Pedestrian killed and cyclist seriously injured following crash on cycleway in Stevenage

Which probably means that one or the other of the parties involved was on the wrong side of the barrier...

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 disputing that.

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, 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:

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.

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 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:

Personally I think 'presumed liability' is madness but it's very popular on this site.

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:

Rich_cb wrote:

Personally I think 'presumed liability' is madness but it's very popular on this site.

Presumed liability as enshrined in Law is very popular and effective in many European countries.

It is very populsr for good reason.  Remember that it is for civil cases not criminal in most jurisdictions.

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:

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.

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?

spen wrote:

For gods sake, on shared use paths slow down.  10 - 12 mph is plenty whenthere's pedestrians around

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:

spen wrote:

For gods sake, on shared use paths slow down.  10 - 12 mph is plenty whenthere's pedestrians around

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...

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 intending that it was!

No worries - I don't think that you're a reckless cyclist.

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 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 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 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 pedestrian can suffer bad injuries - one of the reasons I don't like using shared paths.

spen wrote:

For gods sake, on shared use paths slow down.  10 - 12 mph is plenty whenthere's pedestrians around

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 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:

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

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 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:

spen wrote:

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

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? 

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:

For gods sake, on shared use paths slow down.  10 - 12 mph is plenty whenthere's pedestrians around

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?