Cyclist who knocked down and killed pensioner

[Regulator]

I thought there was a bicycle speed limit in Richmond Park.  Does the law differ by royal park?

There is no speed limit for cycles in Royal Parks.  The RP Constabulary did at one time try to enforce one but got slapped down

I thought there was a bicycle speed limit in Richmond Park.  Does the law differ by royal park?

Regular updates that I get from an organisation called Richmond Park Cyclists (RPC) tell me that the speed limits there do not apply to cyclists.

Speed limits anywhere don't apply to cyclists as the law relating to them does not apply to cyclists.

The 1861 Act regarding 'wanton and furious driving' might have applied if the incident took place on a public highway. But I believe roads in Royal Parks are not classed as public highways.

The 1861 Act does apply to public parks.  Section 35 is not restricted  to the public highway (which, as you say, roads in Royal Parks aren’t).

[Veloman]

And yet the 2 cyclists in front of Fitzgerald managed to avoid the pedestrian.

And yet despite the front two in the paceline nearly missing her, the pedestrian didn’t get out of the way.

Momentum, and no time.

Nearly missing?

My understanding is first 2 riders in the line completely avoided a collision. Fitzgerald collided with pedestrian and judging by comments with quite some force in terms of injuries sustained.

Seems strange for 3rd man to collide while others managed to completely avoid and even stranger nobody appears to have shouted a warning to the pedestrian or to others in the cycling line.

[Peter]

True.  In addition, if we want cycling to be taken seriously, bikes must be considered and treated as vehicles when they are sharing the road, and that includes speeding restrictions.  It can't be left up to cyclists (who are just people on bikes, no more or less intelligent than people in general) to decide what is too fast.

Had I actually studied the reports, I might have worded this differently.  Sorry if I have given the wrong impression, though I still believe my sentiments to be correct in general.  Thank you all for not jumping down my throat!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I have been in a line of cyclists where the first and third riders had no issues without deviating their speed or direction but a squirrel bounced off the front wheel of the second rider. It is pretty easy for a collision course to only affect one rider.

[Arminius]

And yet the 2 cyclists in front of Fitzgerald managed to avoid the pedestrian.

And yet despite the front two in the paceline nearly missing her, the pedestrian didn’t get out of the way.

Momentum, and no time.

Nearly missing?

My understanding is first 2 riders in the line completely avoided a collision. Fitzgerald collided with pedestrian and judging by comments with quite some force in terms of injuries sustained.

Seems strange for 3rd man to collide while others managed to completely avoid and even stranger nobody appears to have shouted a warning to the pedestrian or to others in the cycling line.

Julian Alaphilippe managed to have a pretty spectacular crash with a motorbike in the 2020 Tour of Flanders as 3rd in line when the two in front of him swerved out of the way at the last moment, so it can happen. Pretty sure he had his head down, though, so perhaps it's not totally relevant here.

[T42]

My understanding is first 2 riders in the line completely avoided a collision. Fitzgerald collided with pedestrian and judging by comments with quite some force in terms of injuries sustained.

Seems strange for 3rd man to collide while others managed to completely avoid and even stranger nobody appears to have shouted a warning to the pedestrian or to others in the cycling line.

In my experience the first couple of riders in a pack are aware of everything that's happening ahead, but from 3rd man on they're mostly worrying about not riding into the back wheel in front of them.  Also, the first and second riders will rarely be riding exactly one behind the other, so that the 3rd & subsequent riders will have a progressively worse view of the road ahead.  A classic scenario wrt potholes is that first rider goes left, second goes right, 3rd goes in.

[Solocle]

I thought there was a bicycle speed limit in Richmond Park.  Does the law differ by royal park?

Regular updates that I get from an organisation called Richmond Park Cyclists (RPC) tell me that the speed limits there do not apply to cyclists.

Speed limits anywhere don't apply to cyclists as the law relating to them does not apply to cyclists.

Actually speed limits can legally apply to cyclists. They just typically don't.

A RTRA 1984 Part VI speed limit cannot apply, as each relevant section states "motor vehicle", and the vast majority of speed limits are made under this section. However, other acts or parts of the same act can apply.

Of note are RTRA 1984 §14 and §17, respectively for temporary traffic restriction, and traffic regulation on Special Roads. RTRA 1984 §17

Both of these state "traffic", not "motor vehicles". And therefore regulations, including speed limits, made under these sections can apply to cyclists, horse riders, or Usain Bolt. It's dependant on the wording of the individual regulations.

This is a Special Road. Thus, this speed limit could legally apply to cyclists, but on checking with National Highways, it doesn't.

Whereas one example I know of where the limit does actually apply is the A87 Skye Bridge.

Again, a Special Road that allows cyclists. However, this time, the regulations simply say "vehicle".
The A87 Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Special Road Regulations 1995

No person shall drive or cause to be driven any vehicle at a speed exceeding 40mph on that length of the special road described in paragraph (2) below or exceeding 30 mph on that length of the special road described in paragraph (3) below.

[andyoxon]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

[Sergeant Pluck]

Nearly missing?

OK, missing then. It's just a different perspective, my point being there was no time for either party to avoid a collision.

[Sergeant Pluck]

I have been in a line of cyclists where the first and third riders had no issues without deviating their speed or direction but a squirrel bounced off the front wheel of the second rider. It is pretty easy for a collision course to only affect one rider.

Even at club ride speed that can happen.

[tom_e]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

That seems relevant politically, but not legally.  Speeding in a motor vehicle is an offence whether you look at your speedometer or not.  Overloading your car will be an offence regardless of whether you have some kind of weighbridge on your driveway.  It's perfectly possible for the law to be rewritten to nick cyclists for speeding.  Not having speedos doesn't present some kind of impregnable "gotcha".

Personally, I don't think in general it looks very reasonable to cycle above the motor vehicle speed limit.  Yes we are lighter and smaller, but still subject to the same limits of reaction time and distractability, and our braking is often poorer than that of a car.

[T42]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

Natch, there are millions who would love to enforce it just to make our lives a bit more complicated.  And maybe, in the interests of safety embuggerance, make it illegal to drink while moving.

[tom_e]

Both of those headlines are also a little misleading, given that "She died 59 days later and the incident was not given as the cause of her death."

[Regulator]

Both of those headlines are also a little misleading, given that "She died 59 days later and the incident was not given as the cause of her death."

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the incident didn't give rise to a chain of events that ultimately led to her death.  At 81, frailty issues could easily lead to a death some time after - the initial incident wouldn't always be recorded as the cause of death.

[grams]

The idea that any authorities would have even considered prosecuting a motorist in exactly the same circumstances is mind boggling. If they did the same commentators would be declaring it absurd and a massive waste of public resources.

[T42]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

Personally, I don't think in general it looks very reasonable to cycle above the motor vehicle speed limit.  Yes we are lighter and smaller, but still subject to the same limits of reaction time and distractability, and our braking is often poorer than that of a car.

Looking at the highway code here, cyclists are obliged to respect the speed limits whether they have a speedometer or not - the police don't care what you have on your handlebars.

[peter simplex]

I have been in a line of cyclists where the first and third riders had no issues without deviating their speed or direction but a squirrel bounced off the front wheel of the second rider. It is pretty easy for a collision course to only affect one rider.

Not sure it's a good comparison between an unpredictable squirrel darting across a road and a full grown 81 year old woman plus dog hovering on the sidewalk.  Of course it all perfectly computes, Mrs G travels 2m in the time the "peloton" advances 20m.  Simple physics ;-)   What happened to The Fourth Man? Or the dog?

[ravenbait]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

Personally, I don't think in general it looks very reasonable to cycle above the motor vehicle speed limit.  Yes we are lighter and smaller, but still subject to the same limits of reaction time and distractability, and our braking is often poorer than that of a car.

Look at it this way. If speed limit X is appropriate for motorised vehicles up to and including massive lorries, and the limit was set so as to protect pedestrians in the event of a collision (hence highlighting the survivability of a collision at 20 vs 30 vs 40 etc), then what would be an appropriate speed limit for bikes that would provide a similar level of protection in the event of a collision given the greater than 10-fold difference in energy involved?

Assuming 20mph was set to protect against the average car being driven at 20mph by an average driver, and a bike plus rider weighing 100kg, the equivalent speed limit would arguably be around 76mph. For a car of around 1500kg plus driver to hit with the same energy as a bike doing 25mph, it would have to be driven at no more than 6.5mph.

I'm not interested in what people think when they fall for the artificially generated outrage of the right wing gutter press. If people really cared about pedestrian safety, they wouldn't be up in arms about 20mph speed limits in built up areas, or insist on parking next to schools in massive Shitty Useless Vehicles. How many people dying of Covid did it take to provoke the whole world into lockdown, and how many people are KSIed every year without any meaningful change in how we deal with traffic collisions or deplorable driver behaviour?

There is nothing reasonable about the British approach to road safety. Why did this happen and how could it have been prevented are reasonable questions. Suggesting cyclists should comply with speed limits set for motorised vehicles is not at all reasonable.

Sam

[Solocle]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

Personally, I don't think in general it looks very reasonable to cycle above the motor vehicle speed limit.  Yes we are lighter and smaller, but still subject to the same limits of reaction time and distractability, and our braking is often poorer than that of a car.

Looking at the highway code here, cyclists are obliged to respect the speed limits whether they have a speedometer or not - the police don't care what you have on your handlebars.

No, there is no legal requirement in 99.99% of cases.

The highway code also says you MUST NOT stop on zigzag markings denoting a crossing controlled area, but the relevant legislation explicitly says that this requirement does not apply to a pedal cycle. Unlike the parts of legislation where it's implicit in its wording, such as speed limits, that really demonstrates the law going out of its way to make an exception.

However, the same part about not overtaking in a crossing controlled area again is careful about the distinction between vehicles and motor vehicles.

The highway code is a simplified guidebook, and where it conveys actual legislation, the actual legislation is the final word on the matter of law.

[T42]

There is nothing reasonable about the British approach to road safety.
Sam

Not just the UK: in France we're not allowed to use cycle paths after dark in case we hit dogwalkers drest in mourning. And in Alsace our asshole Prefect extended this to an hour before dark and an hour after sunrise.

Mind you, the police don't give a shit and probably haven't even been told.

[mrcharly-YHT]

. If people really cared about pedestrian safety, they wouldn't be up in arms about 20mph speed limits in built up areas, or insist on parking next to schools in massive Shitty Useless Vehicles.

This + 100

[tom_e]

In any event, it's highly doubtful that the logistics of enforcing a speed limit for cyclists would be possible, given the majority of cyclists are unlikely to have a speedometer, & there would need to be a calibrated device display installed on millions of cycles?

Personally, I don't think in general it looks very reasonable to cycle above the motor vehicle speed limit.  Yes we are lighter and smaller, but still subject to the same limits of reaction time and distractability, and our braking is often poorer than that of a car.

Look at it this way. If speed limit X is appropriate for motorised vehicles up to and including massive lorries, and the limit was set so as to protect pedestrians in the event of a collision (hence highlighting the survivability of a collision at 20 vs 30 vs 40 etc), then what would be an appropriate speed limit for bikes that would provide a similar level of protection in the event of a collision given the greater than 10-fold difference in energy involved?

Assuming 20mph was set to protect against the average car being driven at 20mph by an average driver, and a bike plus rider weighing 100kg, the equivalent speed limit would arguably be around 76mph. For a car of around 1500kg plus driver to hit with the same energy as a bike doing 25mph, it would have to be driven at no more than 6.5mph.

I'm not interested in what people think when they fall for the artificially generated outrage of the right wing gutter press. If people really cared about pedestrian safety, they wouldn't be up in arms about 20mph speed limits in built up areas, or insist on parking next to schools in massive Shitty Useless Vehicles. How many people dying of Covid did it take to provoke the whole world into lockdown, and how many people are KSIed every year without any meaningful change in how we deal with traffic collisions or deplorable driver behaviour?

There is nothing reasonable about the British approach to road safety. Why did this happen and how could it have been prevented are reasonable questions. Suggesting cyclists should comply with speed limits set for motorised vehicles is not at all reasonable.

Your carefully reasoned argument says that the speed limit for cyclists in the park should be 76mph?  Did you step back and look at that afterwards to question yourself?  Maybe think "Hold on, that doesn't sound sensible - perhaps I should question my calculation?"

You think kinetic energy is a sensible comparison?  Your car of 1500kg at 20mph has around 59300J.  Looking around the internet, a 5.6mm NATO bullet being fired from a gun has around 1600J of kinetic energy.  Would you rather be hit by a car at 20mph, or 37 bullets?  Lets scale it back a bit: would you rather be hit by a bullet, or a car at 3.3mph?  This is the reality of your equal-energy comparison.

If you go back to my post, you'll discover I mentioned relevant issues for stopping distance.  i.e. avoiding a collision entirely.   It's not perfect either, but it's a damn sight closer to it than 76mph. 

[ravenbait]

Of course it's not sensible.

Speed limits for cyclists aren't sensible in the current traffic culture of the UK. That's my point. Speed limits have a purpose, and it's to limit the damage done to a victim in the event of a collision (see here, for instance) -- the difference in stopping distance is meaningless if the operator of the vehicle isn't paying attention. My point was to make people think about the comparative impact of being struck by a car at 20mph and a cyclist at 25mph, not to suggest the speed limit for bikes should be Autobahn-ish. There is too much focus on the speed of the cyclist, when if the unfortunate woman had been struck by a car complying with the speed limit, the damage would have been far worse.

I can't be arsed doing any more maths, but I'm sure you could do a back of an envelope calculation on comparative stopping distances if you really wanted to. I suspect you're more worried about what other people think than a fully informed risk assessment, otherwise you might choose to counter my kinetic energy argument with how much more quickly the cyclist would have been able to stop had he been doing 20mph instead of making facetious comparisons to bullets. If cars routinely had a large spike stuck on the front, like some kind of mechanical, land-bound narwhal, then you might have a point.

Sam

[peter simplex]

Son Gerard Griffiths, 52 *, was doing the studio rounds ** also at LBC over the death involving the ageless "peloton" member who unusually has no linkedin profile for a flying Credit Suisse "VP", Brian Fitzgerald:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/son-pensioner-killed-collision-speeding-cyclist-prosecution/

Little known fact - Mrs G was  Hilda Fitzgerald before marriage.   What are the odds?
source:  https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl

Are they perhaps related? [ctd, p.94]
* perhaps 51 to cause confusion?

** here's another one... do I smell a co-ordinated campaign?
https://twitter.com/BriggsCampaign/status/1787933927425933805
Calling on govt to incorporate death & serious injury cycling offences into RTA.
8:54 pm · 7 May 2024

I’ll be on @GMB tomorrow morning  at 0810 with Gerard Griffiths

Yes I do....Daily Telegraph,May 7 2024,  what an amazing further coincidence:
https://archive.is/pYshO

Cyclists who kill or injure pedestrians face harsher prison sentences
Sir Iain Duncan Smith proposes law change that would see those recklessly riding bikes or scooters found guilty of new criminal offences

[gibbo]

Conversely this> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68975335