Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum
road.cc bike forum

Radio 4 one sided discussion on Richmond Park event cancellation

by Crustysaddlebag
Wed, Aug 21, 2024 08:59
5

Radio 4 0845 21/08/2024.
Can’t believe what I just heard. Completely one sided discussion. Neglected to mention that the cyclist(s) involved in the tragic death of a pedestrian were found to be completely innocent of any wrong doing.
As for not being able to judge if iyou have time to step off the pavement because a bikes speed is hard to judge - if any doubt exists whatsoever - don’t….

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

5 comments

Avatar
Hirsute | 3 months ago
5 likes

Original article

https://road.cc/content/news/no-charges-cyclist-after-crash-which-oap-wa...

 

edit : made a complaint on the bbc site.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 months ago
5 likes

You don't need to judge the speed of a cyclist to figure out if it's safe to step out in front of it - just go by how far away they are and treat them like you would a driver. IIRC, the Richmond Park collision had the pedestrian step out only 2m in front of the cyclist which would be reckless for just about any speed of cyclist. The whole focus on the cyclist's speed and "racing" is just a diversion as neither is at all relevant.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to hawkinspeter | 3 months ago
6 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

You don't need to judge the speed of a cyclist to figure out if it's safe to step out in front of it - just go by how far away they are and treat them like you would a driver. IIRC, the Richmond Park collision had the pedestrian step out only 2m in front of the cyclist which would be reckless for just about any speed of cyclist. The whole focus on the cyclist's speed and "racing" is just a diversion as neither is at all relevant.

Absolutely, I did the calculation at the time and worked out that the extra reaction time at that distance for the motor speed limit of 20 mph instead of the cyclist's alleged 30 mph would be seven hundredths of a second (0.22 vs 0.14) and neither speed would give sufficient time for a reaction.

(It was Regent's Park btw)

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rendel Harris | 3 months ago
5 likes

Rendel Harris wrote:

Absolutely, I did the calculation at the time and worked out that the extra reaction time at that distance for the motor speed limit of 20 mph instead of the cyclist's alleged 30 mph would be seven hundredths of a second (0.22 vs 0.14) and neither speed would give sufficient time for a reaction.

(It was Regent's Park btw)

I roughly worked out the speed at which a cyclist could stop within 2m and it was about 3mph or so.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 3 months ago
6 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Absolutely, I did the calculation at the time and worked out that the extra reaction time at that distance for the motor speed limit of 20 mph instead of the cyclist's alleged 30 mph would be seven hundredths of a second (0.22 vs 0.14) and neither speed would give sufficient time for a reaction.

(It was Regent's Park btw)

I roughly worked out the speed at which a cyclist could stop within 2m and it was about 3mph or so.

That can't be right - didn't the police experts in the Alliston/Briggs case prove that a bicycle can stop from 153 mph in less than 30cm? (or something - I may be misremembering…).

Latest Comments