Re: Graham Bufton

[Druid]

This is not an accurate description of the accident. Suggest you wait
for the inquest for the facts before publishing hearsay about this very
sad incident.

Bonebardier writes:-

"My understanding of the circumstances of the accident are that Graham
was turning right into Long Lane, the car behind him had actually
stopped but the 206 driver overtook the stationary car at a junction,
hitting Graham as he turned. Now this is only what I have heard, but I
am from Telford and have heard this from someone who attended the
accident only 5 minutes after it happened.

Graham was a good man, often misunderstood by those who met him for the
first time and he was the inspiration and insight into the world of road
racing for me as a young 12 year old visiting his shop every day as I
passed on my paper round. I cannot believe that a careless idiot has
taken this man away from the world of cycling, which will be much the
worse without his character and humour"



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Druid]

The inquest date has been set for October 2nd.

Originally posted by Druid This is not an accurate description of the
accident. Suggest you wait for the inquest for the facts before
publishing hearsay about this very sad incident.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Druid]

The inquest date has been set for October 2nd.

Originally posted by Druid This is not an accurate description of the
accident. Suggest you wait for the inquest for the facts before
publishing hearsay about this very sad incident.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Druid]

Just goes to show how worng hearsay can be. Not the motorist at fault.
This is still a tragic event with no positives to be taken from it.

Report of the inquest can be found at
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/publish/article_5869.shtml

Originally posted by Bonebardier My understanding of the circumstances
of the accident are that Graham was turning right into Long Lane, the
car behind him had actually stopped but the 206 driver overtook the
stationary car at a junction, hitting Graham as he turned. Now this is
only what I have heard, but I am from Telford and have heard this from
someone who attended the accident only 5 minutes after it happened. ]



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Druid]

Just goes to show how worng hearsay can be. Not the motorist at fault.
This is still a tragic event with no positives to be taken from it.

Report of the inquest can be found at
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/publish/article_5869.shtml

Originally posted by Bonebardier My understanding of the circumstances
of the accident are that Graham was turning right into Long Lane, the
car behind him had actually stopped but the 206 driver overtook the
stationary car at a junction, hitting Graham as he turned. Now this is
only what I have heard, but I am from Telford and have heard this from
someone who attended the accident only 5 minutes after it happened. ]



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

Something I find "curious" for want of a better description in the article, it
says, ""For for some unknown reason, I think that Mr Bufton must have misjudged
either the speed of the van behind him or his own ability to cross the road
without inconveniencing the traffic behind him or in fact endangering
himself.""

So.. am I wrong in thinking he was hit from behind by a vehicle when he was
turning right? If so, what on earth was the vehicle behind doing overtaking a
cyclist turning right.

The reason this makes me wonder is yesterday I was cycling in Dereham. I was
stationary at a red traffic light, at head of filter lane to turn right. I had
my right arm stuck out just to make absolutely certain the car driver behind
knew my intention - it was clear of traffic in oncoming lane. Lights changed to
green - I set off - to be immediately overtaken (on the RH turn) by the car
that had been immediately behind me at the red light. It could have been quite
nasty.

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*o l*$*.*$$c$om*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

Something I find "curious" for want of a better description in the article, it
says, ""For for some unknown reason, I think that Mr Bufton must have misjudged
either the speed of the van behind him or his own ability to cross the road
without inconveniencing the traffic behind him or in fact endangering
himself.""

So.. am I wrong in thinking he was hit from behind by a vehicle when he was
turning right? If so, what on earth was the vehicle behind doing overtaking a
cyclist turning right.

The reason this makes me wonder is yesterday I was cycling in Dereham. I was
stationary at a red traffic light, at head of filter lane to turn right. I had
my right arm stuck out just to make absolutely certain the car driver behind
knew my intention - it was clear of traffic in oncoming lane. Lights changed to
green - I set off - to be immediately overtaken (on the RH turn) by the car
that had been immediately behind me at the red light. It could have been quite
nasty.

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*o l*$*.*$$c$om*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Richard Goodman]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" > wrote in message
...
> Something I find "curious" for want of a better description in the
article, it
> says, ""For for some unknown reason, I think that Mr Bufton must have
misjudged
> either the speed of the van behind him or his own ability to cross the
road
> without inconveniencing the traffic behind him or in fact endangering
> himself.""
>
> So.. am I wrong in thinking he was hit from behind by a vehicle when he
was
> turning right? If so, what on earth was the vehicle behind doing
overtaking a
> cyclist turning right.
>

That's how it reads to me, and it seems he was also hit on the righthand
side of the road - so in fact would have successfully completed the move in
front of the van to make the turn, but for the driver pulling more right as
he did. One assumes the driver didn't know he was turning right, and was
instinctively pulling more right in response to the cyclist moving over to
the right in order to continue overtaking.

It may be difficult to make quick judgements where the closing speed may
have been quite high, but one is bound to wonder why the driver felt his
only option was to attempt to complete his overtaking manoeuvre on the wrong
side of the road at a junction? Had he simply braked and continued straight
ahead on his own half of the road instead of focusing on the overtaking
manoeuvre the outcome could have been very different.

Seems to me the driver got off lightly here, and his determination to
overtake got in the way of thinking about why the cyclist might be pulling
right and how best to avoid the accident. Easy to say with hindsight, but
we all know it is a fact that many (if not most) drivers let their
impatience and determination to overtake cyclists at almost any cost (often
only to join the back of the next queue) is the cause of many an accident or
near miss. It seems that this is what happened here.


Rich

[Richard Goodman]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" > wrote in message
...
> Something I find "curious" for want of a better description in the
article, it
> says, ""For for some unknown reason, I think that Mr Bufton must have
misjudged
> either the speed of the van behind him or his own ability to cross the
road
> without inconveniencing the traffic behind him or in fact endangering
> himself.""
>
> So.. am I wrong in thinking he was hit from behind by a vehicle when he
was
> turning right? If so, what on earth was the vehicle behind doing
overtaking a
> cyclist turning right.
>

That's how it reads to me, and it seems he was also hit on the righthand
side of the road - so in fact would have successfully completed the move in
front of the van to make the turn, but for the driver pulling more right as
he did. One assumes the driver didn't know he was turning right, and was
instinctively pulling more right in response to the cyclist moving over to
the right in order to continue overtaking.

It may be difficult to make quick judgements where the closing speed may
have been quite high, but one is bound to wonder why the driver felt his
only option was to attempt to complete his overtaking manoeuvre on the wrong
side of the road at a junction? Had he simply braked and continued straight
ahead on his own half of the road instead of focusing on the overtaking
manoeuvre the outcome could have been very different.

Seems to me the driver got off lightly here, and his determination to
overtake got in the way of thinking about why the cyclist might be pulling
right and how best to avoid the accident. Easy to say with hindsight, but
we all know it is a fact that many (if not most) drivers let their
impatience and determination to overtake cyclists at almost any cost (often
only to join the back of the next queue) is the cause of many an accident or
near miss. It seems that this is what happened here.


Rich

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:42:25 GMT someone who may be "Richard
Goodman" > wrote this:-

>One assumes the driver didn't know he was turning right,

I think the fact that a cyclist is on the right hand side of the
lane, presumably looking over their shoulder is a fairly obvious
signal.

Unless he was trying to turn right from the left hand side of the
lane, which I doubt. If this was the case this demonstrates how
dangerous such a manoeuvre is, despite it being encouraged by many
officials and road "safety" organisations.

>Seems to me the driver got off lightly here, and his determination to
>overtake got in the way of thinking about why the cyclist might be pulling
>right and how best to avoid the accident.

Agreed.

>>Telford & Wrekin coroner Michael Gwynne said: "For for some unknown
>>reason, I think that Mr Bufton must have misjudged either the speed
>>of the van behind him

Quite possible.

>>or his own ability to cross the road without inconveniencing the
>>traffic behind him or in fact endangering himself."

This shows the stupidity that coroners often display.

>>The driver of the van, office supervisor David Owen, from
>>Nantwich, did not give evidence,

Fascinating.

The following would also fit the facts that have been given.

1) Cyclist slows down ready to turn right and moves to correct part
of road.

2) Motorist thinks, I must overtake that cyclist.

3) Cyclist sees motorist and knows that he can turn into the lane in
plenty of time while motorist continues along the lane cyclist is
currently in the right of.

4) Cyclist turns right at much the same time as motorist pulls into
wrong lane.

I note that it is claimed that the cyclist collided with the
motorist's van.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:42:25 GMT someone who may be "Richard
Goodman" > wrote this:-

>One assumes the driver didn't know he was turning right,

I think the fact that a cyclist is on the right hand side of the
lane, presumably looking over their shoulder is a fairly obvious
signal.

Unless he was trying to turn right from the left hand side of the
lane, which I doubt. If this was the case this demonstrates how
dangerous such a manoeuvre is, despite it being encouraged by many
officials and road "safety" organisations.

>Seems to me the driver got off lightly here, and his determination to
>overtake got in the way of thinking about why the cyclist might be pulling
>right and how best to avoid the accident.

Agreed.

>>Telford & Wrekin coroner Michael Gwynne said: "For for some unknown
>>reason, I think that Mr Bufton must have misjudged either the speed
>>of the van behind him

Quite possible.

>>or his own ability to cross the road without inconveniencing the
>>traffic behind him or in fact endangering himself."

This shows the stupidity that coroners often display.

>>The driver of the van, office supervisor David Owen, from
>>Nantwich, did not give evidence,

Fascinating.

The following would also fit the facts that have been given.

1) Cyclist slows down ready to turn right and moves to correct part
of road.

2) Motorist thinks, I must overtake that cyclist.

3) Cyclist sees motorist and knows that he can turn into the lane in
plenty of time while motorist continues along the lane cyclist is
currently in the right of.

4) Cyclist turns right at much the same time as motorist pulls into
wrong lane.

I note that it is claimed that the cyclist collided with the
motorist's van.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.