CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Zhi Min Soh - FAI report?

(21 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Tulyar
    Member

    Has there been or will the be an FAI (equivalent of English Inquest) into fatal crash at Shandwick Place. It is identical in (too) many respects to the crash in Croydon on 12 October 2013, for which the inquest was held in November 2014, with the South London Coroner, making a call for a Regulation 28 report from Croydon Council, TfL and Tramlink with regard to 4 points to address for the prevention of future deaths (one of the key reasons for an inquest/FAI is to deliver actions that prevent another death through the same causes, and for road crashes especially at the same locations)

    The English Coroners' website has a transparent listing of all Regulation 28 requests and the linked responses, which have to be provided within 56 days. The Croydon Inquest (for Roger de Klerk) is now 3 years overdue, with no indication of the Coroner allowing any extension of the 56 day period.

    In both cases the victims were making a very shallow turn to the right across the tram tracks, when they were brought down by a loss of control when crossing the rails. As noted in previous posts I have identified 5 mechanisms for this, but have not been able to view the CCTV of the Croydon crash to establish which of those 5 factors played a role in putting the cyclist down on the road (this would be very useful given the dire condition of the tram track/road surfacing in that location and at least 2 current examples of where poor carriageway repair was clearly the factor causing loss of control and NOT the rails in the road - eg

    https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/cyclist-calls-for-better-repairs-to-dangerous-potholes-near-sheffield-tram-tracks-1-8845256?fb_comment_id=fbc_1280651868707773_1281477461958547_1281477461958547#f29a44b078cc9da

    One clear detail is that the fatal injuries were not caused by the fall but by the bus driver behind driving over the victims by failing to stop in time. This detail seems to be a common factor in HGV and bus crashes, and an 8-10Ton axle crushing a person - almost certainly fatal for head and torso but even the trauma of a badly smashed limb can kill.

    Can Coroners, who often rely of technical specialists to highlight relevant issues and lessons to be learned be encouraged to question the cultural acceptance that road deaths are inevitable, and seek answers to how the fatal injuries might have been avoided, or mitigated in a road death inquiry?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. DdF
    Member

    @Tulyar
    Re an inquiry, see this...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40291883
    No idea what has happened subsequently or how long this sort of inquiry takes / is expected to take.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    The work was triggered by the death of Malaysian student Zhi Min Soh, whose bike wheels became caught in tram tracks last May at the junction of Shandwick Place and Queensferry Street.

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/cyclists-to-get-head-start-at-traffic-lights-on-edinburgh-tram-route-1-4705336

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. Frenchy
    Member

    Have been told, via an MSP, that a detailed investigation was carried out by the police/procurator fiscal. It was determined that the standard of driving did not fall below that of a careful driver, and so no criminal proceedings will take place.

    Whether there is a basis for an FAI is for the Lord Advocate to decide; an investigation "is ongoing and may take some considerable time."

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    Mmm.

    If driver not at fault, perhaps even more need for FAI - to look at road/tramtracks.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. miak
    Member

    How can a bus driver driving at 20mph or less not stop unless they were too close in the first place.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. ih
    Member

    Completely agree with @chdot here. The key issues to be investigated are whether the state of the road, and the tram tracks in any way contributed to the fatality, and whether the space available for cycling is adequate and safe at that point, even if the vehicles around are driving at the standard of the careful driver.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    “How can a bus driver driving at 20mph or less not stop unless they were too close in the first place.”

    Indeed.

    I think that’s generally the legal assumption if someone runs their car into the back of one in front.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. Ed1
    Member

    I wondered if the cyclist had fallen in to another lane, if was behind would think would be able to stop.

    Stopping times are based on vehicle stopping if someone jumped out a car window they may land further back than a car could have stopped. Someone could fall of a bicycle and stop before the highway codes stopping distances. The stopping distance is 12 meters at 20 mph, a cyclists could stop quicker if came off. In reality a modern vehicle will stop much quicker than the highway codes distances. I am not sure the stopping is the same as the Separation Distance it would be 2 seconds or 17.9 meters if motorway 70 mph formula calculation applied adjusted to 20mph which does not. In slow heavy traffic lower separation distances. Possibly 2 car lengths at 20 mph which is 9 meters.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. ih
    Member

    The minibus is not the issue. It does not surprise me that no criminal proceedings have been initiated. What does surprise and depress me is that the authorities don't consider an FAI necessary when the fatality occurred in an area where the road space for cycles was inadequate, where the road surface was littered with man-hole covers and tram tracks and there was little safety margin if a cyclist got into difficulty as Zhi Min Soh clearly did. An FAI is essential to identify problems with the road and to learn lessons for the tram extension and to improve safety at existing tram track hazards.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. dougal
    Member

    I don't know who is responsible for calling an inquiry but if it overlaps in any way with the people who would be held responsible/negligible for the dangerous infrastructure then I can see why it wouldn't happen.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The delay in having an enquiry is incomprehensible. With the tram extension being designed the matter is urgent.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. Rosie
    Member

    Whenever referring to Zhi Min Soh's death, you say "her wheel was probably caught in the tram tracks" as there hasn't been an inquiry with a definitive outcome. If she had been killed by eg falling masonry, wouldn't there have been an FAI to determine what caused her death?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. miak
    Member

    Rabbie drivers pick up their new customers at the east end and spend their first few miles talking to their clients ...looking in their rear view mirrors to 'eye contact' their customers.. I refuse to believe that this wasn't dangerous driving.

    I have video of 10 July this year at the the same spot of a Rabbie's driver at that junction driving on and blocking the wrong side of the road to ensure he makes the lights.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. EdinburghCycleCam
    Member

    I also fail to see how it's possible to run over a cyclist from behind in any circumstances and get away completely blame-free.

    The driver might well have been leaving enough room for another car, but that's not enough room for a cyclist, and I would expect a so-called professional driver of all people to realise that.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Do we know the bus hit Ms Soh from behind?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. acsimpson
    Member

    "Do we know the bus hit Ms Soh from behind?"

    I didn't think we knew anything with certainty about this, other than the most tragic part. As far as I'm aware even the involvement of tram tracks has had reasonable doubt cast on it up thread.

    Yet another reason a FAI is required. If nothing else it would bring the facts out into the open.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. ih
    Member

    @acsimpson Indeed, we know nothing about this tragedy other than the minibus caused the final fatal injury, but what caused that to happen? It is likely from Frenchy's post that the police looked at it and persuaded themselves that there was no careless or dangerous driving, and passed it on to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal (COPFS) to decide what to do.

    The unknown causes are the reasons an FAI is essential. I posted on another thread that I asked the COPFS what status the inquiry was in, but was basically stonewalled.

    Three key people are responsible for the COPFS, the Minister is the Lord Advocate, James Wölffe QC; he is assisted by the Solicitor General, Alison di Rollo; the operational head of the COPFS is the Crown Agent, David Harvie.

    Can I suggest that we contact these three to urge them to hold an FAI as expeditiously as possible. I will post here some points for an email, and if I can find them, their email addresses.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    James Wölffe is engaged in the Supreme Court at the minute.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    This single vehicle/occupant crash last year is worth an FAI but the Shandwick Place incident isn't (yet)? The law truly is a complete ass.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  21. Snowy
    Member

    Indeed. Long grass technique.

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin