smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Catch the conniving jaywalker
- Thread starter LilacM3L
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
wiggydiggy
Legendary Member
Well it doesn't really matter now anyway
Its funny as I had forgotten all about it this and yet I can still picture her face of horror as I yelled 'Oywahaghaghghaaarghhhhhhhhh!' and barrelled into her whilst flying over the top of my bars - theres nowt like a sudden and immediate woman in front of you to make you slam on!
Needless to say I take a different route now and miss out that part of ped-suicide heaven altogether.
snailracer
Über Member
+1
Can't reasonably claim it was unforeseeable, because:
And, of course, it's not reasonable to expect only tall pedestrians to cross the road badly.
wiggydiggy
Legendary Member
Hmmm less nutshells: The first 3 were of 'height' - I can't remember how tall, the point was they were considerate enough to either stop where they could be seen before crossing, or to make sure they look properly if they can't be seen.
Are we back on the 'cycle everywhere at 5mph' again? Because other than doing that I can't see how to avoid hitting someone you cannot see when they simply step out in front of you?
You can still comply with the HC and hit a ped. If I am looking out for peds and tailor my riding accordingly when I see one I have complied with the HC. However, I expect it is still possible to comply with the HC and then still hit a ped and it be their fault. The HC says "watch out" not "stop immediately if you see a ped". So if I am rolling along at 20mph and I see a ped approaching a crossing, I might slow down a bit or move to primary - at that stage I have demonstrated that I have "watched out" for a ped.
I didn't know courts had ruled that it is reasonably foreseeable that peds step out without looking. On that basis, the OP has an even more uphill struggle I suppose. We should also all be very careful when approaching crossings, as on that basis peds may be able to sue cyclists for hitting them even when they don't look first.
I didn't know courts had ruled that it is reasonably foreseeable that peds step out without looking. On that basis, the OP has an even more uphill struggle I suppose. We should also all be very careful when approaching crossings, as on that basis peds may be able to sue cyclists for hitting them even when they don't look first.
Dayvo
just passin' through
- Location
- 59° 50′ 5.55″ N, 10° 47′ 41.89″ E
My goodness! Didn't realise we had so many expert/perfect cyclists here.
snailracer
Über Member
No activity is zero risk.
wiggydiggy
Legendary Member
Well thats just common sense but whats your point here?
snailracer
Über Member
Dayvo
just passin' through
- Location
- 59° 50′ 5.55″ N, 10° 47′ 41.89″ E
1756266 said:
IMO, yes, really.
No, I haven't seen the thread you mention.
I'm just amazed that some cyclists ride always at the required speed, at exactly the right distance from the kerb/parked cars.
Some even post of having close encounters with buses and other large vehicles, and seem surprised, when they know they share the road with other forms of transport: surely that is a 'foreseeable' happening.
Or maybe they fail to look back enough times; or perhaps they are just human after all, and not the über cyclist they like to think they are.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
I refer you to my earlier answer to that question. I have nothing else to add to that.
Well, except maybe one thing: we need to put aside this idea of being "right", having "right of way", and worrying about who's at fault. Our aim is to get where we're going without accidents.
I'd rather be slow than right.
d.
What about having to provide your details in the event of an accident that causes injury or damage to a person?
If a car, or cyclist hit another road user, they are legally obliged to stop and provide their details.
Are peds really excused from this? I mean, what if someone ran into a car and dented a panel, shouldn't they stop, and provide their details, or report it just like if they were in a car?
Also isnt providing fake details, fraud?
If a car, or cyclist hit another road user, they are legally obliged to stop and provide their details.
Are peds really excused from this? I mean, what if someone ran into a car and dented a panel, shouldn't they stop, and provide their details, or report it just like if they were in a car?
Also isnt providing fake details, fraud?
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
OP
OP
LilacM3L
Regular
- Location
- Camden, London
It was both. I had already slowed down because of the other pedestrians crossing when they weren't supposed to. Then she appeared, saw me, panicked. I braked as I tried to figure out which way she was going to finally jump (wish I was a goal-keeper!) so I could get past her safely. Then she froze right in my path, so I hard braked and tried to steer left of her, skidded, tumbled etc. All this in a fraction of a second, I guess. And it doesn't help that this junction is on a curve.
I'm really curious to see the CCTV footage now... I hope they let me have it.
Dayvo
just passin' through
- Location
- 59° 50′ 5.55″ N, 10° 47′ 41.89″ E
1756266 said:
Sorry, no, I haven't seen each and every helmet vid thread or report of a road collision.
