“Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path,
judge rules

According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
until the collision was inevitable”

by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56

Two cyclists who were involved in a serious collision on a National Cycle
Route, which left one of the riders requiring resuscitation after his heart
stopped, have been found equally to blame for the crash by a judge, who
said the cyclists were “travelling at twice the safe speed” and were
oblivious to each other’s presence when the “inevitable” crash took place.

Joseph Merrick and Nigel Dick, both cycling home from work at the time of
the collision, were injured when they crashed into each other at one of the
junctions connecting the National Cycle Network’s routes 7 and 75, between
Linwood and Johnstone, Renfrewshire, on 26 August 2019, the Glasgow Times
(link is external) reports.

Mr Dick, a 54-year-old senior control engineer, was seriously injured in
the collision and lost consciousness at the scene. He was later told that
his heart had stopped and that he required resuscitation.

Following the incident, he raised an action at the Court of Session in
Edinburgh, Scotland’s highest civil court, seeking damages from Mr Merrick,
a 66-year-old teacher.

At the court this week, lawyers for Mr Dick argued that Merrick should be
apportioned 75 per cent of the blame for the collision and the serious
injuries sustained by the 54-year-old.

[linked story] Cyclist hit by truck driver has compensation cut after judge
says lack of helmet contributed to injuries

However, judge Lord Sandison concluded that both riders were equally at
fault for the crash, due to their speed and apparent failure to anticipate
each other’s presence as they approached the junction.

“I do not find it possible to conclude that the fault of either contributed
more to the causation of the accident and its consequences than the fault
of the other, or that one was more blameworthy than the other,” Lord
Sandison said.

“Each was travelling at about twice the safe speed for him and each
completely failed, for no good reason, to take the steps necessary to
observe the presence of the other until the collision was inevitable.

“Neither had any priority over the other, and the responsibility to take
reasonable care for the safety of himself and others was equally incumbent
on each.”

Despite finding that Mr Merrick’s role in the crash materially contributed
to the loss, damage, and injuries sustained by Mr Dick, the judge said that
in the circumstances he considered it “just and equitable” to hold each
cyclist 50 per cent responsible.

Lord Sandison also pointed out that it was important to appreciate that
national cycle routes “are not roads”.

“They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes
to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians,
children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,”
he said.

“Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and
hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite
music or a podcast on their headphones.

“Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than
cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”

Sandison noted that the case would be continued, if necessary, to assess
the level of damages.

[linked item] Glasgow e-bike rider crashes into Italian pros on cycle path,
falling into river and ruling Simone Consonni out of world championships

This collision isn’t the first time a high-profile crash between two
cyclists has taken place on a cycle path near Glasgow.

At the 2023 UCI World Cycling Championships, hosted by the Scottish city,
Italian track rider Simone Consonni, an Olympic gold medallist in the team
pursuit in 2021, suffered a broken collarbone and wrist after a cyclist on
an e-bike collided head-on with him and teammate Francesco Lamon as the
pair enjoyed a leisurely spin along the River Clyde ahead of their race the
following day.

The e-bike rider, meanwhile, reportedly fell into the river following the
collision, which occurred close to the Italian team’s hotel near Glasgow’s
Exhibition Centre.

“I wanted to do two hours to stretch my legs ahead of tomorrow,” the
28-year-old former world champion said at the time. “Francesco and I went
out and we got on to this narrow cycle path, with this blind left
half-turn, and this other cyclist on an e-bike was coming from the other
side, with panniers, carrying quite a bit of weight.

“I tried to avoid him by turning to the left but from what I remember he
hit me on the right shoulder with his helmet. I did some x-rays, my
collarbone is slightly chipped, the left scaphoid is broken.”

<https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>

--
Spike

On 06/04/2024 11:11 am, Spike wrote:
>
> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path,
> judge rules
>
> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
> until the collision was inevitable”
>
> by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56
>
> Two cyclists who were involved in a serious collision on a National Cycle
> Route, which left one of the riders requiring resuscitation after his heart
> stopped, have been found equally to blame for the crash by a judge, who
> said the cyclists were “travelling at twice the safe speed” and were
> oblivious to each other’s presence when the “inevitable” crash took place.
>
> Joseph Merrick and Nigel Dick, both cycling home from work at the time of
> the collision, were injured when they crashed into each other at one of the
> junctions connecting the National Cycle Network’s routes 7 and 75, between
> Linwood and Johnstone, Renfrewshire, on 26 August 2019, the Glasgow Times
> (link is external) reports.

Wasn't "Merrick" the name of the Elephant Man?

And as for the other one...

> Mr Dick, a 54-year-old senior control engineer, was seriously injured in
> the collision and lost consciousness at the scene. He was later told that
> his heart had stopped and that he required resuscitation.
>
> Following the incident, he raised an action at the Court of Session in
> Edinburgh, Scotland’s highest civil court, seeking damages from Mr Merrick,
> a 66-year-old teacher.
>
> At the court this week, lawyers for Mr Dick argued that Merrick should be
> apportioned 75 per cent of the blame for the collision and the serious
> injuries sustained by the 54-year-old.
>
> However, judge Lord Sandison concluded that both riders were equally at
> fault for the crash, due to their speed and apparent failure to anticipate
> each other’s presence as they approached the junction.
>
> “I do not find it possible to conclude that the fault of either contributed
> more to the causation of the accident and its consequences than the fault
> of the other, or that one was more blameworthy than the other,” Lord
> Sandison said.
>
> “Each was travelling at about twice the safe speed for him and each
> completely failed, for no good reason, to take the steps necessary to
> observe the presence of the other until the collision was inevitable.
>
> “Neither had any priority over the other, and the responsibility to take
> reasonable care for the safety of himself and others was equally incumbent
> on each.”
>
> Despite finding that Mr Merrick’s role in the crash materially contributed
> to the loss, damage, and injuries sustained by Mr Dick, the judge said that
> in the circumstances he considered it “just and equitable” to hold each
> cyclist 50 per cent responsible.
>
> Lord Sandison also pointed out that it was important to appreciate that
> national cycle routes “are not roads”.
>
> “They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes
> to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians,
> children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,”
> he said.
>
> “Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and
> hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite
> music or a podcast on their headphones.
>
> “Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than
> cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”
>
> Sandison noted that the case would be continued, if necessary, to assess
> the level of damages.
>
> This collision isn’t the first time a high-profile crash between two
> cyclists has taken place on a cycle path near Glasgow.
>
> At the 2023 UCI World Cycling Championships, hosted by the Scottish city,
> Italian track rider Simone Consonni, an Olympic gold medallist in the team
> pursuit in 2021, suffered a broken collarbone and wrist after a cyclist on
> an e-bike collided head-on with him and teammate Francesco Lamon as the
> pair enjoyed a leisurely spin along the River Clyde ahead of their race the
> following day.
>
> The e-bike rider, meanwhile, reportedly fell into the river following the
> collision, which occurred close to the Italian team’s hotel near Glasgow’s
> Exhibition Centre.

Any video of that one? :-)

> “I wanted to do two hours to stretch my legs ahead of tomorrow,” the
> 28-year-old former world champion said at the time. “Francesco and I went
> out and we got on to this narrow cycle path, with this blind left
> half-turn, and this other cyclist on an e-bike was coming from the other
> side, with panniers, carrying quite a bit of weight.
>
> “I tried to avoid him by turning to the left but from what I remember he
> hit me on the right shoulder with his helmet. I did some x-rays, my
> collarbone is slightly chipped, the left scaphoid is broken.”
>
> <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>

Yes, this article (mainly about the two chavs who were equally to blame
for the Renfrewshire collision on their chav-bikes) came up on the
Google feed.

What a great shame that there were none of those pesky pedestrians or
any of those murderous "motorists" to pin the blame on, eh?

As it is, road.cc (the semi-literate journal for semi-literate chavs on
chav-bikes) readers were reduced in their comments to denigration of the
courts on the basis that what they say about drivers is justified while
anything derogatory said about a chav on a chav-bike is self-evident
nonsense.

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules

> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
> until the collision was inevitable”

[…]

> <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>

From the article: “This collision isn’t the first time a high-profile crash
between two cyclists has taken place on a cycle path near Glasgow.”

CORRECTION: The path mentioned in this article is NOT a ‘cycle path’, a
description which seems to be pure conjecture by the article’s author.

As the judge noted, and road.cc seems to have missed:

“They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes
to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians,
children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,”
he said.

“Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and
hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite
music or a podcast on their headphones.

“Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than
cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”

road.cc, eh? 🙄

--
Spike

On 06/04/2024 04:47 pm, Spike wrote:
> Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules
>
>> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
>> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
>> until the collision was inevitable”

TRANSLATION:

"They weren't looking where they were going".

Probably staring at the ground beneath the front wheel - a very common
habit of chav-cyclists.

> […]
>
>> <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>
>
> From the article: “This collision isn’t the first time a high-profile crash
> between two cyclists has taken place on a cycle path near Glasgow.”
>
> CORRECTION: The path mentioned in this article is NOT a ‘cycle path’, a
> description which seems to be pure conjecture by the article’s author.

+1.

> As the judge noted, and road.cc seems to have missed:
>
> “They are simply paths, open to cyclists as well as anyone else who wishes
> to use them other than by way of motorised vehicles, be that pedestrians,
> children on scooters, teenagers on skateboards, or mothers pushing prams,”
> he said.

> “Their users can be young or old, nimble, or lumbering, able to see and
> hear well or not, alert to their surroundings, or lost in their favourite
> music or a podcast on their headphones.

> “Pedestrians occupy no lesser place in the hierarchy of users than
> cyclists. Every user must respect the interests of every other user.”

> road.cc, eh? 🙄

You can say that again.

Road.cc: the journal written and edited by semi-literates for (at best)
a semi-literate readership.

On 06/04/2024 21:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/04/2024 04:47 pm, Spike wrote:
>> Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path,
>>> judge rules
>>
>>> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
>>> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
>>> until the collision was inevitable”
>
> TRANSLATION:
>
> "They weren't looking where they were going".
>
> Probably staring at the ground beneath the front wheel - a very common
> habit of chav-cyclists.

They both observed the third cyclist travelling at a sensible speed.

On 07/04/2024 09:50 am, Nick Finnigan wrote:

> On 06/04/2024 21:12, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/04/2024 04:47 pm, Spike wrote:
>>> Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike
>>>> path, judge rules
>
>>>> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
>>>> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the
>>>> other until the collision was inevitable”
>
>> TRANSLATION:
>> "They weren't looking where they were going".
>> Probably staring at the ground beneath the front wheel - a very common
>> habit of chav-cyclists.
>
>  They both observed the third cyclist travelling at a sensible speed.

They still weren't looking where they were going.

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules

> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
> until the collision was inevitable”

> by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56

<snip>

> <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>

QUOTE
Avatar
stonojnr replied to Flâneur | 1 day ago
3 likes

very interesting, cheers.

and it nicely documents the speeds, 13.4mph and 20.1mph, though Im not sure
Im fully on board with their accuracy.

the judge is saying then a safe speed is 7-10mph. I doubt the majority of
cyclists who use shared paths to get around, even with a junction like
this, ride at those speeds.

Log In or Register to post comments UNQUOTE

That last comment tells you all you need to know about the attitude of
cyclists with regard to cycling speed. But they know exactly how fast motor
vehicles should be going.

They also totally ignore the message from an anti-car article published on
the road.cc web site which noted that Professor Scarlett McNally, a
consultant orthopaedic surgeon and who authored a piece published in the
BMJ titled 'Enabling active travel can improve the UK's health', mentions
that the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture clinics" that
get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed".

That is, cars must slow down, but not cyclists. This tale of two colliding
cyclists strongly suggests otherwise.

Over the period 2018-2022 official data states that there were some 872
casualties caused by cycle/cycle collisions, some of which resulted in
fatalities.

--
Spike

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Keep in mind that this serious collision took place on a path. It would
therefore not have been recorded in the Stats19 data, even if a fatality
had occurred. This is one reason why the deaths of pedestrians who have
been killed in a collision with a cyclist are under-reported.

> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path,
> judge rules
>
> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
> until the collision was inevitable”
>
> by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56
>
> Two cyclists who were involved in a serious collision on a National Cycle
> Route, which left one of the riders requiring resuscitation after his heart
> stopped, have been found equally to blame for the crash by a judge, who
> said the cyclists were “travelling at twice the safe speed” and were
> oblivious to each other’s presence when the “inevitable” crash took place.

[…]

> <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>

--
Spike

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
> Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> “Speeding” cyclists equally to blame for serious collision on bike path, judge rules
>
>> According to the judge, both cyclists “completely failed, for no good
>> reason, to take the steps necessary to observe the presence of the other
>> until the collision was inevitable”
>
>> by RYAN MALLON FRI, APR 05, 2024 11:56
>
> <snip>
>
>> <https://road.cc/content/news/speeding-cyclists-equally-blame-bike-path-crash-307663>
>
> QUOTE
> Avatar
> stonojnr replied to Flâneur | 1 day ago
> 3 likes
>
> very interesting, cheers.
>
> and it nicely documents the speeds, 13.4mph and 20.1mph, though Im not sure
> Im fully on board with their accuracy.
>
> the judge is saying then a safe speed is 7-10mph. I doubt the majority of
> cyclists who use shared paths to get around, even with a junction like
> this, ride at those speeds.
>
> Log In or Register to post comments UNQUOTE
>
> That last comment tells you all you need to know about the attitude of
> cyclists with regard to cycling speed. But they know exactly how fast motor
> vehicles should be going.
>
> They also totally ignore the message from an anti-car article published on
> the road.cc web site which noted that Professor Scarlett McNally, a
> consultant orthopaedic surgeon and who authored a piece published in the
> BMJ titled 'Enabling active travel can improve the UK's health', mentions
> that the "horrific injuries I see in orthopaedic and fracture clinics" that
> get "exponentially worse with every 1 mph increase in speed".

> That is, cars must slow down, but not cyclists. This tale of two colliding
> cyclists strongly suggests otherwise.

> Over the period 2018-2022 official data states that there were some 872
> casualties caused by cycle/cycle collisions, some of which resulted in fatalities.

Note that that as there is no obligation to report cycle/cycle collisions
to the police, this figure of 872 casualties can only be an underestimate.

--
Spike