The inquest into the death of a pedestrian hit by a cyclist in Derbyshire has been adjourned after the cyclist questioned the police’s calculation of his speed. A forensic collision investigator said that Craig Bond had been riding at 38mph in a 30mph zone when he hit 79-year-old John Beach when the latter stepped into the road to cross.
The Derbyshire Times reports that Beach died in hospital on April 18, two days after he was hit.
Bond and his friend James Holmes had been cycling on Nottingham Road, Ripley, at around 5pm when the collision took place.
“He stepped out in front of me,” said Bond. “He came out of nowhere. I couldn’t have done anything to prevent it.”
Holmes, who was travelling in front, said he saw Beach emerge from in front of a stationary car.
“The pedestrian came out with his head down,” he said. “I shouted to him ‘watch out’.
“I managed to avoid him and Craig attempted to go around the pedestrian but he continued to walk into Craig’s path. Craig tried his best to avoid him.”
The man who had been in the car at the time said Beach, “had his head down and at no point did I see him look.”
PC Lee Simpson, a forensic collision investigator with Derbyshire Constabulary, analysed CCTV footage and calculated that Bond had been travelling at an average speed of 38mph.
The speed limit on the road is 30mph.
“I can’t believe that – it’s got to be incorrect,” said Bond. “I can’t imagine doing 38mph on my push bike.”
Holmes estimated that the two cyclists had been travelling at about 20mph.
Bond’s wife said Strava indicated his speed ‘at the point of impact was 18mph’.
Coroner Sarah Huntbach adjourned the inquest to allow police to carry out further investigations.
54 thoughts on “Police said cyclist was doing 38mph when he was involved in fatal collision with pedestrian”
Absolutely not a stitch up –
Absolutely not a stitch up – the police love cyclists and do everything they can to protect them.
Hopefully they were recording
Hopefully they were recording every second so that can look at the raw data to identify actual speed to the second just prior to impact.
It’s easy enough to look at the raw data with something like Golden Cheetah as a first port of call to establish a speed.
billymansell wrote:
It’s more complicated than that, from the buildup to my civil case (which didn’t happen in the end), the GPS device was extensively tested by TRL to prove how accurate the GPS data actually was and whether it could be relied upon, what were the margins of error before a conclusion about the data can be made.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I did say as a first port of call to establish a speed (for a defence), and I wouldn’t be relying on a spreadsheet from Golden Cheetah as evidence. It’s just an example of how people can access the raw data from their activities.
Just as the accuracy of police devices may be brought into question it’s only right the accuracy of devices used by the public should be tested to the same standards. In this case, if they intend to use the Strava data as evidence then it would be right that the device it was measured on should be tested.
billymansell wrote:
I would hope an independant company would do that and not the police as frankly I wouldn’t trust them not to doctor the results. They prove time and time again to lie, manipulate, coerce, stitch people up to cover their backs (and indeed others) or to carry out an agenda.
Why don’t the police to a
Why don’t the police do a simulation like they did with Alliston? In this case, they could use a motorcycle.
The cctv needs to be cross
The cctv needs to be cross checked with another expert. Gps data is usually pretty good especially if speed doesn’t fluctuate too much
A quick street view look at Nottingham rd Ripley seems to indicate a slope with a hill at one end glasshouse hill. If there were two riders then hopefully there are two corroborating pieces of evidence.
To average 38mph means traveling faster for most of the recorded section. I wouldn’t be riding side by side at nearly 40 mph.
Someone must be able to pull strava speeds from that section of road
What a surprise, that the
What a surprise, that the speed in itself should have rung alarm bells as to accuracy with the investigator or are they thinking that the accused is an Elite level sprinter unloading in the last 100m of a race??
This should call into question the accuracy of the 14-10mph estimate for Alliston, their recreation was a disgrace, not even remotely similar and should never have been allowed to be given as evidence in court it was so flawed/misrepresented the scenario.
The police will do everything they can to stitch this por sod up and won’t back down, hopefully the beyond reasonable doubt should come into play and the defence can request CCTV of the accused being passed by motorists.
This shit is scary as because one second you’re doing all you can to not get killed/hurt and the next someone has quite literally stepped right into your path and you’ve little if any time to avoid a collision all whilst you are doing nothing wrong, and yet all of a sudden the police/CPS are saying you were doing xxmph when you know absolutely that that is wrong yet the weight of evidence from plod will be held much higher with jurists and make you out to be a liar!
I hope justice is done here, it sounds like the cyclist is going to be held to a different standard of law compared to other road users both pedestrian and motorist alike … natch!
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
Different police forces. SO why would one cast doubt on another separate investigation ?
It’s not some units thing and
It’s not some units thing and it was 38kph?
Dont forget that speed limits
Dont forget that speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles anyway so the cyclist was not doing anything wrong even if they could prove that speed.
MattsVoice wrote:
There is still dangerous cycling or careless and inconsiderate cycling which could apply.
Depends on the type of road, width, traffic volume , mix etc
MattsVoice wrote:
Except they could do him for furious riding.
MattsVoice wrote:
I don’t agree, 38mph with all due respect is not one that would be considered safe given parked vehicles/urban environment. Too many things can happen that you can’t account for at 20mph never mind almost twice that which cuts down thinking/reaction time before you come to the point of no return because you’ve travelled much further before being able to act. At that speed you’ll have gone approx 30metres in 1.5seconds of reacting to an unknown hazard/situation, that time is given by crash investigators to reaction time.
At 38mph in most urban situations I would classify that as dangerous, that speed on a road you can see clearly to both sides, does not have multiple entrance/exits, low chance of interaction with pedestrians crossing especially from hidden points, but that hardly ever is the case, with parked vehicles either on one side or both plus all the usual urban jungle stuff 38mph on a bike isn’t acceptable as safe cycling IMO.
So why are they using
So why are they using estimates rather than GPS data? (unless there was a problem with it?) 38mph is either a downhill speed or a full on very strong tailwind sprint speed for most people.
EddyBerckx wrote:
Erm, isn’t the driver stating the pedestrian walked out with head down not looking? So is in fact not laying the blame on the cyclists.
And the road does have some steep hills. I could easily hit 40mph if on a free run down them. However guessing that the unfortunate man stepped from the bus stop to cross, (as there isn’t many other places a pedestrian would be on that stretch), and there were stationary cars, I would be guessing that the lights were on red or at least had just changed and there would be traffic queue. So either they were slowing because of the conditions hence the 18-20mph Strava bit, or they were stupidly going too fast. If it is the latter, then I hope they do get some punishment.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Good spot – I read it as the motorist said the cyclist had his head down – my bad!!!
EddyBerckx wrote:
Independent evidence?
If it was calculated correctly which seems rather in doubt.
Turns out they did go on to
Turns out they did go on to look at the GPS data, and it confirmed the initial estimate of his average speed (no mention of speed at the point of impact). Coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death.(Derby Telegraph 2019-12-24)
Anyone want to do a quick rpm
Anyone want to do a quick rpm calculation on say a 700c 28mm, 50 driving an 11?
Just wondering.
And of course my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of John Beach.
ktache wrote:
About 105 RPM.
Couple of options:
Couple of options:
It was 38 kph (not mph)
Someone’s time stamps on their CCTV aren’t correct so they’ve got a picture of the rider going through CCTV1 and then arriving at CCTV2 3 seconds later by the timestamp but it’s wrong.
Someone doesn’t know how to do distance/speed/time calculations – maybe failing to do a base60 calculation for seconds/minutes or something. Seen it done loads of times.
In Shocking to No-one news:
In Shocking to No-one news: Police are mostly bastards and hate cyclists.
mereditp wrote:
Really ? Take a breath before you post nonsense like that . You do cycling and cyclists generally no favours with that sort of thing.
nicmason wrote:
You’d be better off recommending that the police take a breath before submitting nonsense evidence like that. They do the police service no favours with that sort of thing.
(However, I do agree that blaming all the police for the behaviour of a few incompetents is not really appropriate)
hawkinspeter wrote:
I see you are part of the anti police opinion which often prevails on here.
“Police are mostly bastards and hate cyclists”. Think about that . A lot of police probably ride bicyces sometimes, its nonsense.
The person came with a number on reviewing cctv . It may be right it may be wrong . that would be for a court to decide.
nicmason wrote:
Not really. There’s good and bad police, and this sounds like a bad example. It’s worrying that it would be presented as forensic evidence without someone at least querying whether it was accurate or not.
mereditp wrote:
I didn’t realise Andrew Mitchell was a poster here.
OK, Nottingham Road in Ripley
OK, Nottingham Road in Ripley is HERE
The story doesn’t say exactly where along the road it happened so I’ll take the Strava segment
https://www.strava.com/segments/8678783
and assume it was along there. It’s a descent (not a very steep one) and the fastest time along there, which has stood for 4.5 years is 35.5mph. A couple in the low 30’s and then a batch in mid-high 20’s. As it’s only a short section, (0.3 miles) GPS errors may come into it a bit (most GPS only record once every second) but it’s open road so there shouldn’t be ghost echoes or blind spots off tress, buildings etc so I’m going with maybe 90% certainty that those speeds are accurate.
So to do 3mph MORE than that is highly unlikely.
If it’s the B6441 stretch of Nottingham Road (leading down to the roundabout) then there’s no Strava segement on that descent and it looks narrower and busier with parked cars, pedestrian lights etc so seemingly less chance of a speed like that.
There’s somethign really not right about that calculation.
crazy-legs wrote:
The newspaper article covered it more and here it is in Street view. This Strava segment probably covers it better as well. https://www.strava.com/segments/4164278. Remember the segments read average speed and people have hit 38-40 mph if you look at the analysis.
However as I stated earlier, stationary cars with people inside of them and the time of day would probably indicate a traffic build up at the lights which is probablly why the pedestrian crossed. If the cyclists were travelling at KOM speeds alongside traffic on chevrons, towards lights, then they do deserve to be charged. However I suspect it is more likely that either the Police made a mistake or picked up the higher speed elsewhere and they were slowing for the junction.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
You’re right, it’s a slightly different segment, further away from the roundabout than the one I posted. I’d say there’s an error with that KOM though.
KOM is 43mph but the next fastest are 4 people on 36.1mph average and then a load of 34mph’s. It’s a short section so less prone to a big spread of times and the idea that there’s one outlier that’s 7mph quicker than anyone else is insane so I reckon that KOM is false – probably GPS error. Happy to believe the 36.1’s and high 34’s, they’re all consistent.
I found the guy on Strava too – not going to link to his profile but a quick look through his rides shows he’s done some 13-16mph average speed road rides with a max up around the mid-30’s. Never anything higher though.
For those two reasons, I’m still calling BS on the police estimate of 38mph – it’s at the very top end of what would be reasonable on that segment and it’s a higher maximum speed than anything he’s posted on Strava before.
There’s an error in the police calculation somewhere. Let’s hope that the inquest gets it all sorted.
“Bond’s wife said Strava
“Bond’s wife said Strava indicated his speed ‘at the point of impact was 18mph’.”
Am I missing something? Bond is the accused, and has Strava data for the ride? Why don’t they look at that for his average speed immediately leading up to the incident.
Ta boredcircuits, that is
Ta boredcircuits, that is sort of doable. Bit spiny, but not unacheivable.
Still takes a bit of doing.
No reports of the cyclist being heavily injured, coming off at close to 40mph is going to cause some nasty injuries. That’s road rash removing more than just skin.
Just to compare, that’s the speed Froome was doing, actually a little less, I mean he hit a wall, but the same amount of energy involved.
The forensic collision investigator has one ultimate job, to give good evidence in court, getting things wrong wouldn’t look that great.
Sadly this has illustrated a
Sadly this has illustrated a very common trait of the elderly (imo). The head down, won’t look seems fairly common amongst those you end up having to brake for.
As for the Strava use here….I guess this is one time you don’t want that KOM.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Careful! I’m an 80-year old, active cyclist (and obviously pedestrian) and object to your sweeping ageism.
In MY experience, people who walk out in front of you come from ALL age groups. What they have in common is ‘don’t hear anything so the road’s clear’.
Rick_Rude wrote:
In my experience, the people who wander around, looking down, oblivious to their surroundings are almost always looking at their phone.
A very common trait, but more likely of the young than old.
FrankH wrote:
Phone Zombies is the phrase. The amount of times I’ve had to raise my voice for them to look up whilst walking on the footpath just before we bump into each other.
Im sure a little examination of the cctv and other evidence will reveal a glaring error
38mph is balls out pedalling
38mph is balls out pedalling downhill speed. What a load of rubbish.
This is a inquest not a trial
This is a inquest not a trial.
There is a question of credibility about a piece of evidence. The inquest has been paused to allow the evidence to be checked. Let’s see how it pans out before we take a position.
It might go wrong, then again it might just work it’s way to a well balanced outcome. We should show some patience.
It’s all very interesting
It’s all very interesting reading about the speeds. Casual (basic) observation would suggest you would be standing to achieve that kind of speed. Also analysis of the posture leading up to the event. Cruising on the flats turning occasionally to look at his mate or hunched on the drops laying down the power.
i dont trust the police on
i dont trust the police on anything. I was going to work one morning, passed probably 600 cars on a main road. Passed panda car and then held primary through a pinch point, with painted ”cycle lane” on my left. Went left straight after, cop car beeped, guy cop leant out window pointing at the cycle lane. Sauid” cycle lane there mate”.
No thought given to the fact the cops had just been obstructed down to zero mph by hundreds of single occupants in cars, no consideration given to the fact the gap was too narrow at that point. Dont trust cops, and certainly not those who dont know the laws or reasoning behind cyclists positioning.
Nothing about Plebs?
Nothing about Plebs?
ktache wrote:
He’s just become more extreme, as Tories in general are wont to do. They’re all scoff-law desperados these days, you know.
Seriously, 38mph sounds,
Seriously, 38mph sounds, though not impossible, rather improbable.
Not good to hit a pedestrian, though, at any speed. And a tragic outcome.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You would have thought that anyone calculating a speed would, having come up with a figure, consider if it is realistic.
So I would have thought ’38mph?, f**k me, that’s FAST. Doesn’t look right to me’.
No mention what injuries the cyclist sustained, colliding at ’38mph’.
The newspaper article describes the motorist witness as first seeing the pedestrian and then the accident happening ‘so fast’, but no suggestion how fast the cyclists were travelling at. If I saw two cyclists in a built up area, overtaking stationary cars at 38mph, I would defo notice and comment on it.
I’m must say that ‘when it
I’m must say that ‘when it comes to cycling’ I also do not trust the police.
I’ve experienced a low knowledge of both the law regarding cycling and a basic understanding quite a few times from them over the years.
I’m not surprised about an assumption of a pretty implausible high speed in this case.
reminds of the death couple
reminds of the death couple of years ago of an elderly guy (rip) in St Kilda, Melbourne down under…struck by cyclist on a light controlled crossing…local press initially claimed cylist breaking speed limit…wrong they quoted the speed limit for an adjacent similar named section of road…police used the cyclists garmin record to check speed at point of collision and used the gps time “stamp” to correlate with the ped’ signals electronic record showing that the cyclist had a lengthy green light at time of collision and and clear the cyclist of blame despite some witnesses stating ped’ had a green light and others saying had a red light…didn’t stop the coroner persuing a line of questioning that seemed to imply that having a bike intended for “racing” somehow contributed…never seen that with a driver and a car that can operate at well above any possible speed limit
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2019/07/01/inquest-into-death-of-norman-mackenzie/
https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/6240836/red-signal-seen-in-fatal-vic-bike-crash/
I’ve seen The Capture. I no
I’ve seen The Capture. I no longer trust CCTV.
jhsmith87 wrote:
That’s very interesting. :rolleyes:
How difficult is it to
How difficult is it to compare strava/gps data of both cyclists to the “Calculation” carried out.
I’d be pretty confident that if both sets of gps data showed the cyclists travelling at approximately the same pace then I would suggest that the collision experts calculation is fundamentally flawed.
Also 38mph, on a downhill which according to Map My Ride is pretty short with an average gradient of -6%, that is balls to the wall flat out pedalling for most cyclists.
Looking back at some of my strava data in the past, I know where I have been hitting high 30s, even for a short period of time its been as a result of some pretty steep downhills, a fair bit steeper than -6%
Sounds like they have made
Sounds like they have made the right decision to adjourn the enquiry for more investigation given the 38 v 18 mph figures.
I’ve never known strava to record my speed under by 20 mph certainly.
I’m sure the extra time will find that the cyclist was at a more reasonable speed.
Is this guy an expert witness
Is this guy an expert witness? The ‘forensic collision investigator’ will have been on some courses and gained qualifications, but is studying CCTV to establish an estimated speed one of them? This should have been confirmed at the inquest before he gave evidence.
Just look at all the controversy in football with VAR and that’s with cutting edge technology. I presume that the CCTV footage was taken from town centre cameras, tho’ I could be making a presumption there. Would love to see the footage the calculations are based upon.
I think a lot of it has to do
I think a lot of it has to do with the motor centric nature of the police force, I’m guessing that the forensic collision investigator drives everywhere, has probably not cycled since childhood and whose investigations up until this point have been of motor vehicles.
38mph in a car is nothing, I mean even small cars can reach 100mph, some much, much more. Just a slight press on the go faster pedal (maybe going up a gear).
On a bicycle 38mph is very difficult to attain let alone maintain. Pushing hard in top gear. I would need a very big hill, and because of my low gearing would have spun out long before, relying entirely on gravity overcoming the massive amounts of wind resistance at anywhere near that speed. This should have alerted the forensic collision investigator, and maybe resulted in some serious double checking before the giving the evidence in a court of law.
Anyone in the Chesterfield
Anyone in the Chesterfield area with nothing better to do on a Thursday afternoon?
The inquest is resuming on Thursday 19th December at Chesterfield Coroner’s Court. Bizarrely (?) at 3pm, so I can only think that the coroner isn’t expecting much debate to go on. Perhaps they have already seen the review of police evidence re the cyclist’s speed?
Would go myself, but too far away unfortunately.