Sponsored by
Woman dies after car and bike collide
Emergency services at the scene of the accident in Rothwell Road, Kettering, on Monday night
A 40-year-old cyclist has died following a collision with a car on a busy town road.
Police said Sarah Burwell, of Russell Street, Kettering, was cycling under the railway bridge in Rothwell Road, Kettering, when she collided with a silver Ford Fiesta at about 7.30pm on Monday.
Despite attempts to save her from her injuries she was later pronounced dead at Kettering General Hospital.
The driver of the car involved stopped at the scene and police have said they are not looking for anyone in relation to the incident.
Officers said the woman had been riding down the hill from the hospital to the town centre when she left the pavement under the bridge and collided with the vehicle, which was travelling in the same direction.
Following the incident police cordoned off the road under the bridge for more than an hour to begin their investigations, leaving traffic and pedestrians to take alternative routes.
No blame has been attributed to anyone for the accident, but news of the collision has backed up fears held by some cyclists in the town who say the town’s roads are unsafe for bike users.
Kettering Cycling Club chairman Helen Hinxman said she stays clear of going on roads, choosing to only ride on cycle paths in the area.
The 53-year-old, of Desborough, said: “This is a tragic loss of life. But the sad thing is, this does not surprise me as I don’t find the roads in Kettering safe for cyclists.
“The speed of traffic, condition of roads and awareness of both drivers and cyclists make the roads dangerous and leave me not feeling confident to ride on them.”
Keen cyclist Andy Harradine said he believed more cycle paths should be created in the town to improve safety.
The 55-year-old, of St Peter’s Avenue in Kettering, said: “I never ride down this stretch of road where the woman died.
“I tend to try to stay clear of roads where there are hills as I think this can be unsafe for the cyclist. Incidents like this definitely make you think before setting out again.
“It also makes you think if more can be done to make the situation safer.”
Police are appealing for any witnesses to the collision and had yesterday placed boards appealing for witnesses at the scene. Anyone with information is asked to call the Drivewatch Hotline on 0800 174615.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Kettering
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: North west
Comments
There are 6 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Finker
Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 10:52 AMA V Lowe, you may not realise it but you make a good case for cyclists needing to slow down and take more care to match conditions. Your points don't seem to fit well with this sad situation though. RIP
BobbyN
Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 06:03 PMI had an accident like this once. In mine it was a dog that ran in on the passenger side. From the description i don't think the driver could have done anything and shouldn't be blamed.
A V Lowe
Friday, August 26, 2011 at 07:49 AMSadly the comments made in the article seem to miss a key point in the report of events, the lady cyclist left the converted footway at the point it narrows and pinches in to the carriageway passing under the rail bridge. This tragic crash is hardly an 'accident' but more the result of the inherent flaw (if not stupidity) of simply redesignating footways, a network hardly well 'designed' for walking, for use by cycle traffic and in the process carrying out no design audit for such a radical mixing of 2 modes of transport which have such divergent operating characteristics. Pedestrians walk at a maximum speed of 5mph, but generally 3-4mph is walking as transport, and they can stop and turn on the spot, with an acceleration to walking speed faster than most cars, Because of this pedestrians can cope with footways shoe-horned in to facilitate wider carriageways, and keeping motor traffic moving. Cyclists travelling along at a moderate speed are going at least 4 times faster, and many will be hitting 30mph when conditions are favourable, and mixing these cyclists with pedestrians is akin to putting milk floats on motorways - a huge hazard but so ridiculous that no one considers it a rational move. But we see so many roads authorities blindly converting footways and taking no account of a need for forward visibility, a distance to stop and a radius to turn for the vehicles they have introduced to the footway. It is thus no small surprise that regular cyclists, ride their bikes as vehicles, or as the Highways Act describes both cycles and cars, carriages, using the carriageway, and many who have received appropriate training recognise that footway cycling is actually more dangerous, and change their behaviour from using footways to riding on the carriageway. The dangers have been studied, with footway cyclists between 4 and 8 times more likely to crash than those riding on the carriageway, and one local review of cyclists presenting at A&E (Southampton) found that around a third of the injuries were from crashes joining or leaving the carriageway to use cycle routes or footways (both legitimately and illegally). With this detail a hazard audit of many 'cycle routes' will very probably show the carriageway to be the safest place to ride - if the cycle is ridden as a vehicle, and other vehicle users respond appropriately. Using the footways on Rothwell Road with minimal intervention brings a lengthy list of serious hazards for cycling not present to a cyclist using the road. The path width is often down to 2 metres or less, compromised at the Toucan crossing by the steel guardrailing intruding into that width and then narrowing dangerously under the bridge, especially the Eastbound (North) side. Heading West the road rises up so that an Eastbound cyclist would not need a great effort to reach 20mph, and most regular road riders would doing speeds in the region of 30mph or higher. The converted footway is littered with the potential for the very deadly T-bone crash, where drivers pull up to a give way line at the carriageway that denies the fact that a) they are required to yield to pedestrians proceeding along the footway 2 to 3 metres back from this point (Rule 170) and b) the redetermined footway also carries cyclists, for which legislation has yet to catch up and apply Rule 170 to this flawed design thus cyclists and drivers will collide in one of the worst ways possible - square-on one driving or riding into the side of the other, and often with a poor advance sighting. The South side has a main access into the Hospital , busy and with traffic turning in, at speed, encouraged by the generous curve rather than a design which enforces a reduction in speed to that appropriate to the hospital site, and the further hazard of cars emerging from, and not even fitting the 'short' parking spaces immediately around the corner, and the heightened level of pedestrian traffic moving around the site, especially crossing to the car park spaces. Further up the hill another access emerges almost 'blind' to cross the footway. The North footway is even worse with a near continuous hazard from vehicles being driven across the footway to park on private land, or block the footway when trying to join the carriageway, drivers also obstruct (pedestrian and cycle) traffic by parking on the footway, and in doing this commit the same offence for which cyclists are pilloried, driving a carriage on the footway. The Google Streetview shows a blue car and a red car both parked is such a way that a wheelchair or pram user would be forced to use the carriageway to get past, and a pedestrian would be hard pressed to squeeze past the blue car on the remaining footway, so if Kettering is serious about this redesignation, then some enforcement of the law on obstruction of the highway, and driving on the footway is required. As with the Hospital entry, the turning to Poppy Fields can easily be taken at speeds in excess of 30mph delivering the driver into a housing estate where the road layout and on street parking make 20mph potentially an excessive speed, building this as the basic 6 metre radius corner, would deliver a short and safer footway crossing for pedestrians and slow down drivers entering the housing estate. The solution for cycling , given the generous carriageway width is to put in advisory cycle lanes at least 1.5metres wide. No Traffic orders are required for this - so it's cheaper than redesignating footways, and it does not reduce the lane width for motor vehicles, as the lanes are advisory. The precise detail of this incident will emerge in due course but the description of the cyclists 'leaving the footway' at a point where it is severely pinched in by the rail bridge and invites a head on crash with a footway user coming the other way, highlights a detail of the arrangement being unfit for purpose. If crashes such as this are investigated with the rigour that is applied to incidents on the rail network, or air crashes, the danger delivered by the design would be cited as a causal factor, and the solution is not to install guardrailing, reducing the width of the footway further and enhancing the risk of crashing.
Astra Castra
Thursday, August 25, 2011 at 02:23 AMIt seems clear from the report that the accident was caused by the cyclist riding off the pavement. A foot-way cyclist suddenly going on to the road for whatever reason is not expected by car drivers. If she had been riding down the hill on the road, in the centre of her lane, the accident would not have occurred. She would have been clearly visible and her movements would have been anticipated by other road users. The following car would have been driving behind her as it would have been if she had been on a moped. It is riding up this hill slowly past the hospital that is more worrying because motor traffic gets frustrated and squeezes past. It is difficult to understand, depressing, and will lead to more tragedies that commentators and the Council think the answer to cycling accidents is more riding on footpaths.
annbren
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 at 06:30 PMWhat a terrible tragedy for all concerned and their families. RIP Sarah.
Kass89
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 at 01:28 PMI witnessed the whole thing, it happened right at the side of my car. There was nothing that the driver could've done. My heart goes out to Sarah's family and the driver.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.