Cyclist in life-threatening condition following collision with pedestrian in Reading

AST1986 wrote:

Some fundamental facts missing here so I'll just wish both people involved a speedy recovery. 

I'd agree with the latter, but there's quite a bit of the former. A few thoughts:

...at around 7.30pm

So, it was dark. 

(I'm assuming the ped wasn't wearing hi-viz.)

The cyclist was turning onto Church Road from Wokingham Road.

This is very valuable. A quick check of Google (the Street View in particular) shows:

- this is a right hand turn from an A (two lanes) road to a B road. (In the photo used by road.cc above, the cyclist would have been coming from the right of the shot.)

- there are lights, with an ASL. However, the lane isn't filtered so the cyclist would have been mixing with traffic going straight on. (Speed is a possibility, but not faster than a car would go.)

- there is no pedestrian crossing across Church Road. (WTAF???) despite shops and pavements on either side. Tellingly, Street View shows people trying to cross and crossing while traffic is moving. One woman is even in the middle of the road with a car in front of her. Plus, they're not crossing by the lights - they're crossing where the road is much wider. 

- It was dark, however, there is a streetlight  on that corner. (Functional?)

(I'm disregarding the bystander's comments for now - we don't know where he was standing, what he considers to be speed, etc.)

So, it's easy enough to start building a scenario with just those two bits of information. 

We don't know which way the ped was crossing (l-r or r-l), his speed (20s so normal pace, assuming no disability?), etc. Looking at that junction though, I'd be surprised if he was looking at his phone. With no designated crossing, you would have to at least check for traffic. Would he expect or be looking for a cyclist to come around that corner? Cars would. Could he see the cyclist approaching? There is a fair bit of street furniture which could obscure his view.

From the cyclist's POV: given a green light, in all reasonable circumstances, coming around that corner, would you not expect to have a clear-ish road and for peds to be using a crossing point? There is also a possibility street furniture on the approach could have obscured his view.

Rule 170 appears to apply, but would the driver of a motor vehicle expect to be held to the same standards?

If I were to be assigning blame with this evidence, at this point, I would say it rests firmly on the shoulders of the planners who decided a pedestrian crossing wasn't needed on this junction. Idiots.

dottigirl wrote:

The cyclist was turning onto Church Road from Wokingham Road.

This is very valuable. A quick check of Google (the Street View in particular) shows:

- this is a right hand turn from an A (two lanes) road to a B road. (In the photo used by road.cc above, the cyclist would have been coming from the right of the shot.)

- there are lights, with an ASL. However, the lane isn't filtered so the cyclist would have been mixing with traffic going straight on. (Speed is a possibility, but not faster than a car would go.)

- there is no pedestrian crossing across Church Road. (WTAF???) despite shops and pavements on either side. Tellingly, Street View shows people trying to cross and crossing while traffic is moving. One woman is even in the middle of the road with a car in front of her. Plus, they're not crossing by the lights - they're crossing where the road is much wider. 

- It was dark, however, there is a streetlight  on that corner. (Functional?)

(I'm disregarding the bystander's comments for now - we don't know where he was standing, what he considers to be speed, etc.)

So, it's easy enough to start building a scenario with just those two bits of information. 

We don't know which way the ped was crossing (l-r or r-l), his speed (20s so normal pace, assuming no disability?), etc. Looking at that junction though, I'd be surprised if he was looking at his phone. With no designated crossing, you would have to at least check for traffic. Would he expect or be looking for a cyclist to come around that corner? Cars would. Could he see the cyclist approaching? There is a fair bit of street furniture which could obscure his view.

From the cyclist's POV: given a green light, in all reasonable circumstances, coming around that corner, would you not expect to have a clear-ish road and for peds to be using a crossing point? There is also a possibility street furniture on the approach could have obscured his view.

Rule 170 appears to apply, but would the driver of a motor vehicle expect to be held to the same standards?

If I were to be assigning blame with this evidence, at this point, I would say it rests firmly on the shoulders of the planners who decided a pedestrian crossing wasn't needed on this junction. Idiots.

Who says the cyclist was turning right? You can equally well turn left onto Church Road from Wokingham Road, depending on which way you were travelling along Wokingham road.

If you were turning right onto Church Road, then you definitely have much more visibility of the turning.

If you were turning left onto Church Road, then you have much less visibility of the junction due to the estate agent building on the corner.

Church Road doesn't actually have a pedestrian crossing - to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings - across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.

I know that junction very well, and the amount of pedestrians that just walk into the road - often when their lights are red and just as the lights have changed to green for the traffic - is ridiculous.

LastBoyScout wrote:

Who says the cyclist was turning right? You can equally well turn left onto Church Road from Wokingham Road, depending on which way you were travelling along Wokingham road.

If you were turning right onto Church Road, then you definitely have much more visibility of the turning.

If you were turning left onto Church Road, then you have much less visibility of the junction due to the estate agent building on the corner.

Church Road doesn't actually have a pedestrian crossing - to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings - across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.

I know that junction very well, and the amount of pedestrians that just walk into the road - often when their lights are red and just as the lights have changed to green for the traffic - is ridiculous.

 

I know the junction well too, and up until quite recently, would have cycled home from work every night at that time. It is very poorly laid out but I don't think can be improved easily. One possible improvement might be to make all the traffic lights red at the same time so pedestrians and cyclists (some are toucans) are free to cross at any point.

You did miss count slightly, by my reckoning it would be a total of four crossings, as once side of Wokingham road is split a split junction.

jh27 wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

Church Road doesn't actually have a pedestrian crossing - to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings - across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.

You did miss count slightly, by my reckoning it would be a total of four crossings, as once side of Wokingham road is a split junction.

Nope, I meant you have to cross 3 roads. If you want to count actual crossing segments, then I agree it's 4 light-controlled crossings, or 6 sections if you half-ignore the lights and cross the bits where traffic isn't flowing.

LastBoyScout wrote:

Who says the cyclist was turning right? You can equally well turn left onto Church Road from Wokingham Road, depending on which way you were travelling along Wokingham road.

If you were turning right onto Church Road, then you definitely have much more visibility of the turning.

If you were turning left onto Church Road, then you have much less visibility of the junction due to the estate agent building on the corner.

Church Road doesn't actually have a pedestrian crossing - to cross it using proper crossings, you actually have to make 3 crossings - across Wokingham Road, across Winderness Road and back across Wokingham road.

I know that junction very well, and the amount of pedestrians that just walk into the road - often when their lights are red and just as the lights have changed to green for the traffic - is ridiculous.

Apologies, thought I'd seen it written somewhere that he was coming from that direction. If he coming from the NW, wouldn't cutting out the junction by going down Heath Road would make more sense?

I did observe there was no pedestrian crossing though for Church. You have to wonder why not. That means they don't have 'their' own lights to go by. And I can't see many people being patient enough to use three crossings instead of chancing it.

danthomascyclist wrote:

Quote:

A bystander who spoke with police at the scene said: "A cyclist with no helmet came around the corner at high speed and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road."

I'm interested to know why the bystander thinks that's relevant.

They also added "at high speed" to double up on the placing liability, without mentioning at all if the pedestrian was crossing on a red man, or if they were staring at their phone.

Too little information with a prejudiced witness.

Doesn't matter if the pedestrian was crossing "illegally" - if he's in the road, traffic turning into the road where he is crossing should give way. Rule 170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

RMurphy195 wrote:

Doesn't matter if the pedestrian was crossing "illegally" - if he's in the road, traffic turning into the road where he is crossing should give way. Rule 170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

Quite true ! And further more there is a possibility that if the Cyclist had been wearing a  helmet this just may have prevented serious head injuries ! Though we will never know without a re run , will we !

Batchy wrote:

RMurphy195 wrote:

Doesn't matter if the pedestrian was crossing "illegally" - if he's in the road, traffic turning into the road where he is crossing should give way. Rule 170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

Quite true ! And further more there is a possibility that if the Cyclist had been wearing a  helmet this just may have prevented serious head injuries ! Though we will never know without a re run , will we !

 

or caused more to the pedestrian.

However the other comments are relevant here.  Had a pedestrian been crossing the road and hit by a car then helmets wouldn't really come into it and you can be sure that the story would be something like "pedestrian just walked out and the driver had no chance"

as usual its massively vague.  

Suggest there's not enough real detail here.....personally I would have worn a helmet, may have helped limit the injury  

RMurphy195 wrote:

Doesn't matter if the pedestrian was crossing "illegally" - if he's in the road, traffic turning into the road where he is crossing should give way. Rule 170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

A rule most drivers seem to ignore. Although it shouldn't be necessary to tell people not to move big metal boxes into human beings.

Otherwise all core, only possible excuse would be if the pedestrian stepped into thd road right in front of the cyclist.

RMurphy195 wrote:

Doesn't matter if the pedestrian was crossing "illegally" - if he's in the road, traffic turning into the road where he is crossing should give way. Rule 170 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

 

Really?! You seem to be implying this guy deliberately didn't give way to the pedestrian, does that seem likely given his injuries?

My mum saw the aftermath of this and explained it to me that evening... I then told her about the idiot that suddenly ran out in front of me that very morning the other side of Reading Uni. I was over 20mph at the time, barely missed the guy, didn't even have enough time to touch the brakes. Had i had enough time to react, I'd have either slammed into an oncoming car at high speed or bounced off parked cars at over 20mph. Either way, it's the cyclist that would be skidding off the tarmac on their face.

This particular idiot looked right at me, didn't see a car coming and then proceeded to run across the road... My white helmet and fluorescent yellow hi-viz jacket obviously made me invisible in the motor-centric world.

zanf wrote:

They also added "at high speed" to double up on the placing liability, without mentioning at all if the pedestrian was crossing on a red man, or if they were staring at their phone.

I think it's fair to argue that anyone cycling with due care shouldn't hit such a person. I'm guessing that had the cyclist been armed with a car we wouldn't be seeing the slower road user's behaviour being scrutinised here.

Bez wrote:

I think it's fair to argue that anyone cycling with due care shouldn't hit such a person. I'm guessing that had the cyclist been armed with a car we wouldn't be seeing the slower road user's behaviour being scrutinised here.

True. While there's too little information to say anything much about this one, in general the primary duty of care should be with the side that provides most of the kinetic energy.

However, one can also note that had the cyclist been armed with a car, they almost certainly wouldn't have ended up as the more seriously hurt of the two.

danthomascyclist wrote:

Quote:

A bystander who spoke with police at the scene said: "A cyclist with no helmet came around the corner at high speed and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road."

I'm interested to know why the bystander thinks that's relevant.

I dunno, but as the cyclist has head injuries, perhaps? They probably think that's relevant.

(Whether a bit of polystyrene would have helped, we'll probably never know.)

danthomascyclist wrote:

Quote:

A bystander who spoke with police at the scene said: "A cyclist with no helmet came around the corner at high speed and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road."

I'm interested to know why the bystander thinks that's relevant.

Because the cyclist suffered life threatening injuries and the bystander believes a helmet may have prevented that.

danthomascyclist wrote:

Quote:

A bystander who spoke with police at the scene said: "A cyclist with no helmet came around the corner at high speed and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road."

I'm interested to know why the bystander thinks that's relevant.

given the nature of the crash, I'd say head trauma most likely 'life threatening injury' so reasonably relevant.