- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
broken bike.jpgCyclist killed when pedestrian stepped out in front of him may have been prosecuted had he survived
The family of a Reading cyclist who died after a pedestrian stepped out into the road in front of him, causing a crash, were told he may have faced prosecution had he survived, it has emerged.
Benjamin Pedley, aged 26, died from head injuries sustained following the collision in Earley, near Reading, with Nathan Kellsell in March this year. At an inquest earlier this month, witnesses described how the pedestrian had walked into the road without seeing him.
> Berkshire cyclist died after pedestrian stepped out in front of him, finds inquest
Mr Kellsell was also injured and has no memory of the incident, and Mr Pedley’s brother William has told Get Reading that police informed him that had the rider survived, he could have been prosecuted.
However, he and his family believe that pedestrians who step into the road causing a cyclist to crash should be held to account for their actions.
"It is an incredibly sad but avoidable death,” he said. "But I spoke to police officers who said if Ben had survived and was healthy there would be a chance that he would be prosecuted as a road user.
"And yet there is no comeuppance for a pedestrian,” he continued. "At the moment there is no law to say that if you step out into a road you are responsible for your actions.
"Potentially one could step out in front of somebody you have a vendetta against and nothing would happen about it.
"Surely the law needs to be changed so that when you step into a road, you are responsible for your actions," he added.
The news comes in a week that London cyclist Charlie Alliston was sentenced to 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs.
Last month, an Old Bailey jury cleared Alliston of manslaughter but convicted him of causing bodily harm by furious and wanton driving under the Offences Against The Person Act 1
Mrs Briggs had started to cross London’s Old Street as Alliston approached, with much of the prosecution’s case resting on the fact that his fixed wheel bike had no front brake, meaning it was not legal for use on the road.
That case, and the media furore surrounding it, prompted the government to announce last night an urgent review of the law regarding cyclists, including whether offences of causing death by dangerous or careless cycling should be introduced.
> Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- rogerwb 1 hour 42 min ago
Jump off the bike and run across. I cycle in trainers though.
- momove 2 hours 45 min ago
Cheers for the lesson! Wasn't expecting one so was pleasantly surprised, especially getting to find the origin of "laconic"!
- ktache 3 hours 32 min ago
Isn't it a rights issue?
- Mikezerodown 4 hours 15 min ago
They were before change all systems, then went downhill due to bad adminstration aka CEO who agree to proceed with the worst system I have seen...
- AidanR 4 hours 22 min ago
Same here - it took me by surprise. 10:30am doesn't feel like a dangerous time to cycle; apparently I'm wrong on that.
- Daddy Feebs 4 hours 35 min ago
If anything, it looks a bit like an SL6
- wtjs 5 hours 11 min ago
Other commenters have different views True!
- Daclu Trelub 5 hours 26 min ago
Incredibly bone-headed.
- Sriracha 7 hours 28 min ago
Lidl have a window poster emblazoned, "Black Friday. Starts Sunday".
Add new comment
88 comments
Disagree in the first instance Fluffy. We don't know what happened with the driver, effed up, foot slipped who knows? But they'd stopped and were presumably letting someone cross. The rider was travelling at a decent speed and had no intention of lessening it, looking for a gap, an opportunity. It's hard to beg for 1.5m and then dive down the inside of a car like that. Ignorant, arrogant, shite cycling.
The second is 50:50 and not really representative of what was being discussed. Appears the parents a moron for letting them play like that and the cyclist should have been able to see it coming. In fairness had scrubbed some speed off. What a car would do isn't really worth thinking about...
Unfortunately pedestrians don't give any consideration to cyclists because they cant hear them therefore the road must be clear.
So far I have been lucky and managed to avoid any accidents involving pedestrians, but going by the fact that pedestrians meandering out in front of me is pretty much a daily occurance there will come a point when an accident will happen.
But to be fair some pedestrians just dont give any fucks at all.... Sat in a queue of traffic in my car, a pedestrian, listening to music and texting on her phone, walks through the line of stationary traffic, and straight onto the live carriageway in front of a van. How the van managed to stop and avoid hitting her I don't know...... but the best part is.... the pedestrian never even noticed the van, no reaction to the fact that the van must have stopped less than a couple of feet from them.... just kept texting and walking without a care in the world
Looks given: one. Cyclists seen: one (me). Fucks given: zero.
I get it from pedestrians (and motorists) every day.
Before the prick deliberately walked out on me yesterday morning (laughing as I cursed and slammed on the brakes), I was near work, thinking what a nice ride it'd been and how most motorists/pedestrians/fellow cyclists are actually alright. And they are.
Got to keep remembering that.
These twats are everywhere. Had one on Sunday that didn't want to cross at the crossing 30ft away and started meandering across, shopping in hand. As I approached, eye contact was made and still they came, confident I would stop for them or something. I didn't slow down as I was only doing about 15 with a front brake(not 18!) and they had to eventually stop for 2 seconds as I rode past.
As I passed them they then screamed "boo" at the top of the voice, I just looked round, shook my head and kept on riding. She thought it was hilarious. Small things.
"Small things" - that would be many people's (1) capacity for rational thought, and (2) empathy with their fellow humans, then?
Wish I had £1 for every time I've been passed by a car and the passenger has found it funny to scream something on the way past. Cracks me up every time - bastards!
Substitute pedestrian for cyclist, "shopping" for "lycra clad", "crossing" for "cycle lane" "meandering" for "2 abreast" and "I didn't slow down" for "punishment pass".
Pedestrians in the road? Tough. Slow down and yield priority or accept that drivers of larger vehicles have the same privileges as yourself when bullying their way past inconvenient slower, smaller, more vulnerable road users.
As to your pedestrian, you had no idea if they were drunk, suicidal, mentally disturbed, looking to cause you harm or just daft. Proceed with caution!
Substitute pedestrian for cyclist, "shopping" for "lycra clad", "crossing" for "cycle lane" "meandering" for "2 abreast" and "I didn't slow down" for "punishment pass". Pedestrians in the road? Tough. Slow down and yield priority or accept that drivers of larger vehicles have the same privileges as yourself when bullying their way past inconvenient slower, smaller, more vulnerable road users. As to your pedestrian, you had no idea if they were drunk, suicidal, mentally disturbed, looking to cause you harm or just daft. Proceed with caution![/quote]
No. I was aware the person was there. They were aware I was there. They chose to try and cross 30ft from a proper crossing for which I would have legally stopped.
Stop all this pedestrian being the highest form of life thought. If they are choosing the enter the road literally feet away from proper crossing then sorry, imo they don't have 'right of way'. Nobody got punishment passed - pedestrian chose to keep walking towards a vehicle already in the road.
If it was an elderly person/child/disabled person my attitude and I'd happily yield. It was just a chancer that didn't care. When pedestrians have accidents that don't involve being at proper crossing points either the vehicle was somewhere it shouldn't have been or the pedestrian was.
All very good points.
A war between cyclists and pedestrians seems really meaningless and diving to me. For me getting killed by absent-minded pedestrian seems equally possible with the death from a piano fall, donkey kick or a bathroom electrocution
That's the point. The motoring lobby seeks to divide and conquer. If they can get the government and media to foment a phoney war between "pedestrians" and "cyclists" (because nobody's both, right?), the most vulnerable groups of road users won't have as loud a voice as they could do against the most dangerous.
It is obvious that the only way cyclists can protect themselves is to demonize a more vulnerable group; Freakin Pedestritard Morons, Zombified Walkwankers. Seems to work for drivers.
Clearly the only way to avoid prosecution in these circumstances(if your not dead) to do nothing to and take no action to avoiding the collision. go with the Michael Mason defence. I didn't see anything, it was 'sky potatoes!'
cast iron get out of jail free card, you could perhaps suggest the sun was in the sky too, that one works every time too.
Each year that passes sees cyclists seemingly get worse at riding defensively but pedestrians have certainly tried to out do cyclists with such regular feats such as be crossing from behind or in front of buses, crossing while having headphones in and not looking, looking at their phone with headphones in or my personal favourite crossing inbetween two crossings which is often undertaken by the older generation. I guess while laws will help but natural selection is a stronger force at the moment.
I didn't like this article when I saw it on Get Reading yesterday. Who exactly is 'the Police'? Some random copper in the pub or a senior spokesperson - all we have is hearsay that someone who works for the Police said something. Besides, it is not down to the Police to say who gets prosecuted for what, surely that is the role of the Crown Prosecution Service?
The pedestrian crossing video: @karlssberg "I broke my finger". Tit. You could have killed someone.
I have to admit, the children running in to the road were lucky to survive and I don't think you'd have been wholly at fault. I'm sure it wasn't the first time they'd run in to the road, but it would be good to think it was the last.
And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBfkpKtbiv0 - you're totally in the wrong to have overtaken the bus in the first place. Whatever you may claim the police told you.
Perhaps you could post some videos of finer examples of your own bike-craft to restore respect in your own riding.
That bus overtake was rather stupid, but, and it's a separate issue... that's no excuse for the truck driver ploughing through as if he couldn't harm the cyclist. Two wrongs obviously don't make a right and it doesn't excuse the reckless overtake.
Imagine you are driving and a cyclist suddenly veers into your lane coming towards you, would you carry on or exercise some caution and maybe slow to a speed relative to the proximity?
In London traffic if you don't plough through you don't get anywhere. This scares people who aren't use to it especially as the aggressiveness of the driving varies from borough to borough, and even within parts of the same borough. There are boroughs or parts of boroughs were people refuse to use any form of vehicle unless they are a passenger.
If you do stupid things like overtake a bus when there is no room so you are on the wrong side of the road and you are in one of the more aggressive parts, then don't be surprised if other road users don't stop until the last possible minute if they have to stop.
There has been a lot of talk and posts on Road.cc in the past about presumed liability, if that were present who do you think would be presumed to be at fault by law? the pedestrain walking or the cyclist travelling at a higher speed?
In civil law the least vulnerable party would be liable unless they could prove blame on the vulnerable party.
It would have no effect whatever on criminal liability.
Cyclists would have to pay damages to the pedestrian even if the pedestrian was at fault but you could not prove it.
Who says pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists in cycle v ped collisions?
I don't believe that to be true.
I wonder about that too. I've read of several cases in which cyclists have been killed or injured by pedestrians (walking or jogging).
We don't know any of the circumstances in this case. I strongly believe for the Police to have made the statement above there must be something we do not know in the actions leading up to the collision.
Whilst a pedestrian might be negligent it is still up to the other road users to mitigate the consequences of that negligence.
Charlie Alliston was convicted as much for his attitude as the illegality of the bike. he gave the impression that he believed that it was not his obligation to slow as he had "right of way". Whoever was to blame initially he should have tried as hard as he could to avoid the collision.
I benefited from this last week. I was going downhill at 25mph on a straight road when a car appeared on my left exiting a farmers field through a small gap in the hedge only visible from 10yds before you reached it.
It was too late to brake and to avoid collision I had to veer right into the oncoming lane. Two cars were coming towards me but they both saw what was happening and they stopped and made room for me to pass on their side of the road.
Had they hit me they could easily have claimed it was not their fault.
Mrs Briggs deserved the same consideration from Charlie Alliston and for all we know so did Nathan Kellsell.
Some defendents really ask for the verdicts they are given like Charle Alliston. If he had said that he did all he could to stop no one would have been able to argue and it would have put his case in an entirely different light.
It reminds me of the case of Tony Martin (from Norwich not Germany) who talked himself into a shooting conviction when there was an obvious defense which just required him to take it.
The inquest actually found the pedestrian to be at fault, even after they tried to find a way to blame the cyclist, pointing at clothing, helmet, speed (26mph, which I don't believe), couldn't prove the traffic lights were green for the cyclist (innocent until proven guilty?!). Maybe you should read up on the case a little?
Isn't this the case where the ped had been to the pub and was in a rush to get to the sweet shop?
- if so, the CPS would never throw money down the drain even considering bringing it to court
Yeah, WTF is pub then sweets? Is this a thing the yoof do these days?
Little shit better mean 'drugs'.
We are now prosecuted (in theory) for using a phone whilst driving but yet are able to wander around head down, phone out, in zombie mode, with no comeback when it causes an accident.
There needs to be a sea-change that as a pedestrian you don't have blanket immunity for all responsibility because 'pedestrians have right of way'. If you step out in front a lorry that swerves and then causes another accident and 10 people die then you need to be punished rather than just 'oh well'.
Indeed, and the biggest problem now on shared use paths is pedestrians with head down looking at mobile phone, closely followed by the dog on a 5m lead. Would you be charged with causing death by dangerous driving if you collided with a phone-walker? Would a dog owner be charged with causing death by dangerous dog walking if a cyclist hit the lead, fell off and died?
Both probably about the same risk as a cyclist killing a pedestrian in a 14mph collision.
This review is going to be very interesting.
In 2003 a pedestrian ran into my lane whilst I was driving.
She was running across the road. She hadn't seen me as she was looking behind her.
Despite approaching a red traffic light and only doing 10-15mph and swerving away from her,I couldn't stop in time. She ran straight into the passenger side wing, fell across the bonnet, and smashed her head on the windscreen, then rolled down the side of the car. She suffered a fractured skull and had no memory of anything up until 3 weeks before the collision. The car required a new wing, wing mirror and windsceen.
The police investigated the collision and decided that had no case to answer. The pedestrian never pursued an insurance claim against me.
So no you are not automatically prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian.
I've been in a number of collisions with pedestrians (and have also been guilty of being an ignorant pedestrian that wasn't looking where I was going, but not with any serious consequences). Personally I think cyclists are the ones that need extra (legal) protection as they are more likely to be knocked flying into the path of an oncoming motor vehicle or something equally unpleasant.
Below are some of my collisions with pedestrians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4f32X3LtgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dM6K8Ps4rs
There seems to be some confusion about overtaking at crossing... Although Highway Code rule 191 states that vehicles must not overtake at a crossing, the wording is problematic. The actual law states that it only applies to motor vehicles. So cycles ARE permitted to overtake other vehicles at crossings.
At zebra crossings, you only need to give way to pedestrians that have stepped onto the crossing. You don't have to wait for them to fully cross.
I am the first to admit that with hindsight there is something that could have been done to avoid these accidents. But hindsight is an exact science and no amount of holier-than-thou analysis will save you from your own fallibilities. That said, I sincerely hope you all have the good fortune to avoid situations such as these, it's a pretty unpleasant experience.
Ride Safely everyone
Pages