Catch the conniving jaywalker

[LilacM3L]

Here's a question for you:

If you are involved in a car accident and provide false details, it is a criminal offense. Is this also the case in my situation - ie. cyclist and pedestrian?

 

[martint235]

Just as an aside, the stock response on CCTV is probably to do with the clash between privacy law and freedom of information law. It's not that they couldn't pick Dave Gorman out, it's that they couldn't pick ONLY Dave Gorman out ie they were protecting the privacy of other street users.

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

Best thing IMHO is to learn from it and move on.

I do like the pedestrian priority thing even as a cyclist.

 

[smutchin]

So what brake set-up are you using to avoid a ped jumping backwards into the road 2' in front of you?

Just regular cantis. And eyes. And general road sense.

d.

 

[Graham]

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.

I think we are talking about what is a reasonable circumstances. Or put another way, is it "foreseeable" that there may be an accident if you carry on as you are? If you are rollling along at 16mph and you see a pedestrian standing in the road up ahead, then you must stop because it is foreseeable (or you know) that you will hit them if you carry on. It doesn't matter what colour the lights are etc etc.

At the other end of the spectrum, if you are rolling along at 16mph it is not foreseeable (you don't know) that you are about to hit a pedestrian who jumps into the road from behind a hedge 2 feet in front of your bike. I think this follows what gambatte is saying.

I think Lila circumstances lie somewhere towards my second example. As Lila approached the lights, the ped was on the pavement and the lights were on green and the red man was on. It was not foreseeable that the ped would step into the road so Lila does not have to slow down. If we had to slow down for every ped just in case they step into the road, we would all have to drive around in 5mph marshmallow cars.

The same goes for cars - If there are people stood either side of a crossing and the lights are on green, a car does not have to slow down to 5mph. If a ped decides to step into the road and it is too late for the car to stop then it is not the car drivers fault. (Sorry Martin235, I think this is where I disagree with you). Alternatively, if the peds are already starting to cross as the car approaches from 200yds away then the car must slow down regardless of the colour of the lights.

Likewise, if you are drafting the bike in front and they hit the brakes and you go into the back of them, it was foreseeable when you were drafting that you would probably hit the bike in front if they had to slam on. The same applies to cars - If you tailgate another car and they have to slam on and you go into the back of them, it is your fault.

 

[PK99]

The law is the easy bit! You then need to -r (d) hope she has some money to pay you (e) hope she turns up at court (f) hope she pays up if the court finds her liable etc etc.

!

or have household insurance that covers unpaid persona injury judgements for which you would have been liable in reverse circumstances

 

[gambatte]

aah, I wasn't aware they could counteract the effects of momentum, limited friction friction between tyre and road in the 0.09s hypothesised in the question
Lets triple the parameters - 6 ft away you've got just over a quarter of a second to come to a halt or avoid.
Eyes and road sense won't really help at 2 ft or 6 ft

BTW I've never hit a hit a ped on any of my road bikes, or my MTB, or my cruiser, or in the car. I have hit one with the motorbike. In that case I was about 5mph. She'd been doing the back and forth dance, moved to the side and then at the last second moved back. Eye contact maintained most of the time. Middle of a dual carriageway. I stopped about 2" beyond where she was.
Eyes and road sense only do so much - you can't 100% anticipate every bit of stupidity on everyone elses part.
Sometimes the blame is 100& someone elses.

 

[martint235]

I think we are talking about what is a reasonable circumstances. Or put another way, is it "foreseeable" that there may be an accident if you carry on as you are? If you are rollling along at 16mph and you see a pedestrian standing in the road up ahead, then you must stop because it is foreseeable (or you know) that you will hit them if you carry on. It doesn't matter what colour the lights are etc etc.

At the other end of the spectrum, if you are rolling along at 16mph it is not foreseeable (you don't know) that you are about to hit a pedestrian who jumps into the road from behind a hedge 2 feet in front of your bike. I think this follows what gambatte is saying.

I think Lila circumstances lie somewhere towards my second example. As Lila approached the lights, the ped was on the pavement and the lights were on green and the red man was on. It was not foreseeable that the ped would step into the road so Lila does not have to slow down. If we had to slow down for every ped just in case they step into the road, we would all have to drive around in 5mph marshmallow cars.

The same goes for cars - If there are people stood either side of a crossing and the lights are on green, a car does not have to slow down to 5mph. If a ped decides to step into the road and it is too late for the car to stop then it is not the car drivers fault. (Sorry Martin235, I think this is where I disagree with you). Alternatively, if the peds are already starting to cross as the car approaches from 200yds away then the car must slow down regardless of the colour of the lights.

Likewise, if you are drafting the bike in front and they hit the brakes and you go into the back of them, it was foreseeable when you were drafting that you would probably hit the bike in front if they had to slam on. The same applies to cars - If you tailgate another car and they have to slam on and you go into the back of them, it is your fault.

I agree with most of what you say except the bit in bold. I'm afraid that in my view if a ped is stood next to a pedestrian crossing (or even just on the kerb away from a crossing) it is reasonable to expect them to step out into the road and I believe the law would probably see it the same way.

EDIT: I'm not saying this is the way the world should be!

 

[smutchin]

It was not foreseeable that the ped would step into the road

Nothing and everything peds do is foreseeable.

d.

 

[Graham]

Ok, I guess what is reasonable and what is not reasonable is what judges are for! Regards, Graham.

 

[smutchin]

Sometimes the blame is 100& someone elses.

That's not much comfort when you're lying in the road with an ACL injury and £100 worth of damage to your bike.

d.

 

[Scoosh]

LilacM3L and to CycleChat !

I am so sorry to hear of this incident.

I regret that I have nothing else to offer, though, other than sympathy , and best wishes for your recovery - may it be speedy and less painful than you are imagining

Maybe you'll just have to spend longer on CC ...

 

[gambatte]

That's not much comfort when you're lying in the road with an ACL injury and £100 worth of damage to your bike.

d.

At last, a point we agree on

 

[snailracer]

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

OTOH:
"146

Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

• try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you"

IOW, it's foreseeable that peds can step out without looking because the HC says so.
My bet is, split liability.

 

[gambatte]

but then again:

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

That's not much comfort when you're lying in the road with an ACL injury and £100 worth of damage to your bike.