A 73-year-old woman has died in hospital from injuries sustained when she was involved in a collision with a cyclist on London’s Oxford Street earlier this week.
The incident happened close to Bond Street Underground station at around 4.30pm on Tuesday afternoon. The cyclist, a man aged in his 30s, stopped at the scene.
The woman, who was crossing the street on foot when the fatal crash happened, died in hospital on Wednesday morning.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said that no arrests had been made in connection with the incident, although the Evening Standard reported yesterday that the cyclist had been arrested on an unrelated criminal damage offence after police carried out checks on him.
It comes two weeks after cyclist Charlie Alliston was found guilty by an Old Bailey jury of wanton and furious cycling following the death last year of pedestrian Kim Briggs. He was acquitted of her manslaughter.
Mrs Briggs had been crossing London’s Old Street when Alliston, riding a fixed wheel bike with no front brake, meaning it was not legal for use on the road, collided with her, causing fatal head injuries.
The case attracted a huge amount of attention in the mainstream media and is likely to do so again when Alliston, who faces up to two years in jail, is sentenced next week.
52 thoughts on “Pedestrian dies after collision with cyclist on London’s Oxford Street”
Thats very sad – my
Thats very sad – my symapthies to the victim.
I only hope that this is reported with balance by the broader media.
jasecd wrote:
Regrettably, I doubt it will.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41263926
The reversing of dates gives the impression of an increasing trend, and there being no comparisons to how many peds or cyclists were killed by motor vehicles shows some minor prejudice.
At least (as yet) theres no comment about the state of dress of the rider, like wearing lycra makes someone more/less dangerous than jeans
Whatever happenned and
Whatever happenned and whoever was responsible – lets all hope that that the bike was legal…. please. Although judging by the grainy image on the bbc https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/150A3/production/_97797168_capture3.jpg I’m concerned….
Another tragic collision
Another tragic collision which the media will undoubtedly use to batter cyclists. I fully anticipate that the cyclist will be blamed and that there will be no rational analysis of what actually happened. Did she walk out into the road without looking, which seems the most likely explanation. I don’t want to blame her without evidence but it is the most probable thing.
Will the media be starting a “Look before you step out” campaign to stop pedestrians just walking out into the road because they don’t hear a motor vehicle coming? This is actually becomming more important, as the advent of almost silent electric cars is going to see this happening more often.
burtthebike wrote:
… ?
Duncann wrote:
… ?— burtthebike
I think what he meant to say is that it’ more likely the woman stepped off the pavement without looking because she hadn’t heard an engine, rather than the cyclist being at fault.
It’s certainly true that a lot of pedestrians do that. But the reporting in this case is insufficient so far for anyone to say one way or the other.
OldRidgeback wrote:
It may be “more likely” but we don’t know and someone is dead so we shouldn’t speculate.
Duncann wrote:
… ?— burtthebike
?
BBC reporting – cyclist
BBC reporting – cyclist kills pedestrian, sensationalist lines and reaches at some sort of correlation to danger.
BBC news – endlessly full of ‘magazine’ stories of women’s, gay, racial or transexual struggles and the new low of a paedophile story the other day which seemed to try and draw a line between sex offending and paedophilia. It’s not their fault, it’s just the way it is.
Utter garbage SJW website with barely any actual news, just opinion pieces by ‘reporters’. It’s basically The Huffington Post.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Let me guess, you are a straight white male…
marionr wrote:
I currently identify as a vegetable of asian origin.
How can we expect balanced
How can we expect balanced reporting when an actual cycling webmagazine devotes fully half of an article to the Charlie Alliston debacle and not the tragedy that it purports to be about?
This is an appalling article Simon MacMichael. I take it you managed to get all of your search engine keywords in the final three paragraphs?
kitsunegari wrote:
Personally I don’t see the wording of this piece as representing any Road CC editorial opinion.
Yes, a parallel has been drawn with the earlier Alliston case but this is no doubt done to invite us to expect and reflect upon the media driven hysteria (from the non-cycling press) that will inevitably follow.
BBC: “A man was arrested at
BBC: “A man was arrested at the scene on an unrelated criminal damage charge. Police have refused to confirm if he was the cyclist. “
I don’t like how the BBC article mentions two people who died after colliding with bicycles but fails to mention the recent case in Reading where a cyclist died after a pedestrian stepped out into the road in front of him.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
It’s quite simple; the BBC hates cyclists.
It has been promoting cycle helmets for thirty years in complete contravention of all its own rules, it rarely mentions cycling without overt or implied criticism, it has programmes for every other means of transport, but not cycling, it completely ignores the massive health benefits of cycling, it won’t mention the huge benefits in congestion and pollution of more cycling. I could go on, but I think I’ve made it pretty clear.
The BBC would soon run out of
The BBC would soon run out of space if it listed every death and recent court case resulting from car/pedestrian ‘collisions’as an addendum to the exhaustive reports they run on EVERY such sad event.
Presumably this is the only reason that they fail to do it.
Or perhaps trawling through 3 years worth of statistics for cyclist related deaths is so much easier than doing the same for car related pedestrian deaths.
This woman’s death is a tragically sad event (as are all needless traffic deaths) and my condolences to her family.
The BBC (and doubtless other news sources) do her and those close to a grave disservice, and should be ashamed of themselves, in using this event to stoke what seems to be an agenda driven campaign.
Do the BBC’s rules on impartiality apply to their reporting of such events?
To follow up my last post,
To follow up my last post, 267 pedestrian deaths , 2014 -2017 in London alone, according to Vision Zero London, only 3 of which were attributable to cyclist pedestrian collisions.
A report on use of statistcs in BBC reporting states:
‘… there is a specific Editorial Guidance note on Reporting Risk , which is designed to “help ensure the context of statistics is clear and avoid distortion of the risk”.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/stats_impartiality/report.pdf
The BBC’s use of statistics in this context seems not to comply with this guidance.
pockstone wrote:
As someone with rather more experience of the BBC complaints system than I really want, I wish you the best of luck. The BBC complaints system has a single function; to exonerate its employees.
Still, aren’t they covered by Ofcom now, so you might have a bit more luck.
pedestrians are their own
pedestrians are their own worst enemy – they should be made to wear helmets (or cross at the crossing)!
apparently it was an mtb with disk brakes, no hysteria as yet…
There’s a better picture of
There’s a better picture of the bike here:
Disc brakes and looks to have a camera attached, so anyone at fault should be picked up.
I was quite annoyed by this
I was quite annoyed by this story when I saw it on the BBC news this morning.
Based on BBC coverage, cyclists really are the biggest menace on the roads… you don’t hear any stories about cars hitting and killing pedestrians do you? Very clear to me that cyclists are the biggest killer on our roads.
So in summary, I am getting fairly anti any, and all, cycling coverage in main stream press.
Really sad to hear that this lady died, that’s something no one wants!
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Trouble is, people who rely on their cars and enjoy driving them don’t want to be reminded of the reality that their precious is actually a killing machine. Couple that with the ambition of autonomous car developers to rid the roads of nasty troublesome cyclists, the coverage will only ever go one way.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Yes, you do.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)
This is very sad, and there
This is very sad, and there is no publicly-available evidence that either party was in any way at fault, so speculation would be premature and insensitive.
But one thing is for sure, that if this were reported the way cyclist deaths involving cars usually are – when they’re reported at all – the headline would be something like “Bicycle Accident Results in Death of Pedestrian”. Somewhere in the text there would be speculative victim-blaming along the lines of “It is unknown at this time whether the pedestrian was using their smartphone.” It certainly wouldn’t refer back to the last similar incident (too many) and probably wouldn’t give any statistics on number of such deaths per year (too direct a reminder they are an unspoken but accepted cost of the way our society and economy works.)
Fair play to The Guardian for
Fair play to The Guardian for including the following in their online report:
Pedestrians are much more likely to be killed by motor vehicles than cyclists. Figures from the Office for National Statistics for 2006 to 2010 show the annual number of pedestrians who died as a result of collisions with cyclists varied from zero in 2009 to six in 2007. The equivalent figure from collisions with a car, truck or pickup truck ranged from 123 in 2010 to 267 in 2007.
Unfortunately they still make the mistake of comparing inanimate objects (car, truck, pickup) with human beings (cyclists).
The Gavalier wrote:
Crikey! Don’t tell yorkshirewallet, he’ll have to revise his opinion of left wing “SJW” websites….
Two pedestrians walked out in
Two pedestrians walked out in front of me as I cycled by doris bike through the City of London this morning. That seems to be the daily average for the 11 minute 1.7 mile journey that I make! Most are just ignoring the pelican crossing lights; on there phone or just don’t look.
Two pedestrians walked out in
Two pedestrians walked out in front of me as I cycled by doris bike through the City of London this morning. That seems to be the daily average for the 11 minute 1.7 mile journey that I make! Most are just ignoring the pelican crossing lights; on their phone or just don’t look.
This one never made it into
This one never made it into the main headline bit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41264639?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/ccb973db-603d-4b1f-8465-ae1034dcedbf/sussex-police&link_location=live-reporting-story
Beheamoth used to plough into group of pedestrians and kills 2 of them
This one never made it into
[quote=ktache]
This one never made it into the main headline bit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41264639?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/ccb973db-603d-4b1f-8465-ae1034dcedbf/sussex-police&link_location=live-reporting-story
Beheamoth used to plough into group of pedestrians and kills 2 of them
So the massive 4×4 vehicle was driving itself?
The Gavalier]
“Beheamoth used to…” not beheamoth hits.
I was careful in my choice of words though I accept I may have incorectly spelled beheamoth.
ktache]
My point was that according to the report it was the Nissan Pathfinder which hit the pedestrians and not the motorist, whereas it’s always the cyclist and not the bicycle.
Again another tragic accident
Again another tragic accident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist.
Going by the fact that the cyclist has not been charged with anything in connection with this incident it is likely that the cyclist was minding their own business as the pedestrian stepped out onto the road in front of them.
I have at least 1 incident a day of peds walking out onto the road in front of me without looking , and thankfully to date I’ve always managed to avoid any collisions. But the irony is I’m the one that needs to “look where I’m going” in about 90% of cases
craigstitt wrote:
And this to me is the very dangerous precedent this coverage is generating… that its always the cyclists job to look out.
Look out for cars, trucks and bigger things that might kill them… look out for small vulnerable things that may kill them, or be killed… big or small, the responsbility is seemingly being placed solely upon the humble cyclist.
And now we are seeing it… I am seeing it. Pedestrians (we are still talking a minority here) are increasingly not looking (as they don’t perceive it to be their responsibility to do so), or are looking and stepping out anyway (as they believe it is the cyclists responsibility to move / yield).
That viewpoint is driven by the media.
And… for some reason to many cycling enthuisiast are afraid to call this out for the bullshit it is. Instead we have comments saying that pedestrians do have right of way… and yes, we should be able to stop in time of any danger presented to us. As well as those apologists saying its what we all deserve because one teenage scrote once buzzed an old granny on a pavement.
Come on people, lets stop being complicit in the crap.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles.
“Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin’s turn to do the looking”
And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users.
I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.
Mungecrundle wrote:
And this to me is the very dangerous precedent this coverage is generating… that its always the cyclists job to look out.
Look out for cars, trucks and bigger things that might kill them… look out for small vulnerable things that may kill them, or be killed… big or small, the responsbility is seemingly being placed solely upon the humble cyclist.
And now we are seeing it… I am seeing it. Pedestrians (we are still talking a minority here) are increasingly not looking (as they don’t perceive it to be their responsibility to do so), or are looking and stepping out anyway (as they believe it is the cyclists responsibility to move / yield).
That viewpoint is driven by the media.
And… for some reason to many cycling enthuisiast are afraid to call this out for the bullshit it is. Instead we have comments saying that pedestrians do have right of way… and yes, we should be able to stop in time of any danger presented to us. As well as those apologists saying its what we all deserve because one teenage scrote once buzzed an old granny on a pavement.
Come on people, lets stop being complicit in the crap.
— Jimmy Ray Will Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles. “Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin’s turn to do the looking” And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users. I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.— craigstitt
I rest my case.
Of course it is… Absolutely.
But… thats not the message that is hitting home… the message is this… ‘cyclists need to look out for cars… cyclists need to look out for pedestrians.
if cyclists can’t stop when a pedestrian jumps in their path its the cyclists fault. If a car pulls out in front of a cyclist, the cyclist was going too fast to stop.
We are being forced into an unoffical strict liability environment where the cyclist is ALWAYS at fault unless they can prove otherwise.
Your comments above completely swerves the issue of the inequality being publicised… this is inadvertently condoning and supporting the media’s viewpoint.
In summary… of course as with all road users we have a responsbility to look out for other road users… but it is NOT OK to promote, condone, or tolerate the premise that its is the sole responsibility of cyclists to manage road safety.
Mungecrundle wrote:
— Mungecrundle Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles. “Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin’s turn to do the looking” And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users. I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.— Jimmy Ray Will
Undoubtedly cyclists should look where they are going, as should all road users. Ask yourself if a driver would be held responsible if a pedestrian walked out in front of them? Probably not, so why are cyclists treated differently?
burtthebike wrote:
Absolutely, the car driver has every responsibility to pay attention and drive not just within the speed limit but to the conditions. If the conditions involve pedestrians in the road or potentially in the road then slow the fuck down.
As for prosecution, you can be prosecuted for a standard of cycling or driving that falls well below the standard. Prosecuting negligent pedestrians, probably harder but they are just as accountable as anyone else if they cause an incident resulting in damage or injury.
What is so hard about understanding that regardless of how: stupid, negligent, young, old, inebriated or incompetent other people may be, as a rider, driver, operator of a vehicle you have a basic responsibility to them and duty of care when operating your vehicle near them.
Mungecrundle][quote
Nothing hard about that at all. The problem I have is that cyclists are held to a much higher standard of responsibility than other road users who have a much higher potential for causing death and injury.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I think the point is there is a narrative fed by the media and growing acceptance that the onus for everyones safety on the road is resting solely on the cyclist, so its the cyclists fault for being there if they get crushed by the cars and lorries, and pedestrians dont have to bother looking or listening anymore, theyll just walk into the road and the cyclist be damned if they collide even if theres nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid hitting them.
its something Im noticing more in recent weeks, even if pedestrians do look and spot you alot of them are going well tough you are only a cyclist, and theyll rationalise it to themselves they arent doing something stupid because you must be going too fast as a cyclist, or you are wearing lycra, or some other ridiculous whataboutery, they are taking the view you hit & crash into me its your fault, therefore Im free to wander across roads at will and not take care for my own safety. And not one of those pedestrians would ever react the same way with a ton of metal approaching them.
Awavey wrote:
This. Very much this. I’ve had women with pushchairs look up, see I’m on a bike and just carry on out into the road: pretty bl**dy sure they wouldn’t do that if I was driving a car
And then they look at me like I’m the bad guy if I go around them or if I stop for them (basically, anything other than ceasing to exist right there and then).
Very sad story.
Very sad story.
I wonder how often this happens in places like Amsterdam where you have a lot of cyclists and pedestrians in close proximity ?
fenix wrote:
Never been to Amsterdam, but I have been to other Dutch cities, plus Brugge and Hanover
In Brugge cyclist of all types were wizzing about, only the stupid tourists walked out without looking, same in. Hanover, where cyclists use the footpaths. It’s allowed, but the cyclists are a bit more respectful of pedestrians.
In all of these cities, the awareness of pedestrians with other road traffic but especially cyclists is much better because it’s cultural, loads more people have been brought up to ride their bikes to school rather than jump in mum’s taxi. But then that’s due to the dangerous nature of our roads.
In Germany there’s a culture where people don’t ignore the pedestrian crossing signals. I can’t remember the German phrase, but it’s something like only cross when the man is green. From what I saw people do this.
maviczap wrote:
also, the sheer number of cyclists using the facilities encourages awareness from pedestrians
on the point of using crossings, a friend came back from Austria and told a story of how he was waiting at the lights and there wasn’t a car around for miles, so he went to cross and was promptly tackled to the ground by a policeman who exclaimed “we are doing this for your own good, you must wait for the green man before crossing”
I think the BBC headlined it
I think the BBC headlined it as its just after the Alliston case and because there are so few, fortunately, of these type of incidents.
If they headlined every fatality on the roads there would no space for Trump !
Just to be clear there is no
Just to be clear there is no absolute right of way for pedestrians over all other road users. As pointed out already this is a fallacy sadly put about even by some people on this ‘site. Pedestrians cannot expect to step out into a road and have all traffic yield to them. Where would we all be if that was the case? Probably all in jail.
Peds have right of way only in certain circumstances: https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/enjoying/the-rights-you-didnt-know-pedestrians-have
Grumpy17 wrote:
You mean priority, as opposed to right of way, just for accuracy as it makes a massive difference, particularly in law.
if you must cycle through
if you must cycle through such a dysfunctional road such as Oxford St, which experience has taught me to avoid while the shops are open, at least hold a primary position to give yourself as much chance as possible to avoid trouble. Many cyclists on that street hog the kerb giving themselves no where to go once someone steps out.
nadsta wrote:
Was it Oxford Street where Michael Mason was killed by Gail Purcell? Even whilst riding in primary? I see your point, though.
nadsta wrote:
As I recall from cycling down oxford street 27 years ago. Close to the kerb is the only way to make progress, as the rest if the road is full of stationary buses.
Ate there fewer buses than there used to be or have the found some magic way to keep them moving?
As I coasted through Canary
As I coasted through Canary Wharf yesterday, a pedestrian stepped out in front of me without looking while reading a fucking book! I shouted a warning and deliberately stopped rather than avoiding, as I thought this behaviour deserved a ticking off. I was met with startled indifference.