Hitting a pedestrian

[Learnincurve]

also @User you seem to selectively forget that the highway code also covers pedestrians
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossing-the-road-7-to-17

It very very clearly states that pedestrians can not walk right out into traffic, but I will highlight

"D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."
and

"Bus and cycle lanes. Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic."

 

[glasgowcyclist]

That is why we pass parked cars more than a door width away.

Agreed, but there are times when the cycle lane or feeder lane to an ASL doesn't allow for that margin.

GC

 

[vickster]

I'm sorry but I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone if they get hurt because they were not paying attention. It's all a big symptom of a law suit nation and nanny culture. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more and can't bare the thought that they might be in the wrong. These days it's: "OMG did you hear Dave fell off his ladder!" "OMG!! is he hurt!! He should put a claim in against the ladder maker for that!" 20 years ago it would be "Dave fell off his ladder!", "lol what a twunk is he ok?"

But it's not the pedestrian in this case suing for their injury IIRC from page 1? But the cyclist for damage to their bike (not themselves)

 

[John the Monkey]

But a pedestrian walking right out is pretty much the same as someone opening a car door into you at times. I've only ridden in heavily built up pedestrian areas twice and twice have I had people check to see if anything was coming, look right at me and cross anyway. Once was a old lady with a trolly the other was a pack of people with a pram. It's a road, it's my right of way by law. I could have ridden right into them but I didn't because I'm not an arse, it still does not make them any less obnoxious.

Have you seen Mr Paul's sig line? It's from the preamble to the Highway Code;

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

(My emphasis). Keeping that in mind has changed the way I drive, and ride for the better. Further, if people are driving/riding in the sort of heavy pedestrian traffic you describe and can't stop if someone were to step out, I'd argue that they are doing it all wrong.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone if they get hurt because they were not paying attention. It's all a big symptom of a law suit nation and nanny culture. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more and can't bare the thought that they might be in the wrong. These days it's: "OMG did you hear dave fell off his ladder!" "OMG!! is he hurt!! He should put a claim in against the ladder maker for that!" 20 years ago it would be "Dave fell off his ladder!", "lol what a twunk is he ok?"

I come at it the other way - there's an attitude that what's on the road (especially if it has a motor) should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, and it's for others to stay out of the way. It's a conception of road safety that allows (mostly drivers) faster, more dangerous road users to abdicate responsibility for changing the way they observe, drive &c when road conditions change. Paul Gannon's well known piece on pedestrian priority is well worth a read.

I'd also reiterate my previous point, that a case of genuinely having "no warning" is pretty rare, although the amount of warning you get is very much dependent on the observational skill (and willingness to exercise it) of the rider or driver.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

That would be why we don't use ill conceived facilities.

You might not, what about the many cyclists who do?

GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I set an example where I can.

Come on Adrian, an answer addressing the question would have been appreciated.

GC

 

[martint235]

Jeez that's half an hour of my life I'm not going to get back reading this thread.

I agree with TC, most of us predict what peds are going to do fairly well. We do get it wrong occasionally but as I was told by a judge after a cycling accident many years ago, if you're going too fast to stop then you're going too fast for the situation.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What more do you want? You can campaign against them, ignore them, follow them blindly.

I'm referring, as I'm sure you're already aware, to the comparison being made by learnincurve between a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the path of a vehicle and the door of a car suddenly being opened in the path of a cyclist.

The more experienced riders will avoid that zone where possible but we both know there are many cyclists who don't.
Is the doored cyclist to blame for his own injuries or damage?

GC

 

[KneesUp]

Jeez that's half an hour of my life I'm not going to get back reading this thread.

I agree with TC, most of us predict what peds are going to do fairly well. We do get it wrong occasionally but as I was told by a judge after a cycling accident many years ago, if you're going too fast to stop then you're going too fast for the situation.

We all drive and ride too fast then, according to that judge.

I cycled to work this morning in a bus lane next to a pavement. At any point a pedestrian could have tripped or collapsed and fallen into my path. Should I then have ridden at walking pace the whole way, just in case?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

... if you're going too fast to stop then you're going too fast for the situation.

That's overly simplistic nonsense.

GC

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 3162448, member: 45"]You're responsible for an ongoing assessment of what's an appropriate speed. In a bus lane you can easily ride far enough from the kerb that you'd miss anyone who falls into the road.[/QUOTE]
I don't think any of us have the skill to make an ongoing assessment of whether or not a pedestrian on the path next to the cycle lane is going to drop dead - especially when other things are more likely and need more attention, such as the actual traffic on the same road.

However, the judge's opinion seems to be that we should exercise absolute caution at all times and be prepared for even the most unlikely scenario.

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

 

[vickster]

I thought this was about a kid who unwittingly (interpret as you wish) stepped into the path of a bike...not an act of God of something dropping dead off the kerb into the path of a cyclist in a bus lane who is riding in yen gutter

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 3162464, member: 45"]

See, you're deferring responsibility. I spoke about assessing your speed. You're pefectly capable of monitoring how far you are from a pedestrian, considering how hard you'd hit them if they crossed your path, and then deciding what you think is an acceptable speed to hit them at.[/QUOTE]
^^^ This.

It's not very difficult. In about 20 years of riding in London I've only managed to hit one pedestrian. And that's including dealing with the New Cross Ninjas who just step out from between buses in the dark wearing all black clothing. If you're not capable of continually assessing your speed and the environment around you then there's a case to be made that you shouldn't be on a bike.

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 3162464, member: 45"]

See, you're deferring responsibility. I spoke about assessing your speed. You're pefectly capable of monitoring how far you are from a pedestrian, considering how hard you'd hit them if they crossed your path, and then deciding what you think is an acceptable speed to hit them at.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes I am.

But the calculation of risk is something like:

Risk = Kinetic Energy x probability of collision

In calculating this one tries to keep 'risk' below a certain level. Hence on the part of my commute this morning where I was going down a wide, straight suburban street with wide, empty pavements and no parked cars I went quite fast. When I went down the little shortcut where (confession time) you're not actually supposed to ride a bike I went very slowly even though there is almost never anyone walking there, because it's quite bendy and very narrow so if there were someone walking I'd be very likely to hit them if I went at any speed.

Obviously if we know that the probability of collision is 1 *in advance* we would stop in advance.

My point is that 'probability of collision' is only an estimate, and sometimes you will get it wrong because totally unpredictable things happen.

I ride allowing room to cope if things that are 'pretty unlikely' happen. But if I were to ride in a way that covered all eventualities (perhaps the passenger in that car has been kidnapped and will jump out as soon as it slows down, perhaps that pedestrian is deaf dumb and blind, perhaps the driver of that van has had a stroke and can't stop) I'd have to ride very slowly indeed.

It is never as black and white as 'if you crash it was because you were going too fast'.

 

[KneesUp]

[QUOTE 3162537, member: 45"]Don't overcomplicate it. Keep thinking "if he ran out/fell over/dawdled into my path now, how fast would I hit him?"[/QUOTE]
You have to judge how likely it is too though. I cycle past a school on the way to work. It's on a main road but the kids are all in lessons when I go past, so I go quickly even though there are people around, because I judge them fairly unlikely to wander into the road. On the odd occasion I ride past at home time I go much more slowly because there are excitable kids everywhere, and the chances of one of them wandering into my path are much higher.

Would you ride at 'kids are all over' speed in the day, too, because the adult pedestrians might run/fall/dawdle in to your path? Or would you ride faster then because you judge it much less likely that they would?