Cyclist33
Guest
- Location
- Warrington
Sounds like young lady might have failed to anticipate on that occasion.
Pedestrian Collision
- Thread starter DanH
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Sounds like young lady might have failed to anticipate on that occasion.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
Drivers should not suddenly throw open their doors and leap out in front of us, so it should be perfectly ok to overtake parked vehicles at speed within inches, right? 
I have seen pedestrians going in the direction of traffic and distracted by iPods step out into the road without looking to overtake other pedestrians. They should not do it but I know that some idiots do, so I make allowances for their potential stupidity by riding more slowly, further out in the road, covering my brakes, and watching out for them doing it!
If being in the right is the important thing, then debate 'undertaking' at speed. From a safety perspective - don't undertake at speed!
I have seen pedestrians going in the direction of traffic and distracted by iPods step out into the road without looking to overtake other pedestrians. They should not do it but I know that some idiots do, so I make allowances for their potential stupidity by riding more slowly, further out in the road, covering my brakes, and watching out for them doing it!
If being in the right is the important thing, then debate 'undertaking' at speed. From a safety perspective - don't undertake at speed!
Last edited:
glenn forger
Guest
It's not undertaking though Colin. It's not undertaking and not filtering, a cycle lane is a lane, that's why it's called a lane.
Cp40Carl
Über Member
- Location
- Wirral, England
I agree - you are unlikely find a reported case as civil claims in the lower courts are generally unreported. However, I don't wish to lock horns on this as my intention was to advise and help out the OP (I have some expertise in this area). I've said my bit so I'll just leave it at that.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
You're right to feel bad - there was something you could have done, as others have pointed out - go more slowly, or go around the outside, not up the inside. 10mph is about right in heavy traffic where there are likely to be pedestrians.
I'm afraid there are an awful lot of apologists for bad cycling on this thread, which doesn't help the image of cycling.
Exile
Senior Member
- Location
- Manchester
Should you feel bad for hitting the pedestrian? Yes. I bumped one and felt bad. It's just human. We don't like hurting other people so if we do, we feel bad. Was there much you could do? Filter on the right could've helped in this incident, but then someone walking the other way could step out and the result would be the same. Cycle slower? Again, it would've helped with this incident. but I'm not convinced it's the best solution long term.
If a ped steps out from the front of a wagon, surely they're obscured from view until the moment they actually step out? 20 mph, 10 mph or 100 mph (Rocket assisted, of course), they're still stepping out and leaving you no reaction time so what does cycling slower achieve? Yes, if you hit a pedestrian whilst you were travelling at 20, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph then they would've stepped out with enough time to react. By the same token, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph and someone steps out right in front of you, if you'd been doing 20 you wouldn't have been there when they stepped out
Without stopping and dismounting whenever traffic is stopped and sight-lines are iffy, I'm not sure what sorts it, being honest. Segregated cycle track? Helps with the lack of vision from stopped high-siders, but people can still do silly things and step into your path without looking. Ride around at walking pace? Again, people still can step literally into you, so even that doesn't guarantee anything. Public information campaign telling pedestrians to look both ways when crossing the road, not to cross around large vehicles, and to try and look where they're going? Probably a good idea, but people might be too engrossed in walking out from behind a bus whilst staring at their phone and listening to their iPod to notice the adverts so...
If a ped steps out from the front of a wagon, surely they're obscured from view until the moment they actually step out? 20 mph, 10 mph or 100 mph (Rocket assisted, of course), they're still stepping out and leaving you no reaction time so what does cycling slower achieve? Yes, if you hit a pedestrian whilst you were travelling at 20, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph then they would've stepped out with enough time to react. By the same token, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph and someone steps out right in front of you, if you'd been doing 20 you wouldn't have been there when they stepped out
Without stopping and dismounting whenever traffic is stopped and sight-lines are iffy, I'm not sure what sorts it, being honest. Segregated cycle track? Helps with the lack of vision from stopped high-siders, but people can still do silly things and step into your path without looking. Ride around at walking pace? Again, people still can step literally into you, so even that doesn't guarantee anything. Public information campaign telling pedestrians to look both ways when crossing the road, not to cross around large vehicles, and to try and look where they're going? Probably a good idea, but people might be too engrossed in walking out from behind a bus whilst staring at their phone and listening to their iPod to notice the adverts so...
S.Giles
Guest
Kinetic Energy = 1/2*m*v^2
So all accidents could be avoided by travelling at a slightly different speed (or leaving home at a slightly different time)! Why has no-one thought of this before!
Last edited:
Exile
Senior Member
- Location
- Manchester
Cycling slower does indeed achieve less kenetic energy when the inevitable happens, you got me there. I asked a poorly worded question and you were right to take me to task.
A little too simple... Perhaps we could try and organise a block-working system for the roads and pavements to ensure we are all safe to proceed about our daily business without fear of having to pay attention to anything other than the colour of the next signal.
Get off this site. How dare you humbly admit to not ask a question properly. The correct reply in cyclechat is to never admit you're wrong and argue the indefensible with pedantic diversions.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
You are still concentrating on the debating and not the safety!
I am more interested in avoiding tragedies like THIS this than discussing words and legal rights.
It isn't much use being in the right, but crippled or dead!
It's not much more use being right but leaving someone else crippled or dead either.
Pedesteians shouldn't walk into cycle lane without looking. Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of lorries. The more dangerous operator in the equation should be taking the extra care due to the danger they pose to the more vulnerable.
I usually give pedesteians near the kerb extra space and slow down when children are around as they sometimes do the unpredictable. Even if I'm in a cycle lane.
Last edited:
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
I agree with what seems to be the majority view here: the pedestrian has the main responsibility, but 19mph is much too fast for a situation where it's entirely predictable that pedestrians will cross, and especially when you are unsighted by a large vehicle. "Never put you or your vehicle anywhere your eyes and brain haven't visited first."
Would a pedestrian even have been aware of a cycle lane? In most places outside of London bikes on the road are normally few and far between, so don't normally figure in a pedestrian's thinking when crossing the road. In this instance, I think the cyclist was going too fast in a situation where his visibility was obscured.
Bazzer
Setting the controls for the heart of the sun.
- Location
- On the edge of reality
Personally I always slow down a little when in the situation you have described and get my fingers wrapped around the anchor levers just in case. Slowing to what speed will depend entirely upon the circumstances, road surface, expectations of pedestrians etc. But the speed you have quoted would be very uncomfortable for me in the circumstances you have described..
Having said that, I think your diagram shows accurately shows the person was d*ck.
Broken lane markings would equally apply to a dual carriageway or to a two lane approach to (say) a roundabout..Would the person walk across a multiple car lane without looking, or at the very least being wary of oncoming traffic.Why the difference with a cycle lane?
Even if there there were not broken white lines, why should there be an assumption there would be no vehicles, or anything else, undertaking traffic?
Having said that, I think your diagram shows accurately shows the person was d*ck.
Broken lane markings would equally apply to a dual carriageway or to a two lane approach to (say) a roundabout..Would the person walk across a multiple car lane without looking, or at the very least being wary of oncoming traffic.Why the difference with a cycle lane?
Even if there there were not broken white lines, why should there be an assumption there would be no vehicles, or anything else, undertaking traffic?
