Cyclist found not guilty after collision with pedestrian, who died eight days later

Oh, is that what they're doing? There are a couple of toucans I use where I have to keep pressing the button because the red light around the button keeps going off. I'll have to try moving around more and see if it makes any difference.

brooksby wrote:

Oh, is that what they're doing? There are a couple of toucans I use where I have to keep pressing the button because the red light around the button keeps going off. I'll have to try moving around more and see if it makes any difference.

If the infrastructure is not fit for purpose and could have been a contributory factor then perhaps the family would have been better served by a coroner's inquest.

I would not like to consider what was going on with the cyclist, really I am making a general observation that though Awavey rightly points out the unsuitability of that cycling lane for travelling at high speed, actually it is unsafe at any speed. 

However, if the circumstances are that a cyclist is depending on that lane to ride amongst traffic, disregarding all other factors, simply riding at a supposedly agreed 23mph in that lane rather than in the road is unwise if only for self-preservation.

It's a very narrow strip of tarmac with cars either side limiting your view.

I'd say 20mph+ is too fast in that circumstance.

The limit question is tricky because the cycle path is the dangerous bit and speed limits don't apply to bicycles so what would be achieved by lowering the limit?

Pedantic but important - not a cycle path, a cycle lane.  And not a great one at that.  At least, that's what appears at the location below (yes - a year back, and yes this might not be *the* Tesco Express mentioned).

I'd also agree that cycling slower rather than faster would be appropriate if there was much traffic e.g. if it was blocking your view (buses etc).  However if this was a cycle lane (and unprotected to boot) with a little less traffic cars may have been going past you at speed and very closely.  That's unpleasant and tends to make cyclists speed up.

I've no idea if this had any bearing on what actually happened here.  This guy could have been riding carelessly also.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4183816,-2.2317544,3a,75y,87.97h,70.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl8Nipd83Y9yyI08zc8SADQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looking at this location I hope it's one where they've applied for help as part of the Bee Network - having e.g. a proper separated cycle path on what looks like a busy artery which also has destinations (very common mixing of functionality in UK streetscapes...) might help everyone avoid collisions.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's a very narrow strip of tarmac with cars either side limiting your view. I'd say 20mph+ is too fast in that circumstance. The limit question is tricky because the cycle path is the dangerous bit and speed limits don't apply to bicycles so what would be achieved by lowering the limit?

Rich_cb to take your argument to it's logical conclusion.... I presume you agree that any road where pedestrians are likely to be crossing should have a speed limit of below 30.

The facts of the case show that the cyclist was riding NW on the road, the pedestrian crossed the road from the cyclists right, so across a cycle lane and two live lanes of traffic before the collision.

If this had been the motorist in front of the cyclist (remember they had to take evasive action to avoid the collsion) who collided with the pedestrian as opposed to the cyclist.  Would this have even went to court? 

And if a motorist collided with a pedestrian in exactly the same circumstances, and the motorist was keeping up with the other traffic.... would you have a witness saying "the car in front was going very fast, and was going at least 20 mph"?

I do actually support blanket 20mph limits in areas where pedestrians are at risk.

Wales is introducing such a measure this year.

The cyclist in this case was travelling faster than the cars.

Had he been travelling more slowly a collision would have been less likely and there would have been less chance of serious injury even if the collision had still occurred.

I think the cyclist's speed was excessive given the circumstances.

Rich_cb wrote:

I do actually support blanket 20mph limits in areas where pedestrians are at risk. Wales is introducing such a measure this year.

I saw this trailed - good for Wales!  We muffed our recent chance to do that in Scotland.  Hopefully the conversation won't stop there.  I'd suggest rather than just "in areas where pedestrians are at risk" noting that lower speeds reduce risk to everyone including drivers and makes areas more pleasant too e.g. less noise.

As is generally understood simply "sign it better" alone has a limited effect.  Enforcement is also needed and even better is to provide driver cues via infra.  However changing the limit has been shown to have an effect [1], [2], [3].

Rich_cb wrote:

I do actually support blanket 20mph limits in areas where pedestrians are at risk. Wales is introducing such a measure this year. The cyclist in this case was travelling faster than the cars. Had he been travelling more slowly a collision would have been less likely and there would have been less chance of serious injury even if the collision had still occurred. I think the cyclist's speed was excessive given the circumstances.

Most of your opinion is based on speculation of what you think happened based on the reporting in the paper........

To ask you a question..... if you are riding in a cycle lane, with a row of vehicular traffic to your right.  The vehicular traffic in the lane to your right is moving (which we know happened in this case due to the eye witness testimony of Ms Orzsic).... are you focusing your attention on the the lane in front of you and the pavement to your left.... or are you focusing on the incredibly slim chance that a pedestrian may emerge from the line of moving traffic?

And it was an estimate that they were going 23mph at the time.  Any estimate will have a margin of error which has not been disclosed.  The more important factor is the speed differential between the cyclist and the motor traffic given that the pedestrian emerged from the live traffic lane.

Incredibly slim?

Have you ever actually ridden a bike through an area with lots of pedestrians?

I'd say a pedestrian steps into my path at least every other time I ride through such an area often emerging completely unexpectedly. With that in mind I modify my speed accordingly.

The speed was an estimate but it wasn't contested by the defence as far as I can tell from the reporting.

Rich_cb wrote:

Incredibly slim? Have you ever actually ridden a bike through an area with lots of pedestrians? I'd say a pedestrian steps into my path at least every other time I ride through such an area. With that in mind I modify my speed accordingly. The speed was an estimate but it wasn't contested by the defence as far as I can tell from the reporting.

Yes I have ridden through areas with high volumes of pedestrians.

So of your pedestrians that step in front of you what kind of percentage come from the pavement..... and what percentage come through a live lane of traffic which is moving?

Remember this is about a pedestrian stepping in front of a moving car causing the car to swerve, then continuing across the live lane of traffic and the cycle lane to get to the pavement.  Not about a pedestrian stepping from the pavement to the cyclists left onto the road.

All of my assertions are based on the reported facts.

• The cyclist ran a red light at Palatine Road/Barlow Moor Road
• The cyclist turned left from Barlow Moor Road onto Wilmslow Road
• The pedestrian was crossing the road from the Tesco Express which is on the opposite side of Wilmslow road to the cyclist.

As I said the relevant speed is the differential between the cyclist and the moving vehicles.... which was never ascertained.

The majority do come from the pavement but, as I said, a decent number just appear unexpectedly stepping out of places I wasn't expecting pedestrians to be.

For that reason I mitigate my speed in any area where there are pedestrians.

Realistically if a pedestrian had stepped out from behind a parked van he'd have been no more likely to spot him than had he come from the traffic side.

The most effective way to reduce your risk of an accident in such a situation is to reduce your speed.

Rich_cb wrote:

The majority do come from the pavement but, as I said, a decent number just appear unexpectedly stepping out of places I wasn't expecting pedestrians to be. For that reason I mitigate my speed in any area where there are pedestrians. Realistically if a pedestrian had stepped out from behind a parked van he'd have been no more likely to spot him than had he come from the traffic side. The most effective way to reduce your risk of an accident in such a situation is to reduce your speed.

So if you are cycling at 15mph and a pedestrian emerges from behind a parked van in such a way that you cannot avoid a collision..... I trust you would agree that you are still going too fast?

What about 10mph?  Or 5mph?

In that particular cycle lane I'd argue that under 15 mph would be a reasonable speed.

Not all collisions are avoidable but, as cyclists, we should try to reduce the risk we pose to more vulnerable road users. In areas with a high number of pedestrians we should reduce our speed and pay close attention to our surroundings.

Rich_cb wrote:

In that particular cycle lane I'd argue that under 15 mph would be a reasonable speed. Not all collisions are avoidable but, as cyclists, we should try to reduce the risk we pose to more vulnerable road users. In areas with a high number of pedestrians we should reduce our speed and pay close attention to our surroundings.

So if the cyclist had been doing 15mph in this case, in exactly the same circumstances, and it had exactly the same outcome......would your opinion have been any different?

Or if a motorist is passing a row of parked cars at the edge of a road, regardless of the speed limit you think they should be doing only 15mph just in case someone runs out of between a parked car..... regardless of the posted speed limit.

Given the fact that jury decided on the basis of ALL of the evidence that the collsion was not due to careless cycling/wanton furious cycling is it not reasonable to infer that a) they had access to evidence which we have not seen and that b) based on ALL the evidence they did not think that the riders speed was inappropriate for the conditions.  

Bearing in mind that the bar for careless cycling (s.29 RTA) would be based on the same definition used for careless driving being "Careless driving falls below the minimum standard expected of a careful driver and includes driving without reasonable consideration for other road users."

Speed limits aren't targets.

You cycle or drive to the conditions as you find them.

If the cyclist had been doing 15 mph when this collision occurred I'd be inclined to say the fault lay almost entirely with the pedestrian.

The jury made no decision on careless cycling.

They decided that 'wanton and furious' cycling could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I believe 'wilful neglect' and 'wilful misconduct' are the other two phrases included in the statute. There is no mention of carelessness.

The charge of 'causing death by careless cycling' does not exist.

If it did, and it has been proposed, then I believe the cyclist in question would have been charged with it and, IMO, found guilty.

RLJ on the same journey would undoubtedly be used to show the cyclist was not 'being considerate' earlier in his journey. The speed would also not be 'considerate' in the circumstances IMO. Lastly the use of headphones could easily be painted as somebody not paying full attention to the road much in the way a hands free conversation (also legal) might for a driver.

To precis: I believe that, based on a scant amount of evidence supplied by the newspapers, the cyclist is guilty of breaking a law which doesn't exist because he might or might not have been riding too fast in my opinion even though the fastest guess is 7mph below the speed limit, he jumped a red light nearly a kilometre beforehand and he was wearing headphones which is perfectly legal.

Desperate, truly desperate.

Rich_cb wrote:

The charge of 'causing death by careless cycling' does not exist. If it did, and it has been proposed, then I believe the cyclist in question would have been charged with it and, IMO, found guilty. RLJ on the same journey would undoubtedly be used to show the cyclist was not 'being considerate' earlier in his journey. The speed would also not be 'considerate' in the circumstances IMO. Lastly the use of headphones could easily be painted as somebody not paying full attention to the road much in the way a hands free conversation (also legal) might for a driver.

So basically you have decided that the cyclist is guilty based on the selective evidence published by the newspapers in the Reach Group, who have a long standing tradition of anti-cycling rhetoric...... and if you think the reported evidence is anything other than selective you are even more gullible than I thought.

As for your comment about headphones..... it's not like having a hands free phone conversation in a car, it's like a driver listening to the radio.  Now please provide reference to a single case where it has EVER been mentioned that the driver was listening to the radio

The RLJ and the speed were both presented in court and neither were disputed by the defence.

The objectivity, or otherwise, of the reporting media has no effect on that whatsoever.

Personally I think headphones are a significant impairment to safe cycling, on a par with a hands free conversation for a driver. Hands free conversations have certainly been mentioned in court.

Maybe you've got a different opinion. C'est la vie.

My opinion is that a combination of the RLJ, the excessive speed for the conditions and the use of headphones amounts to carelessness but not 'wilful neglect'.

Maybe you've got a different opinion on that too. C'est la vie.

I find myself agreeing with you here * although I'm done with second-guessing of details of this one.  It sounds like this cyclist could have been a bit carefree and could have paid more attention / driven to conditions.  In general if you can't see to your right or left then filtering / overtaking have the (usually small) risk that vehicles in another lane brake before you and then you can collide with crossing traffic which one or more party has not observed - as here.

Would things have been different here?  I have no idea.

However: are there concerns around people not expecting others at certain points (e.g. cylists to the inside of cars)?  Yes.  Is this in part to do with how we slap in cycle "facilities" and could that be improved even at our current level of spending?  Very probably **.  Would changing the environment to something more in line with best practice help (like below) so "safe areas" and conflict points are clearer?  Undoubtedly.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-common-urban-intersectio...

* With a slight difference on the headphones. I never wear these when out but that's just me.  I think a phone conversation is an entirely different thing - that has been proven to be a significant distraction when driving.  Obviously the same would apply for cycling on the phone if anyone does that.  For music though I doubt this is any more distracting than music in a car.  Even using the most noise-cancelling of earphones you are probably no worse than driving with your windows up and music on.  Consider - windows are *designed* to block sound.  If there were openings you'd have similar wind noise to a cyclist but additionally cars have more noise from the wheels and then there's the power plant...

** Allowing for a lag time while people adapt / learn.

I was wondering though if thats related to localised adoption of cycle lanes, volume of cyclists using them.

Like if you see lots of cyclists all the time you naturally expect them to be there so stepping into a cycle lane unsighted is the exception, and cyclists are able to ride quicker as a result.

Whereas areas where there might be cycle lanes but low numbers of cyclists it becomes just abit of path or road to pedestrians and they dont expect cyclists in them and that's why it becomes near impossible to ride them anything but slowly because you basically cant do anything else but do that because youd constantly be colliding with people

Simply saying you need to ride at a slower speed to deal with potential hazards doesnt seem remotely as controversial a position to state as this debate has made it out to be, imo.

I didn't think it was particularly controversial either!

I think that's the issue with the cycle lanes in Cardiff. There's, unfortunately, not a huge volume of cyclists using them yet so many pedestrians seemed shocked to see one.

Had a headphone wearing phone zombie cheerfully stroll into my path on my way home today. He actually had to step over the raised kerb onto the bright blue lane and still didn't look up for a second.

Thankfully a relatively low speed meant no collision occurred and neither he nor, more importantly, I were injured.

Reckless headphone wearing pedestrian?

Careless definitely.

I don't know whether he was or wasn't, but if a car driver at 23mph hits a pedestrian in a 30mph zone, do you think the prosecution would have been quite so zealous?  Leaving aside mass / momentum / kinetic energy difference of course.

It's impossible to say obviously but I imagine that if a car driver had hit someone shortly after running a red light and whilst having a conversation on a hands free phone (legal but generally frowned upon) the chances of ending up in court would be higher.

We all know that there would have been no prosecution at all in that case.

The fact that another vehicle had to take evasive action to avoid this pedestrian seems to indicate this was an unusual circumstance.

A court has considered the evidence and found them not guilty of being reckless.

Whilst you do have a responsibility to ride to the conditions, there are limits. Certainly I would have considered the pedestrian I nearly hit when doing 30mph 100% to blame had I not been able to stop in time. I was doing 30mph in a 30 limit, they are lucky I had good brakes and quick reactions. I felt very annoyed with them afterwards, as their inattention had put me at risk.

We haven't seen what advice is offered by a typical judge for such a charge to succeed.

I suspect that the charge is akin to dangerous vs careless driving, only with a few less precedents to muddy the water. So I would guess, but don't know, that it is not sufficient to argue that the cyclist was careless or inattentive but there must be an extra level of deliberateness or foolishness to meet the criteria - and of course, again we don't know, but there is clearly the suggestion that the pedestrian was impaired in some way. In other words, the verdict does not mean they are blameless, but that they were not reckless (which is some unknown order of magnitude worse than careless) or (deliberately or excessively) furious in their riding.

My other observation, not based on anything particular to this case, is that the brain is a con-merchant and is inclined to show you what you want to see. I've said enough times that when drivers say "I didn't see you, mate" they are usually not lying, even when their eyes have been pointing in the right direction, so it would not be surprising if the cyclist didn't see the pedestrain because his brain didn't bother to tell him about something that shouldn't be there.