- 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
city_of_london_police_paatch_via_city_of_london_police_on_facebook.jpgPedestrian seriously injured in collision with cyclist at City of London's Bank junction
A female pedestrian was taken to hospital yesterday afternoon with potentially life-changing injuries following a collision involving a cyclist at Bank junction in the City of London.
City of London Police said that they were called to the incident shortly after 5.30pm, reports the Evening Standard.
The woman sustained head injuries as a result of the collision and was taken to the Royal London Hospital.
Since May last year, the junction has been closed on a trial basis to all traffic other than buses and bicycles between 7am and 7pm on weekdays.
Last month, the City of London Corporation revealed that the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions at Bank junction had halved since the 18-month trial began.
The circumstances of yesterday afternoon’s collision are not known, but it comes at a time when the Corporation is focusing on reducing the number of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists.
In its Road Danger Reduction and Active Travel Plan 2018-2023, it says that of the 22 collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians from 2011-16 that resulted in serious injury to one or other party, “pedestrian inattention is the most common causational factor.”
It added: “A common collision is pedal cyclists filtering through stationary or slow moving motor traffic colliding with pedestrians who step off the footway.”
Next week, the Corporation is due to launch a “considerate cycling” campaign, warning that the actions of a “small minority” of “irresponsible cyclists” could jeopardise initiatives to improve the safety of cyclists, such as the Bank junction scheme.
> City of London urges "irresponsible cyclists" to curb their speed
It is calling on cyclists to ride at a speed that will enable them to brake safely should a pedestrian step in front of them.
The Corporation said: “Studies show that the vast majority of cyclists are responsible and polite, and we call on this silent majority to help us promote considerate cycling.”
Under its Road Etiquette Guide published last November, the Corporation urged all road users, including pedestrians, to adhere to four principles, namely:
Look around – keep your eyes open and focus on what’s around you.
Be aware – the City of London’s a busy place, so always expect the unexpected.
Be considerate – remember other road users are people too.
Less haste – take an extra second to think about what you’re doing and any potential hazards.
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
- ErnieC 21 min 16 sec ago
No chance of that ever being a human being.
- ErnieC 27 min 26 sec ago
Are there guidelines for when generalisations are valid?
- Pub bike 28 min 51 sec ago
Any divine entity would surely by now have helped humans implement self-driving cars that never cause harm so that there is no way this type of...
- Rome73 1 hour 5 min ago
I'm sorry I don't accept that the majority of cyclists are 'psychopaths'. There are some 'nutters' out there - but I would hazard a guess that most...
- Rik Mayals underpants 16 hours 35 min ago
Here's my cycling related Christmas gift. Beautiful enamel garage sign to go above my Campagnolo Super Record RS equipped Colnago.
- Rendel Harris 20 hours 43 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- SecretSam 23 hours 32 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 21 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
25 comments
And that responsibility goes both ways, to protect others on the one hand - stop for every pedestrian within 5m of your person/motor approaching a junction/roundabout in case it pulls out/every large vehicle that is within 100m and let them do all do whatever the fuck they like ... and to protect yourself (helmets/hi-vis/reflectives/lights etc). Onus is ALWAYS placed upon people on bikes from both ends, lower protection by the law from both ends in terms of protection from killers and when hung to dry by media and unbalanced criminal trials when rules/laws seemingly are applied but not to worse cases with motorists or even pedestrians causing harm.
it's all bullshit discrimination.
Indeed, and if cyclists were a racial or religious group, we would be protected by anti-discrimination law, but because we're a disparate group, only identified by our mode of transport, and a tiny minority with no power, anyone can abuse us at will with no consequences.
Perhaps we should be lobbying our MPs to include cycling in the discrimination legislation. Just imagine how many prosecutions there would be for hate speech!
Zero I suspect. There is plenty of legislation supposedly protecting us already. Doesn't work if police / CPS / judicial system / politicians / media / public aren't interested.
You might be right, but it's hard to see how calls for drivers to run over cyclists wouldn't be prosecutable.
Why doesn't the story say "pedestrian involved in collision with bicycle"?
Since it's not known what happened here, i'd avoid victim blaming.
I agree - we don't (at least, I don't) know anything of substance about this particular incident. Zip, nada. Other than someone's come out of it in a bad way. Assuming there hasn't been further news that renders this moot, I hope they recover rapidly and fully.
But this
Is nevertheless, in general, entirely true. It's simply a question of numbers, I reckon. Minorities are usually judged by harsher standards.
And it's unfortunately gotten mixed in with this story mainly because the incident is coincident with the City of London Corp telling cyclists to ride below 10mph.
If a person on a bike suddenly moves into a motorvehicles direct line from the side of the road and there is an incident, who gets the blame. Yup, everytime it's the person on the bike. Even when the motorist cuts across you it's somehow the riders fault!
There is simply a far greater onus of responsibility placed onto people riding bikes than any other mode of transport including those that pose a massively greater threat of harm.
Given the governments own study when compiling data for the let's bash cyclists (even more) statute changes they want to put through which said that in the relatively few pedestrian deaths which involved in an incident with a person on a bike the latter were only at fault 4 times (in 6 years). This tells you all you need to know AND that the chances of being killed by an at fault cycle rider is around 2000x less than by a motorist.
So the city will respond to the actions of what they term a minority by punishing all Cyclists?
Are they aware that collective punishment is considered a war crime and banned under the Geneva convention?
“Jesus Christ look!” was what I shouted by Goodge Street on the way home this evening. Saved me ploughing into a phone zombie (at 10.6mph according to Garmin). My rapid deceleration left me at some lights. “Sorry,” said the pedestrian. “You OK?” said others. Did they fuck. No, I copped a load of abuse from a few idiots.
Smile. Lean on the bars. Take a swig. Move on. Most people are great. Most people are great...
Even tonight I had a woman wearing the wireless ipod headphones walk into the middle of the road in front of me - I was going slowly so no damage done but the utter stupidity of today's London pedestrians baffles me
Problem: pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking
Solution: impose arcane restrictions on cyclists
The phrase cognitive dissonance leaps to mind. Has anyone explained to the council that stopping the pedestrians stepping out will solve the problem at source, so perhaps they ought to be concentrating on that rather than blaming the people who literally aren't to blame.
Problem: pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking
Solution: jam all mobile phone signals in the City of London
I'm joking of course, but at least it's a solution that would work!
I give you the cycling equivalent of the iPhone zombie: http://chrisfroomelookingatstems.tumblr.com
chrisfroome_3088553.jpg
Mandatory helmet use for pedestrians is long due.
(/sarcasm)
If only she'd been wearing a helmet.
Bank has always been a tricky junction and after the car ban pedestrians became far more likely to wander into the road. Having said that, more cars are now allowed to use the junction again at the moment due to gas works down by Canon Street Station, but pedestrian behavior has not adjusted to that.
While riding through that junction you know that you need to be careful. That means ideally not riding right next to the pavement and also not bombing through because the odds are that you are going to come acros pedestrians on the road (whether they have a cross sign or not).
Far too often I see cyclists take blind turns (such as from Cheapside into Princes Street) far too fast or similarly riding hard at a mass of people at a crossing where it just takes one person to step out before all the others follow.
Although I disagree with the 10mph suggestion I do strongly believe in riding to the conditions. A cyclist who goes through the juntion too fast and hits a pedestrian could just as easily end up in hospital, so it is in their own interests to do so.
I commute through London and see most pedestrians do stupid things in the road, or on cycle superhighways/lanes. I strongly believe in walking to the conditions.
You could post that on a walking forum. The City principles are aimed at "all road users, including pedestrians".
SO. . . of the 22 collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians from 2011-16 that resulted in serious injury to one or other party, “pedestrian inattention is the most common causational factor.”
Let's fix the problem by trying to create an illegal speed limit of 1/2 the posted one but only for bikes? Busses can still do 20? How many pedestrians were killed or seriously injured in collissions involving busses from 2011-2016 ?
Completely agree with your sentiment - but remember it is harder to see/hear a bike than a bus or other traffic. The filtering point is relevant as well, it's hard to spot a cyclist coming between cars from the kerb, the pedestrian has to be extra careful in those circumstances and let's face it, most people aren't.
When I'm on my bike in London, I adjust my speed to match the conditions - if it's a fast road with fast traffic, i'm not expecting pedestrians to wander out. If it's a slow road with slow/stationary traffic, i'd rather not run over a lemming who might be more likely to step out given the conditions, no matter how right I might be.
What about electric vehicles? I've had a few Prius' creap up on me, I say give them a 10 mph limit and I can easily stay in front.
while quieter than a normal car, a prius is also easier to see and hear than a bicycle. my point was about riding to what you might expct a pedestrian to do given the circumstances of the road, not about giving arbitrary speed limits to non-combustion vehicles.
"Research shows electric cars are about 40% more likely to hit a pedestrian than a conventional vehicle."
"From July next year, all new electric and hybrid models seeking approval in Europe will have to emit a noise when travelling at low speeds. Existing vehicles are expected gradually to be retrofitted with devices."
www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-combats-silent-menac...
Had an experience with a hybrid on Sunday. One of those small BMWs. I was going through a village and suddenly this thing comes past a bit closer than I'd like. It wasn't the fact it was that I didn't like it there, it was the fact it just appeared and I never heard it at all. I got one of those minor surprise wobbles as it went past.
It's amazing how a close pass with approaching sound isnt as bad as a silent close pass.