- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@richmondtimes
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Richmond & Twickenham Times
Like us on Facebook
UPDATE: Pedestrian dies after collision with cyclist (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)
Contact us: Got a photo? Text 'SLPICS' to 80360. Got a story? Call the newsdesk: 020 8744 4260
UPDATE: Pedestrian dies after collision with cyclist in Petersham Road
3:24pm Tuesday 26th April 2011 in News By Joanna Kilvington
An elderly pedestrian has died after being involved in a collision with a cyclist.
The 81-year-old man died on Sunday after the incident outside the Poppy Factory, in Petersham Road, last Thursday morning.
The man, who has not yet been named, was airlifted to the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, suffering a suspected head injury.
He died at 10.10am three days later, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said.
Police were called at 11.55am last Thursday following reports of a collision between a man and a cyclist.
Officers closed off the A307 Petersham Road in the southbound direction following the incident.
The 41-year-old cyclist suffered minor injuries and was treated at St George’s Hospital, before being discharged.
The spokesman confirmed no arrests had been made and said investigations were ongoing.
Anyone with information should call the Hampton Traffic Garage on 020 8941 9011.
Comments(27)
tim_lennon
says...
9:20pm Tue 26 Apr 11
By all means we should make sure that the existing laws are enforced fully and properly for all transport users, but licensing would be a terrible waste of time and money.
(New York story here: http://cityroom.blog
s.nytimes.com/2011/0
3/03/lawmaker-withdr
aws-bike-license-bil
l/)
marie333
says...
11:41pm Tue 26 Apr 11
PhillipTaylor wrote:Philip Taylor.....another terrible story involving a cyclist? Please provide is with the links to other stories......unless you are referring to the many cyclists who are killed and injured by careless and dangerous drivers every year??
This is another terrible story involving a cyclist.
Whatever the facts here, I believe it is time to re-consider licensing bicycles and having a number plates system so we know who the people are who are riders and owners.
It may well be in this case that no party is really at fault but accidents do happen. It would certainly make life easier tracing people following instances where the cyclist leaves the scene of the accident...something which did not happen here, fortunately, although the cyclist was also hurt and received medical attention.
Phillip Taylor
Nelly1
says...
1:40pm Wed 27 Apr 11
marie333 wrote:To marie333...And how about the innocent car drivers who have to take evasive action over cyclists who have jumped red lights! And the ones who insist on cycling on pavements when there is a perfectly good cycle path just a few feet away! Oh, and the one's with headphones on who are oblivious to what's going on around them.
PhillipTaylor wrote:Philip Taylor.....another terrible story involving a cyclist? Please provide is with the links to other stories......unless you are referring to the many cyclists who are killed and injured by careless and dangerous drivers every year??
This is another terrible story involving a cyclist.
Whatever the facts here, I believe it is time to re-consider licensing bicycles and having a number plates system so we know who the people are who are riders and owners.
It may well be in this case that no party is really at fault but accidents do happen. It would certainly make life easier tracing people following instances where the cyclist leaves the scene of the accident...something which did not happen here, fortunately, although the cyclist was also hurt and received medical attention.
Phillip Taylor
bandit63
says...
2:03pm Wed 27 Apr 11
I have knocked off a cyclist whilst on my motorbike after the idiot shot a red light whilst I was turning right on a green filter and he rode into the side of me. this numpty proceeded to tell me I was in the wrong pushed and threatened to punch me. Unfortuantly for him, this was all witnessed by a Traffic officer . This cyclist then pushed the police officer and was then arrested for public order. I heard later that he still maintained that it was his god given right to shoot the lights.
I have also upset some cyclists by actually obeying the traffic laws whilst on my bicycle - including not riding over a zebra crossing whilst people were crossing the road.
Bottom line - Phillip I agree with you, we need to do something, but what that is, god only knows....
tim_lennon
says...
2:53pm Wed 27 Apr 11
) illustrates just why bandit63 protests too much: every accident is regrettable, and all road users, cyclists, car drivers, etc., should be treated equally by the law.
As Geffen points out in the letter, 610 pedestrians a year (2005-2009) died in incidents with motor vehicles, 2.2 per year died in incidents with bicycles.
And jumping red lights? "the ten year average for pedestrians injured by law-breaking drivers is 105 (78 with cars, 27 with other vehicles) while the figure for cycles is just 5."
I'd love to meet the cyclist who was upset by watching bandit63 waiting at a light. Unless he was on his motorcycle in an advanced stop zone (green, generally) which is specifically not intended for motorcyclists ...
Concerned_Resident
says...
10:50pm Wed 27 Apr 11
As a pedestrian, I have to say that sometimes you are 'dicing with death' wherever you are. On the pavement you have cyclists shooting past. When you go to cross the road (with the green man of course) you invariably have a cyclist shooting through and when driving at night, you often have cyclists riding without sufficient (or indeed any) lighting.
I was in the unfortunate position to clip one of these people with my wing mirror because I couldn't see them in a dark stretch of road. Did I have insurance details for them to claim for the damage? Oh, what insurance do cyclists have? Silly me for thinking that, or the they might pay.
I'm with Philip on this one. Licence, tax, insure is what I say for all road users.
Ginger13
says...
12:03am Thu 28 Apr 11
Gambatte
says...
6:52am Thu 28 Apr 11
bandit63
says...
9:10am Thu 28 Apr 11
However, agree with everyone that we ALL need to improve our tolerance and road skills. What I find hard to understand, is that very good car drivers turn into idiots that ignore traffic laws when on their bicycle
tim_lennon
says...
10:50am Thu 28 Apr 11
The main point I suppose I really want to try to emphasise is that cycling is a social good: if more people cycle, we generate less pollution and congestion as a society, the people who cycle are healthier, even if they only choose to travel for very short distances, and our transport environment - even taking into account bad cycling - becomes a much safer place.
That's the main reason I think licesning and taxing is madness, but it's also because doing these will cost a fortune in trying to apply such laws. Better to spend the money in fully enforcing the laws we have - for cyclists, cars, trucks and all road users.
aspicer
says...
12:03pm Thu 28 Apr 11
However, the notion of licensing bicycles is ridiculous – typical of the wasteful ideas we witnessed by the previous government.
What will happen is that this new ‘Tax’ would cost more to administer and collect, than the receipts it would generate - unless the Tax was set at such a high level that it would deter ownership.
Generating paperwork and pointless admin jobs, which costs more than the benefit they provide. Staff, computers, call centres, National Databases, policing, think of the cost!! .. this is not a solution, just another example of mindless, poorly thought-out ideas that have got the country into this mess in the first place.
In times of austerity and cut-backs we need to streamline and justify every penny spent, not introduce further red-tape layers of wasteful nonsense. It it’s not going to raise more than it costs to run – drop the idea.
bandit63
says...
12:54pm Thu 28 Apr 11
Agree that taxing etc., is not the right way to go. As a cyclist I also get annoyed with bad riding, same when I'm in my car etc., and get fed up with pedestrians who amble across the road at crossings when the red man is on, and they are gassing on thier phones (sorry - could rant for hours on various parts of this subject).
The solutions are long term and pipe dreams but may be achievable:
1) All road users need to respect other types of road users and appreciate how they may have to drive etc.(don't undertake buses and lorries indicating left etc.)
2) Have some common sense!!
3) Traffic laws to be the same for all road users - and for them to enforced equally across all road users
4) Lobby groups to be less militant and more co-operative (you should see some of the Daily Mail type comments articles / blogs that have been written on the London Cycling Campaign website - makes the Animal Liberation Front look like a front for coffee mornings sometimes!!)
And so on...
Concerned_Resident
says...
8:40pm Thu 28 Apr 11
I do genuinely think that cyclists are generally more of a danger to pedestrians than cars are - how many cars do you get driving along the pavement, or running through when you have the green man? Not too many in all fairness, but these incidents are fairly common amongst cyclists in my experience.
And with the point against bike licensing/taxation being ridiculous because of cost - you could argue that the cost of administering car taxation is high, so why should ditch it.
Dondare
says...
8:54pm Thu 28 Apr 11
If you want to save lives then further regulation of motorists would have considerably more effect than further regulation for cyclists.
Dondare
says...
9:04pm Thu 28 Apr 11
Concerned_Resident wrote:"I do genuinely think that cyclists are generally more of a danger to pedestrians than cars are - how many cars do you get driving along the pavement, or running through when you have the green man? Not too many in all fairness, but these incidents are fairly common amongst cyclists in my experience."
That's interesting... Pedestrian in collision with cyclist and nobody raises the possibility of it being the pedestrians fault! Welcome to the world of the car driver - we're automatically blamed for stuff too. Now if a car had hit him, it's be hell on earth if someone suggested it was maybe the pedestrian's fault.
I do genuinely think that cyclists are generally more of a danger to pedestrians than cars are - how many cars do you get driving along the pavement, or running through when you have the green man? Not too many in all fairness, but these incidents are fairly common amongst cyclists in my experience.
And with the point against bike licensing/taxation being ridiculous because of cost - you could argue that the cost of administering car taxation is high, so why should ditch it.
You'd be wrong. The main danger to pedestrians, both on the pavement and on the carriageway, comes from motor vehicles. Regardless of what you might guess, about 40 pedestrians are killed on pavements, verges, footpaths &c. by motor-vehicles every year (and thousands injured) in addition to the hundreds killed on the roads. These cases rarely make the news because they are too commonplace. Deaths from cyclist/pedestrian collisions are reported only because they are so rare.
tim_lennon
says...
9:09pm Thu 28 Apr 11
And you're wrong about what would have happened if he'd been hit by a car: fatalities caused be cars or trucks tend to be treated very lightly in court. For example: http://crapwalthamfo
rest.blogspot.com/20
11/04/land-rover-dri
ver-on-mobile-phone-
who.html (a car driver admitted dangerous driving and walked away with a bit of a ban.)
I'd guess that less discussion has surrounded the potential culpability of the unfortunate pedestrian because I think most people have a hierarchy in their minds where less vulnerable road users give greater consideration to those more vulnerable than them: cyclists to pedestrians, motorcyclists to cyclists, cars to motorcyclists, etc.
Cyclists aren't seeking special exemptions or special treatment, they just want to make their journey without being terrified by cars and trucks passing too close, or having to dress in more safety and protective gear than a downhill skier. Watch a video of people cycling in Holland: that's how easy and obvious cycling *should* be ...
Dondare
says...
9:24pm Thu 28 Apr 11
I think that Geffen is mistaken. A couple of years ago a cyclist was jailed after knocking down a pedestrian on the pavement who died.
http://www.timesonli
ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk
/crime/article679353
0.ece
Another cyclist received a suspended sentence. These were the first incidents of this type for many years.
Cyclists are not in any way above the Law.
tim_lennon
says...
9:52pm Thu 28 Apr 11
downfader
says...
9:13am Fri 29 Apr 11
Dondare wrote:Don, I've followed this thread on the cycle forum and noticed your comment here.
Trained, tested, licenced and registered motorists are killing pedestrians at the rate of two a day; untrained, untested, unlicenced and unregistered cyclists at the rate of two a year. If you want to save lives then further regulation of motorists would have considerably more effect than further regulation for cyclists.
.
I would tend to disagree (I think we tend to agree on a lot of other things, I notice) on more regulation of motorists. What I would think of as workable is more effective enforcement, and some action on the culture that surrounds the mentality of motoring to bring it towards the IAM mentality and away from the lazy, Top Gear mentality.
.
I think the rising cost of fuel will continue to ration out the use of the car.
Dondare
says...
4:12pm Fri 29 Apr 11
Top Gear works as entertainment, not as a guide to good motoring.
How expensive will fuel have to be before motorists stop flooring the accelerator pedal at every opportunity? The fast-stop-fast-stop-
fast-stop driving that typifies motorist behavior would be stupid even if petrol was free.
This is a bit off-topic, though. In my opinion, cyclists should always be watching out for pedestrians and ready to give way for them. We don't know what happened here but the basis of British Law does seem to be close to the concept of "Strict Liability" that gets everyone so worked up about whenever it's mentioned. Pedestrians are both harmless and vulnerable and so are absolved of responsibility by default.
Twickenham Bob
says...
5:39pm Fri 29 Apr 11
.
As for cyclists on pavements, many decide to do this as a risk avoidance strategy as cycling on the road can be very dangerous. Indeed many cycle lanes are death traps as the
place the cyclist in the gutter when they should be in the middle of the road.
Twickenham Bob
says...
5:45pm Fri 29 Apr 11
.
As for cyclists on pavements, many decide to do this as a risk avoidance strategy as cycling on the road can be very dangerous. Indeed many cycle lanes are death traps as the
place the cyclist in the gutter when they should be in the middle of the road.
Nelly1
says...
10:49pm Fri 29 Apr 11
Twickenham Bob wrote:Twickenham Bob, I agree there are motorists who do not stop at zebra crossings as there are many cyclists. Even worse when they do not stop at pelican crossings when you have already started to cross with the green man.
If anyone wants to witness the appalling state of law & order on our roads one only needs to stand by a Zebra crossing for ten minutes. At some 1/3rd of motorists won't stop for a pedestrian. The reason it's so high is that police have it as a low priority and motorists know they can get away scot free.
.
As for cyclists on pavements, many decide to do this as a risk avoidance strategy as cycling on the road can be very dangerous. Indeed many cycle lanes are death traps as the
place the cyclist in the gutter when they should be in the middle of the road.
The cycle path I refer to is on the A4 and is in good condition, recently my husband (who is both a cyclist and motorist) had a confrontation with a cyclist who had no intention of slowing down on the pavement and nearly took out my son.
Dondare
says...
9:19am Sat 30 Apr 11
Anecdotal evidence suggests that cyclists nearly kill and injure almost everyone and their families and that motorists are no danger at all.
A perception/reality gap, perhaps.
Dondare
says...
10:18am Sat 30 Apr 11
Nelly1
says...
9:26pm Sat 30 Apr 11
Dondare wrote:There has been nothing wrong with that piece of cycle path when both me and my husband have used it!
There is no excuse for endangering pedestrians on the pavement or footpath, but neither is there such a thing as a "perfectly good cycle path".
PhillipTaylor says...
8:22pm Tue 26 Apr 11
Whatever the facts here, I believe it is time to re-consider licensing bicycles and having a number plates system so we know who the people are who are riders and owners.
It may well be in this case that no party is really at fault but accidents do happen. It would certainly make life easier tracing people following instances where the cyclist leaves the scene of the accident...something which did not happen here, fortunately, although the cyclist was also hurt and received medical attention.
Phillip Taylor