Coroner asks whether speed limits should apply to cyclists after pedestrian stepped into road in front of Derbyshire rider

Carior wrote:

 

First - as others have pointed out - it was the pedestrian, not the cyclist described as not having looked.

Second - you're wrong - there is no obligation to take "whatever action is required to not collide" with a pedestrian.  You have to take reasonable action.  If the alternative is swerving to avoid the idiot is a potential head on collision, or colliding with other pedestrians etc there is zero obligation to take as possible action to avoid crashing with one idiot!

Third - if someone steps out right in front of you and the laws of physics prevent you from being able to stop you aren't "the cause of injury to others" - its a ridiculous suggestion both in fact and in law.  Are manufacturers of pencils responsible for causing injury to others if someone falls over while carrying a pencil and stabs themselves?  Obviously not but by you're logic, as the only way a pencil manufacturer can be sure his pencil won't cause harm to others is by making them blunt (or not at all) then he shouldn't make a useful sharp pencil!

First, iirc, the cyclist was described as riding 'head down'.  Besides, your reasoning is flawed:  supposing that the pedestrian was not looking doesn't mean that the cyclist was.

Second, zero obligation to kill yourself is not by itself grounds for exoneration, it depends on what put you in that situation.

Third: if the laws of physics prevent you from stopping that won't help in front of a judge if the determination is made that you were either speeding or at fault due to circumstances being such that a normal, reasonable and careful cyclist would have paid more attention/been riding slower.  I'm not even going to try and explain why the pencil analogy is not an analogy but an error in reasoning.

Xenophon2 wrote:

First, iirc, the cyclist was described as riding 'head down'.

Instead of guessing wrongly, you could read the story to find
"A witness who had been in a parked car said that Beach, “had his head down and at no point did I see him look.”"

Mungecrundle wrote:

The speed limit is almost irrelevant apart from being a data point that can be used to apportion blame in a legal sense or create a punishable offence. Occassionally people riding bicycles have collisions with people being pedestrians. Rarer still are circumstances where the bicyclist exceeding the posted speed limit is a factor. What is, and always will be a major factor, is that at least one party and often both fail the basic test of situational awareness. Walking into live traffic without looking / failing to observe the presence of pedestrians and predicting their likely path. One comment that strikes me is the witness who described the cyclists as head down and not being observed to be looking ahead. This may or may not be the case but along with the speed estimated from cctv by someone supposedly an expert in such matters, it does make a picture that I'm sure most of us can relate to. All road users have a basic duty of care to each other. To my mind the pedestrian could be stark bollock naked, out of their head on Red Stripe, wandering into the road at random and it is still incumbent for other road users to take whatever action is required not to collide with them. The only circumstance where you can get away with the "There was nothing I could do to avoid the collision" defence is if your vehicle was stationary at the point of impact and even then it's marginal. This of course might be different to being held legally to blame, but it is still your duty as a decent human being to avoid being a cause of injury to others. Urban environment = heads up, sensible speed and looking for hazards, not chasing some stupid Strava section.

You really need to check your facts before posting,as you've confused the witness evidence to be against the cyclist,when it's against the pedestrian - of course,road users should avoid accidents if at all possible but the reality of physics dictates that if a pedestrian unpredictably steps in front of a passing vehicle,even the most technologically advanced vehicle won't avoid hitting the pedestrian.

hirsute wrote:

We'd have to have bike registration and number plates for speed limits to be used. Unless there is to be a policeman on every corner.

There would also have to be a legal requirement to have an independently calibrated speedometer fitted.

Sure, anyone can buy and fit either a basic "magnet & sensor" or a GPS-enabled cycle computer but they're never flawless. As kids we used to "double our speeds" by fitting an extra magnet to the wheel (and I guess riders of a certain age will remember the endless faffing of rolling a bike along a line and trying to measure it to the millimetre to programme the wheelsize correctly and how easy it was to lie about it a bit so it seemed you went further/faster than you actually did).

GPS are prone to occasional errors (especially when riding through tunnels) so they can't be relied upon as an independently calibrated option either.

I can't understand why they haven't just looked at his Strava - it wouldn't be perfect but I bet it'd give a better indication than CCTV in front of a shop (which usually films at something like 6 shots a second to save on storage/film).

The idea that you could or would be doing 38mph in front of shops in a busy-ish urban area seems incredibly far-fetched. Or have they confused mph and kph?? 38kph is a much more reasonable 23mph.

crazy-legs wrote:

Or have they confused mph and kph?? 38kph is a much more reasonable 23mph.

This would explain the difference between the 29mph at the point of impact reported by the police and the 18mph reported by the cyclist's wife: 29km = 18.02miles.

werics wrote:

I'll inject my entirely unwanted two cents here: speed limits should "ideal world" apply to cyclists, but higher, mvv/2 being a function of both variables and all that. Outside that ideal world, two big issues arise with my idea: shear in traffic flow is hazardous (we're all accustomed to the version which involves a much faster motorist and a bicycle; the inverse isn't desirable either), and going to the bother of setting separate speed limits in a non-blanket fashion would be a waste of resources that could go to improving cyclcing infrastructure. So, in the real world, I actually like my home of Alabama's approach (NB: there are issues with cycling and the law that could be improved on here; this is not one). Here, bicycles are vehicles, and broadly subject to the same laws when on the road as any others; but speed enforcement against cyclists typically doesn't happen, because it's understood to be at best a minor issue compared to the drivers we have (who, if you weren't aware, suck, and only use directionals marginally more often than our friends from Tennessee). The complete absence of speed limits on cyclists would be undesirable in a few contexts: school zones, for instances, though you could still try to go after it as careless/reckless. That, however, is much harder to pursue and much more reactive than having a number set out as well.

Speed limits in themselves don't ultimately dictate safety, just the amount of punishment you may/may not get. We already know that vehiclular cyclists are more likely to go somewhat quicker to try keep pace as this is percieved (rightly or wrongly) as being safer - less vehicles passing you, ability to hold centre line position with less aggravation from motorists behind etc

Speed limits were introduced because of motorists inability to drive safely with respect to other road users, the number of 'speeding' cyclists killing human beings and at fault is what ratio. None of the at fault cyclists in the last 7 years (all four of them) have been accused of speeding. I couldn't say what the number is with serious injuries.

There's no reliable evidence from the police as to actual speed in this case, we already know that the accuracy of speed from CCTV can be as much as 40% variance even at slow speeds when the police investigate (See Charlie Alliston case and the prosecutions guessed speeds), their numbers seem to vary hugely and cannot be trusted in mine and others opinion.

I see no reason based upon factual evidence that speed limits for people on bikes need to be a thing, careless, dangerous cycling already covers all manner of actions that a cyclist may pose a reasonable assumption that harm may come about, even if that is mis-used by police because they tend to havezero understanding of the potential for harm to actually occur, despite what media and the general public may say. We know that injuries caused by people on bikes and being at fault is a ridiculously low number, lower than injuries caused by pedestrians to other pedestrians. (In the Uk at least)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of.

If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit.

If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too.

And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

Little hint because you are either dim or dishonest: numbers and probabilities matter - someone who died because someone walked into them causing them to fall over and hit their head is just as dead as if they were shot, but that doesn't mean shoes should be subject to the same laws as guns.

Oh, while we are doing that arrogant "End of" thing - you are a troll, end of.

You need to calm dowr and find something better to do on your Saturday nights.

crazy-legs wrote:

This is the same level of "calculation" from the police as the Charlie Alliston fixie stopping distance maths, widely regarded to be massively flawed.

This a thousand times.

crazy-legs wrote:

This is the same level of "calculation" from the police as the Charlie Alliston fixie stopping distance maths, widely regarded to be massively flawed.

There was also this incident, where a witness described cyclist as "going at high speed":

https://road.cc/content/news/219639-cyclist-life-threatening-condition-f...

(there were 2-3 articles about the incident)

As I commented at the time, "high speed" is highly unlikely due to the road layout, but the implication was it was the cyclists fault and not the bloke crossing the road having just left the pub after an afternoon of drinking!  I've got a vague memory of a preposterous speed being quoted, but might be getting cases confused.

Mybike wrote:

In Onatario the speed limit applys to anyone on the road that includes bikes. Just like all the other signs and rules of the road.  If you going as fast as the posted limit  then you have the right to stay in the center of the lane  if not then you have to move to the curbside  just as a slow moving vehicle would have to do.

What's that got to do with the topic? How successful is Ontario at achieving a decent modal share for active travel? If it's not at a Dutch level then what it does is irrelevant, except possibly as an example of how not to do it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Mybike wrote:

In Onatario the speed limit applys to anyone on the road that includes bikes. Just like all the other signs and rules of the road.  If you going as fast as the posted limit  then you have the right to stay in the center of the lane  if not then you have to move to the curbside  just as a slow moving vehicle would have to do.

What's that got to do with the topic? How successful is Ontario at achieving a decent modal share for active travel? If it's not at a Dutch level then what it does is irrelevant, except possibly as an example of how not to do it.

I'm just posting to law were I live

Mybike wrote:

In Onatario the speed limit applys to anyone on the road that includes bikes. Just like all the other signs and rules of the road.  If you going as fast as the posted limit  then you have the right to stay in the center of the lane  if not then you have to move to the curbside  just as a slow moving vehicle would have to do.

Typical North American backward thinking all round. Why would you force vulnerable road users to hog the kerb (curb is to restrict) when this puts them in more danger? How are you going to force people on bikes to keep within the posted limit when the various agencies don't with those that kill and maim with ease by the tens of thousands?

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of.

If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit.

If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too.

And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

Obviously bicycles are different with a mass of 10 to 15kg as opposed to a car of 1300 to 2100+ kg which can reach 100mph.
Do you regularly reach 30mph on the flat or uphill?

What is this obscure and outdated statute ?

hirsute wrote:

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of.

If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit.

If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too.

And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

Obviously bicycles are different with a mass of 10 to 15kg as opposed to a car of 1300 to 2100+ kg which can reach 100mph.
Do you regularly reach 30mph on the flat or uphill?

What is this obscure and outdated statute ?

I suspect Wiltsrider found it too hard to concentrate in physics. Doesn't seem to understand law either.

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of.

If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit.

If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too.

And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

Whether or not the speed limit should apply is different from the question of whether of the law is either enforceable or likely to be enforced. The answer to both those questions is a resounding no, so why bother legislating for it? It's a waste of everyone's time that will fail to prevent something that happens once in a blue moon.

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of.

If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit.

If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too.

And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

The use of the term "common sense" is a reliable sign that the writer is someone who is either incapable of thinking or is just too lazy to bother.

(Bog off with your "we" - there is no "we", at least not one that links me to you).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of. If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit. If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too. And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

The use of the term "common sense" is a reliable sign that the writer is someone who is either incapable of thinking or is just too lazy to bother. (Bog off with your "we" - there is no "we", at least not one that links me to you).

 If cyclists killed and injured thousands of people every year they would be treated with respect, like motor vehicle users.

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of. If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit. If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too. And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

There was a comprehensive review of road safety and sentencing announced in 2014, so maybe when the govt gets around to it, they'll include bicycles, horses, skateboards, scooters and joggers in the speed limits, but as it stands the posted speed limits are specifically for motorised vehicles.

Personally, I don't think there would be any benefit in including other vehicles in the speed limits. It would be introducing legislation that would possibly effect one or two people per year and there certainly isn't the spare police capacity to warrant that.

By the way, there isn't any minimum speed/distance/skill required to get a Garmin and/or Strava account. I think you may be a bit confused. End of.

Wiltsrider wrote:

Speed limits should apply to all road users, end of. If you think you are fast enough to have a Garmin and a Strava account you have no excuse not to obey the posted speed limit. If we want to be treated with the respect we want to receive from other road users, we have to not believe we are above a common sense law even if a obscure and outdated statute permits us too. And if you think 'but bicycles are different', that poor old man is just as dead as if he had been hit by a car, bus or lorry.

That 'poor old man' stepped out into the roadway without looking according to a witness..I feel for the poor cyclist,that has to deal with all the issues of crashing into someone that died as a result,along with damage to himself and his bike.

burtthebike wrote:

Something very odd about the contradictory evidence.  Police analysis of cctv footage gives 38mph, extremely unlikely unless the road is significantly downhill, and police analysis of the Garmin data shows 38mph also, but Strava showed 18mph, rather more realistic.  Nottingham Road is quite long, so difficult to tell exactly where this happened, but perhaps someone with local knowledge can tell us if the road is significantly sloping?

Rather sad to see a cyclist giving the usual appalling excuses that drivers use; from the newspaper website

"Giving evidence at the earlier hearing, Mr Bond said: "He (Mr Beach) stepped out in front of me - he came out of nowhere.

"I couldn't have done anything to prevent it.""

Clearly not true, as it isn't true for drivers.  Will there be any subsequent legal action against the cyclist?

I looked at strava segments on that road and there is one downhill segment with a kom with an average of 34mph or something, so it's not unfeasible that he'd have been doing 38mph at some point.

burtthebike wrote:

Something very odd about the contradictory evidence.  Police analysis of cctv footage gives 38mph, extremely unlikely unless the road is significantly downhill, and police analysis of the Garmin data shows 38mph also, but Strava showed 18mph, rather more realistic.  Nottingham Road is quite long, so difficult to tell exactly where this happened, but perhaps someone with local knowledge can tell us if the road is significantly sloping?

I'd like to consider myself a reasonable cyclist, maybe towards the top end of average, but most definitely not good.

In order for met to hit 38 mph generally involves a combination of factors largley - A steep downhill (somewhere in excess of 10% gradient), a tail wind, and a balls to the wall effort..... and that is a peak speed not an average speed.

On one such descent, an average of -5.3% over 1.15 miles I managed to average 25.4mph, I managed to maintain in excess of 38 mph for a total of 11 seconds, where I had gradients of approaching -13% and as the gradient levelled off to -5% my speed dropped to around 28-30mph.

Crusing down a hill of that descent I would probably be hitting max speeds around 30 ish.  So I think that the analysis of the police cctv footage is fundamentally flawed IMHO.  But very easy to verify.  Set a car driving at 38mph along the same stretch of road with the cctv camera recording identical footage, then play both sets of footage side by side and see the outcome