Hitting a pedestrian

[screenman]

So our ninja pedestrain was poised on the kerb with his back to the cyclist poised to strike like a cobra... So why didn't the cyclist ride further away from the kerb?

It was a squeeze point and a lorry had pushed him over nearer to the curb, the pedestrian moved very quickly as he is an athlete with lightning fast reactions, unlike the 70 year old cyclist.

 

[KneesUp]

Why is the cyclist "too close" (your words) and what's this nonsense of designated spaces? Pedestrians can walk where they want in most shared spaces; they are only cowed into using the pavement because of fear of the motors.

UK car culture once again clouds the mind of a cyclist.

Well I'm imagining it happening on the road I'm looking at as I type, which has a pavement either side of a four lane road. The pavement is for pedestrians only. The road has two lanes either way. At the moment one each way is reserved for buses, taxis and cyclists, and one each way is for any type of vehicle.

Vehicles cannot use the pavement. Pedestrians can cross the road, but vehicles have priority on it - at least where I am looking, there is a crossing a hundred yards or so in either direction but I can't see either. I think this is a pretty average road set up? Pavements for pedestrians flanking a road where pedestrians can cross but vehicles have priority?

Of course a pedestrian cannot expect to just walk across the road without paying attention. And of course it is possible to step on to the road in such a way as it is inevitable that a vehicle will hit you if you do so too close. One would hope that the rider/driver would see you and stop, but that isn't always possible. For example there is a post box and advertising board by the side of the road that I can see. If a pedestrian were to emerge from behind that onto what is currently the bus/taxi/cycle lane as a cyclist were passing I doubt a cyclist could stop in time - especially as there is a junction slightly further ahead (and the crossing mentioned) which the cyclist might be looking at briefly. Besides which I've had people cross in front of me when cycling and had to lock on to avoid them twice since I got back on a bike a few months ago - pedestrians don't see bikes as much as motorists don't.

I don't suggest that it is often the fault of the pedestrian, just that it is possible.

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 3158811, member: 45"]Vehicles do not have priority on the roads.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that, and obviously it's not true for all roads (e.g. motorways are roads on which no pedestrians are allowed) What is the actual law?

 

[screenman]

I didn't know that, and obviously it's not true for all roads (e.g. motorways are roads on which no pedestrians are allowed) What is the actual law?

Drive as fast as you can with your fingers crossed, seems the one's some live by.

 

[.stu]

A few weeks ago I was cycling along a dual carriageway with a 30mph speed limit. It was clear ahead of me, and there were a few cars behind me. There was an old man waiting at a pelican crossing just ahead of me but the lights were green. When I was about 2-3 metres from the crossing he suddenly decided to cross in front of me. I served but he continued to cross oblivious to my presence. I barely managed to swerve in front of him and missed him by inches.

No amount of anticipation would have prevented him from crossing. If I had been in my car I would not have been able to avoid him. When I had passed him I looked back and the lights were still on green as the cars behind were following me through. God knows why he decided to cross when he did.

 

[MarkF]

As I posted in another thread, my car was damaged, twice, by kids riding cycles into it, significant cosmetic damage. There were minors and the parents refused to consider paying (anything) and I had no legal recourse. I tried, police and insurers.

I would have paid and in this instance I'd compensate the rider too, I would want to have the bike taken to be assessed at my LBS though...........

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I do.

However, I also acknowledge that there can be times when, even if you exercise utmost caution, collisions will occur. Sometimes accidents do happen.

I also believe that we all, irrespective of our mode of transport, have a duty of care to each other in public spaces. 'Sharing the road' doesn't mean one group not having any responsibility to the others. The higher the risk to others your mode of transport the more care you should take - but that doesn't entirely absolve others of their responsibility to take due care. That's the basis of a presumption of liability.

The duty of care is shared equally. The amount of care needed to exercise that duty of care is not. KE determines the hierarchy. Physics is a harsh mistress.

EDIT: and no sense from either the OP nor your post that 'utmost caution' was being deployed.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A few weeks ago I was cycling along a dual carriageway with a 30mph speed limit. It was clear ahead of me, and there were a few cars behind me. There was an old man waiting at a pelican crossing just ahead of me but the lights were green. When I was about 2-3 metres from the crossing he suddenly decided to cross in front of me. I served but he continued to cross oblivious to my presence. I barely managed to swerve in front of him and missed him by inches.

No amount of anticipation would have prevented him from crossing. If I had been in my car I would not have been able to avoid him. When I had passed him I looked back and the lights were still on green as the cars behind were following me through. God knows why he decided to cross when he did.

So, on seeing him standing there waiting to cross the road, why didn't you slow down? He doesn't have to wait for the green man you know...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It was a squeeze point and a lorry had pushed him over nearer to the curb, the pedestrian moved very quickly as he is an athlete with lightning fast reactions, unlike the 70 year old cyclist.

Why not have him beemed down from the starship Enterprise? It would be a less ludicrous example.

 

[glenn forger]

significant cosmetic damage.

Were you able to make up afterwards?

 

[KneesUp]

The duty of care is shared equally. The amount of care needed to exercise that duty of care is not. KE determines the hierarchy. Physics is a harsh mistress.

So, to give an extreme example - if I jump out from behind an advertising board in front of you as you cycle past, it will be your fault because you had more kinetic energy?

Or, another example. One of my friends is very overweight - he is about 30 stone. He has more kinetic energy moving at 1mph than my 24kg daughter does on her 7kg bike at 37mph (c.17.8kJ joules vs 18 kJ) If she rides into him at 37mph (unlikely with stabilisers, admittedly) who is to blame?

You can't ascribe blame according to physics.

 

[Markymark]

We don't have presumed liability in this country. As it stands, fault has to be proved one way or the other. If it cannot it is 50/50 (or somewhere in between), the default is not the most vulnerable.

That is not to say I wouldn't like presumed liability to be brought in. The most vulnerable have priority but that does not mean they are immune to criminal negligence.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

God knows why he decided to cross when he did.

He didn't see you and thought he had room before the cars he had seen arrived (which it sounds like he did).

I've not had it on the cycle yet but on the motorbike I've had people lock eyes with me, or so it seemed, and then pull out regardless obviously having not even registered my presence. There's never a guarantee they've seen you.

 

[.stu]

So, on seeing him standing there waiting to cross the road, why didn't you slow down? He doesn't have to wait for the green man you know...

How do you know I didn't slow down already? Maybe I wasn't going that fast in the first place? My point was that he decided to cross when I was just yards from him - whether I had slowed down or not was irrelevant by this point.

If people cycled the way you suggest, they would have to slow to virtual standstill every time they passed a pedestrian who they had not made eye contact with. I suspect you don't cycle the way you tell others to either.

 

[spen666]

Any chance you stop doing this sort of post. It doesn't help at all and you could easily expand on it so that it does.

Sorry Adrian, I will run my post via you in future and get your consent to have an opinion


alternatively, you could get over yourself and realise this is a forum where people express their views