Pedestrian Collision

[Dan B]

The pedestrian certainly bears some responsibility, but (on the description you've given) 19mph is too fast for the conditions. Granted that even if you'd been going slower you might still have hit him, less kinetic energy -> less potential for injury

 

[w00hoo_kent]

not 3mph, but 19 mph with view blocked by the lorry, is not what i would want to do.
rule 160 (for motorcyclists) says keep speed low whan filtering

Yup, presuming everything else in the diagram was a car then I'd be going at a reasonable clip (probably not 19mph thanks to current fitness plus the narrowness of options because you're on the left of a line of cars and almost definitely in the door zone) then at around the 'r' of Lorry I'd back off, probably drift left slightly to increase view angle and cover brakes, at around the line drawn for the cab vision would open up so I could see if I needed to brake for someone or not, 99.5% of the time the answer would be 'no' and I'd pick the speed back up (I'd probably have checked low for legs if the lorry cab was high enough), if the rest of the line was cars then I'd be back up to speed being able to see over them for most of the likely dangers but again would be back in to 'door worry' mode. Of course, in London I'd then be slowing down for the twenty delivery vehicles and taxis parked across the cycle lane.

 

[biking_fox]

Depends a bit on your sight lines and how well you know that stretch of road, how wide the cycle lane is, etc. I'd probably not have gone that fast, - there is always a danger of traffic turning across your path, into a driveway or petrol station or junction, or, as I very nearly encountered, someone who pushed there pram into the cycle lane before they could see it was clear. That results in a lot worse than a bruised ped.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

True, that's the other issue with a lorry in the traffic, you can't be certain that the car in front of it is directly in front of it. It might have left a gap for something big and metallic to be pulling in to, that encroaches on the cycle lane and you can be in much bigger trouble if you're moving along at a clip.

 

[Markymark]

Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to blame the lorry.

 

[Cyclist33]

I wouldn't have a clue how the underwriters would argue it one way or the other, I mean most of us are not experts in insurance I'm guessing.

In my completely subjective opinion, the ped was completely crazy to cross the road that way, and you were going far too fast in the situation described. Straying well outside the realm of pure fact, it's possible you were relishing the fact that the motorised traffic was at a standstill and you didn't have to be, and were going even faster as a result.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to blame the lorry.

Naturally if the lorry drive was a true professional he'd have spotted the incident coming up and warned both parties beforehand. It's just another example of the shoddy way our roads are full of delinquent yorkie eaters.

Will that do? :-)

 

[Keith Oates]

I think that both you and the ped together contributed to the accident and should share the responsibility but let's hope the injury to the ped is minor.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Arrowfoot]

Pretty much a birdstrike. Sometimes it makes sense to slow down when there is a line of stationary traffic with gaps. And you see the peds doing this all the while but most at least look both ways when they come thru a gap.

 

[Origamist]

First off, I hope you and the pedestrian are not too badly hurt.

I'll often move quickly in cycle lanes (with stationary, same direction traffic to the right) if they are wide enough and sightlines are OK. However, buses and HGVs substantially obscure visibility and it's worth scrubbing off speed as you come alongside the bigger vehicle as it will mitigate the consequences of a collision. Be extra careful when passing larger vehicles if there is a gap in front of them or a junction/bus stop close by.

There is the offside of stationary traffic which is often preferred when passing, but if traffic in the opposite direction was heavy or the available road space was narrow, there is nothing wrong with using the cycle lane to make progress. One of the issues when passing stationary traffic on the right is that pedestrians are still obscured by large vehicles and many will check to the left, but not the right when emerging from a stationary traffic.

 

[cd365]

I don't think the OP was at fault, even with his speed. You are taught not to between parked vehicles and if you do you have to check before stepping out, if the ped had of done this then there would have been no collision.
If I had been the OP I would have been spitting feathers at the ped!

 

[Turbo Rider]

I hope the pedestrian was wearing a helmet...I hate it when they don't wear helmets...

 

[MichaelW2]

Cycle lanes are never safe. You have to expect pedestrians so slow down a bit.
In addition, as cycle lanes cross junctions, turning cars pose a danger.

 

[mjr]

A common enough incident, I'd put the majority of the fault with the ped, they should have looked especially with a cycle lane in front of them, but if you want to stop it happening again it is possible to do things on your part.

Basically this ^^ and as well as backing off when approaching the blind corner of the lorry, I'd also be ringing the bell. I sound like the bell section of the Bicycle Orchestra when riding in cities but I've not hit anyone there... yet! Out in the villages, I'd feel guilty about disturbing the peace, but the motorists are already doing that in cities far more than my music system and bell...

 

[w00hoo_kent]

far more than my music system and bell...

Please, please tell me you are playing some seriously niche gangster rap out of the sound system...