A female pedestrian has died and a male cyclist has been left seriously injured after the pair collided on a cycleway in Stevenage.
The collision happened at around 4.45pm last Friday 13 October, reports the Hertfordshire Mercury.
It took place at an underpass forming part of Stevenage’s cycleway system, running beneath Martin’s Way and leading to Durham Road.
The newspaper says that the woman, who was aged in her 70s, was walking through the underpass when the collision with the cyclist happened.
It is unclear whether she was on the cycleway itself, or on the adjacent footway.
She was taken to hospital with multiple injuries but died there on Sunday 15 November.
The cyclist, whose injuries include a broken collarbone and fractured ribs, is still undergoing treatment in hospital..
The crash was not reported to Hertfordshire Constabulary at the time, with the force only finding out about it later on the evening it happened.
Officers are now appealing for anyone who has information, and in particular another cyclist who gave aid to the woman at the scene, to come forward.
PC Carl Callan, from the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: “Our thoughts are with all those who have been affected by what happened, at this understandably difficult time.
“We are currently conducting enquiries into the incident and are asking anyone who saw the collision, or events leading up to it, to please get in touch.
“We’re particularly keen to trace another cyclist who is reported to have assisted at the scene. If this was you, please contact us.”
Police can be reached on the non-emergency number 101, quoting ISR 851 of 13 November, and information can also be reported online and by web chat.
Because of their rarity – on average, there are one or two pedestrian fatalities involving cyclists each year – such incidents tend to receive disproportionate media coverage when they do happen. As this incident highlights, collisions between pedestrians and cyclists can often result in the cyclist sustaining serious injuries.
While Stevenage dates back to medieval times and due to its location on the Great North Road became a busy coaching town in the 18th Century, most of it was developed after World War 2 following its designation as England’s first new town.
Separating bicycles from motor traffic was a key feature of the designs drawn up in the 1950s and 1960s, and today Stevenage benefits from an extensive network of off-road cycleways – although as author and journalist Carlton Reid explains in this 2017 article in The Guardian, they were ignored by most residents with the car rising to dominance.
52 thoughts on “Pedestrian killed and cyclist seriously injured following crash on cycleway in Stevenage”
Cue Daily Mail outrage in 3..
Cue Daily Mail outrage in 3…2…1…
No doubt they’ll be asking if
No doubt they’ll be asking if the pedestrian was wearing high vis like they do on many car vs bicycle arguments…… right? ?
JWK wrote:
and a helmet.
eburtthebike wrote:
“LOCALS OUTRAGED AS LYCRA LOUT KILLS PENSIONER”
Just checked and the only
Just checked and the only Daily Mail story about cycling today is an inspirational story about an 88 yo man cycling LEJOG: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8958679/Grandfather-88-oldest-person-cycle-874-miles-Lands-End-John-OGroats.html#article-8958679
Deepest condolences to the
Deepest condolences to the family of the deceased
Very sad. Underpasses can
Very sad. Underpasses can suffer from poor visibility. Lots of em in Daventry too. They often have hairpin bends on ramps, and the change in light scared the crap out of be the first time I went through one on a bright day. Instant blackout!
Oh the irony of it, a cyclist
Oh the irony of it, a cyclist saying the sun was in his eyes and he couldn’t see!
Physician, heal thyself.
Luke 4:23.
Capt Sisko wrote:
You are Socraticyclist and ICMFP.
I think the problem was the
I think the problem was the lack of sun not the overabundance.
hirsute wrote:
Perhaps blinded by the sudden darkness in the underpass, and perhaps lack of high-vis, lights and safety helmets.
I avoid underpasses in
I avoid underpasses in Daventry for the precise reason you’ve mentioned, some of them are so badly lit. Also, I know plenty of road cyclists who have sustained punctures after cycling through one.
Agree – very sad.
Agree – very sad.
I grew up in stevenage and the cycle paths are pretty good, with clearly segregated paths for bikes and pedestrians. However, many of the underpasses under main roads are at 90 degrees, so you can sweep into them maintaining a lot of speed. Add a pedestrian crossing at that point and….
Much as I am usually the
Much as I am usually the first with a sarcastic comment, one person has died, their family suffering a terrible loss, and another is seriously injured. It is perfectly possible that there will be a criminal investigation into the death. I think this is one where we can stop our chatter.
I agree.
I agree.
I feel great sympathy for the pain the lady must have gone through and the feelings of her family and friends.
Captain Badger wrote:
Whilst I can agree with your sentiment, does it ever stop the gammons blaming the dead cyclist? Maybe we should be better than them, but TBH, I’m fed up with being humble.
eburtthebike wrote:
There’s nothing humble in being better. And we’re not sticking it to the gammons by using this particular story as a springboard.
Hey burt, a little reading
Hey burt, a little reading comprehension goes a long way. It wasn’t the cyclist that died. It was a 70 something lady out for a walk. I ride nearly everyday for one reason or the other, so don’t take this as bashing cyclists. I see people on bikes, not cyclists, do stupid shite all the time. Pisses me off. Maybe the bike rider was checking his phone, or fantasizing being a pro, and riding too fast for the conditions. Had to be moving pretty fast to hit a near stationary human and sustain a broken collarbone and fractured ribs. Maybe we’ll find out. Yes, pedestrians do stupid stuff all the time too, but I really doubt the 70s woman was checking her F Book likes on a device with earbuds in. If your paying attention and riding for the environment it’s not difficult to avoid a slow moving pedestrian. I also doubt she was out jogging and ran in his way. Maybe I’m wrong. Hopefully some lessons learned
I guess that’s why the police
I guess that’s why the police are calling for witnesses.
We don’t know if she was just walkibg on the footway, or was walking on the cycleway (it happens, as we all know), or if she was crossing the cycleway.
We don’t know where the cyclist was, or how fast they were riding.
A definite case of let’s wait and see, with hopefully a side order of the truth will out.
(And yes, I also know that if we replace cyclist with motorist then this case would probably be dealt with very differently).
Captain Badger wrote:
Agreed. To be honest, I’m surprised comments weren’t closed on this article.
Steve K wrote:
Absolutely
Captain Badger wrote:
And yet one hour after making this comment you were agreeing with our resident troll, on this same thread, that this must have been the cyclist’s fault. Hypocrite much?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes, you’re right. I knew when to shut up and didn’t. Not my finest hour….
For gods sake, on shared use
For gods sake, on shared use paths slow down. 10 – 12 mph is plenty whenthere’s pedestrians around
spen wrote:
Except that if you don’t use the “cycle path” that They built for you, you’ll get hassle from motorists regardless of how fast you are riding…
brooksby wrote:
That can happen, but it’s not an excuse to endanger pedestrians (and yourself); the drivers that complain about cyclists using the roads are just simply wrong.
Sorry, peter, I wasn’t
Sorry, peter, I wasn’t intending that it was!
No worries – I don’t think
No worries – I don’t think that you’re a reckless cyclist.
And what’s that got to do
And what’s that got to do with not speeding around pedestrians? That’s like moaning about lorries being in city centres when we built all those motorways for them. Wherever you ride or drive, think about others
“The cyclists don’t use the
“The cyclists don’t use the expensive cycle lane provided for them” (they still go on the pavements if accounts are to be believed), so cars not on the expensive motorway (built at great cost to the environment) becomes a point I find myself making sometimes.
My hunch is that as ever the car, abuse thereof, is the root cause here. Provision like this is fine for pootling around on your Raleigh Shopper.
It’s not a shared path at
It’s not a shared path at this point. In the underpass, the pavement is seperate from the footpath (and has a barrier between the two).
Yes but if I had a pound for
Yes but if I had a pound for everytime I encountered a pedestrian in that kind of setup not using the footpath…well I wouldnt be that rich, but it happens is my point.
Either its through low adoption of that infra by cyclists so pedestrians arent used to expecting cyclists to be using that cycle path, or their view of the distinction between paths isnt as clear cut as youd think maybe they just view it as a non vehicle space and can walk anywhere,sometimes it’s just the footpath is left overgrown,or full of leaf mulch so is slippier in autumn,bumpy,muddy, filled with puddles and the cycle path isnt, but pedestrians will often for a variety of reasons be found walking on the cycle path bit, even if the path is separated by kerbs, or by fences, and sometimes low level fences they even have to step over to get on the cycle bit.
So I wouldnt ever assume by default riding that style of infra to expect pedestrians will always keep to the footpath, it still behaves very much like a shared path ime, which means always be prepared to stop and ride at a sensible speed you can safely stop.
My condolences to the bereaved family impacted by this,dealing with the death of a loved one is hard at anytime,but incredibly more so in the current pandemic.
Even at that speed, a
Even at that speed, a pedestrian can suffer bad injuries – one of the reasons I don’t like using shared paths.
spen wrote:
It’s not a shared path as can be clearly seen on the photograph, there is aseparate cycle path and pavement. Also, why are you, like everyone else on here, making the assumption that the cyclist was riding too fast, irresponsibly or in the wrong area when there is no evidence to that effect?
And as can be seen in the
And as can be seen in the picture users don’t use it that way and we’re never going to use it that way, regardless of what the designer had in mind
spen wrote:
So cyclists have to slow down on cycle paths – not shared use paths, as you erroneously claim – because pedestrians can’t be arsed to walk on the pavement? Perhaps cars should drive at 15mph on the motorway in case pedestrians decide to take a stroll there?
Cyclists shouldn’t have to
Cyclists shouldn’t have to slow down. But they might need to slow down – due to the circumstances they come across, or the places they can’t yet see to be safe.
We don’t know what happened here.
But on a cycle path ( and remember many cycle paths constitute part of the footway still ), if there is a pedestrian present or possible, then as a cyclist I do need to be prepared to slow to a benign speed or even stop. If I disagree with the pedestrian’s presence, I may express that politely too then. But I should never cycle close and fast just to make the point about my priority or perceived priority. Or carry on like they don’t exist there, even if they are mistakenly in the wrong space.
That’s what certain car drivers do when they close pass cyclists to make some valid or on-valid point. And it is never justifiable
Rendel Harris wrote:
But motorways are the only roads that were built especially for cars/motorists, so your reductio ad absurdum doesn’t really work.
(This story has raised some interesting points on cyclist/pedestrian as analogy for motorist/cyclist, IMO)
spen wrote:
Roads are shared too. So do you expect motorists to slow down to “10 – 12 mph?”
And why do you imply that victim cyclist was travelling above the speed limit when nothing of the such has been reported?
Going by Google StreetView
Going by Google StreetView the underpass itslef has a seperate footpath and cyclepath with a barrier inbetween. Which make it strange there was a collision there.
Which probably means that one
Which probably means that one or the other of the parties involved was on the wrong side of the barrier…
Ahh Brooksby/Thereverent BUT
Ahh Brooksby/Thereverent BUT there is still no excuse (and its a big But) even if the pedestrian is on the wrong side of the barrier, the rider still has a responsibility for the safety of the vulnerable road user. Just as drivers still have to pass riders safely even if there is a cycle track adjacent to the road that the rider ‘should’ be using. Anything else would normally get flagged as victim blaming here.
Depending on how and where the barriers are placed they may even be contributary to a pensioner being on the ‘wrong’ side if they have to walk along the cycle path to get to a gap.
Ah, EK Spinner, but I wasn’t
Ah, EK Spinner, but I wasn’t disputing that.
I’m told there’s a confusing
I’m told there’s a confusing mix of shared use paths leading up to the under passes in Stevenage. Then a lot of guard rail to herd folk in. To me a person could easily end up one side of a barrier and not able to transition back easily.
Looking at the photo above,
Looking at the photo above, there looks to be a crossing place just past the barriers at either end. She could have been using that with the cyclist turning on at speed or with her stepping out not noticing the cyclist in the dark tunnel. Either way it is a tragic accident with any potential fault being on the cyclist and his speed approaching the incident area.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Good God. You don’t know where the accident occurred, you don’t know what the cyclist or the pedestrian were doing, you don’t know what speeds were involved, but you do know the cyclist is to blame? Seriously?
Welcome to the ‘presumed
Welcome to the ‘presumed liability’ system Rendel.
Under said system, in the absence of contradictory evidence, liability is automatically assigned to the least vulnerable road user.
In this case that is the cyclist.
Personally I think ‘presumed liability’ is madness but it’s very popular on this site.
Rich_cb wrote:
Presumed liability as enshrined in Law is very popular and effective in many European countries.
Perhaps it is ‘presumed guilt’ you are alluding. Unfortunately that is something most if not all of us indulge in at times. Surely a universal human trait/weakness.
Simon E wrote:
It is very populsr for good reason. Remember that it is for civil cases not criminal in most jurisdictions.
Difference between presumed
Difference between presumed liability ( hope the cyclist here had insurance cover) to ease the burden of proof for compensation claims and presumed guilt for the purposes of any non insurance related legal action against either party.
Condolences to all involved.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
If the max speed limit on that road was 20mph, what speed do you imagine the also victim cyclist to have been doing?
Do you really believe cyclists can break speed limits as easily as motorists?
Have you NOT heard of pedestrians stepping into the path of motorists and cyclists without looking or whilst distracted by their phones or other?
And how many motorists are lynched in this same manor when they have killed, particularly a child, and when they claim it wasn’t their fault?
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-killed-nottinghamshire-level-crossing-crash-278937
It’s because of dangerous, speeding, killer motorists that these dodgy dangerous shared paths (so called “cycleways”) have been introduced.
Motorists always blame smart motorways for crashes there – so why are some intent on blaming this (also victim) cyclist, and without any such reported evidence?
And, rather than pandering to their rights, why NOT instead introduce LIFE BANS for these maniac motorists and set appropriate punishments that may help make our roads safer for ALL vulnerable groups?