- 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
news
Police tape (CC licensed by freefotouk on Flickr)London pedestrian sustains life-threatening injuries after hit-and-run collision involving cyclist
Police in London have appealed for witnesses after a pedestrian was left with critical injuries yesterday following a collision involving a cyclist who subsequently fled the scene and abandoned his bike.
The Metropolitan Police say that the incident happened shortly after 5pm on Kingsland High Street in the London Borough of Hackney.
The pedestrian, a woman who is thought to be aged in her 50s, had been trying to cross the road when the collision happened.
She was taken to hospital with what police described as life-threatening injuries and officers are trying to trace her next-of-kin.
The cyclist came off his bike but remounted and rode off, according to police. The bicycle was later found abandoned in Approach Close, N16 and has been retained by police, who are also reviewing CCTV footage.
Detective Constable Darren Case of the Metropolitan Police’s Serious Collisions Investigations Unit said: "This is a shocking incident as it appears the cyclist involved did not stop to assist the victim or contact the emergency services, instead making off.
"We need to hear from anyone who was in the area at the time. Did you see the cyclist before, during or after the collision? Maybe you are in possession of dashcam footage or filmed the cyclist on your mobile phone as he made off, if you did it is vital that you make contact with us.
"We are also appealing directly to the cyclist along with his friends and family who may know of his whereabouts, the pedestrian has suffered life threatening injuries as a result of this collision and it is important that you do the right thing and make contact with police."
Anyone who has information is asked to contact the Serious Collisions Investigations Unit at Chadwell Heath on 020 8597 4874 or call 101 quoting CAD 5837/28 August.
The incident comes at a time when the issue of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians is in the spotlight, with the government currently consulting on reforming the law regarding dangerous cycling.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- quiff 3 sec ago
Also, she's 12! But agree with the sentiment
- Bungle_52 1 hour 13 min ago
I was implying that if Southport were still in Lancashire then this would have beene NFA and the driver would carry on putting cyclists lives in...
- Sriracha 1 hour 24 min ago
Haha, try floating that notion in The Torygraph!
- David9694 1 hour 35 min ago
Where's Cycling Mikey when you need him??
- wtjs 1 hour 35 min ago
I'm not sure Sussex Police is correct...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 37 min ago
A good summation of her attitudes from Peter Walker here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/jul/20/londons-to...
- Terry Hutt 2 hours 9 min ago
I'm not sure I want my butt smelling of coconut. But the guy drafting me might want it.
- giff77 2 hours 17 min ago
A friend of mine who immigrated here from a commonwealth country also happened to drive for the military. When sitting his hazard test he was...
- Hirsute 2 hours 22 min ago
"Corten steel. Lovely rusty sharp edges to scratch your lovely bike."...
- brooksby 3 hours 16 min ago
So even the market for bikes which don't can't ever leave the house is tanking?
Add new comment
115 comments
He won't get a fair trial as he was on a bike.
I think the Met's position is that a static image of the perp is different to actual footage of the event itself (which could prejudice the jury).
Yet cctv from outside a nightclub that featured in a recent prominent assault case,and was key evidence, was widely shared by the press and even on national tv, I don't think at any stage that aspect was cited as impacting the possibility of a fair trial
According to the guardian, this person has been ""arrested a 30-year-old man on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act – “injuring persons by furious driving""
The Guardian quotes a witness who stated that the rider was bloodied and dazed (before remounting and riding off)
So a law already exists for the purpose of the arrest/suspected offence, and it is a suspicion as there's no hard evidence of wrong doing atm for the offence against the person aspect
I hope police now start arresting motorists on the same basis of someone got injured/harmed by them at all times and using the offence against the persons act, oh wait, they won't, they'll use the feeble death by being a little bit careless bullshit if at all.
apparently, the abandoned e-bike was made by Specialized. Just googled them and their 'Turbo' range can hit 45kph on motor alone.
Maybe the USA version but any of the ones for sale over here have the usual 25km/h limit and no throttle.
https://www.specialized.com/gb/en/shop/bikes/turbo-e-bikes-its-you-only-...
Just been announced on the radio that the cyclist has handed himself in to the police.
I've read that
"A man contacted police and was arrested at around 11pm on Wednesday at an address in Islington on suspicion of causing bodily harm, failing to stop and failing to report a collision.
He is currently in police custody."
From the Sun's website (sorry - I only read it to laugh at the Dear Deidres, honest...).
'Fail to stop' and 'fail to report' only apply to (IIRC) 'motor vehicles'. What a horrible grey area.
And yet the Grauniad also reports failing to stop and failing to report - does this mean they're being dealt with as a motorcycle rather than as a bicycle? Henceforth, then, should we all be thinking of e-bikes as just posh motorcycles? (I knew that they were cheating!
)
That's an interesting edge case. Presumably, the definition of an e-cycle would include the restrictions, so if you de-restrict it, you're changing the class of vehicle to be a moped if it can't go more than 28mph or so. That'd mean that he could get done for lack of insurance, tax (if applicable to an e-moped) and a license.
Technically it is a moped not a motorbike. It has a speed of 45kph or less and no gears. And as every biker knows, posh moped is an oxymoron.
I'm guessing they are treating it as a motor vehicle, with no gray area. They are just picking the easiest charges to bring him in on with no grey area and fill out the rest later, to avoid lawyers picking it to bits. Which means they will probably add whole load of other stuff once the inital interview has been done and experts have had a look at the bike.
From the cctv photo the police released, it appears to be Bear Grylls.
Fly 12 front, Fly 6 back. Garmin on bars. Enough expense of kit to buy a decent commuting bike.
These serious incidents are so very rare and I properly pootle on my London commute, but one of the daily ‘pedestrian-not-looking-step-out-from-nowhere’s is going to be messy one day. Most likely I’ll be the one in an ambulance. Either way I want the proof of who was to blame.
If you can afford it. Do it. A handy by product is filming dickhead road users, but it’s primarily there to cover my butt.
I mentioned this in response to the consultation on new cycling offences. If I still had to cycle in town I'd need video evidence to protect me in the event of a collision with a pedestrian because I guarantee a jury of car drivers will side with the ped.
Keeping all that crap charged and running properly must be a pain when you're commuting, I always hated charging muddy lights at my desk which is why I ended up going with dyno lights.
I think the Fly6 and 12 while film while charging, so you could potentially hook them up to your dyno hub.
I don't know if you can charge them or not whilst filming, but I'd be surprised if a dyno hub would provide enough charge for them.
probably the bigger error in judgement here is leaving the scene, not just for the them but for evryone else who will be tarred with the same brush. Second biggest error was being on what to most looks like a bike. That's a whole big leap up the naughty steps straight away, people doing wrong on bikes might as well be paedophiles for all the general public/media are concerned and it's not a whole step different when/if it goes to court, even judges have an inherrent bias as seen in the Alliston case where the judge was in contempt and made several statements that had a bias influence on the jury as well as her summing up which slanted matters even further.
You might as well give yourself up kid, say the sun was in your eyes/momentary lapse (judges love using this to defend/absolve motorists when they kill/maim so it's a banker excuse) and that you hit your head and was in shock/confused hence why you left the scene. FFS whatever you do, don't go on social media saying it wasn't your fault, uphold your right to remain silent until someone has some actual facts/evidence to prove something, do not give plod ammunition because they will tear you a new one even if it's not your fault. They're not interested in what/how things really happened (Alliston/Michael Mason cases prove that beyond a doubt) you're on a bike, they're only interested in how long the courts can bang you up for.
If you are bang to rights, plead guilty, show remorse and still state you had the sun in your eyes/coughing fit/momentary lapse and you banged your head.
Having been tailgated up to a pedestrian refuge this evening and the silly mare trying to squeeze through the gap that simply wasn't there (I didn't cede to her bullying) I fucking hate cycling sometimes. No protection on the one hand and on the other hounding by the media/general public/government/police on the other, no wonder cycling uptake is going nowhere fast!
Hope ped recovers, whomever is at fault, none of us want to see soemone come to harm, oh hang on, there's a few killers that I would wish extreme harm on frankly, Helen Measures is head of the list.
https://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal
That's what I was going to say. I'm not excusing the cyclist for leaving the scene of an accident but, given the hysteria surrounding the Alliston case, would you want to be the next Charlie Alliston?
Make the punishment too harsh and people will try harder to escape rather than face up to the consequences of their actions.
Plenty of the usual biased reporting...
Why are the police looking for a hit-and-run cyclist rather than a cyclist with an apparent head injury, potentially caused by a pedestrian?
People don't tend to make the best decisions when they've got a head injury.
Curious to learn the real facts after reading the assumptions of some of the witnesses/police.
As above - sincerely hope the victim makes a full recovery and the culprit is found.
This may be an unpopular view, but I'm increasingly thinking that the upcoming review of the law is a good thing. Police (and CPS) have difficulty meeting the requirements to charge motorists with 'dangerous' driving, so too many offences are downgraded to 'careless', and many are simply dropped. There are (of course) only comparatively few instances where a cyclist is at fault for a pedestrian injury, but in those cases there is a definite loophole where the only charges that can be brought are either antiquated or not severe enough.
So let's review the law. Yes, it might mean that there are new offences that apply to cyclists. But isn't that correct? If you've caused harm to someone, shouldn't there be a penalty? And shouldn't there be something to discourage people riding in a way that ignores the (small) potential risks? Isn't that what responsible cyclists (and, obviously, drivers) should do? I'd have a system where the intention of the driver or rider is immaterial, simply by holding the person in charge of the vehicle objectively accountable for its movements.
Call it 'operating a vehicle inappropriately'. Can be written to cover speed, inability to see (through dirty or frosted up windows, or by dazzle), operating the vehicle in a place it shouldn't be (e.g. footpaths) or simply with insufficient consideration for other road users. Causing death by, causing serious injury by, causing injury by. Doesn't matter what the vehicle is then: the fact that a collision occurred means that the operation of the vehicle was inappropriate. If you run down a granny by cycling at 20mph down a shared space path with no consideration, if you run down a cyclist on an A-road at 60mph, if you pull out of a junction in front of someone, you were driving inappropriately, and the seriousness of the accident determines the scale of the penalty. As a cyclist and driver, I'd be OK with that...
Seeing as how Alliston got 18 months when a motorist in a similar situation most likely wouldn't have got any prison time, I fail to see why there is any need for new cycling laws.
I do agree that there should be either clarification or improvement to the existing driving laws as they do not seem to be working as intended. However, to equate driving a 2-ton motor vehicle that requires a license to operate, with someone riding atop a few kilos and powered by their own legs is clearly not right.
A full review of the dangerous/careless driving laws would be welcome. But including cycling offences under the existing laws (which have proven to be ineffective in many cases) is a misguided exercise driven by populist misconceptions.
In any case, increased punishment for the worst case is a bit after the event. What would make a difference would be enforcement of offences such as riding bikes without adequate brakes or a close pass from a motor vehicle. The police need the resources to do the job properly.
Let's face it, none of us know what happened. But it is obviously sad to hear of the injured lady. And very bad PR for cycling in the current climate. Let's hope any witnesses prove to be reliable and who actually witnessed the collision.
Abandoned bike - stolen? Only comment I will make as to possible circumstances.
'Another witness, who did not want to be named, said : “I heard a big bang and saw a guy on a bike on the floor and a lady unresponsive, like she had been knocked out. Someone who saw the incident started talking to him. It looked rather confrontational... next minute he had gone.”
From The Standard report.
From this, you could perhaps imagine the cyclist fled to prevent getting a kicking? Certainly if I were his lawyer, that's what I would say.
That wouldn't explain ditching the e-bike, though. The only reason to ditch the e-bike is to avoid getting caught.
Could the bike have been stolen perhaps?
Pages