A Reading cyclist has been left in a life-threatening condition following a collision with a pedestrian on Monday evening. The pedestrian, who was crossing the road, was also taken to hospital with minor injuries.
The Reading Chronicle reports that the collision took place near the Three Tuns crossroads in Earley at around 7.30pm. The cyclist was turning onto Church Road from Wokingham Road.
The 29-year-old male cyclist was airlifted to John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. He remains in a serious condition with head injuries.
A spokesman for South Central Ambulance Service said: “We got a number of calls at 19.27 to attend a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist.
“They were both aged in their twenties. One man was flown to John Radcliffe Hospital’s Trauma Unit with life-threatening head injuries. The other man was taken to Royal Berkshire Hospital with minor injuries.”
A bystander who spoke with police at the scene said: “A cyclist with no helmet came around the corner at high speed and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road.”
Investigating officer PC Justin Aylin-White of the Joint Operations Unit for Roads Policing, said: “I am appealing for anyone who was in the area at the time, and who witnessed this incident, or who may have other details which could help our investigation, to come forward.”
Anyone with any information can call the Thames Valley Police non-emergency number on 101, quoting reference ‘1360 (20/3)’, or contact Crimestoppers anonymously.
49 thoughts on “Cyclist in life-threatening condition following collision with pedestrian in Reading”
Quote:
I’m interested to know why the bystander thinks that’s relevant.
danthomascyclist wrote:
They also added “at high speed” to double up on the placing liability, without mentioning at all if the pedestrian was crossing on a red man, or if they were staring at their phone.
Too little information with a prejudiced witness.
Doesn’t matter if the
Doesn’t matter if the pedestrian was crossing “illegally” – if he’s in the road, traffic turning into the road where he is crossing should give way. Rule 170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
RMurphy195 wrote:
Quite true ! And further more there is a possibility that if the Cyclist had been wearing a helmet this just may have prevented serious head injuries ! Though we will never know without a re run , will we !
Batchy wrote:
or caused more to the pedestrian.
However the other comments are relevant here. Had a pedestrian been crossing the road and hit by a car then helmets wouldn’t really come into it and you can be sure that the story would be something like “pedestrian just walked out and the driver had no chance”
RMurphy195 wrote:
as usual its massively vague.
Suggest there’s not enough real detail here…..personally I would have worn a helmet, may have helped limit the injury
RMurphy195 wrote:
A rule most drivers seem to ignore. Although it shouldn’t be necessary to tell people not to move big metal boxes into human beings.
Otherwise all core, only possible excuse would be if the pedestrian stepped into thd road right in front of the cyclist.
RMurphy195 wrote:
Really?! You seem to be implying this guy deliberately didn’t give way to the pedestrian, does that seem likely given his injuries?
My mum saw the aftermath of this and explained it to me that evening… I then told her about the idiot that suddenly ran out in front of me that very morning the other side of Reading Uni. I was over 20mph at the time, barely missed the guy, didn’t even have enough time to touch the brakes. Had i had enough time to react, I’d have either slammed into an oncoming car at high speed or bounced off parked cars at over 20mph. Either way, it’s the cyclist that would be skidding off the tarmac on their face.
This particular idiot looked right at me, didn’t see a car coming and then proceeded to run across the road… My white helmet and fluorescent yellow hi-viz jacket obviously made me invisible in the motor-centric world.
zanf wrote:
I think it’s fair to argue that anyone cycling with due care shouldn’t hit such a person. I’m guessing that had the cyclist been armed with a car we wouldn’t be seeing the slower road user’s behaviour being scrutinised here.
Bez wrote:
True. While there’s too little information to say anything much about this one, in general the primary duty of care should be with the side that provides most of the kinetic energy.
However, one can also note that had the cyclist been armed with a car, they almost certainly wouldn’t have ended up as the more seriously hurt of the two.
danthomascyclist wrote:
I’m interested to know why the bystander thinks that’s relevant.
I dunno, but as the cyclist has head injuries, perhaps? They probably think that’s relevant.
(Whether a bit of polystyrene would have helped, we’ll probably never know.)
danthomascyclist wrote:
I’m interested to know why the bystander thinks that’s relevant.
Because the cyclist suffered life threatening injuries and the bystander believes a helmet may have prevented that.
danthomascyclist wrote:
I’m interested to know why the bystander thinks that’s relevant.
given the nature of the crash, I’d say head trauma most likely ‘life threatening injury’ so reasonably relevant.
Some fundamental facts
Some fundamental facts missing here so I’ll just wish both people involved a speedy recovery.
AST1986 wrote:
I’d agree with the latter, but there’s quite a bit of the former. A few thoughts:
…at around 7.30pm
So, it was dark.
(I’m assuming the ped wasn’t wearing hi-viz.)
The cyclist was turning onto Church Road from Wokingham Road.
This is very valuable. A quick check of Google (the Street View in particular) shows:
– this is a right hand turn from an A (two lanes) road to a B road. (In the photo used by road.cc above, the cyclist would have been coming from the right of the shot.)
– there are lights, with an ASL. However, the lane isn’t filtered so the cyclist would have been mixing with traffic going straight on. (Speed is a possibility, but not faster than a car would go.)
– there is no pedestrian crossing across Church Road. (WTAF???) despite shops and pavements on either side. Tellingly, Street View shows people trying to cross and crossing while traffic is moving. One woman is even in the middle of the road with a car in front of her. Plus, they’re not crossing by the lights – they’re crossing where the road is much wider.
– It was dark, however, there is a streetlight on that corner. (Functional?)
(I’m disregarding the bystander’s comments for now – we don’t know where he was standing, what he considers to be speed, etc.)
So, it’s easy enough to start building a scenario with just those two bits of information.
We don’t know which way the ped was crossing (l-r or r-l), his speed (20s so normal pace, assuming no disability?), etc. Looking at that junction though, I’d be surprised if he was looking at his phone. With no designated crossing, you would have to at least check for traffic. Would he expect or be looking for a cyclist to come around that corner? Cars would. Could he see the cyclist approaching? There is a fair bit of street furniture which could obscure his view.
From the cyclist’s POV: given a green light, in all reasonable circumstances, coming around that corner, would you not expect to have a clear-ish road and for peds to be using a crossing point? There is also a possibility street furniture on the approach could have obscured his view.
Rule 170 appears to apply, but would the driver of a motor vehicle expect to be held to the same standards?
If I were to be assigning blame with this evidence, at this point, I would say it rests firmly on the shoulders of the planners who decided a pedestrian crossing wasn’t needed on this junction. Idiots.
dottigirl wrote:
Who says the cyclist was turning right? You can equally well turn left onto Church Road from Wokingham Road, depending on which way you were travelling along Wokingham road.
If you were turning right onto Church Road, then you definitely have much more visibility of the turning.
If you were turning left onto Church Road, then you have much less visibility of the junction due to the estate agent building on the corner.
Church Road doesn’t actually have a pedestrian crossing – to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings – across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.
I know that junction very well, and the amount of pedestrians that just walk into the road – often when their lights are red and just as the lights have changed to green for the traffic – is ridiculous.
LastBoyScout wrote:
I know the junction well too, and up until quite recently, would have cycled home from work every night at that time. It is very poorly laid out but I don’t think can be improved easily. One possible improvement might be to make all the traffic lights red at the same time so pedestrians and cyclists (some are toucans) are free to cross at any point.
You did miss count slightly, by my reckoning it would be a total of four crossings, as once side of Wokingham road is split a split junction.
jh27 wrote:
Church Road doesn’t actually have a pedestrian crossing – to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings – across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.— jh27
You did miss count slightly, by my reckoning it would be a total of four crossings, as once side of Wokingham road is a split junction.— LastBoyScout
Nope, I meant you have to cross 3 roads. If you want to count actual crossing segments, then I agree it’s 4 light-controlled crossings, or 6 sections if you half-ignore the lights and cross the bits where traffic isn’t flowing.
LastBoyScout wrote:
If you were turning right onto Church Road, then you definitely have much more visibility of the turning.
If you were turning left onto Church Road, then you have much less visibility of the junction due to the estate agent building on the corner.
Church Road doesn’t actually have a pedestrian crossing – to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings – across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.
I know that junction very well, and the amount of pedestrians that just walk into the road – often when their lights are red and just as the lights have changed to green for the traffic – is ridiculous.— LastBoyScout
Apologies, thought I’d seen it written somewhere that he was coming from that direction. If he coming from the NW, wouldn’t cutting out the junction by going down Heath Road would make more sense?
I did observe there was no pedestrian crossing though for Church. You have to wonder why not. That means they don’t have ‘their’ own lights to go by. And I can’t see many people being patient enough to use three crossings instead of chancing it.
I hope both parties recover.
I hope both parties recover.
It might be worth noting however that the vehicle user (ie the cyclist) came off worst. Unlike if the vehicle was a motor vehicle. That is one of the reasons why we don’t go round deliberately trying to terrorise pedestrians.
to be fair pedestrians think
to be fair pedestrians think anything faster than walking speed is high speed on a bicycle.
ashliejay wrote:
Whilst that is certainly true, at this particular junction, the slowest two wheeled vehicle will probably be faster than the fastest four (or more) wheeled vehicle – if turning left into Church Road (which was most probably the case). The corner is very tight, pretty much square.
“to be fair pedestrians think
“to be fair pedestrians think anything faster than walking speed is high speed on a bicycle.”
“Motorists follow that rule all the time… oh wait”
I’m a pedestrian, a motorist and a cyclist. Its a wonder my head doesn’t explode with all the stereotypes fighting in there. There is nowhere near enough evidence to make a judgement on anyone involved.
I hope both parties recover quickly. Thats all there is to it really.
Cupotea wrote:
By far the most sensible post anybody has made on this topic!
Where does “presumed
Where does “presumed liability” stand for a situation such as this?
If I understand it right (a big if…), then wouldn’t the cyclist initially be deemed responsible, irrespective of circumstance?
……………………..
…………..
…………
I walk this junction twice a
I walk this junction twice a Day at the moment.
There are no pedestrian lights crossing Church road – as mentioned by lastboyscout
This area is close to the uni, and students/deliveroo riders can’t seem to buy/use lights, understand pavements are for pedestrians, pedestrians don’t understand roads are for cars/bikes etc, realise we drive /ride on the left, red means stop – I could go on….
So I would love to know some more details – see CCTV
But this is a bad junction for walkers, cyclist and motorists – and I’m all three….
and don’t get me started on u turning double deckers!!
#accidentwaitingtohappenanditdid
jimmyd wrote:
Except for motorways, roads are for everybody, not just cars/bikes etc, but pedestrians too.
This is a very important right and is one of the reasons why we don’t have jaywalking laws in this country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6251431.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797
jimmyd wrote:
Or the vehicles heading NW along Wokingham Road that turn into the BP garage without any warning! For that reason alone, I generally approach that junction in the RH lane if I’m going straight on. The ones turning right are generally pretty good about indicating and don’t slam on their brakes to avoid pedestrians crossing the forecourt entrance!
As ChrisB says, we can’t
As ChrisB says, we can’t imply that the cyclist deliberately ignored the pedestrian. Pedestrians are not entirely blameless or in the right by virtue of the highway code. Any vehicle has a stopping distance, even a bicycle. I have had pedestrians step out in front of me plenty of times and had a few near misses (not as many as car on me of course.) I was once turning left at a green light on Oxford Road in the middle of Manchester when a woman pushed a pram out in front of me to cross the road. I stopped in time, shocked as she just glared at me and walked across on red as if it was my fault I nearly hit her baby because there were no oncoming cars. Someone stepping out from the pavement can become a hazard in less than one second, but if this happened to a car which was just proceeding on a green light and someone stepped out in front, you would say they were not at fault because how could they stop in time?
No matter what you are doing people look but don’t see. It takes two beats to judge speed, but most people don’t give the road enough attention.
In my experience, pedestrians
In my experience, pedestrians will (sometimes) look, weigh up the vehicle approaching, then decide to cross or not. If you’re on a bike they seem to make the decision to cross in front of you more than when you’re in a car. The assumption is you will just give way, which is annoying.
If I get a deliberate jaywalker I’ll buzz them as close as possible.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Jaywalking isn’t a thing here. I think it’s more a case of perceived danger, they see a bike and think it’s safe for them to put themselves in front of it, much like many drivers seem to do. They don’t even think long enough about what speed you are travelling and that your stopping distance might be longer than a car.
That’s assuming they’ve actually bothered to look, plenty seem to step into the road without looking based on the fact that they cannot hear an engine approaching 🙁
Oh, you really shouldn’t deliberately “buzz” pedestrians… I’m sure you’ve heard the term “punishment pass”?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
100% agree with this.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I really hope you never drive a motor vehicle. Please never do it near me.
Is it really a decent reaction to further endanger someone who has made an error of judgement around their own safety?
Sure, give them a glare or shout “careful!” if you must, but I don’t think punishment passing pedestrians makes things better for anyone. Later in the day they might just be driving their 4×4/bus/40t lorry past you.
We ought all really to be looking out for pedestrians who might walk out in front of us. Admittedly sometimes, though, you think there is absolutely no way someone is going to cross in front of you and then they do. I had this with a bin man who looked straight at me from fairly close range, then stepped out. I braked and swerved in time to not come close to hitting him, but it did make me think. Sounded like his colleagues gave him some verbal stick! I’m pretty sure he just misjudged my speed (probably about 17-20mph, passing the bin lorry, going downhill.)
DaveE128 wrote:
I’m talking about the surly teenager/trainee thug who sees you and walks out anyway placing the onus on you to take action because they have taken a deliberate option to walk into your path. I’m not talking about someone who never looked up from a phone, or wobbly granny. You know exactly what sort of person I’m on about, the ‘do you want some?’ types.
I know the sensible thing is to diffuse things by always backing down but from time to time why should you always back down? The video today of the old codger poking people in the chest proves people think cyclists are easy pickings, even fat old men are happy to try their hand.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Respectfully suggest you stop digging.
MandaiMetric wrote:
To be fair, I see Yorkshire Wallets argument. All I hear about on these forums is the need to turn the other cheek, be the better man / woman, show respect and act responsibly to promote a positive image of cycling.
With all due respect, this attitude gets us no where. “Don’t say anything, don’t do anything and people will be nicer to us…. ” its not an argument that stacks up too well in my opinion.
Not saying the answer is out and out aggression, but neither is being a subservient sub-species on our highways.
Personally speaking, I don’t think that many people walk out in front of cyclists as an act of aggression, i think its more that the general populous believe that cyclists are second rate citizens that don’t belong on the roads, pavements, dedicated cycling paths….
We need to push back against the negative press somehow.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
We need to push back against the negative press somehow. — Jimmy Ray Will
I would suggest cyclists “buzzing” pedestrians, is unlikely to be the answer to this dilema.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I kind-of get what you mean, but, as this case illustrates, its quite likely you’d come off worst if there was a collision, and I’m not confident of your (or my) ability to instantly judge the character and nature of any given careless pedestrian in the heat of the moment.
Personally I’d just play safe. Though shouting at them as you escape into the distance is always an option, I guess.
DaveE128 wrote:
I nearly ploughed through a whole family group once – clear road, good visibility, etc. About half of them crossed the road ahead of me, which was fine – the other half dozen, complete with pushchair, waited until I was practically on top of them before stepping off the kerb. Fortunately, there was enough of a gap between the 2 groups for me to swerve through. Yes, I was going at a reasonable lick, but it was a 40mph limit road.
I’m a big believer that people generally don’t appreciate how fast some cyclists can go and expect them all to be tootling around like a granny on a shopper bike, despite the clue that you’re on a road bike in Lycra. In contrast, despite rarely being anywhere near the speed limit of the road you’re on, you’re always “speeding” on a bike. You can’t win.
To quote the witness in the article: “A cyclist with no helmet came around the corner at high speed and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road.” The cyclist was probably doing 10-15mph in a 30mph zone, yet, somehow, he was apparently speeding. Unlikely, but would be interesting to see if he had anything like Strava running at the time.
The pedestrian probably only
The pedestrian probably only suffered minor injuries because he was wearing a helmet. Surprised the bystander didn’t mention this.
As mentioned, there is far
As mentioned, there is far too little info for us to be apportioning blame, however the witness does seem pretty clear in their summation.
“the cyclist was riding like a lunatic, taking his life into his own hands by not wearing protective equipment… deserved it”
As also mentioned, there is no legal need to wear a helmet, and not wearing a helmet does not indicate a lack of skill or road safety responsibility.
As for speeding, again, as already mentioned, cyclists moving at modest speeds will look fast to pedestrians, so whilst the chap in question may have riding like a loon, he may have been riding at an entirely appropriate speed.
So basically, the witnesses comments are fairly invalid… I just hope they are not taken as gospel in isolation, and blame automatically apportioned to the cyclist without due process.
Update – Sadly get reading
Update – Sadly get reading reported that the cyclist died earlier today.
jimmyd wrote:
Clearly, based on that fact, something needs to be done about pedestrians. They’re dangerous, they don’t wear hi-viz, just step out – they think they own the roads or something.
/sarcasm -off
Can someone point me at the stats again for cyclists killing pedestrians, that are apparently so awful that Something Must Be Done ™.
Oh that’s rough. Real sad.
Oh that’s rough. Real sad. You really can go at any time if your luck runs out.
Have to feel for the family..
Arse. I will give him a nod
Arse. I will give him a nod as I ride through that junction later.
Will have to take a long
🙁
Will have to take a long route home tomorrow and take a moment there. Too many people have died on the road surrounding the uni.
I wish him smooth roads and
I wish him smooth roads and tailwinds wherever his front wheel roams
willythepimp, you have made
willythepimp, you have made me cry twice now. I thank you.