Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

No charges brought against Regent’s Park cyclist after high-speed crash in which pensioner was killed while crossing road

Coroner’s inquest told by Met officer that speed limits do not apply to cyclists

A coroner’s inquest has been told that no charges will be brought against a cyclist who was riding laps of London’s Regent’s Park when he crashed into a pensioner, causing her fatal injuries.

Hilda Griffiths, aged 81, died two months after the collision which happened shortly after 7am on a Saturday morning in June 2022, in which she sustained injuries including several broken bones and bleeding on the brain, reports Telegraph.co.uk.

Inner West London Coroner’s Court heard that the cyclist, Brian Fitzgerald, who works as a banker with Credit Suisse, was riding at a speed of between 25mph and 29mph as he undertook laps of the park, a popular destination with the capital’s cyclists, in a pace line with fellow members of the Muswell Hill Peloton club.

The speed limit in the park is 20mph, but the Metropolitan Police Service confirmed that it does not apply to people riding bicycles, and that the case had been closed because there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction.”

Mr Fitzgerald told the inquest that he had been left with “zero reaction time” when Ms Griffiths, who had been walking her dog and was crossing the road to a pedestrian island, stepped out in front of the group from a pedestrian island, estimating that he only had 2 metres in which to brake to avoid crashing into her.

A jogger who witnessed the crash, which happened on the Outer Circle close to Hanover Terrace, confirmed that in their opinion, the cyclist was not at fault.

 “I believe legally the speed limit doesn’t apply to cyclists [the same] as motorists,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

 “I’ve never seen any police in the park having any objections to the speed cyclists travel at,” he continued.

Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo told the court that a review of the case determined that “there were no criminal acts which would allow prosecution” in instances where a cyclist is riding faster than the posted speed limit for motor vehicles and which do not apply to bicycles since they are not mechanically propelled and are not required to be fitted with speedometers.

The officer explained that “mechanically propelled vehicles have the ability to identify the speed one is actually moving at” while in most cases cyclists cannot.

The Royal Parks, which manages Regent’s Park as well as a number of other parks in London as well as Windsor Great Park, has previously confirmed that speed limits posted in the parks apply only to motor vehicles.

Mr Fitzgerald, who conveyed his “sympathies” to the victim’s family, added that he was not sure whether there were markings on the road telling cyclist to slow down, although a photograph shown to the inquest revealed that there was one on the approach to the location where the crash happened.

Ms Griffiths’ son, Gerard Griffiths, told the court that he believed the law needed reforming.

 “With 35 or more cycling clubs with hundreds of members in the park, it was only a matter of time before tragic outcomes occurred,” he said.

“The laws are inadequate and need to change. If any other type of vehicles were travelling over the speed limit in that same formation – essentially tailgating – they would be committing an offence.”

Assistant coroner Jean Harkin recorded a conclusion of “accidental cycling collision death.”

While no charges are being brought against Mr Fitzgerald in connection with Ms Griffiths’ death, occasionally prosecutions are brought against bike riders involved in a crash in which a pedestrian is killed.

In August 2017, cyclist Charlie Alliston was sentenced to 18 months’ detention in a youth offenders facility after being convicted by a jury at the Old Bailey of “causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving” in connection with the death of Kim Briggs, whom he struck as she crossed London’s Old Street.

Alliston, who was riding a fixed-wheel bike that had no front brake  .and did not therefore comply with legal requirements for use on the road, was cleared of a separate charge of manslaughter.

The offence he was found guilty of falls under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and Mrs Briggs’ husband, Matthew Briggs, has campaigned since her death for the law to be updated with a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling to be introduced, and has claimed that the government’s failure to do so is because ministers are scared of what he termed the “cycling lobby.”

> Husband of pedestrian killed by cyclist claims ministers are scared of “cycling lobby”

Because Ms Griffiths died more than 30 days after the crash, it will be recorded in official statistics compiled annually by the Department for Transport in its publication Reported Road Casualties Great Britain as one resulting in serious injury, rather than as a fatality.

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.

Add new comment

83 comments

Avatar
Hirsute | 7 months ago
2 likes

No prizes for which paper this is from

//pbs.twimg.com/media/GNRxryjW0AAKJsW?format=jpg&name=small)

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Hirsute | 7 months ago
5 likes

"Hauling petrified dogs from danger" - if you're letting your dog run free by a busy road they're in danger anyway, cyclists or no; if they're on a lead and they still get into the road perhaps your dogwalking skills could do with a refresher. Love "urging the bikes on", sounds as though we all carry whips and ginger up our steeds as we career around.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Rendel Harris | 7 months ago
4 likes

Rendel Harris wrote:

sounds as though we all carry whips and ginger up our steeds as we career around.

You don't

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to brooksby | 6 months ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

sounds as though we all carry whips and ginger up our steeds as we career around.

You don't

Well you know, high days and holidays, obviously...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Hirsute | 7 months ago
3 likes

I call BS. There are "speed cyclists" - heck, any cyclists - waiting at a red light?

That clearly is a fake Mail article.

Avatar
Hirsute | 7 months ago
5 likes

Avoided speeding cyclist

//pbs.twimg.com/media/GNJLD-BWEAAdVnI?format=jpg&name=small)

//pbs.twimg.com/media/GNJLEYNXIAIuGtE?format=jpg&name=small)

Avatar
Hirsute | 7 months ago
5 likes

" Your timely reminder that the current demonization of cyclists in the right-wing media is a smokescreen for the everyday dangerous driving in London. This has become normalized. Hit-and-run figures in London 2022 are insane, no mention of these in the press "

//pbs.twimg.com/media/GNHp8lEWgAEdsdS?format=jpg&name=small)

//pbs.twimg.com/media/GNHp8lFXkAA17Ep?format=jpg&name=medium)

Avatar
Moist von Lipwig | 7 months ago
2 likes

The slow road marking is interesting. I don't think its there (solely, or if at all) to warn of pedestrians crossing - I think its there as a warning to motorists of cycles because the carriageway narrows through the island due to the advisory cycle lane, so bringing that up the the cyclist should have slowed is a bit of a red herring.

Although you can use it alone (Traffic Signs Manual Ch.5 11.2.2) You're supposed to use the slow marking alongside a triangular hazard sign to inform you why you're slowing, rather than be a generic warning - as without the sign it loses meaning.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 7 months ago
5 likes

Road.cc may note this in follow up but they had a very measured (cautious, perhaps) Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK for a quick vox pop on R4 just before 9 today.

They brought up Matthew Briggs; Duncan navigated that well and avoided heffalump traps and (for better or worse) "but what about the drivers?" He also managed to get in reference to a certain review of all road offenses as mooted in 2014...

Avatar
Hirsute replied to chrisonabike | 7 months ago
2 likes

You beat me by 10 seconds !

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 7 months ago
2 likes

I'll just put this up on here for reference. It's from the following web site and is the sentencing guidelines for the offence of causing injury by wanton or furious driving or racing. I've highlighted the bits that caught my attention.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-i...

Culpability

The court should determine culpability by reference only to the factors below. Where there are characteristics present that fall under different levels of culpability, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.

References to driving below include driving or riding any kind of vehicle or carriage, including bicycles and scooters.
A

    Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and/or disregard for the risk of danger to others
    Prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of driving likely to cause a danger to others
    Obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre
    Driving highly impaired by consumption of alcohol and/or drugs
    Offence committed in course of evading police
    Racing or competitive driving against another vehicle
    Persistent disregard of warnings of others
    Lack of attention to driving for a substantial period of time
    Speed significantly in excess of speed limit or highly inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
    Extreme example of a culpability B factor

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Bungle_52 | 7 months ago
4 likes

Bungle_52 wrote:

I'll just put this up on here for reference. It's from the following web site and is the sentencing guidelines for the offence of causing injury by wanton or furious driving or racing. I've highlighted the bits that caught my attention.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-i...

Culpability

The court should determine culpability by reference only to the factors below. Where there are characteristics present that fall under different levels of culpability, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender’s culpability.

References to driving below include driving or riding any kind of vehicle or carriage, including bicycles and scooters.
A

    Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and/or disregard for the risk of danger to others
    Prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of driving likely to cause a danger to others
    Obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre
    Driving highly impaired by consumption of alcohol and/or drugs
    Offence committed in course of evading police
    Racing or competitive driving against another vehicle
    Persistent disregard of warnings of others
    Lack of attention to driving for a substantial period of time
    Speed significantly in excess of speed limit or highly inappropriate for the prevailing conditions
    Extreme example of a culpability B factor

A couple of thoughts on your highlighted bits:

The cyclist wasn't AFAIK racing or competing against anyone - sounds like they were simply training.

They weren't cycling significantly in excess of speed limit as there is no speed limit for cycles along there. You could argue that they were in excess of the motorised speed limit, but the reason for the low motorised speed limit is due to the danger posed by heavy vehicles which doesn't really apply to a cyclist. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the cyclist's speed was largely irrelevant to the incident as there would likely still have been a collision if they were cycling at 10mph.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to hawkinspeter | 7 months ago
8 likes

It's also another useful opportunity to highlight the common double standard when it comes to bicycles and speed. A cyclist travelling at >20mph will almost always be vilified for "racing" or riding "recklessly", while a car travelling at the same speed and in the same circumstances will be perceived as driving sensibly. Remember that 85% of cars exceed the speed limit in 20mph zones, with 49% of cars exceeding 25mph (source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-speed-compliance-statis...)

Avatar
PRSboy replied to hawkinspeter | 7 months ago
2 likes

Not sure I agree... the reason speed limits are not applied to cyclists is not because they don't pose a danger but more to do with enforceability, otherwise arguably supercars driven by a trained driver should have higher speed limits because they have better braking, skills and reaction times.  A 911 Turbo will stop quicker than a cyclist doing 30mph.

Had he been riding at 10mph he might well have avoided the crash, and had he crashed at 10mph Ms Griffiths might not have died of her injuries but we'll never know.  That is why we have speed limits (or travel at speeds appropriate for the conditions), because lower speeds make collisions less likely to occur, and less likely to cause serious injury when they do.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to PRSboy | 7 months ago
2 likes

PRSboy wrote:

Not sure I agree... the reason speed limits are not applied to cyclists is not because they don't pose a danger but more to do with enforceability, otherwise arguably supercars driven by a trained driver should have higher speed limits because they have better braking, skills and reaction times.  A 911 Turbo will stop quicker than a cyclist doing 30mph. (e.g. Would you rather be involved in a collision with a 911 Turbo or a cyclist going at 30mph?)

Had he been riding at 10mph he might well have avoided the crash, and had he crashed at 10mph Ms Griffiths might not have died of her injuries but we'll never know.  That is why we have speed limits (or travel at speeds appropriate for the conditions), because lower speeds make collisions less likely to occur, and less likely to cause serious injury when they do.

Speed limits are generally set to reduce the danger posed to other road users (and pedestrians), so I would disagree that a 911 Turbo should be allowed a higher limit as it's still a lot of mass moving at speed. e.g. Would you rather be hit by a 911 Turbo (and driver) or a cyclist travelling at 30mph?

I don't think that 2m is enough space to stop or avoid a pedestrian stepping out in front of you even if you're travelling at 10mph - typical stopping distances quoted for cars would have a thinking distance of 3m when travelling at 10mph, so that's not even enough distance to start braking.

With elderly pedestrians, it's not typically the speed of the collision, but more often how they fall  - slower reactions can make all the difference between hitting and not hitting your head on concrete. However, I'm guessing as to the exact nature of the pedestrian's injuries, so it's possible that a slower cyclist speed could have made a difference, but I think it's unlikely.

I haven't read the Telegraph article, but is there any evidence that it was the speed of collision that directly caused the injuries or was it due to the way that she fell?

Avatar
mattw replied to PRSboy | 7 months ago
1 like

PRSboy wrote:

Not sure I agree... the reason speed limits are not applied to cyclists is not because they don't pose a danger but more to do with enforceability, otherwise arguably supercars driven by a trained driver should have higher speed limits because they have better braking, skills and reaction times.  A 911 Turbo will stop quicker than a cyclist doing 30mph.

Had he been riding at 10mph he might well have avoided the crash, and had he crashed at 10mph Ms Griffiths might not have died of her injuries but we'll never know.  That is why we have speed limits (or travel at speeds appropriate for the conditions), because lower speeds make collisions less likely to occur, and less likely to cause serious injury when they do.

Typically speed limits are set at the 85% percentile of the speed that people drive at on the road - very little to do with safety or casualty reduction. That is the core policy for I think the last 60 years at least.

(Obviously it is a bunch of total crap.)

That has to be dealt with by road design or more vigorous enforcement.

Which is why sticking some signs up and nothing else does not often work.

The capability of the car is a red herring, since the determinant is dangerous or dozy driver behaviour.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mattw | 7 months ago
0 likes

mattw wrote:

Typically speed limits are set at the 85% percentile of the speed that people drive at on the road [...] Which is why sticking some signs up and nothing else does not often work.

What's surprising is that it does sometimes work*!  Possibly for similar reasons why you don't often find people going much lower than the limit.  Although there are a couple of posters here who strongly disagree and cite examples where more people were slower than the limit apparently?

* "Work" as in "speeds come down" rather than "make almost everyone stick exactly to the limit" which would be remarkable given current compliance rates.  There are plenty who seem very happy for perfect to be the enemy of "better" here...

I'd guess it's probably psychological "anchoring".  And IIRC from a long time ago drivers are generally trained to drive "to the limit" unless there is some reason not to.  That's a subtle difference from "drive to the conditions - so only consider driving near the limit if you've first assessed those and it is appropriate to do so".

Anyway - speed limits tend to become targets (mitigated by what everyone else is doing).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mattw | 7 months ago
0 likes

Things like "but cars can stop quicker": given "mass motoring" (and indeed open-access cycling and walking) presumably there's good reason to have as few rules as necessary and for them to be very clear.  So that will probably mean "broad brush" rules.

There is a reasonable question of the mechanisms for periodically reviewing these and keeping pace with technology.  Of course laws are made via parliament - so for better or worse some things are going to be delayed or not done at all.  That may be "not important enough to make time" or deliberately sidelining matters.

Examples would be regulation - or not - of e-motorbikes / e-scooters and the review of road law.

As you say though for most things the human is the limiting factor!

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Bungle_52 | 7 months ago
3 likes

So on the basis of what you have posted and the facts as they are known at present, the cyclist does not have a case to answer.

Avatar
Cycloid | 7 months ago
1 like

This has the makings of another Charlie Alliston case, which was hugely damaging to cycling.

The Register and Bang Up brigade is usually made up of people who have lost loved ones to cyclist collisions such as Mark Biggs which is understandable, cyclist haters and rabid right, wing politicians looking for a bandwaggon to jump onto.

When something which is clearly wrong and blameworthy happens it opens the discussion to normal, reasonable people. 

Wendy Joseph KC (the presiding judge on the Allston trial) made the case on the R4 Today program . (BBC Sounds at about 08:35 hrs)  The defence from the cycling brigade is basically "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and it difficult to impliment" which loses a lot of weight when a 90yr old pedestrian has just been killed

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Cycloid | 7 months ago
11 likes

But as others have said, if a pedestrian had stepped out in front of a car like that then it probably wouldn't even make the news...

Avatar
the little onion replied to Cycloid | 7 months ago
3 likes

The point is that this collision, from the point of view of a cyclist, was unavoidable. The pedestrian stepped out in front when they were 2 metres away. 

 

My question is: how slow would you have to be cycling so that you could reliably avoid a pedestrian that stepped out in front of you, when you are 2 metres away? I'd have a hard time avoiding someone who stepped out 2 metres in front of me if I were slowly jogging. And without meaning to sound callous, any kind of collision with a 90 year od is going to end badly.

 

I'm very sympathetic to the family's loss, but I simply can't see a reason to put any blame at all on the cyclist in question, in this particular instance.

Avatar
Cycloid replied to the little onion | 7 months ago
0 likes

What you say is true of course.

We all have to learn those stopping distsnces in the highway code to pass the theory component of the driving test. At 30mph the typical stopping distance of a car is 23 metres. If you step out in front of a car within that distance you will very likely be hit.

Bicycles have stopping distances also, it's just that we don't know what they are and don't publicise the fact.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to the little onion | 7 months ago
4 likes

the little onion wrote:

I'm very sympathetic to the family's loss, but I simply can't see a reason to put any blame at all on the cyclist in question, in this particular instance.

There is an obvious reason to blame the cyclist when a driver would not be: they're a cyclist.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Cycloid | 7 months ago
2 likes

Cycloid wrote:

Wendy Joseph KC (the presiding judge on the Allston trial) made the case on the R4 Today program . (BBC Sounds at about 08:35 hrs)  The defence from the cycling brigade is basically "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and it difficult to impliment" which loses a lot of weight when a 90yr old pedestrian has just been killed

 

But, like so many BBC articles about cycling, there was no defence, no-one from "The Cycling Lobby" was interviewed, it was completely one-sided, but hey, that's BBC impartiality for you.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Cycloid | 7 months ago
3 likes

Completely missing the point of course that there are 2 seperate lesser offences that he could be charged with  - Careless or Dangerous Cycling.  The fact that he wasnt means there was no case to answer.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Secret_squirrel | 7 months ago
0 likes

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Completely missing the point of course that there are 2 seperate lesser offences that he could be charged with  - Careless or Dangerous Cycling.  The fact that he wasnt means there was no case to aanswer.

Partly, agree with the drift and that ought to be a reasonable "straight bat" to "but killer cyclists!".  Although it won't be to those who are most concerned of course; they've already made their minds up (if not, the media will do that for them).

For the rest of us, we know that "the police / judiciary weren't interested so nothing to see" might not always be a reasonable assumption...

Avatar
antigee | 7 months ago
2 likes

“The laws are inadequate and need to change. If any other type of vehicles were travelling over the speed limit in that same formation – essentially tailgating – they would be committing an offence.”

possibly not a time for humour but in reading that I guess the charge would be laid against the bicycle not the rider

as to press coverage there was the sad death of an elderly dog walker following collision with a cyclist on Melbourne's popular cycling destination Beach Rd a few years ago the press initially claimed the cyclist was riding above the speed limit, not true possibly as fast as 40km/hr in 60km/hr zone and relatives of the deceased volunteered to the press that cyclists needed registration and plates to be held accountable despite the cyclist being hospitalised.

It was claimed the ped' would never consider crossing on red but the police tied the crossing lights data to the cyclist's garmin records and the guy had sadly chosen to cross whilst ped' lights were on red crossing 4 lanes of stationary motorised traffic to be hit by the cyclist using a cycle lane. The press coverage nearly always mentioned a pedestrian death caused by a cyclist running a red light on the same road about 10years earlier like its the sort of thing that happens everyday not once in a decade

https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2020/11/05/inquest-into-death-of-...

(Jacka Boulevard is a section of Beach rd)...and possibly pay walled: 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/traffic-light-timing-crucial...

 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to antigee | 7 months ago
2 likes

antigee wrote:

The press coverage nearly always mentioned a pedestrian death caused by a cyclist running a red light on the same road about 10years earlier like its the sort of thing that happens everyday not once in a decade

Something Matt Briggs is fond of doing, and did so again in the BBC interview yesterday, saying that there had been half-a-dozen or so in the past five or six years.  The BBC interviewer did not, of course, compare that to the number of pedestrians killed by drivers, or how many were killed whilst walking on the footpath.

Avatar
mattw | 7 months ago
2 likes

Interesting commentsd, as ever. I had a look of this at the weekend.

The poisonous thing here is the Telegraph attempting to weaponise this in their war on cycling to save this Government's backside.

I've heard a little about the potential for rumble strips to be installed either side of pedestrian crossings to slow cyclists down. I'd have no objection if there were no hazards caused for cyclists, wheelers or pedestrians.

Separately I have wondered about the Royal Parks implenting a byelaw applying to 20mph speed limit to cyclists, which is hard to argue against, or more signallised crossings or zebra crossings. Perhaps using the offer of a cycling training course, as used by teh CIty.

Or indeed bring in presumed liability, which would apply to the cyclist in this collision.

All fairly modest measures which would help change culture, without the bran-dead kneejerks from the Telegraph and Spectator.

 

 

Pages

Latest Comments