Another Edinburgh cyclist killed

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

 

> 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

 

"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.

 

"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

 

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

 

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]

 

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

 

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
--

 

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]

 

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

 

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.

 

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
--

 

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|
|/ \|

 

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

 

"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'

 

"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[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 (

 

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

 

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

 

"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

 

"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