Victoria Hamer - Amount of vision before the sun had an effect

Four witnesses that state although the sun was bright visibility was good and they could see enough of the road ahead.

Within the transcript there are several references to “… how long prior to the impact was the glare of the sun a factor …” made by His Honour Judge Paul Cook. There is also little, if any, reference as to the effect of speed on vulnerable road users, the distances involved, or the action Ms Hamer took to avoid Lorraine. I have addressed these last 3 issues first.

Before tackling the points above I would like to mention that the transcript has a number of references to “… short lived dangerous driving…” I do not understand why this is relevant. In any case there is no evidence to prove or disprove this. It is therefore an irrelevance and should not have been considered or even mentioned by His Honour Judge Paul Cook.

I would also like to comment on the statements by Mrs Martin that are presented in the court transcript on page 5 item H and on page 6 item B respectively

H          “…It’s right to say that on both sides of the carriageway there are tall trees and hedgerows that border the road on both sides.”

B          “… but it was noticeably in the sun breaking through the trees and giving a dappling effect to drivers…”

It is correct to say that there are hedgerows on both sides of the carriage way but incorrect to say there are trees on both sides. Travelling westwards there are no trees on the right-hand side. The trees on the left-hand side are not mature trees and well-spaced out in fact from the point Lorraine was hit the first tree is 27 metres down the hill. They number no more than 10 in approximately 200 metres. You cannot have it both ways either the sun is directly in front of you, or it is at the side causing a dapple effect. Click here for a picture of the B3139 hedgerow.

Vulnerable road users

Whilst it is known that Ms Hamer was travelling along her usual route, meaning she knows the road hazards and the speed limit, at a minimum speed of 44mph in a 30mph limit and into direct sunlight there are at least two details that should have been mentioned and one that should have been considered in more detail.

Whilst I realise that the statistics that follow are for pedestrians it highlights the dangers of speed. It must be pointed out that Lorraine was a social cyclist and would not have been travelling that much faster than a pedestrian as she rode up the hill.

·         at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed.

·         at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed.

·         at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.

·         at 20 mph there is a 2.5 percent chance they will be killed.

Reference: The chance of a pedestrian surviving - Roadwise

These figures are backed up by the World Health Organisation 37870_OMS_GB.indd (who.int)  these figures shown in kilometres per hour are worst stating that at 80km/hr pedestrians have almost no chance of surviving. 80km/hr is approximately 49mph Ms Hamer was travelling at a minimum of 44mph.

Distances involved

There was no mention of the distances involved. It is important to paint an accurate picture and therefore along with speed and direction of the sun the distances and action taken should have been highlighted.

Lorraine was hit and then carried 27 metres, tossed around like a rag doll, and then dumped in a roadside farm gateway. The car driven by Ms Hamer travelled between 50 and 64 metres after hitting Lorraine.

Action taken to avoid Lorraine

What action did Ms Hamer take as she approached Lorraine? None! Ms Hamer did not brake until after hitting Lorraine. Ms Hamer did not make any evasive manoeuvre before hitting Lorraine i.e. any avoidance was at or after the point of impact.

How long prior to the impact was the glare of the sun a factor?

Page 8 items A and C of the court transcript, spoken by Mrs Martin, are extracts from the witness statement which I am refereeing to as witness B:

A          Mrs Martin: Mrs Barrow. Her silver car, she saw a silver car ahead of her, forgive me, that had stopped with its hazard warning lights on, and she saw a young female running towards her, screaming and crying:

C          And references to the sun. Witness B was, as I said, doing the same route as Victoria Hamer and the deceased would have been. The sun was very low and very bright, she described that. But importantly, and this again was a feature relevant to the decision of level of charge, Witness B was able to say that although the sun was very low and bright in her eyes doing exactly the same route moments later, that she could clearly see what had happened in front of her.

The following are extracts from witness statements not included that clearly indicates there was plenty of vision:

Witness B

“As I was driving up the hill which has a slight right hand bend, I could see further up in front of me a car had stopped on the same carriage way”.

and

“I have previously experience this when driving here, but always slowed down to meet the road conditions.

On the day in question it was sunny, dry but visibility was good.

I could clearly see up ahead when driving up the hill to the scene with my sun visor down, and I didn’t have to wear sunglasses.

As I approached the scene I could clearly see a car ahead with it’s hazards on to enable me to stop at a safe distance.”

It must be pointed out that Ms Hamer has years of experience driving this part of the B3139 and her sun visor down i.e. her conditions were exactly the same.

Witness A

            “Although the sun was bright I could clearly see this car.”

and

“The weather at the time was fine, dry and although the sun was low visibility was good. The road surface was also dry.

Although I have stated the sun was low, I could clearly see what was happening in front of me as I approached the scene.”

Witness C

            “At the time of the collision the weather was dry and fine, visibility was good.”

Witness D

“The collision happened minutes before that. At the time the weather was sunny and dry. Visibility was good and clear.”

The video footage from the police reconstruction clearly shows that the sun does not adversely affect vision at the point you round the bend at the foot of the hill in fact there is at least 150.1 metres of vision to the point where Lorraine would have been. The stopping distance for 50mph is defined by the RAC as 53 metres click here to see a detailed diagram and click here to view images and comments made by the police collision investigation team. When viewing the reconstruction as the police car rounds the bend you can clearly see a car where Lorraine would have been. My dashcam footage taken at the same time as the reconstruction, the police agree it is basically the same as their reconstruction.

·         Click here for my dashcam footage. As you round the corner you can clearly see a car where Lorraine would have been

·         Click here to view video footage taken at the bottom of the hill showing the amount of vision as you view a car traveling up the road

·         click here to view video footage of me returning home at the time of the reconstruction

·         click here for a still taken from the dash cam footage showing over 200 metres of vision

·         The RAC stopping distance for 30mph is 23 metres

·         The RAC stopping distance for 40mph is 36 metres

·         The RAC stopping distance for 50mph is 53 metres

·         click here for a still taken from the dash cam footage showing over 70 metres of vision

·         click here for a still taken from the dash cam footage showing over 55 metres of vision the car is a reference point i.e. it is opposite where Lorraine would have been

·         click here to view phone video taken on the 15/10/2020 from the passenger seat.  

What this means is that Ms Hamer should have seen Lorraine and therefore have known there was a hazard ahead. The sun may have been an issue further up the road as Ms Hamer approached Lorraine but it would not have been an issue at the bottom of the hill and for some considerable distance as you travel up the hill. Ms Hamer was, in my opinion, not paying attention and it is significant that the police have told us that they could not prove that Ms Hamer was or was not on her phone. We have also observed that she is a smoker, could this have been significant?

This means there were four witnesses that state although the sun was bright, visibility was good, and they could see enough of the road ahead. More emphasis should have been placed on this. There is only one person that knows what Ms Hamer was doing and that is Ms Hamer who answered “No Comment” to all questions put to her. In my opinion, she was not looking at the road. All drivers have a duty of care to vulnerable road users. In my opinion driving at 46.66% over the speed limit and, as claimed, into bright sunlight you are taking a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others. Highway code rules 237 and 154.