Coroner slams 'slow' response over triple cycle death junction in Camden
The coroner found that the cause of death was "Road Traffic Collision". She is concerned about the road layout and will be writing a "Prevention of Future Deaths" report to Camden Council suggesting changes, Camden will have eight weeks to reply.
The coroner also said "I find that the cycle hit the coach rather than the coach hitting the cycle. That may seem slightly pedantic but I think it's helpful to understand how the collision occurred".
I think that is correct from a view of the mechanics of the collision, it explains how the crash happened but not why. Quite a few witnesses expressed the view that they couldn't believe how Golding did not see the coach.
In answer to the question "Why didn't the cyclist see the coach" the coroner commented "A moment's inattention. Who's to say that couldn't happen to anyone in this court. . . . I accept the evidence of the collision investigator."
A slightly different interpretation of the evidence could be that Golding saw the coach, saw that it stopped to let the taxi zip past and assumed the driver had seen him too and would let him pass. By the time he realised that he was mistaken it was too late to avoid the collision.
My view is that a "mistake" is a fairer assessment than "inattention".
The purpose of the coroner's court is very limited, it is not allowed to attribute blame to any particular person. A coroner's court hears evidence from witnesses who can be questioned by any involved person but the evidence is not tested by cross examination.
Assessments about blame are up to the police investigators and Crown Prosecution Service, if they think someone might be to blame then that person has a right to a fair trial where the evidence is tested in a criminal court. There has been no prosecution in this case.
Evening Standard
The coroner found that the cause of death was "Road Traffic Collision". She is concerned about the road layout and will be writing a "Prevention of Future Deaths" report to Camden Council suggesting changes, Camden will have eight weeks to reply.
The coroner also said "I find that the cycle hit the coach rather than the coach hitting the cycle. That may seem slightly pedantic but I think it's helpful to understand how the collision occurred".
I think that is correct from a view of the mechanics of the collision, it explains how the crash happened but not why. Quite a few witnesses expressed the view that they couldn't believe how Golding did not see the coach.
In answer to the question "Why didn't the cyclist see the coach" the coroner commented "A moment's inattention. Who's to say that couldn't happen to anyone in this court. . . . I accept the evidence of the collision investigator."
A slightly different interpretation of the evidence could be that Golding saw the coach, saw that it stopped to let the taxi zip past and assumed the driver had seen him too and would let him pass. By the time he realised that he was mistaken it was too late to avoid the collision.
My view is that a "mistake" is a fairer assessment than "inattention".
The purpose of the coroner's court is very limited, it is not allowed to attribute blame to any particular person. A coroner's court hears evidence from witnesses who can be questioned by any involved person but the evidence is not tested by cross examination.
Assessments about blame are up to the police investigators and Crown Prosecution Service, if they think someone might be to blame then that person has a right to a fair trial where the evidence is tested in a criminal court. There has been no prosecution in this case.