A coroner’s inquest has been told that no charges will be brought against a cyclist who was riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.
Hilda Griffiths, aged 81, died two months after the collision which happened shortly after 7am on a Saturday morning in June 2022, in which she sustained injuries including several broken bones and bleeding on the brain, reports Telegraph.co.uk.
Inner West London Coroner’s Court heard that the cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, who works as a banker with Credit Suisse, was riding at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph as he undertook laps of the park, a popular destination with the capital’s cyclists, in a pace line with fellow members of the Muswell Hill Peloton club.
The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police Service confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles, and that the case had been closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction.”
Mr Fitzgerald told the inquest that he had been left with “zero reaction time” when Ms Griffiths, who had been walking her dog and was crossing the road to a pedestrian island, stepped out in front of the group from a pedestrian island, estimating that he only had 2 metres in which to brake to avoid crashing into her.
A jogger who witnessed the crash, which happened on the Outer Circle close to Hanover Terrace, confirmed that in their opinion, the cyclist was not at fault.
“I believe legally the speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists,” Mr Fitzgerald said.
“I’ve never seen any police in the park having any objections to the speed cyclists travel at,” he continued.
Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo told the court that a review of the case determined that “there were no criminal acts which would allow prosecution” in instances where a cyclist is riding faster than the posted speed limit for motor vehicles and which do not apply to bicycles since they are not mechanically propelled and are not required to be fitted with speedometers.
The officer explained that “mechanically propelled vehicles have the ability to identify the speed one is actually moving at” while in most cases cyclists cannot.
The Royal Parks, which manages Regent’s Park as well as a number of other parks in London as well as Windsor Great Park, has previously confirmed that speed limits posted in the parks apply only to motor vehicles.
Mr Fitzgerald, who conveyed his “sympathies” to the victim’s family, added that he was not sure whether there were markings on the road telling cyclist to slow down, although a photograph shown to the inquest revealed that there was one on the approach to the location where the crash happened.
Ms Griffiths’ son, Gerard Griffiths, told the court that he believed the law needed reforming.
“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.”
Assistant coroner Jean Harkin recorded a conclusion of “accidental cycling collision death.”
While no charges are being brought against Mr Fitzgerald in connection with Ms Griffiths’ death, occasionally prosecutions are brought against bike riders involved in a crash in which a pedestrian is killed.
In August 2017, cyclist Charlie Alliston was sentenced to 18 months’ detention 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, whom he struck as she crossed London’s Old Street.
Alliston, who was riding a fixed-wheel bike that had no front brake .and did not therefore comply with legal requirements for use on the road, was cleared of a separate charge of manslaughter.
The offence he was found guilty of falls under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Mrs Briggs’ husband, Matthew Briggs, has campaigned since her death for the law to be updated with a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be introduced, and has claimed that the government’s failure to do so is because ministers are scared of what he termed the “cycling lobby.”
> Husband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of “cycling lobby”
Because Ms Griffiths died more than 30 days after the crash, it will be recorded in official statistics compiled annually by the Department for Transport in its publication Reported Road Casualties Great Britain as one resulting in serious injury, rather than as a fatality.
83 thoughts on “No charges brought against Regent’s Park cyclist after high-speed crash in which pensioner was killed while crossing road”
Sympathies for the victim
Sympathies for the victim
Whilst obviously speed is proportional to the force of impact, it is also a bit of a red herring here. If he were travelling at half that speed, or exactly on the 20mph motor vehicle limit, stepping in front of a cyclist when they were two metres away is going to end badly.
and in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, DfT stats show that the cyclist more often comes off worse.
Agree with your drift, but
Agree with your drift, but while the force is proportional to the *change in momentum*, if the distance the impact takes place over is the same in two cases (which of course is not a given) then using the work-energy principle the force is proportional to the square of the speed.
So – just like has been noted in collisions with cars – there may be a dramatic change in likelihood of severe injury or death as the speed goes up.
chrisonabike wrote:
A simple calc for a 75kg rider at 30mph results in force (kg per m per sec squared) in of 13.5Newtons (N=1kg/m/s2) whereas a small 750kg car at 20mph results in 60Newtons – so I’d rather be hit by a rider at 30mph than a car at 20mph
Don’t know Regents Park nor
Don’t know Regents Park nor exactly where this happened, but presumably this was on the road (Outer Circle?) as pedestrian refuge and speed limit are mentioned?
If so it’s not quite equivalent to “just another mistake with extremely unfortunate consequences”. The difference is that here someone is practicing a sporting activity in a general public space (yes this is a park, but it was apparently on the road there). With a team, above 20mph and doing laps – that would qualify, I’d say.
Cycling is quiet and indeed a cyclist (or even two, from the front) can be less visually obtrusive than a motor vehicle. That is great – but of course there is a consequence. Yes, pedestrians should be looking when they cross roads. I suspect there is a great deal of “looking with your ears” though (because cars). And it seems many folks struggle to gauge the speed of cyclists – generally underestimating it.
We’ve also an ageing population who may have extra difficulty (and be much more vulnerable in any collision). And there are people with hearing or sight impediments of all ages.
Pedestrians will often not expect cyclists. Though you might suppose those in places like Regents Park would.
Generally the better solution to “conflict” is providing different modes their own space. And making it really clear to everyone where to expect each. Just like the Dutch do. Icing on the cake would be more dedicated space for “cycling as sport”.
While we’re waiting for that? (For a generation or so… or possibly forever.) Perhaps there are some specific clubs / groups in specific places where a word wouldn’t go amiss? I seem to recall the good Don of this forum noting some repeat offenders in club kit in their neck of the woods…
It’s a pretty standard singe
It’s a pretty standard singe carriage highway, a very popular rat run for drivers between Camden/St Johns Wood/West End as there’s only 3 traffic lights on the Circle. The road is mostly intended for vehicle access to the park, London Zoo, the many residents of the terraced housing alongside the park etc, there’s on road pay&display parking almost the full length of it. While ostensibly under control of Royal Parks you are at no point “in” the park on the Outer Circle – it’s all concrete and tarmac, with vehicles constantly passing in both directions
Thanks.
Thanks.
Again – FWIW seems the coroner concluded “nothing they could do to prevent it”. And I’m pretty sure this would be no news if they had been hit by a motor vehicle. Even driving above the speed limit which legally applies to them.
… BUT the optics aren’t great given this was a group of people out to essentially “go as fast as we can” on public roads.
How I feel about this depends in part on pedestrian flow there (which I don’t know). If there’s a fair number of people on foot it’s not exactly “considerate” I’d say. And if you only meet with one pedestrian in your seven laps, how about just easing off a bit until you’re past?
Yes, no doubt people are driving through at 20+. Yes, the cycling was legal, no, not “just as bad as illegal motor racing” or “close passing” exactly. But perhaps not the most thoughtful choice of spot? (For others that is, obviously cyclists are choosing it mostly for their own safety / having a nice loop).
That doesn’t necessarily mean “ban the cyclists”* of course. If this is just a one-off and there really aren’t problems (very few near-collisions) perhaps just “paint and sign it better” for those crossing would help?
* By what means? Who enforces it? How?
This particular part of the
This particular part of the Outer Circle by Hanover Terrace is one of the faster sections of road, it’s on a slight downhill travelling south from the Mosque to the Baker Street exit. For nearly anyone cycling, 25mph is acheivable with little effort as it’s around a 2% gradient. It’s quite a messy bit of road to navigate, parked cars on the left of you, cars overtaking on the right, generally huge numbers of cyclists at 7am on any given day and a high volume of pedestrian commuters with pelican crossings at the top and bottom of that stretch
There was a police inquest, a
.
Without doubt, nobody has
Without doubt, nobody has anything but sympathy for the victim.
The Twitter is full of the usual anti-cycling tropes. It should be pointed out that, while the hierarchy of users puts pedestrians at the top of the tree, just like for cyclists, it is not unqualified. Nor does anything remove a road user’s responsibility to be aware of their surroundings, even on foot.
Obviously this was a tragic
Obviously this was a tragic event.
Watching a clip of TalkTV it is hard to believe that the presenters and people phoning in seem not to see any hypocrisy in laying into cyclists for cycling at the horrendous speed of 25-29mph and pleading for them to be charged with something, or anything because of the immense injustice of being allowed to travel at such dangerous speeds.
These are the same people who regularly rail against 20mph speed limits as being a war against motorists and who claim that anything less than 30mph in a 2-ton vehicle is ridiculously slow.
They talk about it being yet more of the same as Mrs Briggs without once saying that the last cyclist case they can remember was 8 years ago.
Talking of Kim Briggs, is
Talking of Kim Briggs, is this case the reason her husband was on Today prog this am (just before 8)? I think this lady’s name came up as one of several cases where (it was implied that) dangerous cyclists couldn’t be charged.
There really should have been a cyclist on to challenge some of what he said, e.g. cyclists not subject to traffic laws; police told him nothing they could charge Alliston with etc., although he omitted to mention the 18 month jail term . . . He also said he (not the Beeb?) asked for someone from the ‘cycling lobby’ – who have apparently captured No. 10 (!!!!) – to come on, but not had a response.
Wondering whether I can be a*sed to complain . . .
I think eburt of this parish
I think eburt of this parish enjoys complaining to the bbc – wait until they see this
brooksby wrote:
I heard it: abysmal. I’ve almost given up complaining to the BBC as it is a complete total and utter waste of time, but this was so egregiously awful I might just give it a go, especially as I believe that they aren’t completely judge and jury in their own cases any more, and it can be escalated to OFCOM.
This morning there was a more
This morning there was a more definitive explanation that there is no middle ground of charge between manslaughter (up to life in prison) and furious driving (up to two years, Alliston got 18 months). There was also a line about registering cyclists.
levestane wrote:
But again, no cycling representatives, let alone “The Cycling Lobby”.
There was someone from
There was someone from Cycling UK on today pointing out that 1. there are charges that apply to cyclists, and were used in the Briggs case, and 2. that we have been waiting 10 years for the current government’s review of traffic offences.*
*My guess is that like their review of LTNs, it didn’t produce the results they wanted (LTNs were shown to be very popular), so they buried it. They have form.
though this was a coroners
though this was a coroners inquest, so isnt about prosecuting anyone, simply determining cause of death.
Does anyone know why a careless cycling charge wasnt brought ? whilst we can debate speed limits and motor vehicles do worse till the end of time, hitting a pedestrian is surely slam dunk carelessness, and if the response is but they didnt have enough time to react, then the answer is surely to slow down.
stonojnr wrote:
On that basis all traffic should proceed at walking pace at all times to ensure that they have time to stop even if a pedestrian steps out when they are two metres away. Obviously we don’t know the exact circumstances here but assuming that any time a cyclist, or indeed a motor vehicle, hits a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them it must indicate carelessness on the part of the cyclist or driver is nonsense.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I completely disagree. You’re repeating the same arguments that were used to justify restrictions on pedestrians in the US in the 1920s when thousands were being killed every year by drivers.
The person responsible for the heavier/faster vehicle that hits someone else is ALWAYS responsible. If someone is capable of ”stepping out in front of” you, then you should slow down or at least, be ready to stop, in case they do.
matthewn5 wrote:
As a large and heavy person who strides out when walking I have had people walk out in front of me from shop doorways without looking, some of these have been knocked over and suffered minor injuries but could have been more seriously hurt if they were unlucky. Are you seriously suggesting that I have to slow my walking pace for idiots who don’t look where they are going?
Well … would it hurt you to
Well … would it hurt you to wear hi-vis and a tabard with your pedestrian licence number?
Maybe you could mount an amber warning light on your pedestrian helmet also? If it saves one life…
I won’t even run lights on my
I won’t even run lights on my bike unless visibility is poor, so hi-vis, helmet and tabard are completely out of the question, fair warning to everyone and his dog, look where you’re going or I’ll knock you down!
matthewn5 wrote:
In principle, the heavier/faster vehicle should be responsible nearly all the time, but if a pedestrian steps out with only 2m space in front of a vehicle, it’s not considered humanly possible to avoid them due to the thinking time involved if they are travelling at any normal speed.
By my calculations, a max speed of 3.5mph would be required to allow a stopping distance of 2m – doesn’t seem practical to me when pedestrians can walk at 4mph.
If anyone was guilty of
If anyone was guilty of carelessness, it was the pedestrian who walked out on to the road directly in front of a cyclist.
stonojnr wrote:
Maybe for the same reason there isn’t 350,000 charges of careless driving brought against the drivers involved in crashes every year in UK. That’s 700,000 crashes since this cyclist crashed into the lady who stepped out in front with less than a bike’s length for the cyclist to stop. Even if he had been doing 10mph, he would have less than half a second to react and stop.
stonojnr wrote:
Most likely because the cyclist was travelling straight along the road at a reasonable speed and was paying full attention, but unfortunately hadn’t anticipated a pedestrian stepping straight into the road in front of them with not enough time to react.
yet its almost guaranteed to
yet its almost guaranteed to be one of those examples of a potential hazard to be aware of to be found on those hazard theory tests that cropped up in discussion last week.
but I guess the real answer to my question is no, no-one actually knows.
stonojnr wrote:
It’s an unusual hazard as typically pedestrians don’t step out straight in front of traffic, but wait for a gap. If we were to treat every pedestrian as a potential hazard, then traffic would hardly every go quicker than 5mph in busy areas, which would certainly reduce traffic casualties.
stonojnr wrote:
You don’t sound like someone who has ever ridden a bike on the road, because pedestrians kill and injure cyclists by walking out in front of them or into side of them. Either without looking or looking and just disregrading the cyclist. You have be going 1-2mph to completely prevent that. Same does for dooring, your attitude says it’s the driveer’s fault.
If you step out in front of moving traffic when there is no chance of vehicles stopping, it is your fault. I have been taking down in this manner when cycling and have had to take emergency action many times when cycling and driving to avoid pedestrians that blitely walk out into trafic without looking. And I take great care when doing either. The dumbest of all was a women who pushed her baby’s pram out into road and only then looked. Luckily for the baby, I was paying attention.
Legally speaking –
Pedestrians themselves may be responsible for accidents if they fail to look when crossing a road, or if they otherwise behave in a way that leads to an accident.
This is contributory negligence.
The person has definitely
The person has definitely ridden a bike as a commuter.
I’ve had one ped collision turning left into the high st. The person sprinted past a group of people walking and just clipped me as I straightened. I went straight down onto the kerb but was only going slowly, so no real damage. They did come back to see if I was ok.
its very rare for
its very rare for contributory negligence to result in the pedestrian, as we all remember from our hierarchy of road users as the most vulnerable, to be held as the main party responsible in a collision, even if there is a responsibility on all road users to have regard for their own safety.
and I think youll find in the dooring example, the driver, or whomever opened the door is absolutely held at fault there, legally speaking.
‘Metropolitan Police
‘Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo’
wow, what a name. I want that title.
imagine pulling that one out of the hat when asked;
‘Name, sir?’
‘Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo’
Interesting commentsd, as
Interesting commentsd, as ever. I had a look of this at the weekend.
The poisonous thing here is the Telegraph attempting to weaponise this in their war on cycling to save this Government’s backside.
I’ve heard a little about the potential for rumble strips to be installed either side of pedestrian crossings to slow cyclists down. I’d have no objection if there were no hazards caused for cyclists, wheelers or pedestrians.
Separately I have wondered about the Royal Parks implenting a byelaw applying to 20mph speed limit to cyclists, which is hard to argue against, or more signallised crossings or zebra crossings. Perhaps using the offer of a cycling training course, as used by teh CIty.
Or indeed bring in presumed liability, which would apply to the cyclist in this collision.
All fairly modest measures which would help change culture, without the bran-dead kneejerks from the Telegraph and Spectator.
mattw wrote:
I don’t see that presumed liability would make any difference to this case as there were witnesses to the incident. Presumed liability is for when there’s no other evidence to assign liability.
I can’t see that rumble strips or changing bye-laws would make any difference as this incident would likely have happened if the cyclist was travelling at less than 20mph, so what’s the purpose behind trying to limit their speed? To my mind, the root cause was a pedestrian not taking sufficient care when stepping out into traffic.
Indeed. The first question
Indeed. The first question should be “how often does this kind of thing happen here?” That’s including near-collisions.
Perhaps just “tragic error”.
If it does turn out that this is not infrequent, and/or cyclists also crash because e.g. dooring (sounds like a fairly busy street environment)… perhaps we could fix it so there is some more appropriate place where cyclists *can* do fast laps? Without worrying about the cars and where pedestrians know they should take extra care to look for cyclists?
Of course there are some cyclists who will be “mah rights! I’ll ride where and how i like”. Because getting on a bike doesn’t necessarily make you a better person – just much less of a problem than someone in a motor vehicle.
Stats information is on
Stats information is on crashmap, cyclestreets etc as per usual.
But needs to be treated with some care as it is an effective high volume cycling training track, and a 20mph motor vehicle speed limit. *
I believe that tickets for going the wrong side of Islands are somewhat higher than average, if I have it right. Cycling Mikey country – I think.
I’m not sure why “places for fast laps” need to be provided – no one else gets such facilities at public expense in the public realm where there are risks; London has a number of velodromes, and similar. Is there a cycling business who do track days – somewhere like Castle Combe or Donington Park could be suitable?
Do we have any places (yet?) where there are high quality cycle tracks with few or no pedestrians due to being some way out of town?
(* I believe it was reduced from 30mph in 2018, so the motor vehicle stats split then may be interesting.)
mattw wrote:
Thanks – of course, the numbers should be out there.
Of course these won’t measure the “near collisions” (or indeed numbers cycling – though presumably Strava etc?). Those are important – after all we’re essentially discussing “perception”. We on here – if not the general public – appreciate that these kind of events are on the “one or two, every few years” frequency. “Bees”, “trousers” and many other things have higher casualty totals. (Of course if we’re being more thoughtful we’ll want the rate or even change in rate over time and some measure of “exposure to the risk”. And of course we’re obviously comparing different kinds of events; bees are “part of the environment” and people voluntarily choose to tangle with “dangerous” trousers…)
I am mostly with you on the “but but why do cyclists get to race on the roads?” part. Of course the other side of this is “but it’s perfectly legal; why should we voluntarily embrace more restrictions than everyone else to guard against very unlikely events which the extra care might still not prevent?”
My take was that given (presumably a fair number?) do cycle here for training *even when it’s not ideal for cyclists and has some risk to them* perhaps restrictions (up to a ban) would not the most effective solution?
chrisonabike wrote:
While cycle racing on the roads is perfectly legal (subject to conditions such as police approval, warning notices and marshals at junctions) this does not seem to be a case of racing on the road, merely training which is very different. If we are going to put restrictions on cyclists training, what about joggers training for the London marathon (other running races are available).
Indeed how do we distinguish between cyclists training and a cyclist late for work or a jogger and someone running for a bus?
Is it that different though?
Is it that different though? (Yes, danger goes up rapidly with increasing speed). As for distinguishing things – from a comment by me ages back – “With a team, above 20mph and doing laps – that would qualify, I’d say.”
Perhaps this isn’t the most considerate (or sensible) place to train? Something like doing rugby practice on a footpath, or jogging through a busy shopping centre?
For cyclists like drivers I think it’s fair to ask “are you cycling to the conditions?” I’d say that includes the type of environment. Here – a busy urban street space where lower speeds are prescribed for motor vehicles, and there will be people numerous people crossing.
Even though perfectly legal * I’m just not sure “but I could have been going way faster” is great mitigation.
* Because no calibrated measuring equipment, not so much because no danger (though apparently less than motor vehicles).
chrisonabike wrote:
From my experience, training is often far more dangerous (at least to the rider) than racing because it is done on the public roads without any indication to the public that it is happening, but for racers there is no other option, you have to train in a similar environment to that you will race in, fitness gained from zwift training doesn’t help you handling a bike in a bunch on the road. Is it right, maybe not but it is legal which is more than can be said for motorists speeding, close passing, pavement parking etc.
Without seeing the roads in question at the time of day they were training I wouldn’t like to say, most racers are quite particular about where they train as they are well aware that they will usually come off worse in a collision.
It’s a fair question and in the heat of training they may have been less willing to trade speed for safety than normal, there is always the option for the lead rider to call “ease” if he sees something developing ahead but for some reason that didn’t happen in this case, only the riders themselves can know why.
I’m not sure that anyone is trying to use that mitigation, mainly because it doesn’t mitigate anything. As to calibrated measuring equipment, it is only on motor vehicles because it is required by law, without the law unscrupulous manufacturers would be fiddling the calibration as a cheaper way to make their cars faster then their competitors 😉
For “track days” – of course
For “track days” – of course this doesn’t really address what is likely a “casual turn up of a morning / evening / weekend”. However – with bonuses for “speed” and “wacky races” there is the BHPC!
https://www.bhpc.org.uk/
https://www.bhpc.org.uk/events/2024-races/
There is a place in London
There is a place in London where cyclists *can* do fast laps: The road cycle circuit near the Velodrome at the QE Olympic Park. But it costs money to cycle there.
My comments are more aimed at
My comments are more aimed at encouraging a change of culture in that place, just as we want to see a change of general road culture.
Ramming a metal brake hood
Ramming a metal brake hood into an elderly persons side at 13m/s vs 4 m/s potentially makes a big difference!
Robert Hardy wrote:
Who has metal brake hoods these days, who has suggested that being hit by a brake hood had anything to do with this poor woman’s demise, and 4 m/s is 8.9 mph, are you seriously suggesting that should be a limit for cyclists?
Generally disagree. I would
Generally disagree. I would agree that it would be nicer if people cycling were more sensitive to the issues of others.
But would we expect the same if those cyclists were driving though? Well – we know a percentage of those in cars (with number plates! having been licenced!) will push it not just up to the line of the law but well over that *.
Perhaps in the case of clubs there’s more leverage (“Sort your members out, they’re making you look bad”)?
As for “but dangerous cyclists!” the issue is really “how to safely educate the population about the presence of cyclists on our streets”**.
Measures to “slow down dangerous cyclists” are a bad idea. Because that won’t even help address the “outrage”. That’s a “culture war” being driven by those with far greater reach than all the cycling and road safety organisations put together.
Don’t trust me – check the circumstances in which measures to slow cyclists are used in NL. All the ones I can think of just now are actually to protect cyclists, because cars.
* For some offenses (speeding, probably driving on footway / cycleway) that is more than half of those driving. And sometimes it turns out it’s not just “lack of consideration” but “blantant disregard for others’ well-being”.
** It turns out that – once people are educated*** – cycling isn’t really dangerous where pedestrians have their space.
Caveat as usual – we should be prepared to address the concerns of other vulnerable road users. And work in partnership to address the understandable concerns of the marginalised e.g. those with cognitive, sight / hearing and mobility issues.
*** The same thing happened with motor vehicles, but the learning process involved decades of lives lost and ruined, to general indifference. It’s still the case; we’ve just dialled down the volume of outrage to a level most can’t hear …
I agree with most of what you
I agree with most of what you say, but perhaps not the domain of application wrt on-road pelotons training.
I think it’s fair to say that there are particular things that could be usefully addressed around the Regets Park Outer Circle (and other Royal Parks?), and done effectively that would then not be an issue able to be leveraged by the Telegraph, Spectator etc into a more general outrage as part of their war on cycling.
I think that the current spurt of outrage is to do with our current Govt trying to save their butts at the next election – Rishi Sunk is playing hula hoops with Hail Mary passes, whilst digging his own political grave. We saw where that got them last Saturday. At the next election their butts will be handed to them in a squeeze tube by the voters, and they will be placed in the dustbin of history for an extended period.
So the real question is perhaps what important and basic things can we change over the next years, especially in England (eg Scotland has their budget-for-active-travel commitment), working with MPs such as Nottingham MP Lillian Greenwood, our now increased numbers of Green Councillors (imo excellent locally, but a bit loopy nationally), Lib Dems who are basically local populists so can be persuaded if lobbied enough etc.
I have a particular eye on Police and Crime Commissioners and ASBO Parking – nearly half of our PCCs are now Labour, up from about 20%, who can be expected to pay more attention to marginalised groups. What change can be generated?
I agree that we are in a culture war, but it is not cycling vs motor culture, it is humans vs motor culture One of the hopeful trends is active travel groups (walkers, wheelers, cyclists, disabled etc) all coming together because we face the same issues.
The culture changes I want are around Local Highways Authorities being made to accept equality for transport modes, public realm improvements, barriers off cycleways, application of the same processes for building cycleways as for roads (eg CPO), and so on. These will all need to be policy-driven. Some of this is modelled in various places, and I support for example Wheels For Wellbeings’ ask for LTN 1/20 and Inclusive Mobility to become mandatory, not just guidelines, as a step on this road.
(For this I would recommend the podcast published recently between Carlton Reid and Laura Laker discussing her new book:
https://www.the-spokesmen.com/lauralaker/)
I think that the BicycleDutch Zebra Crossing video linked chooses an extrame example to characterise the UK (a pedestrian deliberately going back to block cyclists), and is quite starry-eyed about NL and Zebras. TBH I think our system is perhaps better as a basic set of assumptions – especially for disabled people, which are then softened a little in practice.
Personally I have very few problems around my town with HWC changes, and I find the HWC changes are gradually making a difference – the places I have problems if any is where poor design ruins sightlines and drivers who can see nothing coming assume it is not there. It hasn’t sunk in for some yet, but that is to do with no education campaigns etc.
mattw wrote:
Oh, I think one of those publications might continue even if cycling wasn’t just an odd thing a tiny fraction of the population did (including “entitled MAMILs” and “young thugs, thieves and dealers”).
AFAIK it’s not really an issue in places where cycling is just another mode of transport though.
Sounds great! However … I used to be fully behind this – with a caveat that while LTN1/20 would be a dream in most of the UK it’s still setting the bar far too low in many places e.g. widths, there are get-outs etc.
But I recently found that “national standards” are NOT directly set by law in NL. It’s more that they emerge from the way responsibility for street safety, environmental regulations and (of course) desire for political popularity come together. (The latter in a place where probably the majority of the electorate cycle at some point.)
Not sure exactly the importance of that? And of course it might still be that without a more prescriptive approach and the big stick safe and convenient design would never get its foot in the door in the UK…
A lot is down to culture –
A lot is down to culture – agree on that – and we work from different starting points.
One of our real advantages is that we have a more basic right to be full road users, and so being forced to use poor quality infra will be very difficult to put in place. Unlike some countries in Europe where using cycle tracks provided alongside roads is an obligation. And especially in the US where for example they built the crappy cycle track over the Brooklyn Bridge, and banned cyclists from the carriageway.
Another is PROW laws with access rights which means that where something is a PROW we have an established legal procedure to protect them and clear obstacles etc, and there is at least some consultation involved before removal. This is another set of organsiations we need to join cause with.
One point that needs addressing is that new footpaths, rail trails, greenways etc do not become PROWs automatically. There are tens of thousands of miles of these that need to be recategorised, and it needs ot be automatic with all new ones.
I go for LTN 1/20 mandatory with minimal exceptions as my desired balance, meaning 99%.
mattw wrote:
I’m sure the rules will differ, but is that a fact (IANAL)? Noting that things are different even within the UK (e.g. “right to roam” for me in Scotland) and actually there are already legal restrictions for non-motorised users on some roads.
So I’m wary when I hear “but they’ll confine us to rubbish infra!” It’s not that I don’t think it’s possible. I just question people who think it’s THE hill to die on or a great defence. I doubt the authorities would have much problem getting round it should they want. And it’s already happened for most people – those who just don’t cycle – by fiat.
Agree about the PROW laws – that could be a useful lever.
chrisonabike wrote:
I’m sure the rules will differ, but is that a fact (IANAL)? Noting that things are different even within the UK (e.g. “right to roam” for me in Scotland) and actually there are already legal restrictions for non-motorised users on some roads.— mattw
AFAIK, the only roads you’re not allowed to walk on are those classed as motorways, there are a few others where cycling is banned but they are very rare, in the case of motorways there are quite a few motorised vehicles that are also banned.
Until I actually see some good cycling infrastructure I’m going to keep my fallacy thank you very much, I’m sure there must be some somewhere but I’ve never come across it!
Backladder wrote:
Fair point. Without pointing too far (e.g. across the North Sea) – there are some local bits which are “mostly good enough” for me:
http://www.cycling-edinburgh.org.uk/bike-paths.htm
I’ve started noticing I use these in preference to roads even where routes are a bit longer. That’s part habit, partly to avoid hills but mostly they feel quicker and I think that’s due to zero traffic lights and minimal slowing for junctions. Effectively never being around motor vehicles (see “youth” below) and in green, quiet space also grows on you.
Of course these aren’t “gold standard”: they’re shared use. That should be a serious deficiency but on these specific examples I find it’s *mostly* not an issue. Though I now know where to avoid (canal, Water of Leith walkway) and I’m not “training”. And once in a while it’s not good because you’ve mistimed it and catch a football crowd, or it’s “everyone take the toddlers and dogs out” day.
Social safety is a major issue for some (especially after dark). Luckily I’ve only had a few issues (youth – a couple of times with “borrowed” motorbikes or “look 20+ mph no pedalling” things…)
The newest routes in Edinburgh (NOT Leith Walk – e.g. CCWEL) are getting closer to it. Still inconsistent, still have various deficiencies. I think they’ve grasped the concepts of “continuous” and “separate” now though. They’re nearly there with “continous side-road crossing” and they’re grappling with “…and not round the houses”. Fixing the junctions where you have to cross a road next, hopefully!
mattw wrote:
Reasonable points, though I feel their view is balanced (if normally cycle-positive!). UK crossings are simply set up for motor users, needed because:
The difference (formal crossing vs. informal cycle path crossing) seems to be there is less danger from cyclists (but we should check figures), plus it is much easier to cross cycle paths because (a) they’re much narrower (as are the bikes), (b) speeds are lower (c) visual negotiation is easier.
Of course the latter isn’t an option for some.
You can find some accounts from people who don’t feel safe in NL with the volume of cyclists. I see this as “how it is” – a more-or-less imperfect balancing act of convenience (for most), harm minimisation * and regard for “minorities”. (Noting that “accessibility changes” are often also good for the majority).
In the UK the majority travelling are in cars and disregard those outside to a certain extent. In NL overall the majority are still in cars, but a large minority are on bikes** – but they are still the same people. So I’m sure they won’t all be perfectly “polite and considerate” around those crossing.
The choices would be do we want most people in cars or not *? Then – what is the balance between the UK way (formal crossings) and something different? The UK system is definitely inconvenient for everyone – pedestrians have to wait, cyclists sometimes have to stop completely – and it’s still not entirely safe.
* It is to our advantage to have fewer journeys made by driving; while there are plenty of ideas to achieve that AFAICS that is only “realistically” achievable by a raft of measures including increasing cycling (possibly including low-powered e-whatevers in that). Barring some kind of major social shift / diktats from an authoritarian cycle-favouring regime etc.
** Because of the Dutch approach to planning public spaces where there are people on foot the next most common mode encountered will be cycling. So effectively “cyclists are in the majority” in many places for pedestrians.
I dont think this has
I dont think this has anything to do with Rishi, or the current governments position. Steve Bird has been writing these kinds of anti cycling and anti LTN hit pieces for the Telegraph going back at least the last 4 years, maybe even longer.
“The laws are inadequate and
“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.”
possibly not a time for humour but in reading that I guess the charge would be laid against the bicycle not the rider
as to press coverage there was the sad death of an elderly dog walker following collision with a cyclist on Melbourne’s popular cycling destination Beach Rd a few years ago the press initially claimed the cyclist was riding above the speed limit, not true possibly as fast as 40km/hr in 60km/hr zone and relatives of the deceased volunteered to the press that cyclists needed registration and plates to be held accountable despite the cyclist being hospitalised.
It was claimed the ped’ would never consider crossing on red but the police tied the crossing lights data to the cyclist’s garmin records and the guy had sadly chosen to cross whilst ped’ lights were on red crossing 4 lanes of stationary motorised traffic to be hit by the cyclist using a cycle lane. The press coverage nearly always mentioned a pedestrian death caused by a cyclist running a red light on the same road about 10years earlier like its the sort of thing that happens everyday not once in a decade
https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2020/11/05/inquest-into-death-of-norman-mackenzie-finalised/
(Jacka Boulevard is a section of Beach rd)…and possibly pay walled:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-light-timing-crucial-in-death-of-pedestrian-hit-by-cyclist-20190524-p51qxo.html
antigee wrote:
— antigeeSomething Matt Briggs is fond of doing, and did so again in the BBC interview yesterday, saying that there had been half-a-dozen or so in the past five or six years. The BBC interviewer did not, of course, compare that to the number of pedestrians killed by drivers, or how many were killed whilst walking on the footpath.
This has the makings of
This has the makings of another Charlie Alliston case, which was hugely damaging to cycling.
The Register and Bang Up brigade is usually made up of people who have lost loved ones to cyclist collisions such as Mark Biggs which is understandable, cyclist haters and rabid right, wing politicians looking for a bandwaggon to jump onto.
When something which is clearly wrong and blameworthy happens it opens the discussion to normal, reasonable people.
Wendy Joseph KC (the presiding judge on the Allston trial) made the case on the R4 Today program . (BBC Sounds at about 08:35 hrs) The defence from the cycling brigade is basically “using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and it difficult to impliment” which loses a lot of weight when a 90yr old pedestrian has just been killed
But as others have said, if a
But as others have said, if a pedestrian had stepped out in front of a car like that then it probably wouldn’t even make the news…
The point is that this
The point is that this collision, from the point of view of a cyclist, was unavoidable. The pedestrian stepped out in front when they were 2 metres away.
My question is: how slow would you have to be cycling so that you could reliably avoid a pedestrian that stepped out in front of you, when you are 2 metres away? I’d have a hard time avoiding someone who stepped out 2 metres in front of me if I were slowly jogging. And without meaning to sound callous, any kind of collision with a 90 year od is going to end badly.
I’m very sympathetic to the family’s loss, but I simply can’t see a reason to put any blame at all on the cyclist in question, in this particular instance.
What you say is true of
What you say is true of course.
We all have to learn those stopping distsnces in the highway code to pass the theory component of the driving test. At 30mph the typical stopping distance of a car is 23 metres. If you step out in front of a car within that distance you will very likely be hit.
Bicycles have stopping distances also, it’s just that we don’t know what they are and don’t publicise the fact.
the little onion wrote:
— the little onionThere is an obvious reason to blame the cyclist when a driver would not be: they’re a cyclist.
Cycloid wrote:
But, like so many BBC articles about cycling, there was no defence, no-one from “The Cycling Lobby” was interviewed, it was completely one-sided, but hey, that’s BBC impartiality for you.
Completely missing the point
Completely missing the point of course that there are 2 seperate lesser offences that he could be charged with – Careless or Dangerous Cycling. The fact that he wasnt means there was no case to answer.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Partly, agree with the drift and that ought to be a reasonable “straight bat” to “but killer cyclists!”. Although it won’t be to those who are most concerned of course; they’ve already made their minds up (if not, the media will do that for them).
For the rest of us, we know that “the police / judiciary weren’t interested so nothing to see” might not always be a reasonable assumption…
I’ll just put this up on here
I’ll just put this up on here for reference. It’s from the following web site and is the sentencing guidelines for the offence of causing injury by wanton or furious driving or racing. I’ve highlighted the bits that caught my attention.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-injury-by-wanton-or-furious-driving/
Culpability
The court should determine culpability by reference only to the factors below. Where there are characteristics present that fall under different levels of culpability, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.
References to driving below include driving or riding any kind of vehicle or carriage, including bicycles and scooters.
A
Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and/or disregard for the risk of danger to others
Prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of driving likely to cause a danger to others
Obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre
Driving highly impaired by consumption of alcohol and/or drugs
Offence committed in course of evading police
Racing or competitive driving against another vehicle
Persistent disregard of warnings of others
Lack of attention to driving for a substantial period of time
Speed significantly in excess of speed limit or highly inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
Extreme example of a culpability B factor
Bungle_52 wrote:
A couple of thoughts on your highlighted bits:
The cyclist wasn’t AFAIK racing or competing against anyone – sounds like they were simply training.
They weren’t cycling significantly in excess of speed limit as there is no speed limit for cycles along there. You could argue that they were in excess of the motorised speed limit, but the reason for the low motorised speed limit is due to the danger posed by heavy vehicles which doesn’t really apply to a cyclist. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the cyclist’s speed was largely irrelevant to the incident as there would likely still have been a collision if they were cycling at 10mph.
It’s also another useful
It’s also another useful opportunity to highlight the common double standard when it comes to bicycles and speed. A cyclist travelling at >20mph will almost always be vilified for “racing” or riding “recklessly”, while a car travelling at the same speed and in the same circumstances will be perceived as driving sensibly. Remember that 85% of cars exceed the speed limit in 20mph zones, with 49% of cars exceeding 25mph (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2022)
Not sure I agree… the
Not sure I agree… the reason speed limits are not applied to cyclists is not because they don’t pose a danger but more to do with enforceability, otherwise arguably supercars driven by a trained driver should have higher speed limits because they have better braking, skills and reaction times. A 911 Turbo will stop quicker than a cyclist doing 30mph.
Had he been riding at 10mph he might well have avoided the crash, and had he crashed at 10mph Ms Griffiths might not have died of her injuries but we’ll never know. That is why we have speed limits (or travel at speeds appropriate for the conditions), because lower speeds make collisions less likely to occur, and less likely to cause serious injury when they do.
PRSboy wrote:
Speed limits are generally set to reduce the danger posed to other road users (and pedestrians), so I would disagree that a 911 Turbo should be allowed a higher limit as it’s still a lot of mass moving at speed. e.g. Would you rather be hit by a 911 Turbo (and driver) or a cyclist travelling at 30mph?
I don’t think that 2m is enough space to stop or avoid a pedestrian stepping out in front of you even if you’re travelling at 10mph – typical stopping distances quoted for cars would have a thinking distance of 3m when travelling at 10mph, so that’s not even enough distance to start braking.
With elderly pedestrians, it’s not typically the speed of the collision, but more often how they fall – slower reactions can make all the difference between hitting and not hitting your head on concrete. However, I’m guessing as to the exact nature of the pedestrian’s injuries, so it’s possible that a slower cyclist speed could have made a difference, but I think it’s unlikely.
I haven’t read the Telegraph article, but is there any evidence that it was the speed of collision that directly caused the injuries or was it due to the way that she fell?
PRSboy wrote:
Typically speed limits are set at the 85% percentile of the speed that people drive at on the road – very little to do with safety or casualty reduction. That is the core policy for I think the last 60 years at least.
(Obviously it is a bunch of total crap.)
That has to be dealt with by road design or more vigorous enforcement.
Which is why sticking some signs up and nothing else does not often work.
The capability of the car is a red herring, since the determinant is dangerous or dozy driver behaviour.
mattw wrote:
What’s surprising is that it does sometimes work*! Possibly for similar reasons why you don’t often find people going much lower than the limit. Although there are a couple of posters here who strongly disagree and cite examples where more people were slower than the limit apparently?
* “Work” as in “speeds come down” rather than “make almost everyone stick exactly to the limit” which would be remarkable given current compliance rates. There are plenty who seem very happy for perfect to be the enemy of “better” here…
I’d guess it’s probably psychological “anchoring”. And IIRC from a long time ago drivers are generally trained to drive “to the limit” unless there is some reason not to. That’s a subtle difference from “drive to the conditions – so only consider driving near the limit if you’ve first assessed those and it is appropriate to do so”.
Anyway – speed limits tend to become targets (mitigated by what everyone else is doing).
Things like “but cars can
Things like “but cars can stop quicker”: given “mass motoring” (and indeed open-access cycling and walking) presumably there’s good reason to have as few rules as necessary and for them to be very clear. So that will probably mean “broad brush” rules.
There is a reasonable question of the mechanisms for periodically reviewing these and keeping pace with technology. Of course laws are made via parliament – so for better or worse some things are going to be delayed or not done at all. That may be “not important enough to make time” or deliberately sidelining matters.
Examples would be regulation – or not – of e-motorbikes / e-scooters and the review of road law.
As you say though for most things the human is the limiting factor!
So on the basis of what you
So on the basis of what you have posted and the facts as they are known at present, the cyclist does not have a case to answer.
Road.cc may note this in
Road.cc may note this in follow up but they had a very measured (cautious, perhaps) Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK for a quick vox pop on R4 just before 9 today.
They brought up Matthew Briggs; Duncan navigated that well and avoided heffalump traps and (for better or worse) “but what about the drivers?” He also managed to get in reference to a certain review of all road offenses as mooted in 2014…
You beat me by 10 seconds !
You beat me by 10 seconds !
The slow road marking is
The slow road marking is interesting. I don’t think its there (solely, or if at all) to warn of pedestrians crossing – I think its there as a warning to motorists of cycles because the carriageway narrows through the island due to the advisory cycle lane, so bringing that up the the cyclist should have slowed is a bit of a red herring.
Although you can use it alone (Traffic Signs Manual Ch.5 11.2.2) You’re supposed to use the slow marking alongside a triangular hazard sign to inform you why you’re slowing, rather than be a generic warning – as without the sign it loses meaning.
“Your timely reminder that
” Your timely reminder that the current demonization of cyclists in the right-wing media is a smokescreen for the everyday dangerous driving in London. This has become normalized. Hit-and-run figures in London 2022 are insane, no mention of these in the press “
Avoided speeding cyclist
Avoided speeding cyclist
No prizes for which paper
No prizes for which paper this is from
“Hauling petrified dogs from
“Hauling petrified dogs from danger” – if you’re letting your dog run free by a busy road they’re in danger anyway, cyclists or no; if they’re on a lead and they still get into the road perhaps your dogwalking skills could do with a refresher. Love “urging the bikes on”, sounds as though we all carry whips and ginger up our steeds as we career around.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You don’t?
brooksby wrote:
Well you know, high days and holidays, obviously…
I call BS. There are “speed
I call BS. There are “speed cyclists” – heck, any cyclists – waiting at a red light?
That clearly is a fake Mail article.