Hitting a pedestrian

[KneesUp]

Why are you dreaming up more and more extreme examples?

Because perfectly sensible ones get ignored?

 

[KneesUp]

Is that going to get sensible ones addressed or just make you look mad?

If hyperbole makes me "look mad" then I guess it will make me "look mad"

Why would I care?

 

[Learnincurve]

The problem here is that at this point most people who would have argued that pedestrians shouldn't cross the roads without looking and people should not open car doors without checking have slowly backed out of this thread shaking their heads in disbelief while wondering why cyclists are being portrayed as lesser beings on a cycling forum.

 

[martint235]

No - you've given two very good examples of people behaving in predictable ways.

Try these ones:

You're cycling along a straight road with good visibility. There is a parked car some distance away. It was stationary when first you saw it, and you saw the driver get out. As you get close there is a bus coming the other way, but you don't mind going close to the car because you saw the driver get out a few minutes earlier. As you pass the car the child in the back seat that was too short for you to see opens the door to go and see what's keeping daddy so long.

You're cycling along a road. There is a pedestrian on the pavement walking in a straight line. As you get alongside them they see the bus that loops around to their house coming along the road, so they run across the road directly in front of you without warning to catch it, because they couldn't hear any traffic.

Do you really do your risk assessments in such splendid isolation? Ped = low risk. Bus = low risk. Bus + ped = increased risk. You can even add unseen elements so bus+ped+school kicking out time = further increased risk.

In the first, true you can't fully remove the risk but you canbe aware of other elements: did he lock the car?; did he appear to be talking to a car that you presumed empty?

You can never fully remove risk but you can mitigate against probability and impact. People charge hundreds of pounds to teach you this stuff and not a scrap of it is outside the boundaries of common sense and a bit of logic. I've always wondered how they got away with it but reading this thread explains it.

 

[Dan B]

The only bits that are actual law are the ones that say "you must" looks like the part that sig quote comes from is about unsegregated tracks and not the road just as I thought.

That's odd, because I see it (verbatim) on the page containing "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders". At the top. Which makes me think it's probably their general advice to all drivers and riders and has nothing specifically to do with unsegregated tracks at all

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158

 

[KneesUp]

No idea, I just felt you ought to know.

You didn't tell me anything, you asked a question.

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 3163372, member: 45"]No, you're not listening.

The cyclist should be able to avoid it, except for in exceptional circumstances, is what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
Finally we get there!

You agree that there are 'excptional circumstances' and it isn't as black and white as it always being the cyclists fault.

That's all I've been trying to say.

 

[cd365]

. Or if you can't see around a corner you slow down before going round it (fridge theory, approach every unknown as if someone has dropped a fridge off of their van on the other side).

Having passed my test over 25 years ago I have never seen anyone drive to the fridge theory. Every driver I have ever seen has gone around a bend at a speed they think they could navigate it safely, with no thought that there might be a fridge in the road! Don't get me wrong, on my commute which is around country roads I wish they would, but in the real world it does not happen. Though there a few posters on CC who would have you believe that when they drive there is a person with a red flag walking in front of them; they are safer than safe!

 

[KneesUp]

Did you try saying it? It would have saved all that dreaming up unlikely scenarios.

Yes, four pages ago ...

I would counter that nothing is ever that black and white.

 

[uclown2002]

Do you guys ever get time to ride your bike?
Seem to spend all day arguing the toss on here!

 

[KneesUp]

Then you should have seen that no one was ever arguing that it is black, or is it white?

I don't particularly want an argument about a discussion. Just read the thread.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Finally we get there!

You agree that there are 'excptional circumstances' and it isn't as black and white as it always being the cyclists fault.

That's all I've been trying to say.

Where has anyone said that....

 

[KneesUp]

I have. The black and white came from the cyclist not at fault side.

I didn't know there were 'sides' You've lost me I'm afraid.

As we now all agree, shall we, you know, leave it?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 3163374, member: 45"]I've tried that one.[/QUOTE]
I'd run out of original ideas by this point, given that someone was arguing about what I hadn't said.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 3163470, member: 45"]You too?[/QUOTE]
Kinetic energy does funny things to a fellow.