A man in his 30 has been rushed to hospital after colliding with a car in Walthamstow this morning

Cyclist rushed to hospital following collision

Cyclist rushed to hospital following collision

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A cyclist has been rushed to hospital with suspected head injuries following a road accident this morning. 

Ambulance services were called to Forest Road in Walthamstow at 7:45am today in response to reports of a road traffic collision. 

Paramedics treated a man in the 30s for head injuries before sending him to the Royal London hospital as a priority. 

Police were called to the scene which has been blocked both ways at the junction with Hoe Street. 

 

 

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:53am Thu 15 May 14

driftingcowboy says...

Don't know the cause of this accident, but I drove down to Tottenham just after 8am this morning and the first thing I noticed was the speed with which many cyclists travel. Many of them are on mountain bikes or road bikes and seem to treat the commute to work as a training exercise so they travel at full tilt quite often. The second thing I noticed was the number of cyclists who simply ignore the red traffic lights. They cycle up to the front and cross the junctions or turn when the lights are against them. Many of these wore black clothes with no hi-vis vests or lights, giving motorists and pedestrians very little chance of seeing them.
Don't know the cause of this accident, but I drove down to Tottenham just after 8am this morning and the first thing I noticed was the speed with which many cyclists travel. Many of them are on mountain bikes or road bikes and seem to treat the commute to work as a training exercise so they travel at full tilt quite often. The second thing I noticed was the number of cyclists who simply ignore the red traffic lights. They cycle up to the front and cross the junctions or turn when the lights are against them. Many of these wore black clothes with no hi-vis vests or lights, giving motorists and pedestrians very little chance of seeing them. driftingcowboy
  • Score: -4

12:24pm Thu 15 May 14

kirstywright says...

your lucky you see them in the road - down my road they use the pavements
your lucky you see them in the road - down my road they use the pavements kirstywright
  • Score: -1

12:40pm Thu 15 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

kirstywright wrote:
your lucky you see them in the road - down my road they use the pavements
Yawn.

Not all cyclists use the pavements.
[quote][p][bold]kirstywright[/bold] wrote: your lucky you see them in the road - down my road they use the pavements[/p][/quote]Yawn. Not all cyclists use the pavements. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Thu 15 May 14

PsiMonk says...

Couple of points on here:

1. I'd ask the reporter to avoid using the word "accident". Until you know what's happened, the word police, other emergency services and many journalists use increasingly is "incident".

2. A huge, government-funded study of thousands of UK cycle-vehicle collisions by TRL found in 74 percent of collisions the driver was either solely at fault or majority at fault. In other words, going on statistics - the chances are it was the driver of the car to blame.

Strange then, that the first two comments are all about assuming it's the cyclist that's at fault here. As an addition to that, I'd say...

i) If the cyclist was on the pavement, then the driver would really have to be at fault to hit them! So I really don't see what relevance to this piece having a pop at pavement cyclists has.

ii) Forest Road is a main road with high traffic speeds. Frankly, I'd suggest any cyclist who goes less than 20mph should probably avoid it.

iii) It's been repeatedly shown that while cyclists who jump red lights are undoubtedly annoying berks, they're not actually likely to be dangerous to themselves or others. In fact, if you've got a big HGV right behind you at the lights, there's a very compelling case to get further out in front fast. Those high cabs can't see cyclists in the "ASL" easily and HGV squashes are the most common fatality for cyclists.

iv) The report above says the ambulance was called at 745 - the sun is up and bright by then. So wearing "high vis" would make no difference. In fact, you'd probably be better off that time of day in black - it'd be more of a contrast with surroundings. The evidence on high-vis is patchy at best - and generally only gives good results either at dawn or dusk times.

I'd also add it's plain victim blaming to suggest cyclists bring collisions on themselves for wearing high-vis or going fast. Cyclists who go fast when they need to go slowly, that might be an issue, or cyclists not wearing high-vis at night might be an issue. But I'd also say do we force children to wear high-vis at night when crossing the road? Drivers should drive in a manner that if a small child comes out from a junction unexpectedly, they have time to stop. They should also give cyclists lots of room when overtaking and before, during and after turns.

Rather than blame cyclists, all the evidence points to sloppy driving - of which we all know we see a lot round here - as the main cause for collisions. So stop blaming cyclists just cos you aren't one.
Couple of points on here: 1. I'd ask the reporter to avoid using the word "accident". Until you know what's happened, the word police, other emergency services and many journalists use increasingly is "incident". 2. A huge, government-funded study of thousands of UK cycle-vehicle collisions by TRL found in 74 percent of collisions the driver was either solely at fault or majority at fault. In other words, going on statistics - the chances are it was the driver of the car to blame. Strange then, that the first two comments are all about assuming it's the cyclist that's at fault here. As an addition to that, I'd say... i) If the cyclist was on the pavement, then the driver would really have to be at fault to hit them! So I really don't see what relevance to this piece having a pop at pavement cyclists has. ii) Forest Road is a main road with high traffic speeds. Frankly, I'd suggest any cyclist who goes less than 20mph should probably avoid it. iii) It's been repeatedly shown that while cyclists who jump red lights are undoubtedly annoying berks, they're not actually likely to be dangerous to themselves or others. In fact, if you've got a big HGV right behind you at the lights, there's a very compelling case to get further out in front fast. Those high cabs can't see cyclists in the "ASL" easily and HGV squashes are the most common fatality for cyclists. iv) The report above says the ambulance was called at 745 - the sun is up and bright by then. So wearing "high vis" would make no difference. In fact, you'd probably be better off that time of day in black - it'd be more of a contrast with surroundings. The evidence on high-vis is patchy at best - and generally only gives good results either at dawn or dusk times. I'd also add it's plain victim blaming to suggest cyclists bring collisions on themselves for wearing high-vis or going fast. Cyclists who go fast when they need to go slowly, that might be an issue, or cyclists not wearing high-vis at night might be an issue. But I'd also say do we force children to wear high-vis at night when crossing the road? Drivers should drive in a manner that if a small child comes out from a junction unexpectedly, they have time to stop. They should also give cyclists lots of room when overtaking and before, during and after turns. Rather than blame cyclists, all the evidence points to sloppy driving - of which we all know we see a lot round here - as the main cause for collisions. So stop blaming cyclists just cos you aren't one. PsiMonk
  • Score: 6

1:36pm Thu 15 May 14

chingford lad says...

The truth is that most roads in this country are unsafe for cyclists. The cyclists feel vulnerable on the roads, most motorists don`t want them on the road so why do we comit them to being there? Of course they are going to cycle fast & some are going to jump the `lights` just like some motorists. What is point of putting in costly cycle lanes to allow cars to park on them and buses & lorries to drive in them because the roads are too narrow to do otherwise? Perhaps speaking on safe cycling can anyone tell me who has the right of way on a `one way` street where a cyclist is allowed to travel in the opposite direction.
The truth is that most roads in this country are unsafe for cyclists. The cyclists feel vulnerable on the roads, most motorists don`t want them on the road so why do we comit them to being there? Of course they are going to cycle fast & some are going to jump the `lights` just like some motorists. What is point of putting in costly cycle lanes to allow cars to park on them and buses & lorries to drive in them because the roads are too narrow to do otherwise? Perhaps speaking on safe cycling can anyone tell me who has the right of way on a `one way` street where a cyclist is allowed to travel in the opposite direction. chingford lad
  • Score: 8

2:24pm Thu 15 May 14

PsiMonk says...

Chingford lad,

1. Most roads aren't "unsafe". In fact cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport. The average cyclist has ten more years of healthy life than the average driver, including fatalities etc. But many roads *feel* unsafe and many people who would like to cycle don't because of those hostile conditions.

2. Roads often aren't "too narrow" to do otherwise. Look at the news reports right now about Elephant & Castle and the fatality there. Acres of space on the pavement, multiple lanes for traffic and designs on the table that wouldn't have resulted in tailbacks were ignored 3 years ago when it was redesigned. Those designs would have already saved several lives and there was space for them. Yup, some roads are narrow - but many aren't.

I'd also point out the mini-Holland bid from the council proposes to do something we should have started doing a long time ago - closing off residential roads as cut-throughs. Motorists do not and should not have a right to drive down every road to get where they want to go. Cutting ratrunning in residential areas is cheap, can make them nice for kids to play out and nice for cyclists to ride through - and can work no matter how narrow the roads are. Residents can still drive onto their streets, as can delivery and services vehicles, but white van men looking to shave a sneaky minute off their journey can't make it through the area.

3. On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously - they're the more vulnerable road user and that's the basis of the Highway Code. Same as with pedestrian stepping out into carriageway. Same as if you're travelling in same direction also.
Chingford lad, 1. Most roads aren't "unsafe". In fact cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport. The average cyclist has ten more years of healthy life than the average driver, including fatalities etc. But many roads *feel* unsafe and many people who would like to cycle don't because of those hostile conditions. 2. Roads often aren't "too narrow" to do otherwise. Look at the news reports right now about Elephant & Castle and the fatality there. Acres of space on the pavement, multiple lanes for traffic and designs on the table that wouldn't have resulted in tailbacks were ignored 3 years ago when it was redesigned. Those designs would have already saved several lives and there was space for them. Yup, some roads are narrow - but many aren't. I'd also point out the mini-Holland bid from the council proposes to do something we should have started doing a long time ago - closing off residential roads as cut-throughs. Motorists do not and should not have a right to drive down every road to get where they want to go. Cutting ratrunning in residential areas is cheap, can make them nice for kids to play out and nice for cyclists to ride through - and can work no matter how narrow the roads are. Residents can still drive onto their streets, as can delivery and services vehicles, but white van men looking to shave a sneaky minute off their journey can't make it through the area. 3. On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously - they're the more vulnerable road user and that's the basis of the Highway Code. Same as with pedestrian stepping out into carriageway. Same as if you're travelling in same direction also. PsiMonk
  • Score: -4

4:31pm Thu 15 May 14

kirstywright says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
kirstywright wrote:
your lucky you see them in the road - down my road they use the pavements
Yawn.

Not all cyclists use the pavements.
i never said all cyclist use pavements - but down my road they do --FACT
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kirstywright[/bold] wrote: your lucky you see them in the road - down my road they use the pavements[/p][/quote]Yawn. Not all cyclists use the pavements.[/p][/quote]i never said all cyclist use pavements - but down my road they do --FACT kirstywright
  • Score: 3

4:38pm Thu 15 May 14

kirstywright says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Chingford lad,

1. Most roads aren't "unsafe". In fact cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport. The average cyclist has ten more years of healthy life than the average driver, including fatalities etc. But many roads *feel* unsafe and many people who would like to cycle don't because of those hostile conditions.

2. Roads often aren't "too narrow" to do otherwise. Look at the news reports right now about Elephant & Castle and the fatality there. Acres of space on the pavement, multiple lanes for traffic and designs on the table that wouldn't have resulted in tailbacks were ignored 3 years ago when it was redesigned. Those designs would have already saved several lives and there was space for them. Yup, some roads are narrow - but many aren't.

I'd also point out the mini-Holland bid from the council proposes to do something we should have started doing a long time ago - closing off residential roads as cut-throughs. Motorists do not and should not have a right to drive down every road to get where they want to go. Cutting ratrunning in residential areas is cheap, can make them nice for kids to play out and nice for cyclists to ride through - and can work no matter how narrow the roads are. Residents can still drive onto their streets, as can delivery and services vehicles, but white van men looking to shave a sneaky minute off their journey can't make it through the area.

3. On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously - they're the more vulnerable road user and that's the basis of the Highway Code. Same as with pedestrian stepping out into carriageway. Same as if you're travelling in same direction also.
im not blaming the cyclist - we are all at fault as must use the road accordingly -- remember that film of david cameron peddling to work - how many red lights did he go through ?
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Chingford lad, 1. Most roads aren't "unsafe". In fact cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport. The average cyclist has ten more years of healthy life than the average driver, including fatalities etc. But many roads *feel* unsafe and many people who would like to cycle don't because of those hostile conditions. 2. Roads often aren't "too narrow" to do otherwise. Look at the news reports right now about Elephant & Castle and the fatality there. Acres of space on the pavement, multiple lanes for traffic and designs on the table that wouldn't have resulted in tailbacks were ignored 3 years ago when it was redesigned. Those designs would have already saved several lives and there was space for them. Yup, some roads are narrow - but many aren't. I'd also point out the mini-Holland bid from the council proposes to do something we should have started doing a long time ago - closing off residential roads as cut-throughs. Motorists do not and should not have a right to drive down every road to get where they want to go. Cutting ratrunning in residential areas is cheap, can make them nice for kids to play out and nice for cyclists to ride through - and can work no matter how narrow the roads are. Residents can still drive onto their streets, as can delivery and services vehicles, but white van men looking to shave a sneaky minute off their journey can't make it through the area. 3. On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously - they're the more vulnerable road user and that's the basis of the Highway Code. Same as with pedestrian stepping out into carriageway. Same as if you're travelling in same direction also.[/p][/quote]im not blaming the cyclist - we are all at fault as must use the road accordingly -- remember that film of david cameron peddling to work - how many red lights did he go through ? kirstywright
  • Score: -2

4:43pm Thu 15 May 14

PsiMonk says...

kirstywright: "im not blaming the cyclist"

Then what are you saying that has any relevance to this news item about a cyclist in a collision? So far you've made a point about cyclists on pavements, now you seem to be making a point about following highway rules - still seems to have nothing at all to do with some bloke on his bike either being hit by a car or hitting a car.
kirstywright: "im not blaming the cyclist" Then what are you saying that has any relevance to this news item about a cyclist in a collision? So far you've made a point about cyclists on pavements, now you seem to be making a point about following highway rules - still seems to have nothing at all to do with some bloke on his bike either being hit by a car or hitting a car. PsiMonk
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Thu 15 May 14

kirstywright says...

my reply originally was a reply to driftingcowboy , when he said about cyclist in the road -its not a reply to the news item. yet you took it on board as if it was a pop at cyclist. chill out man!!
my reply originally was a reply to driftingcowboy , when he said about cyclist in the road -its not a reply to the news item. yet you took it on board as if it was a pop at cyclist. chill out man!! kirstywright
  • Score: 1

5:09pm Thu 15 May 14

PsiMonk says...

kirstywright: "yet you took it on board as if it was a pop at cyclist"

It clearly is a pop at cyclists - at the very least cyclists who ride down your road, if no others. To me it just seems more than a little odd to have a pop at cyclists straight after a news story like this. Some bloke is injured - who knows what state he's in - but you simply must have your say about cyclists on pavements.
kirstywright: "yet you took it on board as if it was a pop at cyclist" It clearly is a pop at cyclists - at the very least cyclists who ride down your road, if no others. To me it just seems more than a little odd to have a pop at cyclists straight after a news story like this. Some bloke is injured - who knows what state he's in - but you simply must have your say about cyclists on pavements. PsiMonk
  • Score: -1

8:55pm Thu 15 May 14

kirstywright says...

PsiMonk wrote:
kirstywright: "yet you took it on board as if it was a pop at cyclist"

It clearly is a pop at cyclists - at the very least cyclists who ride down your road, if no others. To me it just seems more than a little odd to have a pop at cyclists straight after a news story like this. Some bloke is injured - who knows what state he's in - but you simply must have your say about cyclists on pavements.
I give up -enjoy your ride
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: kirstywright: "yet you took it on board as if it was a pop at cyclist" It clearly is a pop at cyclists - at the very least cyclists who ride down your road, if no others. To me it just seems more than a little odd to have a pop at cyclists straight after a news story like this. Some bloke is injured - who knows what state he's in - but you simply must have your say about cyclists on pavements.[/p][/quote]I give up -enjoy your ride kirstywright
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Thu 15 May 14

StanE11 says...

Some pretty unpleasant victim-blaming going on here, why witter on about some cyclist you saw on the pavement, it has NOTHING to do with this story.

The standards of driving in East London have got much worse in the last ten years, fewer than 4% of the drivers who admit using mobiles get caught.

Best wishes to the rider, I hope the police don't make a mess of the investigation like they did with Eilidh Cairns.
Some pretty unpleasant victim-blaming going on here, why witter on about some cyclist you saw on the pavement, it has NOTHING to do with this story. The standards of driving in East London have got much worse in the last ten years, fewer than 4% of the drivers who admit using mobiles get caught. Best wishes to the rider, I hope the police don't make a mess of the investigation like they did with Eilidh Cairns. StanE11
  • Score: 2

6:34am Wed 21 May 14

VillageIdiot69 says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Chingford lad,

1. Most roads aren't "unsafe". In fact cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport. The average cyclist has ten more years of healthy life than the average driver, including fatalities etc. But many roads *feel* unsafe and many people who would like to cycle don't because of those hostile conditions.

2. Roads often aren't "too narrow" to do otherwise. Look at the news reports right now about Elephant & Castle and the fatality there. Acres of space on the pavement, multiple lanes for traffic and designs on the table that wouldn't have resulted in tailbacks were ignored 3 years ago when it was redesigned. Those designs would have already saved several lives and there was space for them. Yup, some roads are narrow - but many aren't.

I'd also point out the mini-Holland bid from the council proposes to do something we should have started doing a long time ago - closing off residential roads as cut-throughs. Motorists do not and should not have a right to drive down every road to get where they want to go. Cutting ratrunning in residential areas is cheap, can make them nice for kids to play out and nice for cyclists to ride through - and can work no matter how narrow the roads are. Residents can still drive onto their streets, as can delivery and services vehicles, but white van men looking to shave a sneaky minute off their journey can't make it through the area.

3. On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously - they're the more vulnerable road user and that's the basis of the Highway Code. Same as with pedestrian stepping out into carriageway. Same as if you're travelling in same direction also.
"On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously"

I would love to see that one come up in court when the inevitable accident, sorry, incident occurs. The driver's argument would be that he or she was driving perfectly legally in the right direction and their is no current law that states cyclists are allowed to travel in both directions on a one way street.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Chingford lad, 1. Most roads aren't "unsafe". In fact cycling is statistically a very safe mode of transport. The average cyclist has ten more years of healthy life than the average driver, including fatalities etc. But many roads *feel* unsafe and many people who would like to cycle don't because of those hostile conditions. 2. Roads often aren't "too narrow" to do otherwise. Look at the news reports right now about Elephant & Castle and the fatality there. Acres of space on the pavement, multiple lanes for traffic and designs on the table that wouldn't have resulted in tailbacks were ignored 3 years ago when it was redesigned. Those designs would have already saved several lives and there was space for them. Yup, some roads are narrow - but many aren't. I'd also point out the mini-Holland bid from the council proposes to do something we should have started doing a long time ago - closing off residential roads as cut-throughs. Motorists do not and should not have a right to drive down every road to get where they want to go. Cutting ratrunning in residential areas is cheap, can make them nice for kids to play out and nice for cyclists to ride through - and can work no matter how narrow the roads are. Residents can still drive onto their streets, as can delivery and services vehicles, but white van men looking to shave a sneaky minute off their journey can't make it through the area. 3. On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously - they're the more vulnerable road user and that's the basis of the Highway Code. Same as with pedestrian stepping out into carriageway. Same as if you're travelling in same direction also.[/p][/quote]"On streets where cars are one way, cyclists two way, the cyclist has right of way fairly obviously" I would love to see that one come up in court when the inevitable accident, sorry, incident occurs. The driver's argument would be that he or she was driving perfectly legally in the right direction and their is no current law that states cyclists are allowed to travel in both directions on a one way street. VillageIdiot69
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree