- 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
- grOg 3 sec ago
Where does it state in the article that Ashley purchased the stock? it does state that Ashley bought the brand and intellectual property, not the...
- rogerwb 2 hours 40 min ago
Jump off the bike and run across. I cycle in trainers though.
- momove 3 hours 43 min ago
Cheers for the lesson! Wasn't expecting one so was pleasantly surprised, especially getting to find the origin of "laconic"!
- ktache 4 hours 30 min ago
Isn't it a rights issue?
- AidanR 5 hours 20 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 5 hours 33 min ago
If anything, it looks a bit like an SL6
- wtjs 6 hours 9 min ago
Other commenters have different views True!
- Daclu Trelub 6 hours 24 min ago
Incredibly bone-headed.
- Sriracha 8 hours 26 min ago
Lidl have a window poster emblazoned, "Black Friday. Starts Sunday".
Add new comment
88 comments
No, they just run them over, put a bike next to them and then drive off without any prosecution.
I was nearly taken out by two squirrels the other day who stepped out into the road.
Where do I go for judicial retribution against this wildlife menace? They just wander around the countryside treating it as if it's their home.
little bastards keep running through my wheels, will get one one day!
If you're going to get between a squirrel and its crack, you're just asking for it!
Ah, fuck, Morty, what did you do? All right, Morty, pack your shit! That's only gonna keep 'em down for a little bit, Morty! You fucked with squirrels, Morty! We got a good five minutes before they're backing up on our ass, Morty! We have to pack up and move to a new reality, Morty! You know I said we could only do that a couple of times! We're fucked over here because of these damn squirrels, Morty!
rick-and-morty-mortys-mind-blowers-squirrels.png
The pedestrian should be prosecuted for something. Manslaughter, causing danger to other road users, there must be something?
Whilst pedestrians are the most vulnerable of road users and attract a higher duty of care from other road users, an adult person of sound mind should not be unaccountable for their actions.
In these circumstances the pedestrian stepping out caused a person on a bicycle, riding presumably lawfully and properly on the road, to lose his life.
Yet the Police in their wisdom decide to tell the grieving family their lost one could have been prosecuted had he survived?
Assholes.
I would heartily suggest a private prosecution.
Are pedestrians any more vulnerable than cyclists? I'd say cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, we haven't got pavement to walk on and are expected to mix it up with the lorries, and in a crash between pedestrians and cyclists the cyclists comes off as badly if not worse in most cases I've seen. Perhaps we should introduce laws against jaywalking? That way if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclists then there's clarity.
I'd back a private prosecution in this case, another cyclist's life needlessly lost due to non-cyclists using the road without due care and attention.
CDF maybe, is there a Just Giving page or something?
I would write to the local MP (John Redwood), but he's a selfish Toad Working At Toadhall who isn't interested unless it affects him. (He voted to leave the EU despite the vast majority of his consituency voting against leaving the EU in the referendum, and he told us so beforehand becuase that's what he wanted to do).
Scottish law has the common law offence of culpable and reckless conduct (blatantly copied from wikipedia):
Recklessness
For the purposes of criminal liability ⎯
(a) something is caused recklessly if the person causing the result is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk that acting will bring about the result but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so;
(b) a person is reckless as to a circumstance, or as to a possible result of an act, if the person is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk that the circumstance exists, or that the result will follow, but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so;
(c) a person acts recklessly if the person is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk of dangers or of possible harmful results in so acting but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so.
I am not a lawyer, but to me stepping out into the road with looking for cyclists sounds like it would meet that definition. Not that this incident occured in scotland though.
Not so much just the odd pedestrian, either - I've had whole families step into the road in front of me.
- dead straight road with good visibility, 40mph speed limit, no other vehicles around. Extended family on left pavement, some of whom crossed ahead of me - they had plenty of time to get across the road before I got there, so so far, so good.
Remaining family, including woman with small child in pushchair, wait at side of the road, looking at me, so I know they've seen me. By then, I'd moved out towards the centre of the road and it was just as well I had, as woman with pushchair waits until last possible second before pushing pushchair out into the road! Got past ok, but what sort of moron pushes a pushchair in the path of a road user?
- Another occasion, approaching a mini roundabout. Again, straight road, good visibility, no other vehicles around. Mother with 3 kids waiting on pedestrian island on the right of my lane just before the roundabout suddenly decides to walk off island practically on top of me. She was very apologetic, but what the hell was she thinking at the time?
Hell yes, pedestrians need to be responsible for their actions. The fuckwit who steps out in front of me while looking at their smart-phone is as much as a fuckwit as the Audi driving fuckwit who pulls out in front of me.
So you mean to tell me that Charlie Alliston would have been in the shit anyway, even if he had had a functioning front brake? Wasn't Mrs Briggs distracted by her phone at the time?
Is it not blindingly obvious that you should not step out in front of traffic? And isn't learning to cross the road safely one of the 1st things we learn as children?
In the case described by the article, Mr Kellsell directly caused the death of the cyclist and should be made responsible for his actions. This is obvious, and if the law doesn't agree then the law needs chinging! We're not talking about a parking ticket ffs, somebody died!
I believe the defense tried to push that, but it was withdrawn, so there can't be any evidence that she was using her phone. I think she was just generally distracted.
I'm not convinced that extra legislation would make much difference and we certainly don't have the numbers of police to be able to enforce it.
I must say that I am often shocked by the incredibly poor situational awareness that most people seem to display.
So a pedestrain walks out into the road without looking, collides with a cyclist and as a result, dies. The cyclist is then prosecuted and sent down for 18 months.
So a pedestrian walks out into the road without looking, collides with a cyclist and as a result, the cyclists dies. No further action taken.
Is it just me, or is this inequality within this?
Another cyclist was killed after a collision with a pedestrian, again walking into the road without looking, a couple of weeks ago, posted in another one of my posts, but nothing is done about it.
Are cyclists seen as cannon fodder on the roads? Can be killed be pedestrians, without pedestrians facing any consequences and can be killed by drivers, without drivers facing any consequences.
Charge pedestrians with 'walking without due care and attention' maybe..... Or have people forgotten the Green Cross Code?!? If the police did say they'd have probably prosecuted the cyclist had he survived surely that works both ways. What if the pedestrian had stepped out in front of a vehicle without looking and died, would the driver of said vehicle be prosecuted??
The Police at their sensitive best.
Seriously, when did this institution become so bad at its core responsibility?
I'm sure the government's much delayed look at the road laws and punishments will be looking at this, not just making a new law for causing death by dangerous cycling.
Of course it will. Almost certainly. Well, possibly. OK, it'll mention it once then go back to hassling cyclists.
After all, if such a law existed Charlie Alliston probably wouldn't have been prosecuted and found guilty. Pedestrians should have just as much legal responsibility for collisions, and they certainly aren't always the innocent party, and I've got the bruises to prove it: three sets of bruises to be precise.
I don't see much need for changing the law. How often do pedestrians think "I really want to spoil that persons day by stepping in front of them"? Never mind that the pedestrian is just as likely to get hurt as the cyclist/road user.
Surely assault laws could cover any instances of stupid malicious pedestrians.
Probably not often or at all but they do step out in front of you whether on their phones or not. They step out on to the road in front of a cyclist where they wouldn't do the same infront of a larger vehicle. How often, I see it almost every time I go commuting.
Mainly because too many look with their ears not their eyes.
I think we'd all agree that negligence rather than malice is the issue with innattentive pedestrians. It's this negligence that should be prosecuted if it brings harm to someone else. Not malice.
It's not just about malice though - the bigger issue is due care and attention. I'm not sure what criminal law would apply to pedestrians as they do to motorists and cyclists, although there might be the option of a civil case for compensation should a careless pedestrian cause injury or damage to another. Never heard of it happening though.
Which is why we need presumed liability.
The least vulnnerable road user is considered at fault unless proven otherwise. With that, not only will vehicle drivers exrcise more caution, but pedestrians will be forced to take responsibility and not just dumbly walk out into the road without looking up from their phones.
The divide and conquer technique being used from this unfortunate accident is just getting everyone to beat each other over the head with it.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for me and you.
You've never commuted in London then?!
The mistake you make is presuming that the pedestrian is thinking let alone looking. They just step out.
I know from a few people I know that until they learnt to drive they didn't realise their behaviour as both a pedestrian and a cyclist towards other road users and themselves was simply dangerous.
Born in London (well, maybe the outskirts), but mainly cycled in Bristol.
Yes, I agree that a lot of pedestrians are muppets, but I just don't see it as a big enough problem to warrant changing laws when there's plenty more bigger low-hanging fish to fry in the sea.
I'd rather more attention was paid to enforcing the existing traffic laws even though it seems that motons get lighter comparable punishments than cyclists.
True but the amount of times this happens is a joke.....If I ever hit a pedestrian (and ive 'near missed' quite a few) then I'm not taking the blame.........it's about time motorists, pedestrians AND cyclists started thinking about the consequences of their actions (and the law applied evenly).
I'm bored of doing the thinking for incompetent/arrogant motorists and lazy pedestrians too bothered about checking facebook than watching where they are going.
Pages