No charges brought against Regent’s Park cyclist after high-speed crash in which pensioner was killed while crossing road

mattw wrote:

Interesting commentsd, as ever. I had a look of this at the weekend.

The poisonous thing here is the Telegraph attempting to weaponise this in their war on cycling to save this Government's backside.

I've heard a little about the potential for rumble strips to be installed either side of pedestrian crossings to slow cyclists down. I'd have no objection if there were no hazards caused for cyclists, wheelers or pedestrians.

Separately I have wondered about the Royal Parks implenting a byelaw applying to 20mph speed limit to cyclists, which is hard to argue against, or more signallised crossings or zebra crossings. Perhaps using the offer of a cycling training course, as used by teh CIty.

Or indeed bring in presumed liability, which would apply to the cyclist in this collision.

All fairly modest measures which would help change culture, without the bran-dead kneejerks from the Telegraph and Spectator.

I don't see that presumed liability would make any difference to this case as there were witnesses to the incident. Presumed liability is for when there's no other evidence to assign liability.

I can't see that rumble strips or changing bye-laws would make any difference as this incident would likely have happened if the cyclist was travelling at less than 20mph, so what's the purpose behind trying to limit their speed? To my mind, the root cause was a pedestrian not taking sufficient care when stepping out into traffic.

Indeed. The first question should be "how often does this kind of thing happen here?" That's including near-collisions.

Perhaps just "tragic error".

If it does turn out that this is not infrequent, and/or cyclists also crash because e.g. dooring (sounds like a fairly busy street environment)... perhaps we could fix it so there is some more appropriate place where cyclists *can* do fast laps? Without worrying about the cars and where pedestrians know they should take extra care to look for cyclists?

Of course there are some cyclists who will be "mah rights! I'll ride where and how i like". Because getting on a bike doesn't necessarily make you a better person - just much less of a problem than someone in a motor vehicle.

Stats information is on crashmap, cyclestreets etc as per usual.

But needs to be treated with some care as it is an effective high volume cycling training track, and a 20mph motor vehicle speed limit. *

I believe that tickets for going the wrong side of Islands are somewhat higher than average, if I have it right. Cycling Mikey country - I think.

I'm not sure why "places for fast laps" need to be provided - no one else gets such facilities at public expense in the public realm where there are risks; London has a number of velodromes, and similar. Is there a cycling business who do track days - somewhere like Castle Combe or Donington Park could be suitable?

Do we have any places (yet?) where there are high quality cycle tracks with few or no pedestrians due to being some way out of town?

(* I believe it was reduced from 30mph in 2018, so the motor vehicle stats split then may be interesting.)

mattw wrote:

Stats information is on crashmap, cyclestreets etc as per usual.

But needs to be treated with some care as it is an effective high volume cycling training track, and a 20mph motor vehicle speed limit. *
[...]

I'm not sure why "places for fast laps" need to be provided - no one else gets such facilities at public expense in the public realm where there are risks.

[...]

Thanks - of course, the numbers should be out there.

Of course these won't measure the "near collisions" (or indeed numbers cycling - though presumably Strava etc?).  Those are important - after all we're essentially discussing "perception".  We on here - if not the general public - appreciate that these kind of events are on the "one or two, every few years" frequency.  "Bees", "trousers" and many other things have higher casualty totals.  (Of course if we're being more thoughtful we'll want the rate or even change in rate over time and some measure of "exposure to the risk".  And of course we're obviously comparing different kinds of events; bees are "part of the environment" and people voluntarily choose to tangle with "dangerous" trousers...)

I am mostly with you on the "but but why do cyclists get to race on the roads?" part.  Of course the other side of this is "but it's perfectly legal; why should we voluntarily embrace more restrictions than everyone else to guard against very unlikely events which the extra care might still not prevent?"

My take was that given (presumably a fair number?) do cycle here for training *even when it's not ideal for cyclists and has some risk to them* perhaps restrictions (up to a ban) would not the most effective solution?

chrisonabike wrote:

I am mostly with you on the "but but why do cyclists get to race on the roads?" part.  Of course the other side of this is "but it's perfectly legal; why should we voluntarily embrace more restrictions than everyone else to guard against very unlikely events which the extra care might still not prevent?"

While cycle racing on the roads is perfectly legal (subject to conditions such as police approval, warning notices and marshals at junctions) this does not seem to be a case of racing on the road, merely training which is very different. If we are going to put restrictions on cyclists training, what about joggers training for the London marathon (other running races are available).

Indeed how do we distinguish between cyclists training and a cyclist late for work or a jogger and someone running for a bus?

Is it that different though?  (Yes, danger goes up rapidly with increasing speed).  As for distinguishing things - from a comment by me ages back - "With a team, above 20mph and doing laps - that would qualify, I'd say."

Perhaps this isn't the most considerate (or sensible) place to train?  Something like doing rugby practice on a footpath, or jogging through a busy shopping centre?

For cyclists like drivers I think it's fair to ask "are you cycling to the conditions?"  I'd say that includes the type of environment.  Here - a busy urban street space where lower speeds are prescribed for motor vehicles, and there will be people numerous people crossing.

Even though perfectly legal * I'm just not sure "but I could have been going way faster" is great mitigation.

* Because no calibrated measuring equipment, not so much because no danger (though apparently less than motor vehicles).

chrisonabike wrote:

Is it that different though?  (Yes, danger goes up rapidly with increasing speed).  As for distinguishing things - from a comment by me ages back - "With a team, above 20mph and doing laps - that would qualify, I'd say."

From my experience, training is often far more dangerous (at least to the rider) than racing because it is done on the public roads without any indication to the public that it is happening, but for racers there is no other option, you have to train in a similar environment to that you will race in, fitness gained from zwift training doesn't help you handling a bike in a bunch on the road. Is it right, maybe not but it is legal which is more than can be said for motorists speeding, close passing, pavement parking etc.

chrisonabike wrote:

Perhaps this isn't the most considerate (or sensible) place to train?  Something like doing rugby practice on a footpath, or jogging through a busy shopping centre?

Without seeing the roads in question at the time of day they were training I wouldn't like to say, most racers are quite particular about where they train as they are well aware that they will usually come off worse in a collision. 

chrisonabike wrote:

For cyclists like drivers I think it's fair to ask "are you cycling to the conditions?"  I'd say that includes the type of environment.  Here - a busy urban street space where lower speeds are prescribed for motor vehicles, and there will be people numerous people crossing.

It's a fair question and in the heat of training they may have been less willing to trade speed for safety than normal, there is always the option for the lead rider to call "ease" if he sees something developing ahead but for some reason that didn't happen in this case, only the riders themselves can know why.

chrisonabike wrote:

Even though perfectly legal * I'm just not sure "but I could have been going way faster" is great mitigation.

* Because no calibrated measuring equipment, not so much because no danger (though apparently less than motor vehicles).

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to use that mitigation, mainly because it doesn't mitigate anything. As to calibrated measuring equipment, it is only on motor vehicles because it is required by law, without the law unscrupulous manufacturers would be fiddling the calibration as a cheaper way to make their cars faster then their competitors

For "track days" - of course this doesn't really address what is likely a "casual turn up of a morning / evening / weekend".  However - with bonuses for "speed" and "wacky races" there is the BHPC!

https://www.bhpc.org.uk/

https://www.bhpc.org.uk/events/2024-races/

There is a place in London where cyclists *can* do fast laps: The road cycle circuit near the Velodrome at the QE Olympic Park. But it costs money to cycle there.

My comments are more aimed at encouraging a change of culture in that place, just as we want to see a change of general road culture.

Ramming a metal brake hood into an elderly persons side at 13m/s vs 4 m/s potentially makes a big difference!

Robert Hardy wrote:

Ramming a metal brake hood into an elderly persons side at 13m/s vs 4 m/s potentially makes a big difference!

Who has metal brake hoods these days, who has suggested that being hit by a brake hood had anything to do with this poor woman's demise, and 4 m/s is 8.9 mph, are you seriously suggesting that should be a limit for cyclists?

Generally disagree.  I would agree that it would be nicer if people cycling were more sensitive to the issues of others.

But would we expect the same if those cyclists were driving though?  Well - we know a percentage of those in cars (with number plates!  having been licenced!) will push it not just up to the line of the law but well over that *.

Perhaps in the case of clubs there's more leverage ("Sort your members out, they're making you look bad")?

As for "but dangerous cyclists!" the issue is really "how to safely educate the population about the presence of cyclists on our streets"**.

Measures to "slow down dangerous cyclists" are a bad idea.  Because that won't even help address the "outrage".  That's a "culture war" being driven by those with far greater reach than all the cycling and road safety organisations put together.

Don't trust me - check the circumstances in which measures to slow cyclists are used in NL.  All the ones I can think of just now are actually to protect cyclists, because cars.

* For some offenses (speeding, probably driving on footway / cycleway) that is more than half of those driving.  And sometimes it turns out it's not just "lack of consideration" but "blantant disregard for others' well-being".

** It turns out that - once people are educated*** - cycling isn't really dangerous where pedestrians have their space.

Caveat as usual - we should be prepared to address the concerns of other vulnerable road users.  And work in partnership to address the understandable concerns of the marginalised e.g. those with cognitive, sight / hearing and mobility issues.

*** The same thing happened with motor vehicles, but the learning process involved decades of lives lost and ruined, to general indifference.  It's still the case; we've just dialled down the volume of outrage to a level most can't hear ...

I agree with most of what you say, but perhaps not the domain of application wrt on-road pelotons training.

I think it's fair to say that there are particular things that could be usefully addressed around the Regets Park Outer Circle (and other Royal Parks?), and done effectively that would then not be an issue able to be leveraged by the Telegraph, Spectator etc into a more general outrage as part of their war on cycling.

I think that the current spurt of outrage is to do with our current Govt trying to save their butts at the next election - Rishi Sunk is playing hula hoops with Hail Mary passes, whilst digging his own political grave. We saw where that got them last Saturday. At the next election their butts will be handed to them in a squeeze tube by the voters, and they will be placed in the dustbin of history for an extended period.

So the real question is perhaps what important and basic things can we change over the next years, especially in England (eg Scotland has their budget-for-active-travel commitment), working with MPs such as Nottingham MP Lillian Greenwood, our now increased numbers of Green Councillors (imo excellent locally, but a bit loopy nationally), Lib Dems who are basically local populists so can be persuaded if lobbied enough etc.

I have a particular eye on Police and Crime Commissioners and ASBO Parking - nearly half of our PCCs are now Labour, up from about 20%, who can be expected to pay more attention to marginalised groups. What change can be generated?

I agree that we are in a culture war, but it is not cycling vs motor culture, it is humans vs motor culture One of the hopeful trends is active travel groups (walkers, wheelers, cyclists, disabled etc) all coming together because we face the same issues.

The culture changes I want are around Local Highways Authorities being made to accept equality for transport modes, public realm improvements, barriers off cycleways, application of the same processes for building cycleways as for roads (eg CPO), and so on. These will all need to be policy-driven. Some of this is modelled in various places, and I support for example Wheels For Wellbeings' ask for LTN 1/20 and Inclusive Mobility to become mandatory, not just guidelines, as a step on this road.

(For this I would recommend the podcast published recently between Carlton Reid and Laura Laker discussing her new book:
https://www.the-spokesmen.com/lauralaker/)

I think that the BicycleDutch Zebra Crossing video linked chooses an extrame example to characterise the UK (a pedestrian deliberately going back to block cyclists), and is quite starry-eyed about NL and Zebras. TBH I think our system is perhaps better as a basic set of assumptions - especially for disabled people, which are then softened a little in practice.

Personally I have very few problems around my town with HWC changes, and I find the HWC changes are gradually making a difference - the places I have problems if any is where poor design ruins sightlines and drivers who can see nothing coming assume it is not there. It hasn't sunk in for some yet, but that is to do with no education campaigns etc.

mattw wrote:

I think it's fair to say that there are particular things that could be usefully addressed around the Regets Park Outer Circle (and other Royal Parks?), and done effectively that would then not be an issue able to be leveraged by the Telegraph, Spectator etc into a more general outrage as part of their war on cycling.

Oh, I think one of those publications might continue even if cycling wasn't just an odd thing a tiny fraction of the population did (including "entitled MAMILs" and "young thugs, thieves and dealers").

AFAIK it's not really an issue in places where cycling is just another mode of transport though.

mattw wrote:

[...] I support for example Wheels For Wellbeings' ask for LTN 1/20 and Inclusive Mobility to become mandatory, not just guidelines, as a step on this road.

Sounds great!  However ... I used to be fully behind this - with a caveat that while LTN1/20 would be a dream in most of the UK it's still setting the bar far too low in many places e.g. widths, there are get-outs etc.

But I recently found that "national standards" are NOT directly set by law in NL.  It's more that they emerge from the way responsibility for street safety, environmental regulations and (of course) desire for political popularity come together.  (The latter in a place where probably the majority of the electorate cycle at some point.)

Not sure exactly the importance of that?  And of course it might still be that without a more prescriptive approach and the big stick safe and convenient design would never get its foot in the door in the UK...

A lot is down to culture - agree on that - and we work from different starting points.

One of our real advantages is that we have a more basic right to be full road users, and so being forced to use poor quality infra will be very difficult to put in place. Unlike some countries in Europe where using cycle tracks provided alongside roads is an obligation. And especially in the US where for example they built the crappy cycle track over the Brooklyn Bridge, and banned cyclists from the carriageway.

Another is PROW laws with access rights which means that where something is a PROW we have an established legal procedure to protect them and clear obstacles etc, and there is at least some consultation involved before removal. This is another set of organsiations we need to join cause with.

One point that needs addressing is that new footpaths, rail trails, greenways etc do not become PROWs automatically. There are tens of thousands of miles of these that need to be recategorised, and it needs ot be automatic with all new ones.

I go for LTN 1/20 mandatory with minimal exceptions as my desired balance, meaning 99%.

mattw wrote:

One of our real advantages is that we have a more basic right to be full road users, and so being forced to use poor quality infra will be very difficult to put in place. Unlike some countries in Europe where using cycle tracks provided alongside roads is an obligation. And especially in the US where for example they built the crappy cycle track over the Brooklyn Bridge, and banned cyclists from the carriageway.

I'm sure the rules will differ, but is that a fact (IANAL)?  Noting that things are different even within the UK (e.g. "right to roam" for me in Scotland) and actually there are already legal restrictions for non-motorised users on some roads.

So I'm wary when I hear "but they'll confine us to rubbish infra!"  It's not that I don't think it's possible.  I just question people who think it's THE hill to die on or a great defence.  I doubt the authorities would have much problem getting round it should they want.  And it's already happened for most people - those who just don't cycle - by fiat.

Agree about the PROW laws - that could be a useful lever.

chrisonabike wrote:

mattw wrote:

One of our real advantages is that we have a more basic right to be full road users, and so being forced to use poor quality infra will be very difficult to put in place. Unlike some countries in Europe where using cycle tracks provided alongside roads is an obligation. And especially in the US where for example they built the crappy cycle track over the Brooklyn Bridge, and banned cyclists from the carriageway.

I'm sure the rules will differ, but is that a fact (IANAL)?  Noting that things are different even within the UK (e.g. "right to roam" for me in Scotland) and actually there are already legal restrictions for non-motorised users on some roads.

AFAIK, the only roads you're not allowed to walk on are those classed as motorways, there are a few others where cycling is banned but they are very rare, in the case of motorways there are quite a few motorised vehicles that are also banned.

chrisonabike wrote:

So I'm wary when I hear "but they'll confine us to rubbish infra!"  It's not that I don't think it's possible.  I just question people who think it's THE hill to die on or a great defence.  I doubt the authorities would have much problem getting round it should they want.  And it's already happened for most people - those who just don't cycle - by fiat.

Agree about the PROW laws - that could be a useful lever.

Until I actually see some good cycling infrastructure I'm going to keep my fallacy thank you very much, I'm sure there must be some somewhere but I've never come across it!

Backladder wrote:

Until I actually see some good cycling infrastructure I'm going to keep my fallacy thank you very much, I'm sure there must be some somewhere but I've never come across it!

Fair point.   Without pointing too far (e.g. across the North Sea) - there are some local bits which are "mostly good enough" for me:

http://www.cycling-edinburgh.org.uk/bike-paths.htm

I've started noticing I use these in preference to roads even where routes are a bit longer.  That's part habit, partly to avoid hills but mostly they feel quicker and I think that's due to zero traffic lights and minimal slowing for junctions.  Effectively never being around motor vehicles (see "youth" below) and in green, quiet space also grows on you.

Of course these aren't "gold standard": they're shared use.  That should be a serious deficiency but on these specific examples I find it's *mostly* not an issue.  Though I now know where to avoid (canal, Water of Leith walkway) and I'm not "training".  And once in a while it's not good because you've mistimed it and catch a football crowd, or it's "everyone take the toddlers and dogs out" day.

Social safety is a major issue for some (especially after dark).  Luckily I've only had a few issues (youth - a couple of times with "borrowed" motorbikes or "look 20+ mph no pedalling" things...)

The newest routes in Edinburgh (NOT Leith Walk - e.g. CCWEL) are getting closer to it.  Still inconsistent, still have various deficiencies.  I think they've grasped the concepts of "continuous" and "separate" now though.  They're nearly there with "continous side-road crossing" and they're grappling with "...and not round the houses".  Fixing the junctions where you have to cross a road next, hopefully!

mattw wrote:

I think that the BicycleDutch Zebra Crossing video linked chooses an extrame example to characterise the UK (a pedestrian deliberately going back to block cyclists), and is quite starry-eyed about NL and Zebras. TBH I think our system is perhaps better as a basic set of assumptions - especially for disabled people, which are then softened a little in practice.

Reasonable points, though I feel their view is balanced (if normally cycle-positive!).  UK crossings are simply set up for motor users, needed because:

• Pedestrians are rightly concerned about threat from motor vehicles.  (Signalised crossings remain somewhat dangerous e.g. because vehicles can be hidden by each other, people "make mistakes" and do not notice people waiting / red lights etc.).
• Motorists are not able to reliably "negotiate" with pedestrians. (See complaints about "shared space" with cars).
• Without more formal crossings some people would feel unable to cross.  Note that this is a product of percieved danger, volume of traffic and distance to cross.  And we sometimes have crossings of more than 2 lanes!  (The usual "safety solution" is even more inconvenience for those crossing - staggered multi-stage crossings...)

The difference (formal crossing vs. informal cycle path crossing) seems to be there is less danger from cyclists (but we should check figures), plus it is much easier to cross cycle paths because (a) they're much narrower (as are the bikes), (b) speeds are lower (c) visual negotiation is easier.

Of course the latter isn't an option for some.

You can find some accounts from people who don't feel safe in NL with the volume of cyclists.  I see this as "how it is" - a more-or-less imperfect balancing act of convenience (for most), harm minimisation * and regard for "minorities".  (Noting that "accessibility changes" are often also good for the majority).

In the UK the majority travelling are in cars and disregard those outside to a certain extent.  In NL overall the majority are still in cars, but a large minority are on bikes** - but they are still the same people.  So I'm sure they won't all be perfectly "polite and considerate" around those crossing.

The choices would be do we want most people in cars or not *?  Then - what is the balance between the UK way (formal crossings) and something different?  The UK system is definitely inconvenient for everyone - pedestrians have to wait, cyclists sometimes have to stop completely - and it's still not entirely safe.

* It is to our advantage to have fewer journeys made by driving; while there are plenty of ideas to achieve that AFAICS that is only "realistically" achievable by a raft of measures including increasing cycling (possibly including low-powered e-whatevers in that).  Barring some kind of major social shift / diktats from an authoritarian cycle-favouring regime etc.

** Because of the Dutch approach to planning public spaces where there are people on foot the next most common mode encountered will be cycling.  So effectively "cyclists are in the majority" in many places for pedestrians.

I dont think this has anything to do with Rishi, or the current governments position. Steve Bird has been writing these kinds of anti cycling and anti LTN hit pieces for the Telegraph going back at least the last 4 years, maybe even longer.

If anyone was guilty of carelessness, it was the pedestrian who walked out on to the road directly in front of a cyclist.

stonojnr wrote:

hitting a pedestrian is surely slam dunk carelessness, and if the response is but they didnt have enough time to react, then the answer is surely to slow down.

On that basis all traffic should proceed at walking pace at all times to ensure that they have time to stop even if a pedestrian steps out when they are two metres away. Obviously we don't know the exact circumstances here but assuming that any time a cyclist, or indeed a motor vehicle, hits a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them it must indicate carelessness on the part of the cyclist or driver is nonsense.

Rendel Harris wrote:

stonojnr wrote:

hitting a pedestrian is surely slam dunk carelessness, and if the response is but they didnt have enough time to react, then the answer is surely to slow down.

On that basis all traffic should proceed at walking pace at all times to ensure that they have time to stop even if a pedestrian steps out when they are two metres away. Obviously we don't know the exact circumstances here but assuming that any time a cyclist, or indeed a motor vehicle, hits a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them it must indicate carelessness on the part of the cyclist or driver is nonsense.

I completely disagree. You're repeating the same arguments that were used to justify restrictions on pedestrians in the US in the 1920s when thousands were being killed every year by drivers.

The person responsible for the heavier/faster vehicle that hits someone else is ALWAYS responsible. If someone is capable of ''stepping out in front of" you, then you should slow down or at least, be ready to stop, in case they do.

matthewn5 wrote:

The person responsible for the heavier/faster vehicle that hits someone else is ALWAYS responsible. If someone is capable of ''stepping out in front of" you, then you should slow down or at least, be ready to stop, in case they do.

As a large and heavy person who strides out when walking I have had people walk out in front of me from shop doorways without looking, some of these have been knocked over and suffered minor injuries but could have been more seriously hurt if they were unlucky. Are you seriously suggesting that I have to slow my walking pace for idiots who don't look where they are going?

Well ... would it hurt you to wear hi-vis and a tabard with your pedestrian licence number?

Maybe you could mount an amber warning light on your pedestrian helmet also?  If it saves one life...

I won't even run lights on my bike unless visibility is poor, so hi-vis, helmet and tabard are completely out of the question, fair warning to everyone and his dog, look where you're going or I'll knock you down! 

matthewn5 wrote:

I completely disagree. You're repeating the same arguments that were used to justify restrictions on pedestrians in the US in the 1920s when thousands were being killed every year by drivers.

The person responsible for the heavier/faster vehicle that hits someone else is ALWAYS responsible. If someone is capable of ''stepping out in front of" you, then you should slow down or at least, be ready to stop, in case they do.

In principle, the heavier/faster vehicle should be responsible nearly all the time, but if a pedestrian steps out with only 2m space in front of a vehicle, it's not considered humanly possible to avoid them due to the thinking time involved if they are travelling at any normal speed.

By my calculations, a max speed of 3.5mph would be required to allow a stopping distance of 2m - doesn't seem practical to me when pedestrians can walk at 4mph.