Kian Gill

1 0 

, 2015 

1.-f Leicestershire
l'D CountyCouncil 

Mrs Catherine E. Mason LL.B, BSc. Hons; 
RGN 
H.M. Coroner For Leicester City and South 
Leicestershire 
The Town Hall 
Town Hall Square 
Leicester 
LE1  9BG 

7 August 2015 

Date: 
My ref:  HTWGEN202
Your ref:
Contact: 
Phone: 
Email: 

BY SPECIAL DELIVERY 

Dear Mrs Mason 

Re:- Kian Singh Gill 

Thank you for your letter and enclosed report dated 22 June 2015. 

I am the Director of Environment and Transport at Leicestershire County Council and 

I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  consider  the  matters  raised  in  your  letter  and 

accompanying notice. 

I would ask you  please to treat this letter as the Council's response for the purposes 

of Regulation 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

1.  On  behalf  of  the  Council  I  will  comment  on  the  relevant  circumstances 

pertaining  to  the  fatal  accident  below.  Before doing  so,  may  I  express  my 

sincere sympathy to Kian Singh Gill's family for their tragic loss. 

2.  The Council acknowledges that the Court has not yet reached a conclusion in 

relation to the cause(s) leading to the fatal incident. 

Chief Executive's Department 
Leicestershire County Council, County Hall, Glenfield, Leicestershire LE3  SRA 
Telephone: 0116 232 3232  Fax: 0116 305 6161  Minicom: 0116 305 6870 

www.leics.gov.uk 

 
 
 
 However,  it is  apparent from  the  terms of the notice dated 22  June 2015 that 

the  Coroner  may  wish  to  give  consideration  to  the  question  of whether the 

state of the highway contributed to the fatal  incident. 

3.  With  this  in  mind,  I propose,  not simply to  address the specific issues arising 
under Regulation  29(3) of the 2013  Regulations1,  but also  to  comment upon 

the relevant circumstances of this case. 

4.  The statutory report received  by the Council,  expressed particular concerns in 

respect of the following  matters:-

a. 

"The hedgerows by the side of both roads are overgrown and obscure 

a  driver's  view  into  the junction  and the  road leading  up  to  it.  This 

meant that neither the rider nor the driver had view of each other until 

the final moments prior to impact" 

b.  "There is no signage to indicate that there is a junction there and". 

c. 

"The  speed limit is  not curtailed from  the  national speed limit despite 

there being a junction." 

5.  These issues are addressed in  turn below:  -

Issue 1 :- Hedgerow 

6.  The  national  standards  for  visibility  splays  on  trunk  roads  are  contained  within 

the  Design  Manual  for  Roads  and  Bridges.  That  manual  deals  with  a  broad 

range  of  design  considerations  but,  materially  the  chapter  entitled  "Vehicular 

Access to All-purpose Trunk Roads" covers the  requirements for visibility splays 

at junctions.  A  relevant  extract  is  enclosed  at  tab  1  of the  exhibits  with  this 

document. 

7. 

It  should  be  appreciated  that  both  Ullesthorpe  Road  and  Bonehams  Lane  are 

properly  classified  as  'county  roads'  rather  than  'trunk  roads'.  Typically,  the 

design standards for trunk roads  are higher than for county  roads.  As shall be 

'Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 

2 

 detailed  below,  this  junction  meets  the  design  standards  applicable  to  larger 

trunk roads. 

8.  The section entitled  "Geometric Standards for Direct Access" requires that roads 

be constructed to standards which enable drivers to see any potential hazards in 

sufficient  time  to  slow  down  or stop  before  reaching  it.  The  drawing  at page 
"2/3"  of Tab 1  (page  8 of the  document)  usefully  illustrates  how "X"2  distances 
and minimum "Y"3 distances are to be interpreted. 

9.  Following  the  tragic  accident,  Leicestershire  County  Council  undertook  a  site 

investigation  to ascertain  whether sight  lines  were  restricted  at  the  Ullesthorpe 

Road junction with  Bonehams  Lane.  Site visits by an engineer was undertaken 

on 1 July 2015 and also on 22 July 2015. 

10. On  the  site  visits,  visibility  measurements  were  taken  from  both  roads,  and 

compared to the National Guidance referred to above. 

11. For traffic  positioned  at a  setback  distance  of 2.4  metres from  the  edge of the 

junction, the minimum visibility distance required for a 60  m.p.h.  design speed  is 

215 metres (please see the table at page "214" of Tab  1).  The measured visibility 

from  Bonehams  Lane  was  270  metres  looking  west  and  250m  looking  east. 

Relevant photographic evidence arising from the inspections is enclosed at tab 7 

of the bundle. 

12. In  the  circumstances,  I  regret  the  Council  must  take  issue  with  the  Police 

Constable 

  findings  in  respect  of  the  time  available  to  the 

participants to identify each other's presence on the approaches to the junction. 

13. If  the  junction  had  been  designed  to  accommodate  faster  moving  traffic  (e.g. 

with  a speed limit of say 70 mph) then the  Y distance would  have needed to  be 

significantly  increased  (in  the  region  of 295 metres)  to  afford  drivers  sufficient 

time to react and to manoeuvre safely. 

2  X distance is measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway back to the position of the driver's eye line. 
3 the distance over which vision should be provided to enable the emerging driver to see approaching main road 
traffic and for that traffic to see the emerging vehicle 

3 

 14. However,  insofar  as  the  visibility  splays  at  the  junction  actually  exceeded  the 

National  Guidance,  it  seems  probable  that  factors  other  than  visibility  were 

relevant to the parties' failure to take evasive action until it was too late. 

15.  Indeed,  the  acknowledgement  within  the  interim  police  report  that  the  motor 

vehicle  was  travelling  in  excess  of the  national  speed  limit appears  particularly 

pertinent in  respect of the  time available to the motorist to react to the oncoming 

cyclist. 

16. Moreover,  the Reporting Officer who prepared the Accident Statistics report ( see 

tab 6 of the Bundle) identified that it was possible that the  cyclist failed  to judge 
the vehicles speed or path4  and failed to look properly.5 

Hedgerows 

17. Hedgerows  are  generally  owned  by  the  owners  of neighbouring  land  and  not 

therefore  the  property  of  the  Council. 

I  acknowledge  that  the  Council  may 

enforce  restrictions  on  the  expansion  of hedgerows  under Section  152  of the 

Highways Act 1980. 

18. That power allows  the  Council to serve  a  notice  upon  the  owner of the trees  or 

vegetation  informing  them  that they are  required  to clear any obstructions  from 

the highway. 

19. The  exercise  of  statutory  powers  was  not  necessary  in  this  instance.  The 

hedgerows  at  the junction  on  Ullesthorpe  Road  are  situated  8  metres  from  the 

centre of the carriageway with a grass verge of 5 metres present before the road 

surface  is  present.  On  Bonehams  lane  the  hedgerow  is  6  metres  back  with  a 

grass verge of 3.5 metres in total. 

20. It  should  be  appreciated,  in  this  context,  that  the  removal  of  hedgerows  is 

actually  closely  regulated  (the  removal  of  many  hedgerows  without  lawful 
authority  is  a  criminal  offence  - Regulation  7  of the  Hedgerows  Regulations 

1997). 

• See the reference to entry classified as "803" 
5  Please see the entry classified as "405". 

4 

 21. The distance between hedgerows and the  road surface exceeds what is typically 

expected on rural roads. 

Grass Cutting 

22.  National  Guidance6  advises  that the  grass  cutting  should,  as  a  minimum,  take 

place twice per year on  rural  roads.  The  hedgerow and  grass verges are within 

the  County  Highway  Boundaries  and  are  maintained  in  accordance  with  our 
Highway Maintenance Policy and Strategy adopted  1st  November 2011 . 

23.  In  keeping  with  the  national  guidance,  it  is  the  Council's  policy  to  ensure  that 

rural roads have a minimum of two single swathe width cuts per year 7 

. 

24.  Leicestershire hold records of the dates of the grass cutting and treatment to the 

grass  verges  of  both  roads  within  500  metres  of  the  referenced  junction. 

According to the Council's records the grass verge was cut on  Ullesthorpe Road 

on the week commencing 27/4/2015 and on the week commencing  8/6/2015. 

25. An  extract  of  the  Council's  grass  cutting  records  is  enclosed  at  tab  8  of the 

bundle. 

Issue 2 Signage 

26. I  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  give  way  sign  on  Boneham's  Lane  on  the 

approach  to  the  junction  (albeit  there  are  other  visible  indicators  of  the 

presence of a junction).  That said, there  is  no  general obligation, in  law, to 

provide road  signage or road markings at every junction. 

27. The  primary  legislation  which  deals  with  the  placement  of  signs  and  road 

markings (Section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 19848

)  is permissive 

rather than  mandatory in respect of laying road markings. 

'  Well Maintained Highways www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/download.cfm/docid/C7214A5B-66E1-4994-
AA7FBAC360DC5CC7 
7 

See page 11 of the Highway Inspection Operation Manual. 

8 

Section 65(1) states as follows:- "The traffic authority_[J]fil'. cause or permittraffic signs to be placed on or near a 
road,  subject to and in conformity with such general directions as may be given by the Ministers acting jointly or such 
other directions as mey be given by the Secretary of State." 

5 

 28. The  existence  of a  statutory  power  under  which  a  Council  may  exercise  its 

discretion  does  not  give  rise  to  a  common  law  duty  of  care  for  failing  to 

proceed under that power.9 

29. Likewise  the  Highway Authority  has  a  duty  to  exercise  its  powers  conferred 

under  the  act  (RTRA  84)  to  secure  the  "expeditious,  convenient  and  safe 

movements of vehicular and other traffic" s122 of the  Road Traffic Regulation 

Act 1984. 

30. In  2004 the  House of Lords  confirmed 10  that signs  and  markings are not part 

of  the  fabric  of  the  highway,  and  consequently  not  covered  by  the  duties 
under the Highway Act 1980.11 

31. With the exception of Section 132 ( which relates to  unauthorised markings on 

the highway) the Highways Act 1980 does not generally deal with signage. 

32.  Lord  Scott  of  Foscote  stated  as  follows  at  paragraph  64  of  the  Judgment 

states as follows: -

"The  duty to  maintain  the  highway extends,  it  is  argued,  beyond the 

surface of the highway itself and applies also to all and any structures, 

ancillary to  the  use of the highway,  which  have been placed, or ought 

to  be placed,  on  the  verges  or on pavements bordering the  highway. 

So  stated,  the  section  41(1)  duty  to  maintain  would  cover  the 

installation  and  maintenance  of road  signs,  traffic  lights,  pedestrian 

crossing  signs  and perhaps,  even  street  lights  (but  see  Sheppard  v 

Glossop Corporation [1921] 3 KB  132). 

In my opinion, this argument cannot be accepted .  ..... " 

33. In  Lavis  v  Kent  County  Council  (1992)  90  LGR  416,  418  Steyn  LJ,  in 

response to a  submission  that  section 41  of the  Highways Act 1980 required 

an authority to erect a warning sign, said: -

• Stovin v Wise House of Lords 1996. 
10 Gorringe v Calderdale [2004) UKHL 15 

6 

 "In  my judgment  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  duty  imposed  is  not 

capable  of covering  the  erection  of traffic  signs,  and  nothing  more 

need be said about that particular provision". 

34. Although  the  Council  is  prepared  to  take  further  measures  to  enhance  road 

safety,  the  Council  does  not  believe  that the  presence  of additional  signage 

was  necessary to alert a reasonably careful  road  user on  Bonehams Lane  of 

the existence of a junction. 

35. There  were  number  of  visual  cues  which  should  have  alerted  road  users 

using  Bonehams Lane  of the approach to  the junction with  Ullesthorpe  Road. 

A  photograph  of the  approach  to  the  junction  is  enclosed  at  Tab  7  of the 

bundle.  The  following  physical  features,  consistent  with  the  presence  of a 

junction, are apparent from this photograph:-

a.  Tarmac on the road is visible turning left and  right; 

b.  The presence of facing  hedges along  Ullesthorpe Road  demonstrates 

that Bonehams  Lane must be  coming to an  end  (with  the consequent 

necessity to turn left or right). 

c.  Looking  directly  forward  on  Bonehams  Lane  (i.e.  it  is  apparent that 

there is a gateway) preventing traffic carrying on straight on. 

d.  There  is  a  sign  directly opposite  the junction  indicating  a  right  turn  to 

travel towards  a cycle route  (this fact is acknowledged at paragraph  2 

of PC 

 statement dated  15 June 2015). 

36. I  am  not  in  a  position  to  assess  how familiar  Kian  Gill  was  with  this  particular 

junction.  However,  given  the  proximity of the junction  to Kian  Gill's  home  (the 

junction is  2.9 miles his home address)  there is a  real  possibility that Kian  knew 

of  the presence junction. 

Comments Regarding the Collision 

37. It  is  apparent from  Accident  Statistics  report  that  Kian  was  undertaking  a  right 

hand  turn  onto  Ullesthorpe  road  when  the collision  occurred  (see  Tab  5 of the 

7 

 Bundle).  Cyclists  are  required  under the  Highways  Code  to  carry  out  various 

checks  on  the  approach  to  a  junction  and  to  wait  before  emerging  from  a 
junction (per Rule 74 of the Highway Code 12

). 

38. PC 

  determined  that  Kian  was  moving  at  17  miles  per hour immediately 

prior  to  the  collision 13 

.  Provided  that  PC 

  conclusions  regarding  the 

speed of the bicycle are correct, it suggests a scenario which is inconsistent with 

full  compliance  with  Rule  7 4  of the  Highway Code  (in  the  sense  of a  failure  to 

stop at the junction). 

39. I  cannot  however exclude  the  possibility  that  Kian  may have  partially complied 

with  Rule  74 of the  Highway Code  by  undertaking some  brief observations.  He 

could  have  done  this  by  glancing  into  the  road  ahead  and  /  or  relying  on  his 

auditory senses to alert him to the presence of an  approaching vehicle. 

40. However,  from  Kian's  point  of  view,  he  may  reasonably  have  expected 

oncoming  traffic  to  be  moving  at  a  speed  which  was  appropriate  for  the  road 

conditions  and,  in  any event,  not to  move at a  speed  in  excess  of the  national 
speed limit.  Such was the legal duty14 owed by the driver to Kian. 

41 . This  expectation  may  conceivably  have  encouraged  Kian  to  emerge  from  the 

junction,  without stopping  his  bicycle,  in  the expectation that he could  transition 

to  a safe  part of the  road  by the  point he  and  the  motorist passed  one  another 

by. 

42. The tragic  confluence  of events  meant that the  approaching  vehicle  was  being 

driven  at an  elevated  speed15 
. 

It is  reasonable  therefore to conclude  that the 

timeframe for  many critical  manoeuvres  (i.e.  the  intended transition  across  the 

road and I  or breaking or manoeuvring) was greatly compressed 

POINT 3 Speed Limits 

12 

The Rule states:  - "If you are turning right,  check the traffic to ensure it is safe,  then signal and move to the centre 

of the road.  Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn.  It 
may be safer to wait on the left until there is a sale gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road." 
"  Please see Paragraph numbered 5 of Page 2 of PC Wilson's statement dated 15 June 2015 
1
•  Drivers owe a duty of care to other road users - i.e. that of a reasonably skilful driver. 
"  Please see Paragraph numbered 4 on Page 2 of PC W ilson's statement dated 15 June 2015. 

8 

 43. I acknowledge that Leicestershire County  Council  has the  power16 to vary speed 

limits on  roads  (other than restricted roads)  by way of Traffic Regulation  Orders 

(TROs). 

44. Government Guidance  (Department for Transport  Circular 01/2013)  explains 

the  principles  which  should  be  applied  in  setting  and  reviewing  speed  limits. 

It explains that:-

"The  underlying  aim  should  be  to  achieve  a  'safe'  distribution  of 
speeds.  The  key  factors  that  should  be  taken  into  account  in  any 
decisions 
on local speed limits are: -

•  history of collisions; 

• 

• 

road geometry and engineering; 

road function; 

•  Composition  of  road  users  (including  existing  and 

potential levels of vulnerable road users); 

•  existing traffic speeds; and 

• 

road environment" 

45. The  decision  on  whether  to  implement  a  speed  restriction  should  be 

evidence-led.  It  should  also  seek to  reinforce  people's assessment of what is 

a safe speed to travel. Speed limits should  encourage self-compliance. 

46. To  help  in  this  process  the  Accident  Analysis  on  Rural  Roads:  A  Technical 

Guide  (TRL,  2004)  has  been  developed,  which  provides  information  on  typical 

collision  rates  and  typical  proportions  of  different  collision  types  on  different 

types of rural road. 

47.  It  is  relevant  in  this  context,  that  the  Council  has  checked  its  safety  records 

dating back to  1 January 1979 and  it has not identified any previous reported 

injury  road  traffic  accidents  (let  alone  fatalities)  at  the  junction  between 

Bonehams Road and Ullesthorpe Road. 

,. Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 

9 

 48. It was  not considered therefore that the junction presented  an elevated  risk to 

road  users  and  there  was  certainly  nothing  in  the  statistics  available  to  the 

Council which  might have altered the Council that this was an area  in  need of 

attention for any reason. 

49. This  can  be  used  to  assess where  there  are  above-average  collision  rates and 

provides help to traffic authorities in  identifying the types of site  or route specific 

intervention  measures that might be  appropriate to  manage speeds and  reduce 

collisions along the route. 

50. The vast majority of the rural  road network throughout the  UK is subject to the 

national speed limit of 60 mph. 

51. On  many  of  these  roads,  the  majority  of  drivers  are  travelling  below  -

sometimes significantly below - the speed  limit because of the characteristics 

of the  roads. 

Indeed  speed  limits  should  be  properly  to  be  regarded  as  a 

maximum rather than a target speed. 

The Roads in  question 

52. Ullesthorpe  Road  is  comprised  of a  straight section  of road  carriageway  of 270 

metres in  length on its approach to  Bonehams Lane travelling westbound , with a 

road width of 4.25 metres. 

53. During the  engineer's inspection on  22nd  July, it was noted that Bonehams Lane 

has  the  geometric  characteristics  of  a  narrow  road  width  of  3.1  metres  in 

advance of and at the junction of Ullesthorpe Road. 

54. Motorists were  avoiding  the  road  edge  when travelling  along  Ullesthorpe  Road 

positioning  the vehicle into the centre of the carriageway. High end speeds were 

observed  eastbound  on  Ullesthorpe  Road  when  a  single  vehicle  had  an 

environment when  no traffic was present. 

55. The  state of the  road  carriageway  on  Ullesthorpe  Road  was  one  of a  generally 

good road  surface however along  the  section  of Bonehams  Lane; it had  limited 

areas of grass growing  through  the  road  surface.  During  the  site  inspections it 

was observed that no motorist was travelling above 40mph. 

10 

 56. The Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 advises that the minimum length 

of a speed  limit should generally be  not less than 600  metres to avo id too many 

changes of speed limit along the route (please see paragraph 37 of the circular). 

57. The Guidance note also confirms that speed limits should not be used to attempt 

to  solve  the  problem  of  isolated  hazards,  such  as  a  single  road  junction  or 

reduced forward visibility, e.g. at a bend. 

58. Speed  limit  changes  are  therefore  unlikely  to  fully  address  a  problem  of an 

isolated  hazard  and  should  therefore be considered  only as one part of rural 

safety management. 

59. Where collision and casualty rates are high, traffic authorities should first seek 

to understand the particular types of crashes taking  place and their causes, to 

allow them to choose effective solutions to reduce the risk. 

Related issues 

60.  Visibility splays,  and grass cutting and speed management are simply parts of 

the approach to safety.  Leicestershire County Council is the relevant highway 

authority for over 4,000 kilometres of roads in  Leicestershire. 

61. In  keeping  with  all  roads  for which  it is  has  a  responsibility,  both  Bonehams 

Lane  and  Ullesthorpe  Road  are  respectively  subject  to  routine  safety 

inspections  as  is  confirmed  in  the  street  history  reports  (copies  which  are 

enclosed at tab 3). 

62. Ullesthorpe Road was subject to a  highways inspection on  27 April  2015 and 

no  actionable  defects  were  found.  Bonehams  Lane  was  inspected  on  19 

March 2015 and again no defects were found. 

63. Although  Leicestershire  County Council  has  little desire to  attribute  blame  to 

any  party,  the  Council  would  respectfully  point  out  that  it  is  settled  law  that 

motorists must adapt their driving style to the roads that they encounter:-

"But  an  overriding  imperative  is  that  those  who  drive  on  public 

highways do so in a manner and at a speed that is safe having regard 

11 

 to such matters as the nature of the road,  the  weather conditions and 

the  traffic  conditions.  Drivers  are  first  and  foremost  themselves 
responsible for their own safety. "17 

Proposed actions 

64. Although  the  Council  does  not accept that  it  breached  its  duties of care  in  this 

instance,  in an  abundance of caution the  Council  does intend to  take a number 

of actions to further enhance safety at the relevant junction:-

a)  It is proposed to place give way road markings on Bonehams lane; 

b}  It  is  proposed  to  place  "Slow"  markings  on  Ullesthorpe  Road  to  advise 

drivers  of the  presence  of a junction  with  a  view to  encouraging  them  to 

reduce their speed. 

c) 

It  is  not  proposed  to  seek  a  traffic  regulation  order  to  reduce  the  speed 

limits  on  the  approach  to  the  junction  for  the  reasons  set  out  above. 

Likewise,  it is  not proposed  to  serve notices on  owners of the hedgerows 

to  compel  them  to  cut  back  the  hedgerows  as  they  are  already  a  safe 

distance from the carriageway. 

The  totality  of the  works  should  be  complete  within  four  weeks  of the  date  of this 
letter. 

We remain at the disp~Court for any further information or assistance. 

17  Paragraph 77 Gorringe v Calderdale. 

12