A woman has been left with "potentially life-changing injuries" after she was hit by a cyclist, who fled the scene.
Emergency services closed East Street in Bedminster following the collision which happened just before 9am today (January 15).
The woman has been transported to Southmead Hospital where she is currently being treated for head injuries.
Police are now appealing for information on the whereabouts of the cyclist who left the scene of the crash.
Officers are currently trying to trace him and have seized a bike as part of their enquiries.
The road remains closed as of 12pm while enquiries continue.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bedminster-police-east-s...
42 comments
Anyone with information which could help the investigation is asked to get in touch through www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/contact , or by calling 101, quoting reference 5219100049.
Was this in the traffic-restricted part of East St?
Really shitty thing to hurt someone and make off. Hard to imagine any scenario where you are not aware of the collision and that the person you hit is not in a good way.
Hope the person involved contacts the authorities and assists the investigations.
Best wishes to the injured lady and the medical team looking after her.
M
Unfortunately, I'm bracing myself for the coverage this will get - 'man bites dog' and all that
You realise that a large number of Bristol Post readers will take this as perfect justification for going after *every* cyclist with pitchforks and torches...?
I hope the pedestrian recovers, and isn't too badly injured (yes, I know, "potentially life changing", but I can hope).
Looks like it to me. Possibly around a newsagent according to where the police were active.
BBC have a picture, but it's not necessarily where the incident happened: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46879177
There must have been eye-witnesses at that time of morning, so lets hope they find the cyclist (and what actually happened).
They've got him
i don't know Bedminster at all, but the Post talked about bus delays due to the road closure: is East Street like the Horsefair in Broadmead (ie buses taxis deliveries and "access")?
I also note that the BBC says that the pedestrian was crossing the road when the bicycle came into contact with her. So lots of questions about that, surely? Not defending the cyclist (or pob, whatever you want to call them) but how far in front of him did she step out? Was this like the hit and run thing last year where the pedestrian turned out to have walked into the bicycle? Be interesting to see how this one turns out.
Has anyone seen updates on how the pedestrian is doing?
Yeah, it's one way (except for bikes) and for buses or loading vehicles only. The road slopes downhill from the west (which is the one way direction) so it's quite feasible for a cyclist to build up a lot of speed and then not have time to react to a pedestrian crossing the road from behind a parked vehicle.
I can't see anything more about the pedestrian other than she was in her 70s and is presumably still in hospital.
OK, thanks.
It's often difficult to know on which side to come down. If you run into someone on a bike (or in a car), the 'decent thing' is of course to stop and see if that person is OK.
But Alliston changed all of that.
^ This.
I've been arrested for no good reason, lost a day's pay and a night's sleep etc., no fun at all.
It's risky to hang around if you're a cyclist even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong.
However, if you later get caught then it's going to make you look guilty.
Legs11 is right in that Alliston/Briggs changed a lot: I think the problem is the perception of road collisions. If a pedestrian (or anyone else) comes into collision with a car its treated as just one of those things, some sort of natural event like the weather. If a pedestrian (or anyone else) comes into collision with a bicycle then the media's head explodes or something.
The fact that you're on a bicycle means you're already 'guilty' in the eyes of the person who runs Britain - namely, the editor of the Daily Mail.
I look forward to the police referring to equivalent incidents as "The police said the cyclist involved in the collision with the man in a car..."
#notholdingmybreath
If you have to be "caught" then it's likely you are guilty?
If you've done nothing wrong there should not be any need for you to be "caught".
I did see a whole essay on road.cc about why you should just leave. It's all a bit subjective; I've had plenty of people just step out in front of me and so far I have been able to avoid a collision. However if I were to strike a person crossing in front of me I might feel I would get the blame unjustifiably. One persons 'fleeing the scene' is another persons steering clear of legal entanglements. Sadly the climate in the media today does not encourage the cyclist to do the right thing.
I get the arguments behind this - but when you collide with a car, it's the car you hit and the car that does the damage on account of its being rather heavy. Being hit by a bicycle is probably no big deal - it's the 80kg lump on top that also comes into with contact you and does the more damage.
Anyway, I hope the woman in this story makes a good recovery.
Disagree. It's the hard bits, like the bike, rather than the pink squishy thing on top that tends to the damage, or most likely hitting the floor, that tends to cause most injuries... unless you know for a fact that the two people actually collided as there are multiple possibilities.
I do wonder about who gets arrested and who doesn't, and what determines that. I don't understand the system at all.
It's very common to hear of road collisions, including with fatalities, where the driver is not arrested at the scene.
Wonder if there are any stats about the relative likelihood of arrests for motorists vs cyclists (vs...er... pedestrians running into each other)? I have no reason to presume there's a difference there, but would be interesting to know.
Is it just down to how confident the cops are whether they can come and get you at home later if needed? In which case I suppose motorists might be considered to be more identifiable and hence less arrestable.
@Fluffy - I think the police get a bit twitchy when someone leaves the scene of a RTC.
I heard someone on here state that there's no actual requirement for a bike/pedestrian to remain at the scene of a collision, so I wonder what they charged the suspect with?
Edit: Seen this update: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/man-charged-over-bedmins...
'Wounding'? Is this not a strange charge for a road traffic collision.To my untrained ear it implies intent.
I hope the injured party makes a full recovery.
This latest charge for the person is one of many he's had including shoplifitng and assault and a recent stay at 19 Cambridge Road for 12 weeks from early October.
That was probably me.
The requirements to stop, report, and/or provide details comes from the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically s.170. (1988 c.52 Part VII S.170).[1]
The act specifically states "mechanically propelled": this does not mean that there is a mechanism within it's propulsion, but rather that the motive force comes from a battery, engine, turbine, reactor etc - if you're pedaling, cranking, using an animal etc, it's not mechanically propelled.
E-bikes aren't mechanically propelled either; they're mechanically assisted, unless you're running entirely off a manual throttle - in which case you're right buggered now, mate.
So, when cycling, no need to stop, no need to offer details, no need to report to the police.
However, leaving an RTC with a pedestrian, especially a wounded one, is a dick move. If it's because you feel endangered, OK, fine - get away but then call the police to report or least an ambulance... Is what I'd have said before Alliston. Now, I'm not sure what I'd do, and I think it depends on what happened.
Also note s170(5) - invalid carriages, regardless of type, are not required to stop nor report nor provide details. This includes handcycles and other adaptives - a nice bit of law to know when encountering twats parked on pavements such as to leave no option but to scrape through. Any damage caused? Ah well, bye!
I've made use of this quirk within the last week, in fact - wheelchair only, no cycle attatched, white SUV parked blocking a drop kerb, only way down was by scraping along the front bumper.
Accidentally took the license plate off with my wheel...Didn't stop, no remorse.
[1]https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
It's a shame that inconsiderate parking has put you in that position. Not only are cars taking up lots of expensively maintained (ha) roads, but they're also taking up pavement space as well.
It's incredible infuriating, and I'm now at the point where I have zero compunction, compassion nor hesitation towards damaging or potentially damaging vehicles that are obstructing my passage along the pavement - whether that's risking damage from a narrow gap, or literally using bits of the car to pull myself along in full knowledge that it'll cause damage[1], in short, fuck 'em.
However, it's not all bad - it does mean that I now know the law around my requirements, rights, responsibilities etc as both an invalid carriage user and a cyclist - It also means that I now know when a Road Traffic Order banning cycles isn't actually applicable to handcyclists, which is most of the time!
It's more a problem for other cripples, though, who might not know their rights and exactly what they can and cannot do - and more so for those who aren't, uh, lets go with ornery to force issues when necessary.
[1]Note; Not intentionally causing damage, as that would be a criminal offence. If I'm using bits of car to drag myself along, it's because they've parked so badly that I literally don't have enough room to grab my 'rims to push, or because the pavement is so damaged from these berks that it's pitted and cratered such that I would get stuck if I tried.
I can't say that I blame you.
Another thing that puzzles me is that a lot of motorists are really possessive/protective of their vehicle and yet leave it lying around where not only can anyone cause damage to it, but quite often you have to expend effort in order to not damage/scuff their paintwork.
I'd quite happily admit to being protective of my bike, but I don't leave it where it would cause an obstruction - that's just dumb.
Absolutely. As I've said (probably more than once) if it was a dumped sofa or mattress blocking the pavement or drop kerb, nobody would object if you happened to damage it in trying to get past it, so I don't see that an illegally-parked vehicle should be any different.
Cars appear to get special dispensation that other objects left in the street don't, but in my view that should only apply if they are somewhere they are legally allowed to be.
(In fairness I guess the same would have to apply to any bike left locked in a place that causes a real obstruction.)
I can't find it right now, but wasn't a survey done of what proportion of public road space (supposedly public space) was used up with storing people's privately owned vehicles?
Here's hoping they catch the little shit who scarpered off after doing this. Road users always have a duty of care to the more vulnerable ones in the 'hierachy of kinetic energy'. (Sensible countries, of course, enshrine this in law with strict liability).
One can't help wondering, though, if her injuries could have been ameliorated had she been wearing a helmet...
Pages