Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cyclist suffers serious head injuries after collision with runner racing in London Park

Greenwich Park Tough Run participant and cyclist collided; runner unhurt

A cyclist is in hospital with serious head injuries after colliding with a runner thought to be taking part in a a race in Greenwich Park in London.

The female cyclist, aged in her 20s, was airlifted to hospital yesterday morning following the collision. The runner did not need any hospital treatment.

The crash took place as the Greenwich Park Tough Run event was held, with runners choosing either a 5k or 10k route.

A spokeswoman for the London Ambulance Service said: “We were called at 10.35am this morning to a road traffic collision at Greenwich Park involving a cyclist and a pedestrian.

“We sent three ambulance crews to the scene and London’s Air Ambulance.

“We treated one woman, reported to be in her 20s, for a serious head injury and a shoulder injury.

“She was taken to the Royal London Hospital as a priority in the air ambulance.”

There is no speed limit for cyclists in London’s Royal Parks, the organisation recently told the BBC.

In a statement it said that “there is no legal speed limit for cyclists in Hyde Park,” but cyclists were requested to adhere to the 5mph speed limit that applies to motorists, “even though [for bike riders] it is not a legal limit.”

Royal Parks also pointed out that “a criminal offence occurs when someone intentionally or recklessly interferes with the safety … of any person.”

Add new comment

23 comments

Avatar
700c | 8 years ago
0 likes

@kevvjj of course, sh1t happens and you can't plan for every eventuality. I run and ride but take a decision on the ppe i wear based on evaluating risk accordingly (ie running at 7 mph, descending hills on a bike at over 40 mph), feel free to use your own logic to come to your own conclusion but don't judge mine!

PS on what planet do you see 'victim blaming' in my post? I only quoted your post as it seemed such an odd place to make that comment, given the potential contradiction to the apparent situation. Anyway, since I'm most definitely not victim blaming, I suggest you might have cone on here to troll regular users of the forum. Thanks for visiting anyway.  103

Avatar
andyp | 8 years ago
0 likes

'. A social riding group I rode with in Florida lost a member because he took off his helmet because he was too hot.'

No, they lost a member because he hit his head on the kerb.

Avatar
bobbinogs | 8 years ago
0 likes

Blimey, some poor girl gets an injury that requires airlifting to hospital, no one yet knows the causes and facts but here we go again on the helmet debate  102

Avatar
simon59 | 8 years ago
0 likes

There was a short note in cycling plus the other month from a surgeon who said that all the cycling head injuries he had treated would not have been helped by wearing a helmet. I suspect he is right for major incidents but simple collisions or where you just fall off and whack your head on the pavement are most definitely helped by wearing a helmet. A social riding group I rode with in Florida lost a member because he took off his helmet because he was too hot. He failed to de-cleat properly at a set of lights, fell over and caught his head on the curb. He died. I don't think helmets should be compulsory as it only affects the individual concerned but why would you ride without one and risk cracking your skull. Also it does mean that if it was the pedestrians fault, not wearing a helmet will almost certainly negate any legal claim.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to simon59 | 8 years ago
0 likes

so why would you not wear a helmet and compete in a run where you can trip over and crack your skull on the pavement? Helmets for pedestrians and runners now???

Avatar
700c replied to kevvjj | 8 years ago
0 likes

Tragic accident and quite unusual I suppose, and I do hope she makes a full recovery.

It's entirely understandable that the H word would surface, given reports about head injury sustained and reports in comments here about a rider not wearing one..

kevvjj wrote:

so why would you not wear a helmet and compete in a run where you can trip over and crack your skull on the pavement? Helmets for pedestrians and runners now???

But I don't get this point - appreciate people may be anti-helmets regardless, fine - but to post that on this story is counter-intuitive. If anything, this suggests why a cyclist, rather than a runner, might benefit from a helmet?.... 'Cyclist sustains head injury, runner unhurt'

Anyway, nothing is proven or conclusive and people with strong views won't be pursuaded either way, of course..

Avatar
kevvjj replied to 700c | 8 years ago
0 likes
700c wrote:

Tragic accident and quite unusual I suppose, and I do hope she makes a full recovery.

It's entirely understandable that the H word would surface, given reports about head injury sustained and reports in comments here about a rider not wearing one..

kevvjj wrote:

so why would you not wear a helmet and compete in a run where you can trip over and crack your skull on the pavement? Helmets for pedestrians and runners now???

But I don't get this point - appreciate people may be anti-helmets regardless, fine - but to post that on this story is counter-intuitive. If anything, this suggests why a cyclist, rather than a runner, might benefit from a helmet?.... 'Cyclist sustains head injury, runner unhurt'

Anyway, nothing is proven or conclusive and people with strong views won't be pursuaded either way, of course..

The point being that running fast on pavement can cause you to fall and crack your head on the gutter... Using your (victim blaming) anecdote as an example, all runners should be advised to wear a helmet. There is a point at which we have to accept bad luck happens to people. Your fellow rider was just unlucky... I am not anti-helmet at all I just don't see the point in blaming victims (acting well within the law) when shit happens to them.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to simon59 | 8 years ago
0 likes
simon59 wrote:

Blah blah blah... Also it does mean that if it was the pedestrians fault, not wearing a helmet will almost certainly negate any legal claim.

Why should it? You find your victim as they are!

Avatar
mattandbenny | 8 years ago
0 likes

Also to say the cyclist was wearing all black, though it happened in the morning so no real need for high vis imo. And it didn't happen on the road - was down a big slope in the park (if you've ever been Greenwich park it is extremely hilly!). There were lots of stewards about but just on the corners, not on the long straights. You've got to assume the cyclist was speeding down the slope extremely fast to cause the damage that happened.

Avatar
truffy replied to mattandbenny | 8 years ago
0 likes
mattandbenny wrote:

You've got to assume the cyclist was speeding down the slope extremely fast to cause the damage that happened.

We don't know how fast she was going, but any cyclist speeding where there are runners en masse is barking mad, those feckers are like sheep and will flock on whim.

Avatar
mattandbenny | 8 years ago
0 likes

I was taking part in the run, must have turned the corner towards the accident 30 seconds after it happened because a few people were rushing over there and there was no ambulances there yet. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet, was unconscious when I ran past and had what looked to be a serious head injury (cracked her head on the pavement, lots of blood). It looked nasty, I walked back there 45mins later that's when the air ambulance and all the police were there. Heard her scream in pain so hopefully that's a good sign (that she was awake). Thoughts are with the girl.

Avatar
skull-collector... | 8 years ago
0 likes

almost shocked to see no comments about lack of/presence of a helmet/high vis etc etc

Avatar
Gus T | 8 years ago
0 likes

Firstly let me say I hope the young lady makes a full & speedy recovery, however if there was an organised event which involved runners crossing the road, where were the stewards and traffic controls to ensure the runners could cross the road safely? As I'm not London based prehaps a poster from the area could enlighten me.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 8 years ago
0 likes

...That said, I now wonder what the balance of risks actually is between the cyclist and the pedestrian. It doens't seem clear-cut.

The pedestrian will take the impact of the bike, but there's a high chance the cyclist will come off and hit the ground and take the brunt of most of their own KE - which could actually be worse.

Avatar
Housecathst | 8 years ago
0 likes

I've never understood the idea that cyclist go around merrily smashing in pedestrians without any concicences to themselves.

Almost like they we're in a ton of metal box with air bags and seat belts and crumple Zones. I think these people are judging use by their standards.

Avatar
lxtwin replied to Housecathst | 8 years ago
0 likes

From the pictures it looks like the accident happened on a road in the park ? I cycle through there 4+ times a week and often joggers will just run across the road without looking. For some reason in a park that is 180 acres they like to run in the one road that goes through the park.

Avatar
velodinho | 8 years ago
0 likes

I hope everyone recovers. Accidents happen.

Avatar
TheFatAndTheFurious | 8 years ago
0 likes

What would the principle of strict liability have to say in such a collision?

If I understand it right (pretty unlikely, to be honest), isn't the cyclist automatically liable, being the bigger, faster party?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to TheFatAndTheFurious | 8 years ago
0 likes
neildmoss wrote:

What would the principle of strict liability have to say in such a collision?

If I understand it right (pretty unlikely, to be honest), isn't the cyclist automatically liable, being the bigger, faster party?

I guess so - fair's fair. Isn't 'strict liabity' just a matter of the default assumption, though? It would still be possible to prove it really was the slower party's fault in cases where it truly was, no?

And surely this unfortunate case illustrates how its not such a big issue for cyclists, as they are less likely to seriously injure the slower party and a lot more likely to injure themselves.

Hope the cyclist recovers fully and rapidly.

Avatar
shawnriffhard replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 8 years ago
0 likes

I guess so - fair's fair. Isn't 'strict liabity' just a matter of the default assumption, though? It would still be possible to prove it really was the slower party's fault in cases where it truly was, no?

And surely this unfortunate case illustrates how its not such a big issue for cyclists, as they are less likely to seriously injure the slower party and a lot more likely to injure themselves.[/quote]
Seriously? How does this one incident lead you to believe they are "less likely" to injure the slower party? I'm not a physicist, so if there is a principle at work here, please enlighten me, but if I'm walking along, and a bicyclist creams me at 15-20 mph, I would think it more likely for me to absorb the damaging energy, no?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to shawnriffhard | 8 years ago
0 likes
shawnriffhard wrote:

Seriously? How does this one incident lead you to believe they are "less likely" to injure the slower party? I'm not a physicist, so if there is a principle at work here, please enlighten me, but if I'm walking along, and a bicyclist creams me at 15-20 mph, I would think it more likely for me to absorb the damaging energy, no?

A car has far greater mass (and generally, greater velocity) than a cyclist and their bike. The 'principle' is just Newtonian physics.

Of course a cyclist-pedestrian collison _can_ injure the latter. Sometimes seriously. It clearly happens.

But if someone proposed an experiment, whereby you pedalled into them at 15mph and they in turn drove into you with a car at 30mph, would you really take them up on it? (even if you got to go first!)

Not only the physics, but the accident statistics seem to bear this out as well.

PS as well as learning a bit of basic physics, you need to look up what the word 'illustrates' means, by the way. It doesn't mean 'leads one to believe'.

Edit - Actually, apologies, you probably just misunderstood my point - 'cos I release I made it in an ambigious way - it would have been clearer had I added 'than a motorist is' to the end of the sentence.

Avatar
kevvjj | 8 years ago
0 likes

So, no mention of what caused the accident or who collided with whom. But then we segue into the speed limits of the park... naturally the cyclist is assumed to have been going too fast. Of course, it must be the cyclists fault. Just waiting now for the "she was/wasn't wearing a helmet" when further details are released.

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

cyclists were requested to adhere to the 5mph speed limit that applies to motorists

5mph applies to motorists in Hyde Park? Not on North and West Carriage drive. Motorists routinely pass me when I'm doing 20mph on those roads.

Latest Comments