Cyclist found not guilty after collision with pedestrian, who died eight days later

eburtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of the meeting SGlos council had to discuss the chicanes they had put on the Bristol/Bath path, where one guy stood up and said cyclists were doing 60mph along it.

Taxi driver this summer told me I was doing "at least 40" on a flat 30mph TfL road. Kilometres per hour? "Nah MPH." Asked him if he could give me a written statement to that effect that I could send to pro tour teams.

(For the record I checked the Garmin afterwards, I was doing 26 average, max 28 (good tailwind!))

I think it's more than that from reading various reports.

A video was played in court of the cyclists riding prior to the collision and it was estimated from that video that his speed was approximately 23mph.

As far as I can tell that wasn't disputed by the defence

The cyclist accepted the speed though or possibly volunteered it. It's a specific number as opposed to the more than 20 said by another driver.

Looking at streetview, there does seem to be a curved entrance into Wilmslow Road at that junction so cyclist could easily carry upto 15mph into it if it was reasonably traffic free and he could take more of the road for the manouvre. 

Why assume that the cyclist was stopped at the traffic lights on the corner? You do know that all traffic lights have a green phase, and that it is perfectly feasible to make a left turn on such lights in a green phase without coming to complete halt, right?  In fact I would go so far as to say it would be dangerous to slow to a near stop at such a junction ...

And no-one reported this immediately to the police.  Unfortunately this is too common - and frequently reported in the case of motor vehicles on this site also.  I understand that this may have not seemed a big drama at the time but sadly it's turned out to be.

I'm not sure how much difference that made - it wasn't a "hit and run" in that the cyclist stayed with the pedestrian until medical help arrived, and indeed turned himself in once the police did start their inquiries. There's no suggestion that anything the cyclist did (or did not do) after the event contributed to the unfortunate death of the victim. There's also no suggestion it affected the course of justice - it seems the police were in time to gather CCTV evidence and, unlike certain motoring offences that require a NIP to be served within 14 days, the delay did not prevent the police eventually bringing charges.

panda wrote:

Has anyone else managed to piece together what actually happened?  It reads as though a car had overtaken the cyclist, and the driver steered right to avoid the - apparently confused - pedestrian who was finishing crossing from the driver's right, leaving the cyclist nowhere to go when the pedestrian suddenly appeared in view?  That must have been horrible.  

That's my understanding too, although it is hard to piece it together from the snippets we have been given.

Yep, the incident picture from the written statements does have some missing points. He supposedly undertook a car stuck in traffic (witness who stated he was going to hit someone) when in the cycling lane. But another driver a few metres further on had to swerve around the unfortunate Mr Gunn  as he very slowly walked in front of her. So what speed was she doing? (not stating speeding but fast enough she had to swerve.) 

Also appears that the cyclist and Mr Gunn also did the same "dance" you had which also then lead to the collision. 

I'm more interested in where I can get one of these "powerful racing bikes" as all my bikes are the standard zero horsepower ones! </sarcasm>

It's not entirely clear who brought it up but if it was the prosecution it was presumably to attempt to bolster their assertion that the defendant was out on a personal TT with no regard for others. Doubtless in future cyclists can look forward to being accused of being reckless for such offences as wearing an aero helmet, having internally routed cables, and having shaved legs, all signs of people desperate to go as fast as possible without regard for others.

I got twatted by a car in May 2020.

I went after the driver's insurance as soon as I was out of the hospital. Their original take was I was going too fast as I was obviously on a personal TT.

I destroyed their argument using my Garmin data overlaid onto streetview and using simple physics equations.

They changed their mind sharpish and paid out.

Don't fuck with a nerd.

S13SFC wrote:

I destroyed their argument using my Garmin data overlaid onto streetview and using simple physics equations.

 

That's good to hear - I have mounts for my Garmin on all four bikes for precisely that reason (to prove my speed in any incident) knowing I can overlay it on the GoPro footage with VIRB.

Down under sadly an elderly pedestrian died after being struck by a cyclist and despite some misreporting by the press the roads authority used garmin data and the data from the ped lights to show the pedestrian was crossing on red...the cyclist was in a cycle lane travelling at 40km/hr past stationary traffic...ended up with injuries requiring hospital treatment...both cases show need to be aware in situations where peds may be crossing

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-light-timing-crucial.... possibly pay walled

I agree but as cyclists we also have a responsibility to ride according to the conditions.

If you're in a narrow cycle lane between parked cars and slow moving traffic you should adjust your speed accordingly.

IMHO, based on the witness statements and Streetview, the cyclist was probably going too fast for the conditions.

Its a 30mph road.  He was doing 23mph.  We don't know how fast the car was going but:

1. I doubt the car was going less than 23mph so not sure why the cyclist should be held to a higher standard;

2. If it had been a motorist going at 23mph in a 30 and hit the motorist, there's absolutely no way in hell this would have even seen the inside of a court room - that this was prosecuted is symptomatic of the prejudice faced by cyclists.

sorry, commented before I saw this, but agree 100%

There is nothing to suggest the conditions were unusual, so if 23mph is excessive for those conditions are you suggesting the speed limit needs to be reduced to 20mph?

Just taking the photo accompanying the article stand alone from the case for a moment, would you be comfortable riding at 23mph in that green patch of cycling lane with parked cars left hand side and moving traffic say at 30mph right hand side ?

I have to agree, and elsewhere I intimate that just because the rider has been found not guilty of the specific charge does not mean they are blameless.

Again looking at the picture, cyclists are put in a worse position than drivers as this is an urban area where we might expect pedestrians to appear anywhere between parked cars. Therefore any cyclist riding in the cycle lane has to ride at a speed where they can stop. If the cyclist is riding at 20+ mph, they can only reasonably do that in the main carriageway. Indeed, given the parking, no cyclist should actually be in the green area which perfectly denotes the door zone. If a cyclist was riding in that lane, potentially filtering through traffic, I'm not sure the safe speed would be anything more than 10mph.

Interestingly, while cars no doubt also cannot safely drive near the speed limit there, the cycle lane gives them a buffer, and it would not surprise me if pedestrians use the cycle lane as an advanced stop line for crossing the road.

There is always some element of culpability and some part of the chain of circumstances that results in a tragedy which could have been broken.

Only from what is reported: Mr De Bruin did ride through a red earlier and although this does not appear to be directly related to the actual collision does it demonstrate reckless attitude or distraction? If he had not been wearing headphones, might he have been a bit more attentive to the road? Was his speed appropriate?

However the suspicion of being a bit distracted is not proof, cycling at under the speed limit is legal and wearing headphones is not an actual crime. These are what a jury has to consider when determining guilt based on a somewhat arbitrary bar or threshold of culpability.

My condolences to all affected.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Mr De Bruin did ride through a red earlier and although this does not appear to be directly related to the actual collision does it demonstrate reckless attitude or distraction?

Obviously the jury decided not. Unless we were to see the video the RLJ is a bit of a red herring (sorry): I personally don't condone or do it under any circumstances, but obviously if he was shown tearing through a busy junction or slaloming in and out of pedestrians on the crossing that would have relevance, if he was shown coasting through a pelican crossing where the person who had pushed the button had already crossed before it turned red*, not so much. The fact that the jury clearly decided it didn't demonstrate a (sufficiently) reckless attitude to have a bearing on the case makes one suspect the latter, but without seeing the video we just can't tell.

* Just as an aside, has anyone ever thought of adding a cancel button to pelican crossings, so if one presses the button but then there is an opportunity to cross before the lights turn right, one could cancel the request on the other side? It does feel a bit daft sometimes sitting at a red light with nobody crossing because they've crossed already, and similarly pointless to see a line of traffic stopping to let one across when one has already crossed.

Yes, RLJ does not always mean reckless and distracted. Confession here, I went through a red light the other day, but because I was alert and careful.

It was a ped crossing with a cyclist waiting to ride over from the other side. It's a busy road and I could see a line of vehicles approaching. I just nipped through as it turned red, just before the cyclist got the green light to cross. The red light held back the traffic, meant I had a clear road, no close passes at the pinch point and made the upcoming right-turn a lot safer for me.

It's the set of lights I've often been tempted to stop at and press, just to hold up the traffic so I can make that right turn safely!

The more modern ped crossings have body detectors, partly to give slower Peds more time to cross, but if the crossing believes there is no-one there it will cancel the beg.

There is one on the tgi Friday roundabout (toucan) that I will occasionally use if the traffic is busy and I'm not feeling it, that ignores me a fair bit, and cancels the beg.