Pedestrians

[Digital_Cowboy]

Children should not play in a carpark but in the UK the onus is still on the driver to ensure it is safe to enter a carpark.

Agreed, but if a child is playing between two parked cars and runs out into the path of a car it isn't the drivers fault. As even slow speed crashes can be painful or cause significant injuries.

As a child my brother was hit head on by a slow moving car going up a hill and around a curve. He rode up on the hood (bonnet) of the car hitting his head on the windshield. As a result he got a large bump on his forehead and had pushed several teeth back up. Again the driver of the car was going slow probably no more then 10 or so MPH. But my brother was still transported to the hospital.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I had people on both sides of me (and I wasn't the only one on a bike) I was going probably no faster than 5 or 6MPH basically coasting speed, with one foot unclipped for balance. If I had tried to turn either way I would have ended up hitting a number of people on either side, if I had attempted to stop the people walking and slowly parting in front of me would possibly have run into me because they would not have expected me to stop.

She saw me and had more room/time to maneuver in. That we hit is her fault not mine.

By the sound of it there should have been no cycling in that area. A responsible cyclist knows where and when to cycle.

 

[Tommi]

What I gather from this thread is that in UK pedestrians have absolute right to be on any (public) path or road, be it footpath, cycle path, car park, road, motorway, etc. Also cyclists have the right to ride on shared paths (among other things.)

On shared paths cyclists have a responsibility towards pedestrians who have priority. Based on this thread pedestrians themselves have no responsibilities when it comes to other road users, that can't be right? So when an adult pedestrian decides to cross the path totally oblivious to others on the path and knocks over a small child learning to ride or an elderly person with not the fastest reflexes on bicycle, neither of which are bringing any actual danger to the pedestrian, they are to blame instead?

And it makes no difference whatsoever whether it's shared path, cycle path or road?

On vaguely related note, pedestrians have exclusive use of footpaths, motor vehicles have exclusive use of motorways, do bicycles have exclusive use of anything?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Once again we see the differences in US and UK laws. Pedestrians have priority on any pathway.

Pedestrian (at least to me) implies that one is walking or running, if one is sitting on their arse playing tiddly winks on a bike/multi use/shared path they are NOT a "pedestrian," they are a danger to themselves and all those who are trying to use said bike/multi use/shared path.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Agreed, but if a child is playing between two parked cars and runs out into the path of a car it isn't the drivers fault. As even slow speed crashes can be painful or cause significant injuries.

As a child my brother was hit head on by a slow moving car going up a hill and around a curve. He rode up on the hood (bonnet) of the car hitting his head on the windshield. As a result he got a large bump on his forehead and had pushed several teeth back up. Again the driver of the car was going slow probably no more then 10 or so MPH. But my brother was still transported to the hospital.

No it would be classed as a non fault inncident.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

to sum it all up, the ones that brings the danger should take responsibility for their actions.

Agreed, and that includes pedestrians that suddenly stop or change direction with no warning. If a pedestrian causes a crash by their actions then they need to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[rowan 46]

Great. No agreement can be reached. Does that mean the thread is over.

not necessarily it just means that someone has agreed to differ. which is perfectly acceptable in a free society. Britain and the us shares much common ground culturally, but there are differences it seems. The us was founded on the principles of individual liberty and hence individual responsibility each law is tested in the courts to ensure it does not interfere in that principle. Britain has a different mindset on the states responsibility and consequently a different take on its laws

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

+1

If the cyclist couldn't stop in time they were going to fast.

She was walking faster than I was riding, as I said in another reply I was only going about 5 or 6MPH. And again she HIT me, I did NOT hit her. We both apologized and continued on our separate ways.

I also if I remember correctly had a cop that was at one end of the street blocking it off wave me into the area. Therefore I was authorized to be in that area. Had the cop stopped me from entering I would have found a different route.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Totally agreed. Unfortunately UK law seems very confused about it when it comes to traffic.

Anyway, I'd think pedestrians also qualify as "ones that brings the danger" when they do bring the danger. I don't agree on the pedestrian is the king of the road mentality, but I do my best to avoid any collisions regardless of who would be at fault.

Thank you, that is all that I have been trying to say.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

How dangerous is a pedestrian-pedestrian collision?

Probably nil, or next to nil as not to be worth talking about. Unless one is running and the other is walking. Then that changes everything.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Pedestrian (at least to me) implies that one is walking or running, if one is sitting on their arse playing tiddly winks on a bike/multi use/shared path they are NOT a "pedestrian," they are a danger to themselves and all those who are trying to use said bike/multi use/shared path.

What an idiotic statemen . You are a very strange individual indeed.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Depends on the pedestrian, My Aunt was hit by another pedestrian not looking where they were going. My aunt was too frail to get out the way and a broken hip ensued when she hit the floor. These sorts of accidents are unlikely but they do occasionally happen

Agreed, and as in this case the pedestrian who caused the crash is responsible. Had the pedestrian who crashed into your Aunt, been acting in a safe and PREDICTABLE manner the crash wouldn't have occurred.

 

[benb]

Agreed, and that includes pedestrians that suddenly stop or change direction with no warning. If a pedestrian causes a crash by their actions then they need to take responsibility for their actions.

No, because you should be giving them enough room to be able to do that. If, by the pedestrian suddenly changing direction, there is a collision, you were passing too close to them.

Now, if a pedestrian hid behind a bush and leapt into your path, that would be different. I'm pretty sure that has never happened.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1484545"]
Ah, point of note here. It doesn't matter whether you agree or don't agree. You're wrong. Feel free to carry on disagreeing with the current situation.


Now I'm afraid you're going a bit bonkers. In that scenario, if you're a stationary cyclist then the pedestrian has run into you. If you ride into a pedestrian or a toddler, that's your action for which you're entirely responsible.

Why are you having to use extreme scenarios to try to argue that pedestrians can't wander on paths?
[/quote]
Maybe he has never heard the expression "When you are in a hole, stop digging"

 

[benb]

Maybe he has never heard the expression "When you are in a hole, stop digging"

Or "when you're on a path crowded with pedestrians, stop cycling"