Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Live blog: Cyclists deserve same notice of roadworks as drivers, say campaigners; Brushett v Hazeldean: Plantiff’s brief gives his view; What the bear did in the woods on the Tour Divide; new Zwift Classics eRacing series + more

All today's news from the site and beyond.....
25 June 2019, 18:52
Cyclists deserve same notice of route closures as drivers, says Cambridge cycle campaign group Camcycle as busway shut for works

Robin Heydon, chair of Camcycle, the cycling campaign group for Cambridge and the largest such organisation in England outside London, says cyclists should be given the same notice of route closures as motorists are.

His appeal comes as a cycle route running alongside a section of the city’s guided busway between Histon and the Cambridge Regional College CRC) in King’s Hedges was closed with only a couple of days’ notice. The works are tied in with the enlargement of the A14.

In his regular column for Cambridgeshire Live, Heydon wrote: “Usually when someone wants to close a road they give you some notice of it. Maybe they let the press know a few weeks in advance so people can plan their journeys. For example, there are signs everywhere along the A14 informing people driving cars of future road closures.

“So it was a huge surprise to find out a couple of days before that they are closing the main cycleway between Histon and the CRC.

After helpfully providing an alternative route, he added: “They have just posted an alternative cycle route a couple of days before the route is actually closed, and I did find some diversion signs that didn’t look official at all. I don’t ask for much, but it would be good to have the same notice as cars have when one of their main roads is closed. Perhaps we should all drive to work instead of cycling?”

In a press release, Camcycle said: “We are appalled that such a busy and important route for walking and cycling is being shut down with very little notice, communication, and no reasonable diversions put into place. Many people will be shocked on Monday to discover that their safe route to school or work is blocked and they will have to go around via the dangerous A14 overpass.”

25 June 2019, 17:15
25 June 2019, 17:14
A very scary Near Miss of the Day ...

Look how close the rear of the lorry's trailer gets ... full story here.

25 June 2019, 17:08
Poo emoji.PNG
"Poop doping" is a thing

Faecal transplant, anyone?

Find out about the latest research here.

25 June 2019, 15:56
Zwift launch the Zwift Classics one-day virtual race series
ZClassics_London

Described as "the next step in its esports journey", Zwift have unveiled the Zwift Classics series. Starting on 3rd July, they will build on the successful KISS Super League races.

The Zwift Classics will be invite only races featuring both pro and the best amateur athletes currently using Zwift. The Zwift Classics will be individual races in their own right, with the winner on the day taking all the prizes. Competing teams will be composed of five riders, so tactics will be key to success.

Alongside the London International, an additional five races have been confirmed with more likely to be announced soon. All races will be streamed live on Zwift's live Facebook page.  

25 June 2019, 15:50
New Rapha Étape and Grinduro collections launched
rapha etape 2

...to celebrate the events taking place this July. Full story here

25 June 2019, 13:38
Meaty feet anyone?
25 June 2019, 07:43
Claimant's barrister in controversial Brushell vs Hazeldean case shares his view

The barrister who represented Gemma Brushett, the pedestrian who sued cyclist Robert Hazeldean for hitting her although she was found to be partly liable, has given his view on the case

Aneurin Moloney says in his opening paragraph on a blog post: "I accept that I am not an independent observer of the case.  But I was one of only a handful of people who were present for the 2 days of the trial, and can add some important detail to that put out in the newspapers."

He then says in court, it was revealed that one witness (called Mr H in the blog) came forward who was of the opinion the defendant (Hazeldean) was to blame: 

"The Claimant relied on Mr H as her only witness on the issue of liability. Mr H attended trial and was cross examined by the Defendant’s barrister.

"Mr H’s evidence included a voice memo that he had recorded on his mobile phone minutes after the accident in order to provide a more detailed account than that recorded by the police.  His witness statement expanded upon his police statement.  He described in Court that there was a ‘throng’ of pedestrians 5 or 6 deep crossing the road, and estimated that there were 50 people in this group.  He described that he slowed his bicycle because he felt that it was unsafe to proceed with people still crossing.

"Mr H said that he was overtaken by the Defendant, who was travelling at around 20mph and had sounded his airhorn.  Mr H considered that the Defendant accelerated as he approached the crossing.  He saw the Defendant collide with the Claimant who was crossing the road.  He remained of the view that the Defendant was to blame."

Moloney summarises: "There was more to this decision than the many of the newspaper articles conveyed.

"Based on the judge’s finding that the Claimant was using her mobile phone, it was absolutely correct that she was found to have significantly contributed to the accident.  However, the Defendant himself had conceded that he had accelerated towards a crossing which wasn’t clear of people.

"If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury."

The case has garnered a significant amount of media attention, and a crowdfunder to help pay for Hazeldean's legal fees has now reached over £55,000. The page creator and Hazeldean have said any money left over will be donated to the Action Aid charity.  

25 June 2019, 10:35
The Cycling Scouser returns home after raising over £10,000 riding across America

Andrew Rogerson, known as 'The Cycling Scouser', returned to Merseyside yesterday after finishing a six week pedal from Seattle to New Jersey last Friday. He's raised over £10,000 for children's cancer charity The Charlie's Chance Foundation, inspired by Charlie Fearns who has been fighting Leukaemia for over 8 years. You can visit the JustGiving page here

25 June 2019, 10:25
Bianchi Celeste footy kit anyone?

Check out Inter Milan's 2019/20 away jersey! To be fair it might provide a welcome distraction for their fans whether they love it or hate it, as the club have just announced that they're going to demolish the San Siro stadium that they share with city rivals AC Milan. 

25 June 2019, 10:42
Tour Divide rider charged with illegal camping after black bear eats his food
Back Bear CREDIT National Park

You wouldn't get this happening on an audax in Wales...

A competitor on the bonkers 2,745 mile gravel race down the spine of the Rocky Mountains has been charged with illegal camping after he awoke to a black bear helping itself to the snacks in his panniers.

Camping outside of a designated campground is strictly forbidden in Banff.

Speaking to the Bow Valley Crag & Canyon, Bill Hunt, a Banff National Park conservation manager cited the dangers that illegal camping poses, not only to future campers but also to the bears, who can become comfortable approaching humans for food.

"The food was not secured in any way. It was lying on the ground in his pack outside his tent. He did not have bear spray. He waited scared inside his tent while the bear ate his food for an hour and just before midnight he called 911 after he feared for his safety. He said he glanced out occasionally and that he saw a light-colored bear but we’re not sure if there were two bears there."

To be fair, we'd stay put in our tent if there were bears outside!

Concluding, Hunt said "I imagine if a person is cycling to New Mexico they should have been able to find his way to Tunnel Mountain campground or noticed all the signs”.

Have you had any run-ins with animals whilst cycling? Let us know in the comments below.

*The more teeth the animal had, the more points you get*

25 June 2019, 07:37
Wiggo (sort of) gives his endorsement to Tour de France charity ride

Le Loop will see a group of riders complete stages 2-21 of the Tour de France a week ahead of the pros, in an effort to raise funds for the William Wates Memorial Trust. Ride Le Loop managed to get an endorsement from 2012 winner Bradley Wiggins himself, who was reminded the event goes on for the full three weeks rather than just a day: "Oh sh*t sorry, the whole three weeks apparently which is even better... I think you're mad!"

Find out more about Ride Le Loop here."

Arriving at road.cc in 2017 via 220 Triathlon Magazine, Jack dipped his toe in most jobs on the site and over at eBikeTips before being named the new editor of road.cc in 2020, much to his surprise. His cycling life began during his students days, when he cobbled together a few hundred quid off the back of a hard winter selling hats (long story) and bought his first road bike - a Trek 1.1 that was quickly relegated to winter steed, before it was sadly pinched a few years later. Creatively replacing it with a Trek 1.2, Jack mostly rides this bike around local cycle paths nowadays, but when he wants to get the racer out and be competitive his preferred events are time trials, sportives, triathlons and pogo sticking - the latter being another long story.  

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 4 years ago
3 likes

The predicted size of the claim was intended to serve only one purpose, create publicity for this incident and a swell of public opinion to demand all cyclists have insurance. Insurance companies want this, the 'free' insurance from being a member of British Cycling etc. will eventually be replaced by annual cost much larger. 

My take on the incident is that some pedestrians about to cross saw that it was only 2 cyclists coming towards them and decided ignorantly that the cyclists would have to stop because they risked personal injury if they collided. A gamble that usually pays off because most sensible cyclists would stop. If it had been a bus, car or truck the pedestrians probably wouldn't have crossed. They have contempt for cyclists but are not so stupid with vehicles.

One cyclist had enough. Armed with airhorns he usually manages to intimidate (or warn) pedestrians that he is not stopping. The pedestrians are in the wrong, he has right of way. Unfortunately one pedestrian was following the crowd, and assumed safety in numbers. Once the cyclist realised pedestrians were ignoring him, he should have capitulated and braked hard. Then swore loudly at the idiots, like the majority of cyclists would.

Because both were ignorant, it is 50/50 blame. If it had been a car that blew the horn and carried on, it may have got a verdict of a tragic accident.

If there had been a pedestrian crossing, and the UK had laws like other EU countries that fines pedestrians for jay-walking then this case would have been thrown out. The local council needs to take some responsibility, if this 'crossing' is always a potential accident for pedestrians. 

Avatar
Capercaillie replied to Muddy Ford | 4 years ago
2 likes
Muddy Ford wrote:

If it had been a bus, car or truck the pedestrians probably wouldn't have crossed. They have contempt for cyclists but are not so stupid with vehicles.

So true. I get this all the time with dog walkers on country lanes. If I'm driving the dog gets pulled into the hedge as soon as they hear the engine. If I'm cycling, ringing the bell or even having a coughing fit often has zero effect. I end up coming to a complete standstill and saying "excuse me" politely, before they clear some space for me to pass.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
1 like

re the celeste green footy shirt (inferring Bianchi I suppose) I had my rugby league clubs colours done in a cycling jersey (for a trip to the 100th anniversary commemoration of my home city's troops getting whalloped in WWI, the clubs winger got a VC for his actions at the location).  had 24 made and distributed across the country to 13 other fans with 4 for myself. Cost £32 each using a Scottish manufacturer.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

Reading closed bits of the NCN 5 whilst building the flash new pedestrian (and cyclist) bridge over the Thames, with no notice or detour signs.  With changes every or so often.

Avatar
brooksby | 4 years ago
1 like

Not just in Cambridgeshire. Highways England closed the cycle path between Pill and Portishead and gave pretty much no notice: a sign appeared on like the Friday saying that from the following Tuesday the path was going to be closed for six weeks. Well, its only a cycle path, innit...?

Avatar
Hirsute | 4 years ago
1 like

You can get a legal fees add-on under home insurance, car insurance and union membership. You don't have to be rich to have legal cover.

Avatar
quiff | 4 years ago
3 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos - claimants are in principle able to get "after the event" legal expenses insurance to fund their claim - this will pay their legal fees if they win, and their opponent's legal fees if they lose. But insurers won't insure every claim, they require a claim with good prospects of success. They usually also require that the claimant's lawyers act on a "no win no fee" arrangement so they have skin in the game. So it's not necessarily down to how deep the claimant's own pockets are, as often they won't be paying anything as the claim progresses, except an insurance premium. The court will assess whether the claimant's fees are reasonable, but that is separate from the decision on damages. So you can spend as much as you like on your lawyers in order to win, but the court won't necessarily allow you to recoup those costs from your opponent. 

Avatar
grumpyoldcyclist | 4 years ago
0 likes

Off topic I know, but the HGV driver, was it reported to the police?

Avatar
quiff | 4 years ago
2 likes

I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors' fees and barristers' fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to quiff | 4 years ago
5 likes

quiff wrote:

I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors' fees and barristers' fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

 

Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said "this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial" that seems to imply "the court" and its "expectations" are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs - which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff's choice of which barristers to use?

 

All seems a bit odd that the pedestrian knocked over engages lawyers who rack up these massive  costs, for what seems in the end to benefit nobody but those lawywers.   Either counter-sue or quit immediately, I suppose is the lesson?

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
2 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

quiff wrote:

I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors' fees and barristers' fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

 

Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said "this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial" that seems to imply "the court" and its "expectations" are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs - which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff's choice of which barristers to use?

 

All seems a bit odd that the pedestrian knocked over engages lawyers who rack up these massive  costs, for what seems in the end to benefit nobody but those lawywers.   Either counter-sue or quit immediately, I suppose is the lesson?

Or settle, it makes sure the lawyers don't win  3

Here's a guide to Part 36 for anyone who's interested. It was designed to put pressure on people to settle but, yes, it can be a bit of a roulette wheel.

https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/quickguides--...

Essentially, if you fail to "beat" a Part 36 offer you're in a world of pain. There is little doubt the Court will reduce the level of costs to a lower level. But the existence of the Part 36 offers makes reducing it by a substantial amount way way harder.

Avatar
quiff replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

quiff wrote:

I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors' fees and barristers' fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

 

Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said "this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial" that seems to imply "the court" and its "expectations" are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs - which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff's choice of which barristers to use?

Sorry, I didn't catch your drift before. Bendertherobot has explained, but basically the £100k costs are the claimant's lawyers' fees, but the court decides how much of those costs the defendant has to pay. It will very rarely be all of them, and the claimant (or her insurers) will have to pay the rest. But in a nutshell, if the defendant has ignored a sensible Part 36 offer to settle then the chances are the court will order him to pay a higher proportion of the claimant's costs. Of course he wasn't legally represented until late 2018, so may have been unaware of these consequences.     

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to quiff | 4 years ago
1 like

quiff wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

quiff wrote:

I imagine the £100k claimed will be mainly the solicitors' fees and barristers' fees, plus a relatively small amount to cover the court fee the claimant paid to bring the claim (likely less than £1,000). The court is mainly funded from the public purse.

 

Not meaning to pick an argument, but my point is that when you said "this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial" that seems to imply "the court" and its "expectations" are what decides the level of costs.  But from this it seems it is in fact the barristers fees that determine the costs - which presumably are down to the barrister and his firm?  Or maybe down to the plaintiff's choice of which barristers to use?

Sorry, I didn't catch your drift before. Bendertherobot has explained, but basically the £100k costs are the claimant's lawyers' fees, but the court decides how much of those costs the defendant has to pay. It will very rarely be all of them, and the claimant (or her insurers) will have to pay the rest. But in a nutshell, if the defendant has ignored a sensible Part 36 offer to settle then the chances are the court will order him to pay a higher proportion of the claimant's costs. Of course he wasn't legally represented until late 2018, so may have been unaware of these consequences.     

 

OK, that explains it.

 

  Though it leads to another thought - if the person suing you is someone of limited means, and not insured (as pedestrians presumably are not) they won't want to risk being lumbered with any of the fees of a high-end lawyer, so they'll either not bother suing or they'll pick Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons, who will ony run up a small bill.

 

  Ergo, how much you end up getting clobbered for is going to be proportional to how wealthy is the person you collided with, no?  If they have a high-end taste in lawyers and deep pockets themselves the bills will be higher if you eventually lose.

 

  Or does the court take into account how extravagent the plaintiff's legal spending was when deciding the share of damages?

 

Is another lesson "only crash into people without much money"?

 

(Along with 'get the right household insurance' and 'counter-sue or settle immediately')

Avatar
Griff500 | 4 years ago
1 like

.

Avatar
Griff500 | 4 years ago
1 like

.

Avatar
Griff500 | 4 years ago
5 likes

Not sure of the relevance of a barrister giving a one sided view of a case after the judge has already said his client was 50% at fault. I'd rather have heard how he justifies the £100k cost claim!

Avatar
quiff replied to Griff500 | 4 years ago
2 likes

Griff500 wrote:

Not sure of the relevance of a barrister giving a one sided view of a case after the judge has already said his client was 50% at fault. I'd rather have heard how he justifies the £100k cost claim!

I think his intent is to give some more context to the 50:50 apportionment of liability, and explain why the cyclist gets nothing. While he doesn't deal with the costs directly, he does reveal that the cyclist refused / ignored two Part 36 offers to settle. Unfortunately this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial.  

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to quiff | 4 years ago
0 likes

quiff wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Not sure of the relevance of a barrister giving a one sided view of a case after the judge has already said his client was 50% at fault. I'd rather have heard how he justifies the £100k cost claim!

I think his intent is to give some more context to the 50:50 apportionment of liability, and explain why the cyclist gets nothing. While he doesn't deal with the costs directly, he does reveal that the cyclist refused / ignored two Part 36 offers to settle. Unfortunately this will likely increase the level of costs he is liable for, as the court expects parties to try to resolve disputes without a trial.  

 

How much of the £100k goes  to 'the court' and how much goes to this barrister?

 

Avatar
Hirsute | 4 years ago
1 like

Couldn't see where the 20mph claim came from. Although there is a table of speed and distance, didn't seem to be used in connection with people's positions.

I think 3rd party insurance is essential not just as a cyclist, but has an individual and homeowner. The likelihood of an event happening is very small, but the payout can be very large. The premium is so low, that it's worth the peace of mind.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 4 years ago
6 likes

We don't know the whole story yet some of us are jumping sides based on the disclosure of a lawyer (trying to make themselves look 1% less w*nker).

 

Not sure about anyone else but if i see a pedestrian in the road I don't assume that I'll come off better in a collision. Why would you accelerate or not try and reduce speed in an incident when you're likely to collide?

 

I still call bullshit. Another case where they're essentially calling for license plates, insurance, hi viz et al for cyclists rather than looking at shit infrastructure and inept morons crossing the road!

Avatar
Rich_cb | 4 years ago
3 likes

If he did admit to accelerating towards a group of pedestrians while sounding his airhorn then he is the only weapons grade in this scenario.

Lawyers are expensive. If you don't want to pay legal fees don't accelerate towards vulnerable road users.

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 4 years ago
5 likes

Anyone who rides with an AIRHORN! (got type in an airhorn style) is probably a bellend. A lot of you will have probably seen Youtube with some cyclist that goes around blasting peds with his? Some deserve it but most of time it's just twattery.

Seems like this bloke thinks he is airhorn Moses and the seas will part.

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... | 4 years ago
9 likes

Ah.  It's *that* junction.  Mea culpa, I should have checked that when I read the original reports.  I know that junction well.  There is a set of traffic lights but no red or green man to help pedestrians cross.   So you essentially have to wait until there's a gap in traffic and dart across, hoping that you'll make it alive.   This is usually done, accompanied by the beeeeep!!!  dring-dring!!! Fucking MOVE! as buses, taxis, cars, scooters and cyclists come off London Bridge and head into King William Street.  The Corporation needs to install a pedestrian crossing there, but I suppose until someone's killed, it's 'not a priority'. 

My sympathy for the cyclist just evaporated.

Avatar
darrenleroy | 4 years ago
5 likes

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
What would we all do? We'd slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It's not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to darrenleroy | 4 years ago
4 likes

darrenleroy wrote:

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
What would we all do? We'd slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It's not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

Exactly. I'm glad I didn't contribute to "his" crowdfunding which would just go to pay for the claimant's legal team.

Also, relying on an air horn presupposes that none of the pedestrians were deaf which you can't guarantee.

Avatar
brooksby replied to darrenleroy | 4 years ago
1 like

darrenleroy wrote:

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
What would we all do? We'd slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It's not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

It is interesting, because in the original coverage I'd read (or presumed, not sure...) that she'd followed the herd out into the road and was the last to cross.

This story now leads me to believe that there were loads of pedestrians out in the road (all just not-hearing-a-car-coming-so-it-must-be-safe-to-cross, presumably?).

In which case I change my answer, and perhaps trying to thread through the crowd might not have been the wisest decision...?

Avatar
Capercaillie replied to darrenleroy | 4 years ago
9 likes
darrenleroy wrote:

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
What would we all do? We'd slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It's not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

There were 3 other witnesses who said the cyclist didn't do that and the phone using pedestrian was entirely at fault, so we can't say for sure this one witness is correct.
50:50 probably the correct decision. Still doesn't excuse the lawyers extortionate costs claim, abusing the cyclist's failure to counter claim or have legal representation.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Capercaillie | 4 years ago
7 likes

CaribbeanQueen wrote:
darrenleroy wrote:

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?
What would we all do? We'd slow down or stop and wait for a clear space in which to continue our journey. It's not hard to avoid hitting pedestrians, you just have to slow down and give them space.

There were 3 other witnesses who said the cyclist didn't do that and the phone using pedestrian was entirely at fault, so we can't say for sure this one witness is correct. 50:50 probably the correct decision. Still doesn't excuse the lawyers extortionate costs claim, abusing the cyclist's failure to counter claim or have legal representation.

Yeah, it's the 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

Avatar
quiff replied to Capercaillie | 4 years ago
5 likes

darrenleroy wrote:

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?

This was the account given by one witness, Mr H. The judge found this witness's contemporaneous voice memo "sounded like it was self-serving, with something in mind". The cyclist's own evidence (as summarised by the judge) was: 

"Coming down London Bridge, he was freewheeling to lights which were red.  He slowed, allowing them to turn to green...  He said he could see from the point that he approached lights on the London Bridge side of the junction that there were pedestrians crossing.  Therefore, he sounded his horn... The Defendant said he continued freewheeling into the junction. Pedestrians appeared to notice the horn. Once they cleared, he pedalled again and accelerated as it was uphill on the other side of the junction.  The Claimant was crossing the road on her mobile phone, and at some point when he was close to her, she looked up and was startled." The judge found "it was evident [the cyclist] had thought of how pedestrians were not aware of traffic coming as there was no signal on the crossing.  He gave every impression of being a reasonable road user. This was difficult to square with the picture presented by Mr H. "

I ride this junction every day and I still have a lot of sympathy with the cyclist - yes, you slow down and make allowances at this junction because it's so busy with pedestrians, but if someone steps out on you 2-3 metres away (which is what he said in his statement to the police) your options are  very limited. 

 

   

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to quiff | 4 years ago
5 likes

quiff wrote:

darrenleroy wrote:

Why would anyone continue to ride at 20mph whilst sounding an air horn and accelerate if there is clearly a throng of pedestrians crossing the road ahead?

This was the account given by one witness, Mr H. The judge found this witness's contemporaneous voice memo "sounded like it was self-serving, with something in mind". The cyclist's own evidence (as summarised by the judge) was: 

"Coming down London Bridge, he was freewheeling to lights which were red.  He slowed, allowing them to turn to green...  He said he could see from the point that he approached lights on the London Bridge side of the junction that there were pedestrians crossing.  Therefore, he sounded his horn... The Defendant said he continued freewheeling into the junction. Pedestrians appeared to notice the horn. Once they cleared, he pedalled again and accelerated as it was uphill on the other side of the junction.  The Claimant was crossing the road on her mobile phone, and at some point when he was close to her, she looked up and was startled." The judge found "it was evident [the cyclist] had thought of how pedestrians were not aware of traffic coming as there was no signal on the crossing.  He gave every impression of being a reasonable road user. This was difficult to square with the picture presented by Mr H. "

I ride this junction every day and I still have a lot of sympathy with the cyclist - yes, you slow down and make allowances at this junction because it's so busy with pedestrians, but if someone steps out on you 2-3 metres away (which is what he said in his statement to the police) your options are  very limited. 

Reading this account, it feels sometimes like listening to a Boris Johnson interview, the facts change that often. 

I too ride that junction every single day, and you only have to go through there once or twice, to know that it's dangerous, for the reasons I cited earlier on today: there is no provision for pedestrians to cross safely, as there is no 'red man' or 'green man'.  The only lights at the junction of London Bridge, Cannon Street and King William Street is for, let's call them wheeled road users.   So you come off London Bridge and you get the green to go either left onto Cannon Street, or else straight on onto King William Street (the other traffic has a red at that point, taking you up Gracechurch Street). 

It's also worth pointing out that as you arrive at the lights at the northern side of London Bridge.... here ... 

https://goo.gl/maps/oDXrQKN9JGoMq57g8

.. there's an upward slope.  This doesn't necessarily mean he's telling porkies about 'freewheeling', but when I cross the bridge, I can coast to a halt there, and only use my brakes at the last second, to bring myself to a complete halt. 

Bottom line: peds are soft and squishy, and we should really do all we can to avoid hurting them.  I don't think this guy did so.  

Pages

Latest Comments