HGVs/lorries/cyclists: Inquest into death of Meryem Ozekman

Barry Mason of Southark Cyclists was at the inquest this week into the death of Meryem Ozekman, an experienced daily cyclist, a woman in her 30s, killed by a lorry on the Elephant and Castle roundabout earlier in the year.

Barry took a near verbatim record of proceedings. It makes for difficult reading. But as Barry says, I hope it helps a bit to make a difference out there.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southwarkcyclists/message/8188

The verbatim record is long but I'll paste here the Coroner's Verdict:

[INDENT]Here is my verdict from the bench. There were no defects to the bicycle or lorry. The road was fine. It's clear that the bike fell to the ground and under the tank. The wheel arch was marked by contact with the cyclist. On the balance of probabilities, the bicycle fell and
the rider fell for reasons unknown. There is no evidence of a collision.
It is not clear whether the cyclist was available to be seen. It is simply not possible to check all the mirrors all the time. It seems that the cyclist fell off her bicycle, and under the lorry.

It is clear then that no one understands what happened to this fit young experienced cyclist. Many of us are cycling now and this is a sad
reminder of the risks involved.

An accident is the consequence of an unintended act. In my duty as Coroner for this Inquest into the death of Meryem Ozekman at 2.50pm on 8 April 2009 at the Elephant and Castle roundabout by Newington Causeway, I, Dr. Andrew Hearns, do find the cause of death: Accident.

By reason that Meryem Ozekman fell off her cycle and was trapped under the wheel of a lorry. Verdict: Accident.

May I give my condolences to the family, many of whom are here today. I hope that today helps you to begin to rebalance your lives.[/INDENT]

I understand accidents happen but as DocA said in his presentation - HGVs make up 4% of road users yet cause 43% of cyclist deaths. These stats are not caused by a simple coincidence. How can stats like that make an all too common finding of 'accident' acceptable? Surely the coroners should smell a rat. Absolutely gutting to read.

"It is simply not possible to check all the mirrors all the time". Agreed, there is a sensory overload for the drivers. That's why, I believe, they should not be on the road. We can't share the rd with trucks that can't see us.

Although its sad to hear about these cases, that are all too common.

1 simple rule you should follow. Dont play games with HGVs, if you are not sure you can pass it, DONT! wait until you can safely pass. And dont ride alongside them either. We see it all too often, a cyclist pedalling alongside a bus or HGV then it turns left and they end up getting caught in a very tight spot, unfortunately for some that spot is too small to escape and an accident occurs.

HGVs make up 4% of road users yet cause 43% of cyclist deaths. These stats are not caused by a simple coincidence. How can stats like that make an all too common finding of 'accident' acceptable? Surely the coroners should smell a rat. Absolutely gutting to read.

Ufrasia, it's not up to the coroners to go on some mission to find all HGV drivers guilty just because the figures don't add up. They have to look at it on a case by case basis, and if there is no evidence that the driver did anything wrong, then this is the result they have to give.

On the balance of probabilities, the bicycle fell and
the rider fell for reasons unknown.

What?!
I think the balance of probabilities might not suggest this.

I have just read Barrys full account, harrowing but I feel very worthwhile, if any are up to it I recommend bearing witness, I'm still crying as I write this...

I read it this morning and I am still truly stirred by it. Also in conflict with myself about what to think. It is clear that the lorry driver didn't want to injure anyone, and that he travelled very slow speed. It is not entirely conclusive from the witness statements whether he overtook or whether the woman undertook the lorry, but it's definitely clear that if he had run her over he wouldn't even have felt it:

Counsel: Did you think there'd been a collision with the cyclist?

ME: No. The weight of the truck means that you can't feel anything like
a cone or whatever that you run over.

The pictures I have in my head now are truly grim.
I am so sad for everyone involved. Please everyone, be safe out there!

On the balance of probabilities, the bicycle fell and
[INDENT]the rider fell for reasons unknown.

This sentence does not make sense. The fact that the reasons are unknown is either true or false. The reasons the cyclist fell can't be 60% unknown and 40% known.
[/INDENT]

This sentence does not make sense. The fact that the reasons are unknown is either true or false. The reasons the cyclist fell can't be 60% unknown and 40% known.
[/INDENT]

It's a scope ambiguity. I think the scope of the modifier about probability is only intended to include what happened, not the reasons for it.

well, she fell down because the lorry hit her, most probably.
We as cyclists at least know that's the most probable reason. But seeing as the eye witness wouldn't commit to saying he actually saw that happen (instead of saying "a coming together" firstly and then later not being sure of any contact WTF??) the verdict can only be accidental.

well, she fell down because the lorry hit her, most probably.
We as cyclists at least know that's the most probable reason. But seeing as the eye witness wouldn't commit to saying he actually saw that happen (instead of saying "a coming together" firstly and then later not being sure of any contact WTF??) the verdict can only be accidental.

That raises an interesting question: if there had been no eyewitnesses at all, would the coroner have brought in the underlying statistics to conclude that the lorry was at fault?

Ufrasia, it's not up to the coroners to go on some mission to find all HGV drivers guilty just because the figures don't add up. They have to look at it on a case by case basis, and if there is no evidence that the driver did anything wrong, then this is the result they have to give.

I think we need to look at how incompatible these lorries are with our roads as too many 'accident' verdicts are given on a case by case basis. Nobody in power is learning from these verdicts. An accident is unforeseeable. As the driver said, he wouldn't have felt it anyway. I think that's a pretty huge problem with the design of HGVs and totally foreseeable. When a lorry hits a cyclist it's not going to go any other way all that often.

Obviously I'm not asking coroners to hang every lorry driver. What I am asking for is that the coroners acknowledge that the problem is inherent in the haulage industry and it needs addressing. If they can't see us we need to find a solution.

I think we need to look at how incompatible these lorries are with our roads as too many 'accident' verdicts are given on a case by case basis. Nobody in power is learning from these verdicts. An accident is unforeseeable. As the driver said, he wouldn't have felt it anyway. I think that's a pretty huge problem with the design of HGVs and totally foreseeable. When a lorry hits a cyclist it's not going to go any other way all that often.

Obviously I'm not asking coroners to hang every lorry driver. What I am asking for is that the coroners acknowledge that the problem is inherent in the haulage industry and it needs addressing. If they can't see us we need to find a solution.

There's no need for this. The statistics speak for themselves. In some ways, cases in which an HGV driver can be shown to be at fault actually undermine the case against HGVs per se.

Not sure I understand. So if the HGV is not found to be at fault it actually helps our cause by showing they just don't suit the roads? Or am I skewing what you said to fit my agenda?

If you can't prove anything, you cant prosecute.

If there's no evidence of driving without due attention, then they can't say he's *probably *at fault because he's an LGV and she's a cyclist. THe pressence of blinds spots, which are aparantly unavoidable, lifts the responsibility from the driver for collisons in these areas.

I've heard that LGVs can be fitted with sensors in the blind-spots around the vehicle which alert the driver. If things like that were mandatory by law, then perhaps there would be less ambiguity in such cases.

He saw her Hi-Viz jacket ... i'm definitely getting one now.

Meryem isn't here to tell us if she fell, but I find it very hard to believe that she did. How often does an experienced cyclist just fall off? Saying that though, I understand the coroner can not rule differently where there is doubt. I just don't think the haulage industry in being encouraged enough to commit to best practice, like companies such as CEMEX are doing. Considering the stats DocA presented I find accident verdicts infuriating.

Cynthia Barlow says it much better than me here:

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2009/102309/inews102309_03.html

I've heard that LGVs can be fitted with sensors in the blind-spots around the vehicle which alert the driver. If things like that were mandatory by law, then perhaps there would be less ambiguity in such cases.

Not quite the same, but talking about safety measures:

Counsel: You talked about blind spots. One on the off side but what
about the near side?

ME: There's the wide-angled mirror on the near side so I can see all
that side.

The lorry was fitted with a wide angle mirror, and it was possible for him to see all the inside of the turn. That's pretty much better than most lorries that drive around these days I guess, but it still didn't save her life :(

Anyone know how the senors on the trucks work, it says they warn the drivers when a cyclist is on the left handside, so do they just go off every time something is on the left hand side of the lorry?

depends on what type of sensor. There are ones that just go off whenever something goes down the left. The drivers we spoke to said they tend to just switch them off as they are annoying. The other type only switched on when the indicator comes on.

A distressing inquest, mainly for the lack of good evidence (not unusual, by all accounts) and the resulting lack of clarity as to what happened. Proceedings also seem extremely brief.

As for Ufrasia's question, 'accidents' are understood according to the definition given by the coroner: 'An accident is the consequence of an unintended act.'

It is very interesting to try and understand this. Clearly, the act of killing was unintended. There was no corresponding act such as 'being killed' on the part of the victim, as being killed is passive and not an act. However, there were other actions involved. It was not unintended that the lorry driver turned left; he intended to turn left. Likewise, the cyclist's movements were intended by her.

(I'm not going to speculate on what happened, nor accept the finding of the inquest as given, as I'm not convinced by the evidence that she fell of her own accord rather than being 'closed in on' by the lorry in the turning manoeuvre. The first witness was really too far away (150 yards) and the second witness did not see the collision/crash/fall.)

When you narrow it down further, after these intended acts comes an unintended coincidence--an event resulting from the two separately caused actions here, which in itself is fully caused. So, the 'accident' here would be better described as 'the consequence of an unintended coincidence'. (Not the/an 'unintended consequence', as the coincidence was itself unintended, and no consequences arising from it were therefore either intended or unintended--the question simply doesn't arise.)

Now, it is clear that if each of these tragic incidents is considered in isolation, the occurrences can often, indeed, be described as accidental--e.g., neither party intended the consequences of the coincidence and neither wanted them to happen.

However, there are a number of reasons why people, including many campaigners, object to the use of the word 'accident' for road traffic collisions. Firstly, it is a avery stretchy word that can even be applied to a crash in which a speeding motorist 'accidentally' kills a vulnerable road user--i.e., while he may have been speeding, he of course didn't intend to kill.

Also, the overall picture is anything but accidental. In fact, failing powerful interventions, such as, for instance, a part-time lorry ban in Central London, it is depressingly predictable what is going to happen year in, year out.

Most importantly, if these crashes continue to be thought of as 'accidents', that suggests that they are somehow events that occur outside the traffic system and that the traffic system doesn't need fixing--as the 'unintended' nature of these accidents shows, 'they are not built into the system' (when of course they are).

That the intention not to reign in road danger exists somewhere much higher up the food chain in transport policy, giving priority to volumes of motor traffic, fast movement of freight by road, etc. (as reducing road danger at source is not perceived to be conducive to motor traffic), is not something that comes to the surface in limited inquest proceedings such as this.

Of course the driver has a vivid interest in thinking of this incident as an 'accident' (and I'm not saying that this crash could not be described as such)--who'd want to bear all the consequences of a systematically wrong transport policy on their shoulders, or of the stupid design of the Elephant and Castle?--, but 'accident' after 'accident' adds up to a false perception of the big picture, which does need changing. It is much better to speak of 'incidents' and 'crashes', as these words are more neutral and less emotionally charged, and if the right practical consequences were drawn from this different terminology, perhaps we might start to see some change. All to campaign for.

[QUOTE=Oliver Schick;1058128]

(I'm not going to speculate on what happened, nor accept the finding of the inquest as given, as I'm not convinced by the evidence that she fell of her own accord rather than being 'closed in on' by the lorry in the turning manoeuvre.

Surely you're speculating by by offering an alternative?

I'll have to re-read the details as it was last night when i read the whole thing, but they know the rider fell off, but have no evidence of contact (apart from the comming together bit which was vague), so can only say she fell off but without saying why.

Not sure I understand. So if the HGV is not found to be at fault it actually helps our cause by showing they just don't suit the roads? Or am I skewing what you said to fit my agenda?

Suppose the driver had been found to be over the blood alcohol limit. In that case we would be inclined to say it was his fault for drinking. There would be an argument for not counting this amongst the rest of the HGV-cyclist statistics.

Oliver's summary of the issues is spot on, as ever.

This is very depressing reading.
In Eildih's case at Notting Hill there was apparenty "no evidence of contact" either. Why would there be. A massive dirty rusty lorry travelling a 9mph hitting a human body or simply clipping the rear wheel. (See the stunt on ITV programme last thurs at 8pm. You can see how easily the bike is brought down by a tiny contact from behind by the lorry. It is pretty clear there would be no physical evidence of this.) Why is noone asking if they would expect there to be evidence of a contact? (Evidence being material left on the other vehicle or sign of impact).
The police investigation report is implying that Eilidh fell off too!?!?!
Simply because she was wearing fixies. Totally ignoring the fact of how long she had been riding it. It is pure speculation on behalf of the police. It is outrageous that these are classed as "accidental" and therefore inveitable and therefore unavoidable.
This is a complete discgrace. Maybe she did fall off but on the balance of probabilities is that she didnt. Just look at her experience.
They are taking the easy option.
Eilidh's inquest is 22 January. I sincerely hope we dont have the same verdict but I expect we may well have. This is why witnesses are so so important.
I feel bad all over again now.

they know the rider fell off, but have no evidence of contact (apart from the comming together bit which was vague), so can only say she fell off but without saying why.

Saying she fell off makes it sound like her fault.
Saying the truck knocked her off, makes it sound like the driver's.

Even if she did randomly fall down (turning and hitting oil on the road, say) why was she close enough to be hit by the truck?

"We understand that the lorry was held up in traffic but it had overtaken the cycle."
How much room was there for this to take place? Report says there was a considerable gap so how did she still get hit? Was she undertaking the truck or was the truck overtaking her?

Why are trucks still driving around London during the day?