Cyclist escapes prosecution after fatal collision with pensioner

[Alex321]

I think most people would be astonished to learn that speed limits do not apply to us - particularly as it is a quirk of legislation, not a conscious decision.

RTA 1967

71General speed limit for restricted roads.​

(1)It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour.

Cyclists were not able to exceed speed limits.

As speed limits came down, eg 20mph in built-up areas, outside schools etc, cycling above the speed limit became easy. It was not a deliberate legislative choice to exempt cyclists.


My view?

Yes, speed limits SHOULD apply to cyclists.

While they do not apply to us now, cycling well above the speed limit in areas busy with pedestrians is by, any measure, immoral and unacceptable.

I think most people probably are aware that speed limits don't apply to cycles. They certainly wouldn't be "astonished" to find out otherwise.

And I don't think it a "quirk of legislation, not a conscious decision". There are many parts of the RTA and RTRA which apply to all vehicles. The parts which apply only to motor vehicles were a conscious decision to specify only those vehicles.

The RTA 1967 BTW (actually RTRA) was repealed and replaced by the RTRA of 1984. But that does have very similar provisions (Section 81 for restricted roads, and section 84 for other roads).

 

[Alex321]

You shouldn't need to use absolute speed to prosecute cyclists if the relevant laws were specifically written to cover issues with dangerous cyclists. It's the choices made that create the risks that can cause such accidents. Surely new legislation could allow for prosecution for such risks and dangerous choices without absolute speed being needed.

New legislation is not really needed. Maybe a change to the sentences available.

We already have sections 28-32 of the Road Traffic Act.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing

In this case, a prosecution under section 29 would almost certainly have succeeded, and one under section 28 would have had a fair chance.

But both of those only carry fines as the possible sentence, imprisonment is not an option. That should possibly be changed to be more in line with sentencing for dangerous driving.

There also are no equivalents of the Causing death by .. or causing serious injury by ... clauses that apply to drivers. But whether those are common enough events with bikes to warrant new legislation is debatable.

 

[berty bassett]

I can’t think of any other instance in life where if something I had done had caused death that people would turn round and say it was the victim to blame
I can’t see the fuss about sticking to less than speed limit - it’s easy , I can only guess that there would be all the details of speed and exact spot of impact on strava - not happy sticking to 20 ? Then go somewhere where it’s 30 , or 60

 

[Ming the Merciless]

There also are no equivalents of the Causing death by ..

We also have to remember that she died 59 days later, and the collision was not given as cause of death.

 

[Alex321]

We also have to remember that she died 59 days later, and the collision was not given as cause of death.

True.

It is rather arbitrary to rule that it can only be the cause of death if the death happens within a set period, when there has been no "recovered" period. But as you say, that is the rules on how cause of death is determined.

 

[Time Waster]

We also have to remember that she died 59 days later, and the collision was not given as cause of death.

That is only due to the way cause of death is applied. It is a system that is arbitrary and often entry of cause of death is what the doctor writing it up decides to put down. That of course is another issue that could be discussed to death with snipped quotes, whataboutery, straw man arguments, twisting of words and arguments for triple digit pages on some forums. I am sure not here though!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

That is only due to the way cause of death is applied. It is a system that is arbitrary and often entry of cause of death is what the doctor writing it up decides to put down. That of course is another issue that could be discussed to death with snipped quotes, whataboutery, straw man arguments, twisting of words and arguments for triple digit pages on some forums. I am sure not here though!

Nevertheless the collision was not fatal. An important point if you were considering what you might try and prosecute them with.

 

[Time Waster]

Nevertheless the collision was not fatal. An important point if you were considering what you might try and prosecute them with.

It just wasn't recovered from.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

It just wasn't recovered from.

Speculation, which would have easily been dismissed.

 

[presta]

Does that now mean bikes will need to be supplied with speedometer if this happens?

Not necessarily, it can be left to the rider to decide how he complies with the law.

Am I right in thinking car speedometers are checked at MOT?

It might have changed but it wasn't applicable to cars vans & motorcycles in 1997:

 

[Ajax Bay]

Travelling at 46kph (~29mph) means 13mps.
Here's an image that the cyclists would see of the crossing where the pedestrian started to with their dog (I think) to the central island.

A pedestrian planning to cross can reasonably be expected to look (NB in one direction only) to see if there's something coming.
One can infer the clear view the pedestrian would have of the approaching cyclists (maybe she looked and didn't realise how fast they were approaching).
The cyclist who hit her was wheel 3 (lead and wheel 2 avoided her, she had already started to cross before the lead rider reached the island).
The pedestrian had 3m to cross: at slow walking speed that'd take over 3 seconds.
This bit of road is not sensibly ridden or driven at 30mph and certainly not in a drafting formation.
https://www.regentsparkcyclists.com/rider-guide

But the rider who hit the pedestrian (who later died (supposition primary cause the injuries sustained)) didn't "escape prosecution" because any speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists: he was not prosecuted because the police judged (reasonable prospect of conviction) that the available offences (dangerous $28, careless $29) were not committed.
The evidence heard by the coroner's court given by an onlooker about the lady's actions would have made conviction unlikely.
Pedestrians are higher in the vulnerable road user hierarchy, and I (we, I assume all) look out for them and estimate what they might do.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

It might have changed but it wasn't applicable to cars vans & motorcycles in 1997:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-ins...ercial-vehicles/7-other-equipment#section-7-8
It should be checked.

 

[Alex321]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-ins...ercial-vehicles/7-other-equipment#section-7-8
It should be checked.

Only to the extent that it should be failed if it is "clearly not working". No requirement to check the accuracy.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Does that now mean bikes will need to be supplied with speedometer if this happens? Motorised vehicles have them by law I believe which allows for speeding to be prevented.

If cyclists are to keep to the speed limits or face enforcement then would bicycles have to have some form of homologation for the speed measuring device? With the customisation and variation of bikes how would this be done?

No and no.

If they wanted to impose speed limits on cycles there would be absolutely no need for all cyclists to have a speedo. What is required is for the authorities to be able to measure a (suspected) offender's speed - say with a speed trap.

Now, cyclists could have a speedometer, if they felt that they were likely ever to be travelling at or near the speed limit, so they could avoid prosecution. But that's a choice.

Bear in mind that speed limits were first introduced in the UK in 1861, and amended on multiple occasions subsequently (linky). The world's first speeding ticket was in 1896 in Paddock Wood in Kent and the first car to be equipped with a speedometer was 1901 (linky) This all pre-dates the law for compulsory speedometers in cars, which was not introduced until 1937 (linky) that's 76 years after the introduction of the first speed limit.

Personally it wouldn't bother me at all if speed limits applied to cyclists because I never cycle that fast. I also think that introducing them would be a pointless waste of resource. But either way, the presence or absence of speedometers on bicycles isn't really a factor.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

But the rider who hit the pedestrian (who later died (supposition primary cause the injuries sustained)) didn't "escape prosecution" because any speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists: he was not prosecuted because the police judged (reasonable prospect of conviction) that the available offences (dangerous $28, careless $29) were not committed.
The evidence heard by the coroner's court given by an onlooker about the lady's actions would have made conviction unlikely.
Pedestrians are higher in the vulnerable road user hierarchy, and I (we, I assume all) look out for them and estimate what they might do.

Quoted from Section 28 of the RTA 1988

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

I consider myself a competent and careful cyclist. If I see a pedestrian at a refuge my natural inclination is to slow right down because I'm assuming they will step out in front of me.

A competent and careful cyclist - or at least all of those I've had the pleasure of discussing it with over the years - will err on the side of caution because of the harm that can result from a collision with a pedestrian.

Colliding with a pedestrian who was, when they were first visible, positioned on a pedestrian refuge, having been travelling at 29 mph just does not strike me as someone who was cycling at the standard of a competent and careful cyclist and I think demonstrably falls below that standard.

Irrespective of the injuries sustained by the pedestrian and whether or not the regrettable death of the pedestrian can or cannot be linked to the collision, I honestly don't understand the decision not to prosecute. Or even more controversially, under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for "furious cycling".