Cyclist escapes prosecution after fatal collision with pensioner

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

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

That would surely be 'operation impaired' and warrant a minor defect that the owner/keeper/driver of a vehicle should get repaired at the earliest opportunity?

This is somewhat tangential to my point that if cyclists are required to adhere to speed limits, then that will lead to calls for cycles to have vehicle registration marks for enforcement and be subject to periodic inspections.

 

[Ian H]

In this particular case the pedestrian walked into the 3rd bicycle in a peloton. That would have required a serious lack of awareness.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Was it a peloton?
I was under the impression it was a single file pace line. The account given is that the first two riders managed to avoid colliding with her, which means she stepped out before the first rider passed the refuge.

Also, the pedestrian was 81.
We cannot assume that all predestrians are fit and well, not partially sighted and not suffering from any mental illness.

 

[T4tomo]

View attachment 730233
In this particular case the pedestrian walked into the 3rd bicycle in a peloton. That would have required a serious lack of awareness.

Or a momentary lapse of concentration, distracted by her dog perhaps.

 

[Ian H]

Was it a peloton?
I was under the impression it was a single file pace line. The account given is that the first two riders managed to avoid colliding with her, which means she stepped out before the first rider passed the refuge.

Also, the pedestrian was 81.
We cannot assume that all predestrians are fit and well, not partially sighted and not suffering from any mental illness.

Who's assuming anything?

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

Who's assuming anything?

Approaching a pedestrian refuge with a pedestrian upon it at 29 mph suggests that someone somewhere was assuming something.

 

[Ian H]

Approaching a pedestrian refuge with a pedestrian upon it at 29 mph suggests that someone somewhere was assuming something.

You might assume so.

 

[Ian H]

Or a momentary lapse of concentration, distracted by her dog perhaps.

Concentration, awareness, that kind of thing.

 

[Ajax Bay]

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

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.
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.

According to reports the lady who sadly got hit was crossing from the pavement towards the central island (she was not "at a refuge"). Whether she was seen by the cyclist before she started to cross is not clear. Nor do we know whether she carefully looked (one way): I am not assuming. What we do know (from reports) is that the lady who was hit was very well aware of, indeed expected even, cyclists whizzing round the park when she regularly took her dog for a walk: she'd mentioned the issue/risk to her son previously.

You quote $28. Note that the standard of the riding has to "fall FAR below" what might reasonably be expected (in each and any circumstance), not just "below".
I've previously said that batting round there (see image) tight on a wheel is not reasonable, in my view.

I honestly don't understand the decision not to prosecute.

But I (and the police etc) don't think the behaviour was dangerous (NB at 7am, deliberately to ride when the park was not busy (see guidelines)). "Without due care" perhaps, but as I've said, the third party evidence offering an opinion of contributory fault would make conviction an unlikely prospect.
And on your rationale, do you also prosecute the lead and other cyclists (#2 and #4)? If not, why not?

 

[PK99]

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

... in road traffic accident statistics.

For murder and manslaughter, the rules are very different. It used to be "a year and a day" but

Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996​

The rule known as the "year and a day rule" (that is, the rule that, for the purposes of offences involving death and of suicide, an act or omission is conclusively presumed not to have caused a person's death if more than a year and a day elapsed before he died) is abolished for all purposes.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

And on your rationale, do you also prosecute the lead and other cyclists (#2 and #4)? If not, why not?

I was of the understanding that the pedestrian was on the pedestrian refuge, when she stepped out, which of course would make her unmissable to anyone who was situationally aware. I stand corrected.

With that said, I can't see anything at that location that would obscure the pedestrian from view should they stood ready to step out toward the refuge from either side of the road. So my point of view comes with the caveat I am not directly familiar with the scene.

Assuming that none of the group exercised the level of caution that would be expected from an experienced and competent cyclist, than I think that they should all be considered for prosecution.

This all of course depends on whether riding in a paceline is itself considered dangerous. If it isn't considered dangerous, then the culpability rests with the lead rider. If it is, then all the riders are culpable.

It doesn't sound to me like it is the appropriate location for this type of training. Certainly not at 7 am which is a popular time for people to be out walking their dogs.

I do appreciate that cyclists who participate in the sport, or at least aspire to, do need somewhere they can train to ride in a group. That needs to be arranged so it does not increase the risks to other vulnerable road users.

 

[Alex321]

https://www.cyclinguk.org/10-years-...d=MQyYTEKaTisJkIm2W9poKgQOTm7Cp_tx5KC3U2Jkp8U

 

[PK99]

Anyone still prepared to defend the Regents Park cyclists.

Telegraph website

 

[berty bassett]

Yes - there will be quite a few

 

[Dogtrousers]

Sounds like some speed bumps or other traffic calming might be in order.

I've never been there, so that could be a daft suggestion.