Catch the conniving jaywalker

[Bromptonaut]

Don't go as far down Kingsway as I turn off at Remnant St. Unless the lemmings at Aldwych have followed a different evolution from those by Holborn Station then it's 100% forseeable that one at least will think 'no motor vehicles = clear' and step out.

It's a learning curve!!

 

[smutchin]

[QUOTE 1756087, member: 45"]...and that pedestrian crossings had to be invented as a place where traffic could be forced to stop.[/quote]

And now fecking Boris is removing pedestrian crossings so cars don't have to stop.

d.

 

[LilacM3L]

It's not that I didn't anticipate that pedestrians take advantage on that corner. They always do and I am always careful there. I've been commuting that route for years.

It was the 'left, no-right, no-left, no-right, no-catch-me-if-you-can-and-freeze!!!' dance that got me in the end. :-(

 

[gambatte]

[QUOTE 1756097, member: 45"]That's why in those potential circumstances you should always ride at least one step away from the kerb. Simples.[/quote]

I never ride closer than one step away from the kerb.
I think the recommendation is never less than 500mm, I prefer to make that 750mm.
Don't know about you, but I reckon I can jump 750mm backwards?

 

[snailracer]

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?

[QUOTE 1756087, member: 45"]...and that pedestrian crossings had to be invented as a place where traffic could be forced to stop.[/quote]

And is it right that a pedestrian or cyclist who makes a simple mistake is exposed to the extreme hazards of motor vehicles?

 

[benb]

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?

I doubt it, as I can't see that there is a requirement for the ped to give their details in the first place.

I also very much doubt whether the police can or should be spending their resources tracking this person down when they have not committed any offence.

I'm sorry you crashed, and hope you recover swiftly, but I think you'll have to accept it as "one of those things".

 

[Graham]

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.

Given this only applies to drivers, I'm not sure it is relevant unless 'driving' includes riding. Just because its in the HC it doesn't mean its the law - although I accept a court might well look to it for guidance. In any event, I think we are picking holes in what Lila did rather than what the ped did. The ped stepped into the road without looking causing Lila to come off her bike. For the ped to then argue that it is not their fault becauses Lila did not anticipate her stepping into the road seems a bit rich - would/should a judge accept that? Seems that Lila did 'adapt' her riding - At the end of the day, she was going slow enough so she didn't hit the ped - HC complied with? Again, if you take this part of highway code to its extreme conclusion, you would end up crawling past every ped at 2mph.

 

[Leedsbusdriver]

Sorry but i think the OP is on a hiding to nothing trying to track down the ped.My sympathies for the injuries and damage but i would drop it because it's only going to end up in a paper trail which will probably lead nowhere and take up a lot of your time for no reward.

 

[gambatte]

[QUOTE 1756144, member: 45"]If there are peds at the edge of the payment, 0.5m is way too close. As is 0.75m.

If you can't get far enough away from the kerb to be able to avoid a ped stepping out, then you're travelling fast. Simples.[/quote]

didn't say I was at that distance with peds, just thats the closest I ride. I was responding to your 'one step' mimimum. Were you meaning stride?

 

[wiggydiggy]

Actually I had forgotten about this as it was a couple years ago, but I have actually mown down a ped who stepped out in front of me. No injuries to me but bike was damaged:

Nutshell is she stepped out from between stationary traffic into my path, a short lady she simply was not visible until in front of me (a few feet). Queue me brakes hard on, pulling an endo and knocking her down anyway.

Now yes of course, her fault, BUT I was immediately concerned for her not me as she was a slight little thing and I was (then) 17+ stone of moving hurt. After picking ourselves up some people helped her/me, I stayed by the roadside for a few minutes checking my bike whilst she went into a coffee shop with a passer by/friend.

Now yes, I could have chased her for name/address etc as I immediately noticed damage but as (a) I was ok and (b) she looked like someone had shot her favourite puppy I figured she'd learnt her lesson to look first from now on so I then left.

@the OP

None of that is meant to justify any action you want to take or not, its simply an example of the one time I did have a serious incident with a ped I just put it down to 'one of those things' and I replaced the damaged parts . As people have pointed out there's no legal recomsense for such actions by peds, so its difficult to suggest what next other than my previous 'look and follow her' if you can.

GWS and best wishes

 

[snailracer]

Given this only applies to drivers, I'm not sure it is relevant unless 'driving' includes riding...

You may have a point there, but it is also listed in the section General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders (103-158). It would also be IMO a bit perverse to say it should only apply to drivers and not riders - that would be like saying peds are not completely to blame if they stepped out in front of a car, but are completely to blame if they stepped out in front of a bicycle - clearly nonsensical.

Also, if you look at:
"145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

That would suggest it's legal to cycle on the pavement, cos we're "riding" and not "driving", but we know it's not - so isn't it just sloppy wording?

... In any event, I think we are picking holes in what Lila did rather than what the ped did. The ped stepped into the road without looking causing Lila to come off her bike. For the ped to then argue that it is not their fault becauses Lila did not anticipate her stepping into the road seems a bit rich - would/should a judge accept that? Seems that Lila did 'adapt' her riding - At the end of the day, she was going slow enough so she didn't hit the ped - HC complied with? Again, if you take this part of highway code to its extreme conclusion, you would end up crawling past every ped at 2mph.

I can understand your POV on certain levels, but I am aware of numerous court cases where liability was split because it was considered reasonably foreseeable that peds do step out without looking. Indeed, the OP says it is a regular occurrence on that junction, so it can't really be considered unforeseeable.

 

[fossyant]

It's not that I didn't anticipate that pedestrians take advantage on that corner. They always do and I am always careful there. I've been commuting that route for years.

It was the 'left, no-right, no-left, no-right, no-catch-me-if-you-can-and-freeze!!!' dance that got me in the end. :-(

Erm I don't get this, you know what happens at that junction, so you stop in a controlled manner when they do the 'jiggle'.

 

[smutchin]

Nutshell is she stepped out from between stationary traffic into my path...

Now yes of course, her fault...

On the other hand, you were weaving through traffic and not anticipating potential hazards. I'd call that a 50:50.

d.

 

[wiggydiggy]

On the other hand, you were weaving through traffic and not anticipating potential hazards. I'd call that a 50:50.

d.

Ok more than a nutshell:

I was in a desgnated bicycle lane on the road doing approx 12mph (less than recommended for shared use off road facilities BTW) so no weaving or filtering whatsoever, she crossed from right to left but was hidden by traffic and stepped out with her back slightly towards me without any backward look whasoever. I had already avoided 3 more peds who I had seen/seen me but she was simply too short to be seen in the traffic and too ignorant to look before stepping out in front of me.

100% her fault.

 

[snailracer]

Given this only applies to drivers, I'm not sure it is relevant unless 'driving' includes riding.....

OK, this time I'll give the correct reference:

"Rules for cyclists (59-82)
67

You should

• look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path"