    Livingston for training nurses (where I used to work, best job in the world - the only single bloke
    surrounded by hundreds of student nurses!)

    Graeme
     
  19. Frobnitz

    Frobnitz Guest

    "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Which roads were these? Judging by the hill, you're implying either he was going down Colinton
    > Road (not very steep),

    Craighouse Road, where the accident happened, is at the backdoor as it were, of the Craiglockhart
    site, on the route to the Holy Corner site - it's the road that runs alongside the George Watson
    playing fields <http://tinyurl.com/365ff> or <http://tinyurl.com/2h7d5>.

    E
     
  20. Gavin

    Gavin Guest

    "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > Which roads were these? Judging by the hill, you're implying either he was going down Colinton
    > Road (not very steep), Moooorningsaide Road (horrible - too much traffic for the width of the road
    > but not all that steep) or Viewforth where I went to school (narrow and really quite steep). But
    > neither Mooooorningsaide Road nor Viewforth really have a 'turn off on the left at the bottom of
    > the hill', so presumably turning off Colinton Road into South Gillsland Road?

    He was studying at the Craighouse site (not far from Morningside) and was going down the Craighouse
    Road. At the foot, there is a very small road into a housing development - Meadowspot.

    Gavin
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...