FURTHER legal action is pending over the tragic death of cyclist Ruby Milnes on a York cycle path more than six years ago.

News of the civil case emerged when City of York Council declined to comment on the removal of a barrier from the path which allowed cyclists such as Ruby to cross a road without slowing down.

An inquest earlier this week appeared to be the end of a lengthy investigation into the death in May 2008 of the 17-year-old, who cycled into the path of a lorry heading along the road to York Racecourse.

The inquest heard there were no road markings or signs in place to warn either the cyclist or the driver about the path/ road junction, and a large hedge also prevented them seeing each other in time.

York's acting senior coroner Jonathan Leach said it did not appear a risk assessment had been carried out over the barrier’s removal.

The council was not called to give evidence at the inquest but when The Press asked it when and why the barrier had been removed, and whether a risk assessment had been carried out, a spokeswoman said: “We are unable to comment on any element of this case while legal proceedings are still pending. Our sympathies are, as always, with Ruby Milnes’ family and friends at this difficult time.”

It did not say who was involved in the civil case.

Ruby's parents David and Alison Milnes said after the inquest that it remained their hope that lessons learned from Ruby’s death would lead to safer cycling at similar junctions throughout the country.

Sustrans, the charity that promotes cycling and manages some cycle routes, confirmed that the route on which the accident occurred was managed by the council.

"For those routes that Sustrans manages itself, we have an inspection process to highlight anything that needs attention from a safety perspective," said a spokesman.

"Land owners are normally responsible for managing the safety of cycling routes crossing their land unless they have made alternative arrangements.”

He said that whenever Sustrans made changes to the routes it managed, it considered carefully the implications of any changes before implementing them." He added that he could not comment further at this stage because there was still a civil case going on.