- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Outer Circle near Hanover Terrace (via Google Street View)No charges brought against Regent’s Park cyclist after high-speed crash in which pensioner was killed while crossing road
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 0 sec ago
A "CyclingMikey" is newspeak for any wannabe celeb (or "Youtuber", as they were know in my generation, about 10 minutes ago) who tries to achieve...
- chrisonabike 10 min 22 sec ago
They've been at it for years...
- chrisonabike 11 min 59 sec ago
Flat? Do yourself a favour and get yourself a mini-fridge.
- Mr Hoopdriver 13 min 52 sec ago
And I suspect more worried about the backlash if they injure the horse....
- chrisonabike 15 min 34 sec ago
Perhaps... even in NL there seems to be a measure of "well - injuries are going up so something must be done". I think it is true that cycling is...
- HLaB 17 min 37 sec ago
By that the judge is depressingly admiting they'll be out in under a year and a half for any sort of driving ban to kick in
- mike the bike 50 min 54 sec ago
I well remember the year, 1977 was it, when Perineum Pain won the Derby. I had a tenner on him and took a cab home, the whole fifty miles.
- quiff 2 hours 18 min ago
I'm not that keen on three abreast on the Embankment superhighway, but on a towpath?!
- KiwiMike 2 hours 38 min ago
True that. But most click-type tools afford a handle big enough to grip with your whole hand centered on the calibration point - or at least three...
Add new comment
83 comments
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 enjoys complaining to the bbc - wait until they see this
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 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.
But again, no cycling representatives, let alone "The Cycling Lobby".
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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
.
Pages