Catch the conniving jaywalker

[wiggydiggy]

That is truly awful but ... if you did see her again what would you seriously be able to do about it ? Perform a citizen's arrest ?! I guess you might follow her to a place of work but there's no guarantee that would tell you who she is. GWS.

I was going to suggest thiat. Hang around the crossing and hope for a sighting, if she works in the area you may strike lucky. She may have a name badge on if your doubly lucky but otherwise you would need to follow her to her place of work, with a good description they can identify her depending on how co operative they are.

I know if it was me, and my company found out I gave false details, I could stand to lose my job. Hows that for justice for you!

 

[snailracer]

... She was not obeying the signs...

She didn't have to - red/green man lights are purely advisory and not legally enforceable. You can argue about the fairness of this, but that's the legal situation. I happen to think it's fair because some pedestrians may have poor eyesight or other form of infirmity.

...I've been a cyclist in London for 4 years and a London driver for 15, so am familiar with the highway code...

AFAIK, the terms "jaywalking" and "right of way" don't appear in the HC and carry no legal significance in the UK.

...Kind of wish I'd ploughed into her now...

I assume you're not being serious, but if you did, you'd probably still come off worse. In a typical year, collisions between bicycles and pedestrians result in 1 pedestrian fatality in comparison to 20 cyclist fatalities.

I've never heard of a cyclist successfully sueing a ped that walked out in front of them, so it would seem a bit pointless trying to hunt down your conniving jaywalker. Looking at it positively, at least she hung around long enough to see you loaded into the ambulance.

I've had the misfortune to do the "snake dance" trying to dodge an "indecisive" pedestrian once, ended up hitting the kerb and sprawling all over the pavement. Looking back on it, I could have avoided it if I didn't have such crap brakes

Get well soon, BTW.

 

[martint235]

I don't think you have to anticipate any movement by pedestrians. If you did, peds could pretty must 'jaywalk' wherever they pleased, safe in the knowledge that all cars have to stop/anticipate them.

Errrm, they can.

My knowledge of the legal side of this comes from hitting a "fellow" cyclist. On a bike if you haven't got time to stop, the law will hold you as travelling too fast for the situation you're in. It's harsh and I have a lot of sympathy for Lilac and personally I would probably have been doing exactly the same thing. However the law will hold it that on approach to a pedestrian crossing regardless of its current state, you should be able to stop if a ped steps out.

 

[Hip Priest]

If you don't try to anticipate mistakes or stupidity from other road users, you won't last long. Pedestrians shouldn't step put in front of vehicles but they often do.

 

[gambatte]

OK, there's no 'musts' in the wording. But if you can find her, it might be worth a try? Along with the obvious dishonesty of leaving false details. It might be worthwhile talking to a solicitor, especially if you can find witnesses? Or even making a small claims case - claim for expenses incurred finding her too!
Rules for pedestrians (1-35)
1
Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.

Crossings
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Shame we live in a world where the mode of transport that was 'invented' first is supposed to subordinate itself to the arriviste forms, and users thereof must be corralled and herded like cattle because the folk using machines are in so much of a hurry.

Hardly civilised is it?

 

[gambatte]

Shame we live in a world where the mode of transport that was 'invented' first is supposed to subordinate itself to the arriviste forms, and users thereof must be corralled and herded like cattle because the folk using machines are in so much of a hurry.

Hardly civilised is it?

Where those same animals are blinkered by the arrival of newer technologies that make them unaware of possible local predators....

 

[smutchin]

For me, it's very simple: you DON'T hit pedestrians, whether it's their "fault" or not.

Lilac, you have my sympathies for your injury and the damage to your bike, and I sincerely hope neither is as serious as your initial prognosis, but you have no option but to take it on the chin. Learn from this expensive lesson.

d.

 

[gambatte]

For me, it's very simple: you DON'T hit pedestrians, whether it's their "fault" or not.
d.

So we all ride at 5mph, in case one jumps backwards off the pavement?

 

[Rancid]

I'm sure Judge Judy (a sure fire barometer of fairness) would say that everyone including pedestrians are responsible for their actions. if a person is going to walk into the road without first paying attention then they should be held accountable for the outcome of their actions.

Why should you be out of pocket through no fault of your own ?

Sue the woman already.

 

[smutchin]

So we all ride at 5mph, in case one jumps backwards off the pavement?

I average about 15mph on my commute, through some fairly busy London roads, stretches of which are heavily infested with pavement lemmings, and I manage to avoid hitting them.

But if going at no more than 5mph is what it takes for you to avoid hitting people, then yes, that's the speed you should be going at.

d.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Everyone is right when they say that there's no criminal offence committed by the pedestrian. I'm no expert on civil lawsuits, but would have thought it could be possible to sue in these circumstances - however it would probably depend on being able to find a lawyer. A pedestrian has no insurance to pay a 'no win no fee' lawyers bill, so they may be less inclined to take the case. This is just my presumption though, like I say I'm no expert on the civil side of things.

The difficulty for the police is finding her and obtaining her details. If she's committed no criminal offence, we have no power to insist on them. I'm sitting here trying to wrap my head around whether you could get -something- to fit, but it's not an easy one... Regardless, there's unlikely to be an easy way to find this lady now anyway...

On the CCTV side of things. Dave Gorman (comedian) tried this once. Under Data Protection Act, you have a right to be able to apply for information held about you, so he walked down a street and applied to the council for it, quoting place and time. He received a stock response of "I'm afraid that it's impossible for us to pick out one person from CCTV footage in these circumstances, and so we cannot provide this information."

He then hired a Las Vegas style troupe of Go Go Dancers, walked down the street at the head of them carrying a sign. He applied again, giving this information and guess what... same stock response!

 

[martint235]

I'm sure Judge Judy (a sure fire barometer of fairness) would say that everyone including pedestrians are responsible for their actions. if a person is going to walk into the road without first paying attention then they should be held accountable for the outcome of their actions.

I don't think anyone is questioning that they should be accountable but currently they aren't.

 

[LilacM3L]

Copper,

I spoke to London Cycling Campaign's recommended injury lawyers this morning and they expressed much the same reservations - they said that if there is no insurance involved, they would be reluctant to take the case on - specially if it is a civil/ small claims case. (Needless to say, I'm not covered by insurance. If I were, this whole debacle wouldn't sting so much. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere, too).

I have already requested the CCTV footage from Westminster City council and am awaiting a response. Here's hoping it's not a stock response. Being central London though, there is a very good chance that this woman used her oyster card to get there. If I can persuade the police to follow her via CCTV back from the site of the accident, it might be possible to track her to a tap-in site. Then, bingo! So how likely am I to get them to do this? I don't expect it will be worth police time unless they have a reason to prosecute her, right?

Could I do it myself? I'm stuck at home with my leg up - I have plenty of time to look at CCTV footage - specially because I have an axe to grind now. I fairly confident this woman can be caught, it's just a question of putting in the effort. Will the police do it, and if not, could I?

Incidentally, for info (and because it will entertain) I thought you'd like to know that private investigators have started getting back to me re: taking the case on. Most have said it's not worth it, though one has asked me for £1000 deposit to get the ball rolling. <sigh>

Lila

 

[gambatte]

I average about 15mph on my commute, through some fairly busy London roads, stretches of which are heavily infested with pavement lemmings, and I manage to avoid hitting them.

But if going at no more than 5mph is what it takes for you to avoid hitting people, then yes, that's the speed you should be going at.

d.

So what brake set-up are you using to avoid a ped jumping backwards into the road 2' in front of you?
I'm pretty damn sure I couldn't at 15mph, but I average about 18 on mine. (I know I've hit 44mph on it.)