- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Iffley Lock, Oxford (David Hallam-Jones / Iffley Lock, South Oxford / CC BY-SA 2.0)Cyclist not guilty of causing pedestrian's death by "wanton or furious driving" after trial over "3mph" towpath collision
A cyclist has been found not guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving in relation to an incident which saw him collide with a pensioner as he cycled on a towpath, the 81-year-old woman falling to the ground and dying in hospital 12 days later.
As with the recent coroner's inquest into the death of an elderly pedestrian in a collision with a cyclist in Regent's Park, in London, the criminal trial at Oxford Crown Court was subject to national media attention, such as the coverage seen in The Telegraph, and has again prompted some to suggest the need for 'dangerous cycling' laws that were postponed due to the general election, but which Labour has said it would introduce once it formed a government.
Edward Bressan, a university lecturer, was found not guilty by a jury who heard evidence relating to the incident on 20 November 2022 on a towpath near Iffley Lock in Oxford. Polly Friedhoff "sustained serious injuries to her head, arms and ribs" and died in hospital 12 days later.
The court heard the cyclist had rung his bell to alert Mrs Friedhoff and her friend Ewa Huggins before attempting to overtake to their left as they were walking on the right-hand side. Mr Bressan had slowed down and estimated his speed was "probably 3mph" when there was an "unavoidable" collision as "both of us were moving and both of us were trying to take some kind of evasive action".
While the cyclist told the court he does not have a "vivid memory" of "which part of the body or which part of the bicycle made contact", there was a collision and Mrs Friedhoff fell to the ground.
During the trial, a defence witness called Nicholas Proudfoot, a professor in molecular biology at the University of Oxford, suggested the incident was less of a collision and more a case of Mrs Friedhoff having "lost her balance".
He contacted the police two days after witnessing it and told the 999 operator: "The media is going on about a cyclist smashing into an old lady but it's not what happened. My impression is not that the bike directly ran into her. She didn't put her hands out at all and unfortunately fell over. My impression is very much that the lady lost her balance.
"She just flipped right over, she didn't put out her hand out to stop herself at all, she just ended straight on the concrete path, the impact going unfortunately on her head. The cyclist was not a hit-and-run kind of guy. He was very concerned and very much involved and trying to care for her. I just want to protect the cyclist."
In court, the prosecution suggested Mr Proudfoot may be biased after he admitted that he would "definitely describe" himself as "pro-cyclist", something the professor denied, stating that his positive view of cycling is more "to do with the media and press" being "anti-cyclist" and attacking "a wonderful way to get around when it's done safely".
Prosecuting, Andrew Johnson had argued that "that Mr Bressan's driving of his bicycle was reckless and that in overtaking the ladies, he caused bodily harm to Mrs Friedhoff", but the jury reached a unanimous not guilty verdict yesterday.
The court also heard from Ms Huggins who said she saw her friend "basically flying" in front of her before "falling flat on the towpath".
"Yes, at an angle and with incredible force actually, I can still hear her scalp hit the ground," she said. "I can't remember any shouting or bell-ringing before it happened."
Mr Bressan concluded that he was "very upset" and apologised for the "very unfortunate accident".
"However, I do not believe I was cycling carelessly or dangerously," he said. "I was fully aware of my surroundings and gave adequate warning for the pedestrians to move out of the way. She moved into my line and made the accident unavoidable."
This morning, the Telegraph has published an interview with Mrs Friedhoff's sons, both of whom say they are cyclists and argue that while they believe the "laws for prosecuting cyclists need to be updated" this should only come if cyclists are given "a safe space to cycle" and "more infrastructure".
> "Dangerous cycling" law will be passed following election, Labour confirms
Andrew, who is reportedly part of the London Cycling Campaign, told the newspaper: "This punitive approach, I don't agree with unless you give them what they need which is a safe space to cycle — this is crucial and it has not happened, it happens piecemeal or chaotically.
"The laws for prosecuting cyclists need to be updated and that's very clear. It's tribal and this is the problem. My personal view is that if you want cyclists to take more responsibility, then you need to give them more infrastructure. You give them more of a place on the road, and more infrastructure, then with rights come more responsibilities."
Mrs Friedhoff's brother Mike added his belief that the law needs to be updated. "The fact is part of the reason the evidence wasn't strong enough is that we haven't got a relevant law of the 21st century. We're talking about an 1861 law about a horse cart," he said. "It's ridiculous and it's irresponsible of the government not to put this right."
The family added that they believe Mr Bressan is a "decent man" who had "made a mistake".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- Pub bike 2 sec ago
If you cycle it is scientifically proven that there is no practical limit to how much cake you can eat (allegedly), so that is a lot of cake.
- chrisonabike 55 min 21 sec ago
Hmm, not how I see them progressing....
- bikes 1 hour 40 sec ago
I suppose just getting the laws we do have enforced would be a start. It seems you can drive appallingly and even the ridiculously short bans we...
- Hirsute 2 hours 9 min ago
No It's all explained in the text.
- alvinlwh 3 hours 31 min ago
I thought cyclists are exempted from speed limits?
- S.E. 3 hours 26 min ago
From what I can read and my short experience with C 1800, you can't go wrong with DT-Swiss, but you might find marginally better offers for the...
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 56 min ago
Spare a thought for the hard working Amazon lorries that sometimes just need to lay down for a quick nap...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 51 min ago
An estimated 2/3 of shoplifting the UK is committed by drug addicts, 70% of burglaries and nearly 50% of homicides, these people aren't thinking of...
- IanEdward 8 hours 28 min ago
Hmm, not sure if you were joking or not but that's actually quite a rational reason for a new derailleur standard, I retract some of my initial...
- essexian 9 hours 23 min ago
I see there is a reply to the piece by someone calling themselves a lawyer. If this person is a lawyer then Heaven help anyone who takes legal...
Add new comment
69 comments
There was a time when no lady of a certain age would be without a hat when walking in public, A moderately stiff brimmed felt hat might perhaps have saved this unfortunate ladies life. Perhaps it should be recommended as appropriate wear for pedestrians of an age where fall reflexes are dulled?
A friend of mine takes advantage of his squeaky disk brakes approaching people from behind, I thought it was quite clever when we were discussing quieting them up one day.
Unfortunately, my TRP Spyre cable disc brakes virtually never squeal
So the cyclist didn't stop?
Elderly women and he thought squeezing by was the answer, because he'd used his bell?
I'm one of the first to express an pro-cycling opinion on many of the articles on this site, but this time from the brief info given it appears the cyclist has got away with it.
What a shit outcome for everybody.
My condolences to the family of the deceased.
All the information above indicates that the cyclist was not at fault - slowed to 3mph, gave a clear warning and moved to cycle round and the unfortunate lady stepped into his path, this corroborated by an eye witness and clearly accepted by the jury. What in the information above leads you to the conclusion that the cyclist "has got away with it"?
Apparently (it comes with the asterisk that it's the cyclist's own account) slowed to walking speed and tried to pass through what appeared to be an available space (not 'squeezing by') - if that's true then it's hard to see what more could be asked. It's not really reasonable that they shouldn't ever pass anybody, no matter how slowly, or how much space was available.
So as long as the cyclist perceives that there was enough room, that's OK then?
There obviously wasn't otherwise the elderly woman would still be here today.
He should have waited until it was safe to pass.
I find it unbelievable that two of you have decided to argue the toss when someone has lost their life.
Have you considered what the jury accepted, that there was enough room, that it was safe to pass, and that the elderly woman moved into the cyclist's path? I find it unbelievable that you have decided to argue the toss when a court of law has accepted that the cyclist was not at fault. Also that you appear to believe that because you have stated, without any evidence, that the cyclist has "got away with it" that should be accepted and that nobody should argue with your conclusion because someone has lost their life. Do you believe that whenever a person loses their life in a collision with a cyclist the cyclist must automatically be guilty? That appears to be the case from your comment. You have given no reason from the evidence to suggest that the cyclist was at fault, you've just made up a scenario in which he would be.
It doesn't appear that you actually read my comment, because I clearly caveated that the statement that there was sufficient room was according to the cyclist themself. Having said that, as Rendel points out, that's the version the court accepted, and since neither of us was there or in the courtroom, that's all we've got to go on.
This doesn't follow at all. It's extremely unclear from the reported testimony what caused the fall, or whether it has anything at all to do with how close the cyclist was passing. By that logic, if someone walks into the river because they're paying more attention to a passing boat than where they're walking, that would be the fault of whoever was driving the boat.
I was on a shared path recently and I always cycle very slowly as I am aware of the rules of priority and that some pedestrians do feel apprehensive around men on cycles. Anyway, i came up behind a group of dog walkers, three or four people, with loads of dogs (it's a thing in London; professional dog walkers) I slowed right down, and said excuse me as they were completely blocking the path. They couldn't or wouldn't hear me as there were too many dogs and they were chatting away. So I came off the path (at about 3 mph) and cycled on the rutted muddy bit which made me slip and spooked one of the dogs which jumped ever so slightly. Cue outrage. Bloody cyclists, blah, blah. Soon the whole park was joining in. I wasn't scared just frustrated. I tried to argue my corner but none of the mob were having it. I was a selfish, dangerous cyclist. Case closed. I even mentioned that the Corporation of London requires 'professional' dog walkers to have a license to use their parks - so show me your liCense. None were forthcoming.
Try mentioning Highway code 56 to them. That'll get their piss proper boiled. Dog walkers with out of control dogs on a shared path is a nightmare around here, I had one fella screaming, inches away from my face, that he was going to find my house (good luck with that one) on Strava, come round and do me! All because I wouldn't reinforce his bad behaviour with a "thank you" as he was forced to round up his dogs and get them under control. #wanker
People will watch a video of a cyclist nearly being killed by someone in a car doing something really stupid and still come out with hatred and bile for the cyclist and completely ignore the driver. Some people hate cyclists and anything involving them will be seen entirely through that lens.
It's difficult to appreciate just how stupid people are- I have just come back from a trip down Garstang High Street, which is single lane, narrowed by pinch points where traffic is occasionally stopped completely when buses can't pass badly parked cars. This time I was beeped several times from behind and then the car-bound moron shouted 'You're a bike, not a car'. I can't even work out the primitive thought process behind this comment.
Thought process? Generous.
A few weeks ago, riding from Falkirk to Edinburgh along the Union Canal towpath (NCN 754), I'd had plenty of pleasant reactions from peds (including those with dogs) when calling out to them as I approached - several even apologising, needlessly really, for being in my way.
But as I approached a group of teenage girls with with their backs to me, I slowed to their pace and prepared to call out once the oldish bloke walking towards me had passed them. Imagine my surprise when he repeatedly shouted "slow down!" even when I asked how much slower I could possibly ride when I was at walking pace. He started grabbing at me, at which point my calm demeanour ran out and I warned him, with colourful words, not to touch me again as I tried to get moving again.
I ended up apologising to the girls for the language (not that they seemed bothered) and felt the need to warn a fellow rider later on who would likely have encountered him a couple of minutes later.
The canal has had its fair share of such nutters by all accounts, but this was my first one. I'm not sure if he'd been drinking, but he certainly shouldn't have been allowed outside on his own. He was older than me but much stockier than my 'skinny cyclist' build, but one good shove would probably have seen him having a bath so he was lucky I had more self control than him!
As others have said, there's no single way to alert peds to your presence that works for everyone. I don't use a bell or horn (had the latter as a kid and had more success sticking it out the car window at speeders overtaking us as the siren sounds had the desired effect!) but I usually say "coming through" to roadies and "passing on your left/right" to more casual riders and peds (alternatively using "excuse me" for groups of peds or more mature peds who may just react better to that). But it's crazy we as cyclists seem to have to use so many different ways to communicate the same thing to different people because we have to try to predict aggression!
Not that there's only one out here but makes me think of this.
What to do with the Ronnie Pickerings of the world? (Keep 'em away from cars, canals and Councillorships, for a start...)
Certainly a fairly decent description of the guy I had to deal with.
I would get and use a bell, it is a sound that is widely recognised as indicating the imminent arrival of a bike
How's that help with a lunatic who apparently hangs about to assault cyclists?
Some pedestrians take offense to cyclists using a bell, whilst other peds take offense when a cyclist doesn't use a bell.
I find it's easier to use your voice as you can vary the tone and politeness.
Exactly. I've seen enough examples of riders getting verbal abuse for simple ping of a bell. There really is no one size fits all method, but a voice is literally the most humanising solution to announcing your presence.
I tend to find that pedestrians, including myself, jump, sometimes into the path of the cyclist, when they hear a bell binged behind them, so I have stopped using mine and ask them if they mind I pass instead.
That's very sad.
If I was Mr. Proudfoot, I would've been tempted to say "Proudfeet!" when called to the witness stand
Odo Proudfoot himself would be wiggling his toes in appreciation of that long-expected post; thank you.
Makes you wonder why on earth this even went to court.
Complete mess from the Police and CPS - quite obviously anti cyclist.
The prosecution said the witness might be biased ! So moving forward any prosecution for dangerous driving can we make sure the jury is not made up of drivers?
This was my thought. Hilarious that they genuinely went for the defence of "I think you are pro cyclist and therefore biased". I have never heard a cyclist spout the sort of hatred towards any other mode of transport that we routinely get about cyclists. I would wager that the majority of every jury in the land is made up of people who run the gamut between mild dislike of cyclists to outright hatred of them. The fact its so normalised as well means that no doubt they wouldn't see any reason to recuse themselves from the jury on the ground of prejudice as obviously their bigoted views are actually just the truth about all the scumbag cyclists.
I always ring my bell when approaching pedestrians and slow down, but it does make me nervous when I don't see any reaction to the bell especially if they have dogs or young children.
I'm not often actually asking people to move out of the way, just to alert them that I'm there. But what are you supposed to do if you don't get a reaction? I would slow down and pass cautiously, but should I be waiting to pass until I've got a definite positive that they're aware of my presence and aren't just going to jump in front of me?
On a slightly different note, I do wonder sometimes why so many dog walkers on Southampton Common choose to walk their dogs on the cycle path, rather than in the huge empty open space. At least why, if they do choose to walk on the cycle path, they aren't aware that there might be cyclists on it?
I call out in as friendly way as possible something like, "hello, can I pass on your left[/right], please"
If they're walking dogs on the cycle path, I may be slightly less supplient. Especially if the dog is on (or off) a long lead.
Pages