James May has spoken out against some of the measures to more strictly regulate cyclists that have been touted across print and broadcast media debates in the week since it was reported that a coroner’s inquest had been told that no charges would be brought against a cyclist riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.
Last week, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said tougher laws for dangerous cyclists are “under review” and will be considered “with an open mind”, the comments coming after Conservative Party colleague Sir Iain Duncan Smith tabled a series of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that would see cyclists subject to stricter laws if they ride dangerously and kill or injure.
However, much of the discussion in the press has also centred around other forms of regulation for cyclists — talk of number plates, mandatory insurance and other measures re-emerging despite the government’s repeated insistence that it has no plans to introduce such requirements.
> James May: “I can’t stand road sectarianism – it’s all b*llocks”
The frenzied coverage across many of the national newspapers, talk radio shows and television coverage followed the news first reported over the last bank holiday weekend that Brian Fitzgerald, a cyclist riding laps of Regent’s Park at a speed of between 25 and 29mph when involved in a collision which saw a pensioner die two months later from her injuries, would not face charges.
Addressing the case, and the subsequent debates, former Top Gear presenter May told Times Radio: “I don’t think people should try to achieve personal bests through places like London. And I don’t think people should race around the park. I think that is disrespectful and irresponsible and can lead to accidents.
“The vast majority of people can’t achieve even 20 miles an hour on a bicycle. I ride a lot in London, and I’m not particularly fit and I’m getting quite old. But even so, my average speed is usually ten to 12 miles an hour and I’m putting my back into it.
“Trying to cure the world’s problems by adding more admin is pointless and expensive and makes life miserable. I’ve been listening to various debates, including one yesterday on another radio station. There were some terrible things being said on that about regulating bicycles, and bicycles were being blamed for drivers speeding and people were saying insurance would make bicycles safer and all sorts of things that were, to my mind, nonsense.”
The comments come as it has this morning been reported that the Royal Parks, the charity which manages eight royal parks in London, has written to Strava asking for the Regent’s Park Outer Circle segment to be removed.
“We were extremely sorry to hear of the incident which resulted in the death of Hilda Griffiths. We will continue to work with local stakeholders, including cycling groups, to inform our approach. We have made contact and will follow up with cycling apps such as Strava to request removal of the Outer Circle in the Regent’s Park as a segment on the app,” a spokesperson said.
The attention of the Telegraph and Daily Mail has been captured by the story, the former reporting this weekend that a dog walker had been injured in another collision involving a cyclist in the park. Paolo Dos Santos suffered facial injuries and was knocked unconscious, reportedly when she was hit by a cyclist overtaking a driver “said to be observing the 20mph speed limit”.
Meanwhile, the Mail sent a reporter with a speed gun to the park, publishing a story headlined: “The speed limit in Regent’s Park is 20. Cars obey it. But we clocked cyclists at 32 — and after an elderly woman died having been hit by a speeding bike, it’s just more proof it’s one rule for lycra louts”
Hilda Griffiths, aged 81, died two months after a collision which happened shortly after 7am on a Saturday morning in June 2022, the pensioner suffering injuries including broken bones and bleeding on the brain. Mr Fitzgerald told the inquest that he had “zero reaction time” to avoid Ms Griffiths, who had been walking her dog and was crossing the road to a pedestrian island, when she stepped out in front of the group of cyclists riding laps of the park.

While the speed limit in the park is 20mph, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles, and that the case was closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction”.
Ms Griffiths’ son, Gerald, has appeared on TV in the past week urging for the law to be reformed.
“With 35 or more cycling clubs with hundreds of members in the park, it was only a matter of time before tragic outcomes occurred,” he said. “The laws are inadequate and need to change. If any other type of vehicles were travelling over the speed limit in that same formation – essentially tailgating – they would be committing an offence.”
A conclusion of “accidental cycling collision death” was recorded by the assistant coroner. Cyclists can face charges for being involved in a collision in which a pedestrian is killed, Charlie Alliston in 2017 sentenced to 18 months in a youth offenders facility after being convicted by a jury at the Old Bailey of “causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving” in connection with the death of Kim Briggs, a woman he struck as she crossed London’s Old Street.
Alliston was riding a fixed-wheel bicycle that had no front brake and was cleared of a separate charge of manslaughter.




















77 thoughts on “James May rubbishes “nonsense” ideas to regulate cyclists in response to fatal collision”
“Trying to cure the world’s
“Trying to cure the world’s problems”…
..that is if any of the people advocating all this nonsense were actually trying to solve any problems…
That’s untrue. They’re
That’s untrue. They’re trying to solve the problems of being noticed in politics – which in the modern world means “controversial” (it always did but we’ve information overload now). Plus appealing to those with power – in their party, or in general. Maybe even appeal to a few voters!
Voters are a detail of making your way in politics. At some point yes, you need to win votes but merely getting to that point requires making the right connections with those with power, influence and money. There are things such as “safe (insert party here) seats”. Plus elections only happen every five years!
I doubt that’s what May meant
I doubt that’s what May meant… but then your comment might be tongue in cheek.
chrisonabike wrote:
Have you read that book, “How Westminster Works… And Why It Doesn’t” by Ian Dunt? https://www.weidenfeldandnicolson.co.uk/titles/ian-dunt/how-westminster-works-and-why-it-doesnt/9781399602747/ Explains these very points.
Thanks! At risk of confirming
Thanks! At risk of confirming what I already thought I will add it to the list. No doubt there will be much which proves my prejudices “not even wrong”. I hope…
So we now have to rely on a
So we now have to rely on a TV presenter to speak sense and our politicians to spout rubbish? It should be the other way round.
hawkinspeter wrote:
TBF, it’s usually both spouting nonsense.
James May wrote:
I’ve got a lot of time for Mr May (always been confused as to why such a seemingly decent chap can bear to work with someone like Clarkson) but that statement is a bit silly. Firstly, as has been widely noted, training in a pace line is not racing, if people were racing on any public road without suitable permissions and safeguards that should of course be condemned and they should be sanctioned for any incidents they cause, but the cyclist in the case in question was not racing. Secondly, the fact of the road being in a park makes it no different to any other London road, it’s a standard road with wide pavements either side and there’s no more reason a cyclist shouldn’t ride on it at a decent pace, as long as they are careful, than any other road. Some of the coverage in certain “newspapers” has stressed the “in a park” aspect of the incident as if the cyclist was ploughing straight through the middle of innocent dog walkers and picnickers, which anyone who has ridden round the Outer Circle, or even just looked at the pictures on Streetview, knows is very far from the case.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think that you are somewhat splitting hairs with the wording that Mr May was using. Although Mr Fitzgerald was not in a race, according to what was reported to the coroner they were travelling at up to 29 mph in aerodynamic “pace line” formation. The dictionary definition of “racing” includes “moving swiftly” which I think is a fair description of what was going on.
I agree with May that there are appropriate public places where you can do this and not-so appropriate places. Regent’s Park would not be one of the places where I would be riding “pace line” formation. There are too many people, dogs etc (stuff that you are not in control of) for it to be safe.
When you are no. 2 or more in the line, your forward visibility and ability to react is greatly reduced. Whether you are driving or riding a bike, you need to be able to react and stop if necessary. It doesn’t sound like what they were doing was particularly smart or careful, even if it was strictly speaking legal.
You’re completely ignoring
You’re completely ignoring the point I made about the fact that just because it encircles the park the Outer Circle is no different to any other road in London, it’s actually generally sparsely populated with people because people simply cross it to go to the green parts of the park, nobody really walks around it. Where would you say would be an appropriate public place and what would make it more appropriate than the Outer Circle?
The outer circle does not
The outer circle does not entirely encircle the park, about 1/4 is within the park boundaries (park on both sides) and the other 3/4 has the park on 1 side and mostly residential on the other. Pedestrians have to cross the outer circle to get into the inner section of the park. This is why I don’t think that pacing is a smart move and you cannot be “careful” while you are in a pace line at up 29mph.
More suitable locations are out of town B roads, especially those out in the countryside where there aren’t any pavements and therefore no unexpected pedestrians crossing the road. Most of my riding is done in the Surrey Hills, Hampshire and West Sussex. There are loads of roads that are perfect for riding at any speed.
When I ride back into town where there is more traffic and people, I moderate my speed and keep my distance/head on a swivel ready for anyone who isn’t paying attention. Unfortunately most people are tuned for cars and don’t have an awareness for cycles.
Edit: Also don’t forget all the parked cars on both sides of the road for a lot of the circle that really affect your visibility
Rendel Harris wrote:
The point about pedestrians and dog walkers etc still stands, because it is a London road not an empty country road. Sometimes on club rides we will set up a chain gain, but these would normally be on straight rural roads with few junctions. Not urban roads, no matter how straight.
Other than dedicated cycling tracks like at Uxbridge or the olympic park I would suggest there are no suitable locations for riding a paceline in London. The fact that pedestrian islands exist indicates there is a reasonable possibility of pedestrians wanting to cross. Pedestrians that can only be seen by the front rider.
Quote:
I was curious if the DM had any evidence for this assertion – after all, they had just sent a reporter with a speed gun to the park. So I took one for the team and looked up the story.
Funnily enough, the story provides zero information about the speeds cars were recorded travelling at.
Maybe the DM would like to
Maybe the DM would like to station a reporter in the village I live in and see how many drivers break the 30 mph speed limit !
My village has had a 20 mph
My village has had a 20 mph speed limit for nearly two years.
The parish council put a sign up on the village information board, reporting the results of their having one of those smily face speed detectors up at various points around the village for a couple of months last summer.
The overall average speed was 23 mph. For every 250 vehicles, 222 were travelling under 30mph, 27 were travelling at 30-40 mph and 1 was travelling over 40mph.
I recently put this up
I recently put this up (mostly as a wind up tbf). You’ll be shocked and stunned (not!) at how many excused a 25 mph overtake in a 20 mph.
https://twitter.com/secret_squidgle/status/1785965196076265815?t=4N9mCgXIJQiwi_UKTiriXQ
brooksby wrote:
I’m (pleasantly) surprised that the average speed is as low as 23mph.
I guess the scary thing is
I guess the scary thing is the outlier’s that bring the average up and then take into account where I live the limit is 30 so add 10 mph to those figures if you get hit it’s not going to be pretty! The tolerance on limits is intolerable ( no pun intended)
In Australia, two Melbourne
In Australia, two Melbourne suburbs with car-hating notoriously Green Left councils have 18 mph (30 kph) speed limits, essentially forcing cars to travel at the same speed as bicycles, which was the intent of the speed limit; of course, there are many drivers angered by slow moving traffic who then overtake dangerously, with the result that traffic is more unpredictable for all users and therefore more unsafe..
Also, Priory Lane which leads
Also, Priory Lane which leads to Richmond Park. it has a 20 MPH speed limit, at night it is often used as a performance test road by motorists and motorcyclists.
These newspapers’ relative
These newspapers’ relative attitude to speeding cyclists versus speeding drivers reminds me of the attitude of General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth to spies: the German ones are “Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war” whereas British ones are “Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!”
With Paolo Dos Santos I think
With Paolo Dos Santos I think the bad bit was that the cyclist was overtaking the car by going the wrong side of the pedestrian island. So anyone crossing may not consider looking the way the cyclist was approaching from. I would call that high risk cycling when there is someone on the refuge or crossing the road not to mention disobeying the pass this side arrow. .
I think the bad bit was that
I think the bad bit was that the cyclist was overtaking the car by going the wrong side of the pedestrian island
I hadn’t picked this up- if true, it changes things entirely.
If true I would agree. I
If true I would agree. I would actually want a dangerous cycling charge, though if we were going for car-law parity would probably only be careless.
If you go for car law and
If you go for car law and punishment parity you could ride along with bodecia style wheel swords cutting the legs out from under pedestrians deliberately and get asked (firmly) to please try harder next time to not do that if at all possible please.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to know how much income each of these ‘news’ sites make from Oil and Motor Industry sponsorship. I expect the amount of anti cycling bullshit they spout has a direct correlation. We all know that the suggested legislation and controls for cyclists has nothing to do with making the roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists and motorists are never at threat of injury or death from pedestrians or cyclists (unless I catch up with one of the bastards after a close pass)
He introduced me to the JIS,
He introduced me to the JIS, which I have recently discovered is perfect for the bolt on my bells. Who would have thought on the Crane Ritan, a solid brass Japanese bell…
I hope he does some more The Reassmbler.
Cross posting in case people
Cross posting in case people want the data:
Key Point to remember for the pub: When the data is normalised (which isn’t perfect given the vast difference in scale), cyclists are 14.64 times safer from a pedestrian safety perspective, than vehicle drivers.
In 2022 in Greater London, there were 13 pedestrians seriously injured in accidents involving cyclists. None were killed. There were 1,607 pedestrians who were killed or seriously injured (KSI) in accidents involving motor vehicles. 37 were killed. Sources: (Transport for London).
In Greater London in 2022, 4.5% of all journeys were made by bike. In contrast, motor vehicles accounted for approximately 38%, of journeys.
So even if we account for that difference,
Safety comparison= KSI rate for cycling / KSI rate for driving
=2.89 / 42.29
≈14.64
This means that, from a pedestrian safety perspective, cycling is approximately 14.64 times safer than driving.
The focus in cycling in the media is fucking depressing.
Yeah-but, no-but, yeah-but, I
Here’s the response you’ll likely get down the pub:
Yeah-but, no-but, yeah-but, I’m a good driver (I rate myself above average just like 80% of all motorists) so none of the thousands of injuries per year involving cars apply to me. Plus, I have literally no choice but to drive (not counting the choices I made on where to live and whether maintain a healthy lifestyle, which by societal convention are not treated as choices.) Whereas, all cyclists are scofflaws (as evidenced by their not paying road tax and not having insurance) and in my mind they are all about 12 years old (and only riding their bikes to annoy me personally) so the handful of injuries per year involving bicycles are tragedies that require immediate legislation. Statistics be damned.
How does it look if you take
How does it look if you take the total distances covered rather than the numbers of journeys?
KSI accidents are a per
KSI accidents are a per-journey issue. You don’t get to kill or seriously injure people on multiple occasions on a single journey.
Also, normalizing on per-mile start to assume that car and vehicle journeys are equivalent, which they’ve not. For example, cars can use motorways where you can’t injure a pedestrian, because there aren’t any.
Per journey makes no sense as
Per journey makes no sense as an objective measure of risk because a journey is not a fixed unit.
A cyclist on a 100 mile journey around multiple loops of Richmond Park does not represent the same risk to pedestrians as an identical cyclist riding the loop once.
Agree re motorways but you can exclude them from per mile analysis.
The two issues are so far
It’s not really a statistics designed to carry great accuracy or authority, it just makes a general point.
The two issues are so far apart that there really no great way to objectively measure the risk given the gulf between car and cycle use hiding any number of confounding factors.
Somewhere like the Netherlands might give better comparison, but there are clearly significant cultural differences that you would need to account for.
I’d suggest that a cyclist on a 100 mile loop around Richmond Park would be a bit of a behavioral outlier. Maybe you could run a granny vs ‘that guy’ Monti Carlo simulation on that one.
Most cyclists complete a journey from A to B or A to A.
Unsure how the statistics from London Transport capture sports rather than commuter cycling.
Maybe best not to get into a SIWOTI frenzy about it.
The 100 mile journey was just
The 100 mile journey was just an example to demonstrate the fallacy of the per journey measurement.
I’d agree that car journeys and bicycle journeys can be different but urban journeys are more similar. Many short journeys by both modes.
Overall per mile gives us the best comparison once you’ve removed motorways etc.
Rich_cb wrote:
I would have thought travelling time, rather than travelling distance, makes more sense, as that is the amount of time that pedestrians are potentially at risk.
I reckon it depends on what
I reckon it depends on what you are cycling for. If you were looking at monetary cost rather than the cost in lives, would you be interested in £/mile or £/hour? A commuter (cyclist or motorist) would probably be more interested in the former, someone who just wanted to be outside might be more interested in the later.
That would only work if
That would only work if speeds were uniform.
A mile driven through town at 100mph would take far less time than the same journey at 20mph but I’m not sure that would translate to a reduced risk to pedestrians.
“KSI accidents are a per
“KSI accidents are a per-journey issue. You don’t get to kill or seriously injure people on multiple occasions on a single journey.”
But the likelihood of your hitting another road user in the course of a journey is generally going to increase as the length of the journey increases.
If I do 1000 trips of 1 mile and injure someone on each of them, and you do one trip of 1000 miles and injure one person, by your reasoning we would presumably pose an equal threat to other road users, since we each injured one person per trip. That seems a bit off to me.
espressodan wrote:
But you do need to think about journey length with that statistic, particularly in London where there are virtually no motorways. Simplistically, imagine that cars and bicycles both injured a pedestrian every 100 miles, but cyclists made twenty 5 mile journeys to ride 100 miles whereas motorists only made one, that wouldn’t make cycling 20 times safer for pedestrians.
In 2022 in London there were 19 billion motor-vehicle miles driven and around 600 million bicycle miles ridden. So there were roughly 35 times more motor-vehicle miles and 120 times more motor-vehicle KSIs, which makes cycling around four times safer from a pedestrian safety perspective rather than the fourteen times you mentioned.
Would there have been the
Would there have been the same fuss if the old person had been hit by a car? Although I do agree that we need to be more sensitive in parks, etc. But it’s effectively a road.
I think I read in the news
I think I read in the news that the pedestrian stepped out when the cyclists were only 2 metres away – she didn’t see the group of cyclists because she either didn’t look or had some kind of cognitive impairment.
Without wishing to denigrate the loss of life and the impact on the bereaved, the likely outcome would have been the same had the cyclist been going 20mph or if she’d been hit by a car at 10mph. There was insufficient stopping time due to her failure to look.
I also suspect that if the cyclist had managed to swerve and avoid her and suffered head injuries / broken bones in the ensuing crash we wouldn’t have heard about it.
Surely the pedestrian was
Surely the pedestrian was visible to the cyclist before that point, the possibility that she could step out should have informed their assessment of safe road use. To continue at full speed was reckless, but perhaps they had their eyes glued to the road 2 meters infront of their front tyre and were not aware of her presence! Using the road as a race track on a bike may be an order of magnitude safer than doing so in a car but it should be just as indefensible.
Robert Hardy wrote:
It’s common and not at all reckless to assume that pedestrians won’t step out straight into traffic, but instead they’ll try to cross when there’s a gap. Stepping out just 2m in front of traffic is extremely unusual and almost no-one would expect that kind of behaviour.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Is that you Nigel?
The reports in the papers
The reports in the papers stated it was the third rider in the group who collided with her.
No, definitely not – but
No, definitely not – but sadly pedestrians being hit my cars isn’t often very newsworthy. There’s an element of ‘man bites dog’ about this, as well as being easy ‘culture war’ clickbait. Not to mention ‘rich banker’ kills ‘harmless old lady’. It gets more points because the cyclists were riding above the motor speed limit and in a way many people might consider racing. The fact the speed limit didn’t apply and the riding didn’t meet the definition of racing probably feeds prejudices that cyclists are ‘above the law’. And quite a lot of London cyclists ride as if they are (although, ironically, not in this case).
Bicycles are not required to
Bicycles are not required to have speedometers, and do not unless they are fitted voluntarily by the riders as ‘aftermarket’ devices. But riding ‘with due care and attention’ might be a consideration in this case.
That is a key point for both
That is a key point for both drivers and cyclists.
Riding with due care and
Riding with due care and attention is surely always a consideration when riding in public spaces, even for wannabe racer types “making a statement” with their top-of-the-range consumer stuff. Riding without due care and attention, though, is as commonplace as driving without due care and attention, perhaps because nearly all those who ride a bike also drive a car?
Same self-centred little skinbags in/on their different transport technologies.
On the other hand, there’s a growing number who ride bikes but don’t drive, mostly because they can’t afford to but also out of a choice. As cycling on a public road makes the rider a lot more vulnerable to lack of care and attention than when in a car, perhaps more care is taken than is taken by most drivers?
***********
The argument that cyclists can ride as fast as they like because they have no speedometer is a rather stupid argument, then. If a cyclist has no idea of the possible consequences of riding too fast for the conditions – and no ability or inclination to make cogent judgements about taking due care and paying attention – they shouldn’t be riding.
Yes, this applies in spades and with knobs on to motorists. But that doesn’t absolve cyclists from riding like loons, even if the consequences of their crash might be only a scaled down version of car loon crash. And sometimes the scale is the same (maiming and death).
Which comes back to the
Which comes back to the question I raised when the reports of the coroners case started to gain media attention.
Why was a careless cycling charge not considered?
Only the police/cps can answer that, but no ones asking them the question, and back we go round the loop of but speed limits don’t apply to cyclists.
There was definitely an
There was definitely an elitist banker angle to the report I read. They practically had a picture of the guy laughing with horns on his head.
Maybe not the fuss, but a
Maybe not the fuss, but a prosection would have been more likely.
Sadly no, and its the rarity
Sadly no, and its the rarity of such cases involving cyclists, combined with the something must be done group of bored MPs, agitators and media to create something far larger out of it.
That doesn’t mean we should treat it as, ah but motorists.
How many people who talk or
How many people who talk or write about speed limits, whether 20mph or 30mph, trouble to THINK about the fact that the thousands of bicycles in use on roads do not have and are not required to have speedometers?
I don’t think I have ever ridden at 20mph, on roads or cycle paths.
If you’ve never ridden at or
If you’ve never ridden at or above 20 mph on a bike you can’t be trying; or going down any hills …. ? Or maybe you pay a great deal of attention, take a lot of care and have a vivid imagination? 🙂
Well, “hills” – Maybe they
Well, “hills” – Maybe they live in Holland?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Holland_District
Or perhaps they have an adapted cycle / very chunky cargo carrier – or a unicycle?
chrisonabike wrote:
Unicycle riders are capable of going more than 20mph, but you’d be wanting a big wheel for that (a 24inch wheel isn’t likely to cut it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERypwPS98PE
In South Holland there might
In South Holland there might not be many hills but there is plenty of wind to make up for it.
Exactly, but if you do want
Exactly, but if you do want to cycle faster it is not unreasonable to expect you to do so, after all the usual prosecution threshold by most police forces is 24mph in a 20 mph zone. Head down cyclists pushing their pace have both restricted their vision and compromised their braking. If we expect cars to give us 1.5 m overtaking space then do have a damned duty to treat more vulnerable road users with similar respect.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Even a head down cyclist would have much better visibility of the road and pavement than almost any driver would. Experienced cyclists are not going to be compromising their own safety whilst riding in a pace-line as any collision is likely to lead to them injuring themselves.
You seem to be fixating on the narrative of “speeding cyclist” when the root cause of the unfortunate fatality was “pedestrian stepping into traffic”.
Hierarchy of vulnerability!
Hierarchy of vulnerability! The attitudes expressed here are just as bad as Clarkson. Completely blinded by their own sense of selfish entitlement. We will end up getting the whole panoply of regulation because a small segment of cyclists cant admit that an elderly pedestrian crossing to an island should not have to contend with the unwillingness of a bunch of cyclists to properly slow down at an obvious and well marked potential pedestrian crossing point. A woman died because a group of cyclist considered it ok not to slow right down. Thanks to awareness, campaigning and even the occasional intervention by the police, the situation I survived as an eleven year old cycling to school of road vehicles giving me no space or consideration at all is generally improving, as cyclists we should not be excusing the frankly indefensible.
Robert Hardy wrote:
You are being an idiot.
In order to sufficiently slow down to avoid a pedestrian 2m away would involve (according to my calculations) slowing to 3.5mph. It’s nothing to do with selfishness, despite your obvious preconceived notions of what happened. 29mph, 20mph or even 5mph would have made no difference to the outcome, unless there is evidence to suggest that it was the impact with the cyclist that caused all the damage as opposed to the impact with the pavement. It’s far more likely that the loss of balance caused by the collision led to the fatal injuries.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Again hope I’m not coming across as picking a fight! I think two “citation needed” there though.
The view you’re presenting is certainly common to many (per comments / media chat). And I don’t think a dense urban area is really an appropriate place for training (even if not “racing”) which is going to be “making an effort to go fast” – and in this case above 20mph (the speed seems not to be in dispute). And in general slowing where you see people looking like they may cross is sensible – but then (whether in car on on bike) you also have to allow for them interpreting that as you might suddenly come to a stop!
However inquiries established that the victim appears simply to have stepped out unexpectedly. AFAIK there’s nothing to say she wouldn’t have fallen and died had they been going 12mph. Or slower.
(FWIW my preferred option is to have more cycle-specific infra which minimises interactions between different modes. And to hope that over time people will learn to look out for crossing pedestrians, or people cycling who are much quieter than cars and may be present in numbers.)
The second one, I do believe things have become safer overall on the roads over the long term. That is for a whole bunch of reasons and “better drivers”* is likely not the main reason (or even a significant one). Whether motorists are more considerate? That seems to be a very open question!
* Driving test has become more rigorous – but we only take it once… There may be less drink-driving, but that may be made up for by those who are high? Cars have better braking systems etc. – but people may compensate by later braking / less careful driving…
Most of the media have this
Most of the media have this fixation too whilst avoiding the key fact that led to the accident. It’s like we are all riding at 30mph without looking.
Meanwhile, on average, a pedestrian a day is killed by motorised vehicles in the UK so focusing on ‘speeding cyclists’ is kinda missing the big picture.
The best way to substantially
The best way to substantially reduce road accident pedestrian deaths is to wage war on drugged / drunk/ using handheld mobile phones whilst driving/ and speeding killer drivers.
Quote:
Aye right, of course they do.
If the Island is the one in
If the Island is the one in the photo, the large SLOW painted on the road should allow a prosecution and if not then there is a clear need for the law on reckless cycling to be tightened up. There is a need to make cyclists subject to speed rules on the highway and the excuse that they are not fitted with speedometers is unacceptable in an age when cycle computers and other gps devices are legion, particularly amongst the small subset of cyclists who are capable of sustaining 20mph plus pace.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Not picking a fight, but … whose need, and what exactly are the “requirements” for this?
Not saying this is necessarily wrong on the face of it, but I imagine there are some practical reasons that this has not come to pass – mostly to do with “we don’t think it’s worth the (considerable) money to fix what actually contributes (how much?) to a tiny number of deaths / injuries”. I’m certainly not saying those are not important but I’d imagine this is not “low hanging fruit” in any way e.g. money spent lots of other places would bring more benefit.
As you mention, it’s a small subset of cyclists (road cyclists themselves being a tiny group) who are even commonly going over what is a lower UK speed limit (20mph). It’s apparently not terribly easy for the police to actually identify who to act against even when there are registered vehicles with numberplates and licenced drivers. To make it equivalent do we need both those for cyclists? (Already dismissed several times as not a good use of money). Presumably for whatever speed limits unless we do it completely differently from drivers there would be a requirement for calibrated speed checks. So we then need either MOTs for bikes and/or schemes to calibrate and verify e.g. GPS / website data (and to put the legal system through this).
Again – there’s nothing to stop some changes simply saying “cyclists have to stick to speed limits, and it’s on them how they do” and letting the courts thrash out things I guess?
But … is that actually what people want / expect when they’re demanding “cyclists should obey the same laws as everybody else“? Or is that coming from a different place (us, and them)?
Robert Hardy wrote:
I think your priorities are mixed up if you think that dealing with fast cyclists is more important than all the other issues we have with policing traffic – it’s such a rare occurrence for a cyclist to cause a fatal collision and most people will even remember the details of the last time that happened *cough*Alliston*cough*.
I’ll say it again – the speed of the cyclist is most likely irrelevant to the collision as anything over 3.5mph would make such a collision unavoidable and I suspect that the injuries were largely caused by the pedestrian hitting the pavement rather than directly from the collision with the cyclist (cyclists tend to be a little bit more squidgy than pavements).
The report said she she had
The report said she she had broken bones, hit at between 10 and 13 meters per second by a cyclist and hard bike weighing in the order of 80 plus kg is an impact generating a lot more energy than her own fall to earth. Though indeed that alone is quite often sufficient to cause serious injury to an elderly person. Just because bikes unsurprisingly are less dangerous to pedestrians in impacts than cars, that should not excuse profoundly selfish and unfortunately in this case fatal injury causing riding in the public realm.
Until you can show othewise,
Unless you can prove othewise, I would suggest that riding a bike in the manner in question is no more “profoundly selfish” than any other legitimate use of the road.
Robert Hardy wrote:
What’s an appropriate
What’s an appropriate response to:
I’m not certain. But I do think “rush in more regulation for all cyclists” – which is clearly what some folks want to do, regardless of further examination of the issue – isn’t going to do much for anyone. Except cost us all money, set off another round of cycling bingo in the media and provide maybe 30 seconds of “serve them all right!” from some people.
I had thought that SLOW
I had thought that SLOW written on the road was advisory, not prescriptive?
On your point about speedometers: neither of my bikes has a cycle computer or GPS device, and TBH neither do either of my household’s cars.
The cars don’t have radios or DVD players or any other electronic/computery entertainment device either
brooksby wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m sorry about the fatality
I’m sorry about the fatality but from what I read (in the Telegraph no less) the story is about a pensioner who stepped out into the road without looking. Excessive speed? Perhaps but that is only half the story.
The rest of the mainstream news is about how 20mph is too slow in Wales and a petition to increase motorway speeds to 100mph and dual carriageway to 80mph.
All this hypocrisy makes me think that there must be an election coming.