Witness appeal after cyclist killed near Peterborough this morning
Victim said to be local man aged 57; police arrest 50-year-old woman on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving

Cambridgeshire Police have appealed for witnesses after a 57-year-old male cyclist was killed near Peterborough at 8.30 this morninng, Sunday 14 April. The motorist involved, a 50-year-old woman, has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

According to the Peterborough Telegraph, the victim is a local man, and anyone who witnessed the incident, which involved an Audi car and happened on the B1166 at Crowland, between Spalding and Peterborough, is asked to contact police on 101.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.


fatbeggaronabike [728 posts] 2 years ago

It may be to soon to make any comments on this apart to say that the sad part of this is that if no witnesses come forward the woman (even if at fault) will not be prosecuted due to lack of evidence.

notfastenough [3655 posts] 2 years ago

True, but under these circumstances, if we had presumed liability, she would be prosecuted even if it wasn't really her fault, wouldn't she? Appreciate she's the one in charge of a large lump of metal, but not sure I can go along with that.

RIP to the deceased.

bendertherobot [606 posts] 2 years ago

Presumed liability is in relation to the ability to make a CIVIL (i.e compensatory) and not criminal claim. So that's not an issue. And it's still only presumed in the civil claim meaning the motorist can rebut it.

Contrast that with strict liability (again only in civil claims) in which liability is essentially automatic.

Roger Geffen [50 posts] 2 years ago

To 'Notfastenough'

Just to clarify: the introduction of 'presumed liability' rules would not lead to the driver being prosecuted automatically.

It is important to distinguish between civil and criminal law.

The 'presumed liability' principle relates solely to civil law, i.e. who the payment of compensation. It creates a presumption that a driver who has hit a pedestrian or cyclist is liable for the payment of compensation for injury damages - unless the driver can show that the victim had been culpably at fault for the collision. (In practice of course the compensatoin would be paid out by the driver's insurance scheme).

It would have no bearing on the process for deciding whether or not the driver had committed a criminal offence. This would still be decided by the courts in the same way as at present.

In other words, prosecutors would still need to satisfy the court that whatever crime they were prosecuting had been committed 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Hence the introduction of 'presumed liability' would not in any way affect the principle in criminal law of 'innocent unless proven guilty'.

Moreover the CPS's own internal guidelines would still say that they should only bring prosecutions in the first place if they felt that (a) there was sufficient evidence that a court, properly directed, was more likely than not to convict for the offence as charged; and (b) that it was in the public interest for the prosecution to be brought.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

James Warrener [1069 posts] 2 years ago

As a resident of the local area my thoughts are with the family of the rider lost in this incident.