Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

If a pedestrian suddenly changes direction, and there is a collision, the cyclist was too close and/or going too fast.

Pedestrians are unpredictable, so we need to be extra vigilant on shared use paths.

That is starting to sound like some sort of mantra. The cyclist is always at fault and the pedestrian doesn't have any responsibility for THEIR own safety. Using that "logic" then the motorist who hit my brother (even though said motorist was going slowly) is at fault. And that instead of driving his car, he should have been out behind it pushing it up the hill, as after all he was in a car and brought the "greater risk" to the other road users.

You do get how ridiculous that sounds, right?

If pedestrians are also acting in a responsible and predictable manner that will also help to make things safer. As I've said I've seen plenty of people out walking with their iPods set to such high volumes that if anyone shouted a warning to them they (the pedestrian) would never hear it.

I guess that if a parent is out walking on a shared path pushing a stroller in front of them and suddenly and without warning turns and hits someone with the stroller it's the other person's fault for being too close?

 

[benb]

Tommi,

I agree with your logic. And would also like a clear answer as to why if the cyclist is behaving in a responsible manner that the other person's irresponsible behavior doesn't matter.

If the cyclist is behaving responsibly, the likelihood of a collision is pretty much zero. (suicidal pedestrians hiding behind bushes and leaping into your path notwithstanding)
And pedestrians zigzagging erratically isn't irresponsible - it's normal pedestrian behaviour.

I'm going to keep saying this until you understand: if a pedestrian suddenly stops or changes direction and there is a collision, the cyclist was passing them too close, or going too fast, or both.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

its seems that DC is unto some sort of psychological defence mechanism. trying to rationalise what his done is right but the facts that is presented confirms that it all doesnt add up.
for example, how would he know that people walking behind him will run into him? thats very unrealistic isnt it?

Uh, because I have a wonderful invention called a MIRROR attached to my helmet that lets me see what is behind me. That is how I knew that there were people behind me that would have run into me if I had stopped.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Not that weird if you think about it.

The law is clear - pedestrians have right of way on UK cycle paths / pavements.

I think discussing a fact for 40 pages is a little OTT but there you go. I can't compain now I've waded in.

If there were legal room for manoeuvre, I could understand it, but there isn't.

In the UK this is a simple factual matter - obviously this thread has been railroaded by posters from countries with different laws - but here it is straightforward.

If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.

Agreed, but a pedestrian doesn't have to be "hiding" behind a tree to be a risk. If they're listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear what is going on around them and then do something irresponsible/unpredictable it's their fault if they get hit.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Lets see, points brought up so far:

1. right of way does not mean you have priority
2. priority does not absolve you of responsibility
3. pedestrian needs to prove negligence in any case as there is no presumption of liability in UK
4. pedestrian behaving irresponsibly
5. pedestrian walking into cyclist
6. probably others I forgot

I don't recall anyone questioning the right of way. That's not the point of contention.


So basically you're saying as soon as you're on a bicycle you become responsible for irresponsible behaviour of pedestrians? It doesn't matter how old you are or how fast you're riding and how erratically the pedestrian is behaving, it's always your fault?

To me that seems to be the gist of it, pedestrian never ever wrong, cyclist always wrong, even when pedestrian is wrong cyclist is still more wrong.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Agreed, but a pedestrian doesn't have to be "hiding" behind a tree to be a risk. If they're listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear what is going on around them and then do something irresponsible/unpredictable it's their fault if they get hit.

So by your logic a deaf person is screwed.

 

[Tommi]

[QUOTE 1484835"]
A cyclist is at fault if he rides into a pedestrian.
[/quote]
Even if the pedestrian, like yourself, ignores the "Always show due care and consideration for others." part of Highway Code for pedestrians?

 

[just jim]

"Irresponsible" and "unpredictable" are two different modes of behaviour; terms which you have crowbarred together for your own convenience.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1484844"]
That's the crux.
[/quote]
Paul, you have the patience of a saint!

 

[mangaman]

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.


13
Routes shared with cyclists. Some cycle tracks run alongside footpaths or pavements, using a segregating feature to separate cyclists from people on foot. Segregated routes may also incorporate short lengths of tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct side. On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series of flat-topped bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel (tramline pattern). Not all routes which are shared with cyclists are segregated. Take extra care where this is so

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks youMUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

Does not say much about a right of way although it does mention extreme care!

Thanks for agreeing with me!

So - to quote-

"Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you"

I don't know how you can read this and not understand that when riding on shared used paths we should be prepared to slow down or stop if necessary - as endless people have been saying. It's common decency and the law.
I rarely use the (excellant) shared use facilities near me as the roads are better.

If I do it's a recreational pootle - which is what they are designed for.

It's pretty staightforward I would have thought - I'm still bemused by it passing 40 pages!

 

[JonnyBlade]

Thanks for agreeing with me!

So - to quote-

"Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you"

I don't know how you can read this and not understand that when riding on shared used paths we should be prepared to slow down or stop if necessary - as endless people have been saying. It's common decency and the law.
I rarely use the (excellant) shared use facilities near me as the roads are better.

If I do it's a recreational pootle - which is what they are designed for.

It's pretty staightforward I would have thought - I'm still bemused by it passing 40 pages!

I think it's funny

All I tried to suggest was that it was a shared responsibility with shared rights and that was turned into me complaining that children should not be allowed on the paths, not wanting to stop for pedestrians and a whole load more fiction. More than a couple on here have experienced bully boy tactics which I feel have been a little harsh
Still it's been a great debate!

 

[mangaman]

Agreed, but a pedestrian doesn't have to be "hiding" behind a tree to be a risk. If they're listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear what is going on around them and then do something irresponsible/unpredictable it's their fault if they get hit.

True - but you can see that.

Or should I say I can.

I shouldn't extrapolate to you, that would be unfair.

I rarely use shared paths - eg to a park other than to reach the park. I use the roads as my speed differential with a car is a lot less than with a child / dog / older person while riding seriously (eg commuting).

If I do pootle into a park, I tend to look in front of me and assess hazards. People with headphones on are not hard to spot. You have to slow down or stop around them.

In the US it may be fine to barrell over such people?

Here, it would be considered your fault if you rode into a pedestrian, i-podded up or not. I think we have it right, frankly.

If parks are serious commuter routes over in Florida, you need either a legal restriction on peds on such paths, or to be more ped friendly.

I'd be interested in the State law on the legal position on shared paths if you can provide it.

 

[Tommi]

I don't know how you can read this and not understand that when riding on shared used paths we should be prepared to slow down or stop if necessary - as endless people have been saying. It's common decency and the law.

I've no problem stopping in time around pedestrians who "show due care and consideration for others" and "Take extra care where [cycle paths are not segregated]" - curious how you chose to ignore that part in your quote.

 

[mangaman]

I've no problem stopping in time around pedestrians who "show due care and consideration for others" and "Take extra care where [cycle paths are not segregated]" - curious how you chose to ignore that part in your quote.

Er - there is no such thing in the UK as a segregated cycle path where pedestians are not allowed.

There is no path where cyclists only are allowed.

It's that simple. Motorways are only for cars and pathways are only for walkers.

Horses, bikes and peds have equal rights on all other routes in this country.

This is not a complicated topic - it's been done to death I fear.

There will be inconsiderate people on foot / bike / car of course - but please as a cyclist on a cycle path don't try to weasle out if you hit someone.

It's your fault. That's really all I can think of to say.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

OK to simplify even more.

If you ride into a pedestrian who isn't malicious (ie one hiding behind a tree and jumping out trying to knock you off) you are to blame.

So you don't consider the pedestrian plugged into their iPod at full volume, eye's glued on their cell/mobile phone and completely and totally oblivious to everything around them, even the verbal warning that a cyclist is approaching them to be malicious?