Hitting a pedestrian

[Learnincurve]

[QUOTE 3163381, member: 45"]No, it means what it says. Legally, it refers you to the relevant law if necessary.

You're misinterpreting the HTC.[/QUOTE]

and you are ignoring the entire section of the highway code that covers pedestrians and focusing entirely on the bike bit. Yes you should avoid an accident if you can, that's a no shoot sherlock thing, but that does not make you at fault if you are unable to avoid the accident because someone else was not following the part of the highway code relevant to them and walked right out without giving you time to react.

The rules in the highway code may not give you right of way, but their are other laws, both government made and natural selection. A pedestrian simply does not have the right to wander out into the road as they wish, and people who think that they should be able to should go to visit Nepal and see the absolute madness and death that it brings.

 

[John the Monkey]

Cripes, now I remember why I stopped reading the commuting forum.

 

[theclaud]

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.

Well, b****r me - you didn't half make a meal of it.

I'm quite happy to fall into your cunningly-designed trap, BTW, and say that it if someone "doors" a cyclist by opening a vehicle door without looking, then it is the doorer's fault. But then I don't think your trap is as cunning as you think it is, because the two things are Not The Same. And the others are right to point out that there's a simple way to avoid being doored, which works in most circumstances and which is also the preferable thing to do for all sorts of other reasons.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

But then I don't think your trap is as cunning as you think it is, because the two things are Not The Same.

How can you say that? We are operating in a world where there is apparently some sort of equivalence between getting hit by a bike when stepping off the kerb, getting doored by a car, and getting riddled with bullets at work.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

We go around in circles....

No, you manage that all by yourself - my question hasn't changed and you can't give a straight answer, preferring an evasive style worthy of Michael Howard.

I see no point in continuing the discussion with you.

GC

 

[Dan B]

because the two things are Not The Same.

Sorry, you've lost me there. The experience of being ridden into at 20mph is surely exactly the same no matter whether you're a pedestrian or a car door

 

[theclaud]

Sorry, you've lost me there. The experience of being ridden into at 20mph is surely exactly the same no matter whether you're a pedestrian or a car door

Sorry. I'm afraid I'm a member of the anti-door brigade.

 

[Dan B]

A pedestrian simply does not have the right to wander out into the road as they wish, and people who think that they should be able to should go to visit Nepal and see the absolute madness and death that it brings.

Or for a similar experience closer to home they could visit, say, the exit from Liverpool St station onto Bishopsgate (this is in London, for the avoidance of doubt) and see that - oh, wait, it is not especially mad and rarely causes any deaths at all. And that's not even one of those new-fangled "shared street" places, it's just a road on which (almost) all road users understand that foot traffic is equally as important as the people in cars.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No, you manage that all by yourself - my question hasn't changed and you can't give a straight answer, preferring an evasive style worthy of Michael Howard.

I see no point in continuing the discussion with you.

GC

You pose a question and then prescribe a list of acceptable answers and call it a discussion.

 

[swansonj]

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

That's why DZ organises night rides for us.