Pedestrians

[Rhythm Thief]

That may be so, but it was as I believe that I've said the cop who directed me to continue on the route that I was on. Given that there was a cop directing traffic shouldn't he have directed me not to take that route?

Blimey. Do you apply this philosophy - "he said it was ok so I just went ahead and did it, despite what my eyes were telling me" - to everything you do? Your logic is just weird ... if someone was about to walk into me, I'd stop. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think "gee, the best option here is probably just to keep going". That's just odd.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

And that is part of the argument that the state of Illinois used in a court case in which it was ruled that the state has no obligation to make it's roads safe for cyclists to use, as they are not the intended users. So in the state of Illinois, if a cyclist gets injured on a public street it's their tough luck and they have no recourse in going after the city, county or state for their injuries/damages.

With respect, this makes America sound like a crappy place to live. I know the UK has its faults (and plenty of them, too) but we haven't quite sunk this low. Yet.

 

[mcr]

With respect, this makes America sound like a crappy place to live. I know the UK has its faults (and plenty of them, too) but we haven't quite sunk this low. Yet.

At least we still hold to the principle (though a proportion of the population need constant reminding) that bicycles have a right to be on any road (other than motorways and a handful of designated stretches such as long tunnels) while motor vehicles, because they are deemed to be potentially dangerous pieces of machinery, only do so by licence once certain criteria have been met in terms of driver training and vehicle road-worthiness.

I must say this UK-US cultural difference makes for a fascinating if heated debate - I at least now know where I'd rather be a pedestrian!

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I don't see why that's relevant to the point I was making in the post you quoted.

Uh, because you were stating quite empathetically and unwaveringly that cyclists never have the same rights as pedestrians. Here in Florida that is not the case. Here in Florida if a cyclist is riding on the sidewalk/pavement they have the exact same rights as a pedestrian. The exact same rights, duties, and responsibilities as a pedestrian.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Blimey. Do you apply this philosophy - "he said it was ok so I just went ahead and did it, despite what my eyes were telling me" - to everything you do? Your logic is just weird ... if someone was about to walk into me, I'd stop. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't think "gee, the best option here is probably just to keep going". That's just odd.

Where the cop was stationed and where the gal walked into me was about a 1/4 of a mile or more away and around a curve well out of my sight. With no easy way to get out of it, once I was there.

Should I slow down so much that I can't make any headway at all?

Again, you do know that it is possible for the driver of a car or the operator of a bicycle to do everything right and still end up getting in a crash.

Had I had x-ray vision and had been able to see around the curve I probably would have taken a different route. I do not however have x-ray vision, or a magic crystal ball or any other way to see around a curve that is a 1/4 or better away from where I am interacting with a cop.

Have you never found yourself in a situation where when you started that it was clear and than all of a sudden without warning you were surrounded by a crowd of people? If you haven't then you are one lucky person.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

With respect, this makes America sound like a crappy place to live. I know the UK has its faults (and plenty of them, too) but we haven't quite sunk this low. Yet.

That is just one out of 50 states. In most if not all other states they have (the states) have bestowed the same rights, duties, and responsibilities as the operator of any motor vehicle.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

There is no duty on pedestrians to watch where they are going while they are on the footpath. all shared paths are footpaths with cyclists having the right to travel on it. The obligation is on cyclists to look out for pedestrians the pedestrians are not obliged to look for cyclists. it sounds crazy but its true.

It's not crazy. It's called "civilization". A civilized society is set up so that we no longer have to waste huge amounts of energy watching out for wild animals and nutters that might want to eat or kill us. Our civilized public spaces are supposed to minimize risk to the individual, and for that we have to give up some freedoms, such as the freedom to take risks with other people's safety.

A public space full of civilized pedestrians has very little risk. When you introduce a bicycle into that space, the risk is increased, so it's reasonable to expect the user of that bicycle to be careful, and for the user of that bicycle to take responsiblity when things do go wrong.

When you introduce a motor vehicle into that space, then the risk increases enormously, so the same principle should apply to the user of that motor vehicle.

Over here if you hit a pedestrian you have to prove that it was a 100% the pedestrians fault and there was nothing any reasonable person could have done to avoid it.

Actually, that isn't true. We do not currently have presumed liability here, although we should have because of the argument I made above. At the moment, the onus is on the pedestrian to demonstrate (on the balance of probabilities if it's a civil case) that the cyclist was negligent. As it happens, that is often not too difficult, because they probably were negligent.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484585"]
The correct action would be to stop.
[/quote]

How many times do I have to say that even if I had stopped that she still would have hit my handlebars? Plus IIRC there were now people also coming up from behind me. Had I stopped one or more of them would have walked into me from behind.

Also how many times do I have say that a person can do everything right and still end up in a crash/accident? Also as I just clarified in another post when I first entered that area it was clear as well as there was a cop directing traffic, who's post was about a 1/4 or so mile away and around a curve that gave me the all clear to go ahead. And had I'd been able to see around the curve from a 1/4 or so mile away and had been able to see everyone that could possible crossing paths with me I would have chosen a different route.

Based on the information that I had at the time and despite what you might think, I think that I made the right choice. However knowing what I now know after the fact I would have chosen a different route, if it would have been practical to do so. Or are you going to tell me that I should go miles out of my way in order to avoid an area that I might or might not come into conflict with other road users, and unlike most of your examples this is a public road the only difference is that every other day it is open to ALL users.

 

[Dan B]

Yes, I find it amusing that the legal system based on individual liberties and responsibilities is the one with the jaywalking laws, and the system which grew haphazardly out of a feudal monarchy is the one where citizens subjects still have the right to pass and repass on the Queen's Highway.

I'd find it a lot less amusing if I lived in the US, of course.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484586"]
So you're making claims about killer cyclists that you're not qualified to make.
[/quote]

Sorry, no I have read about other incidents where a pedestrian has been either severally injured or killed in another forum that I am a member of. Such as a case in Pa where a (I think) para-legal was struck by a cyclist and as a result died, there was another case (I forget the city/state) where an elderly person was struck by a cyclist and as a result of her fall she died. I don't have the exact numbers, I don't even know if the NTSB has the exact numbers. But it does happen.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

[QUOTE 1484587"]
No. The correct thing to do is for cyclists to minimise the hazard that they present.
[/quote]

No, the correct thing is for all users of the infrastructure to do so in a safe, responsible and predictable manner. And if it is a "shared" path then ALL users may use it equally with no one group given priority over any other group. If one group is given priority over another group than it isn't really a "shared" path.

As I've been taught that shared means all are equal, not that one group has priority.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Ben,

Roads are for cars. Cyclists have no automatic right to be there.

In this country Cyclist have freedom of the highway. In essence it means they have a greater right to be on roads than cars.

 

[Tommi]

Anyone?

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?

...and do bicycles even have priority anywhere in UK?

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Anyone?
...and do bicycles even have priority anywhere in UK?

Bicycles have priority under much the same conditions that motor vehicles have. Exceptions include motorways and some roads that are designated "no cycling" under a Traffic Regulation Order.

See my earlier reply regarding presumed liability.

Bicycles have "exclusive use" of mandatory cycles lanes that are on the main carriageway and indicated by a solid white line. However, even there cyclists are expected to be careful of pedestrians. This is not about priority, it is about common decency and reasonable behaviour, which is how the courts would normally see it.

 

[Mad at urage]

Those laws are to protect EVERYONE, pedestrian, motorist, cyclist alike. If they didn't exist we'd have pedestrians crossing streets anywhere that they felt like crossing.

I'm glad I live in a country where I can walk across the street just where and when I feel like it.
PS. As a car driver and cyclist, I am perfectly happy to take care not to hit pedestrians who are exercising that right. I will cuss out teenagers (who should know better) who deliberately jump into the road to make me stop, but it is my responsibility to STOP.

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.

She is the one who was traveling at the faster rate of speed. I was in the clear and than I was engulfed in people. And the gal walked right into me. If I could have avoided it, I would have. As I said she was going faster than I was I'd say probably twice as fast as I was I traveling. So even if I came to a stop she still would have collided with me and there really wouldn't have been any reduction in the force of the impact.

But you didn't, 'cos you wanted to "make headway". That is irresponsible cycling.

If I had stopped she still would have walked into me. And I did my best to avoid the collision but if I'd veered to either side I would have hit multiple people. So the choice was to keep going at the slow speed that I was going at, or to veer to one side or the other and hit more than one person. So in this case I choose to continue forward at my slow pace and allow her to hit me.

No you didn't, you did not stop

How many times do I have to say that even if I had stopped that she still would have hit my handlebars? Plus IIRC there were now people also coming up from behind me. Had I stopped one or more of them would have walked into me from behind.

Also how many times do I have say that a person can do everything right and still end up in a crash/accident? Also as I just clarified in another post when I first entered that area it was clear as well as there was a cop directing traffic, who's post was about a 1/4 or so mile away and around a curve that gave me the all clear to go ahead. And had I'd been able to see around the curve from a 1/4 or so mile away and had been able to see everyone that could possible crossing paths with me I would have chosen a different route.

Based on the information that I had at the time and despite what you might think, I think that I made the right choice. However knowing what I now know after the fact I would have chosen a different route, if it would have been practical to do so. Or are you going to tell me that I should go miles out of my way in order to avoid an area that I might or might not come into conflict with other road users, and unlike most of your examples this is a public road the only difference is that every other day it is open to ALL users.

This is new!! So you suddenly remember these people "walking" up behind you?
Re. All of the bolded text: Some discrepancy here surely? The "gal walked" into him - faster than he was going, and the people who were suddenly catching up frombehind would have "walked" into hi, yet he was going at 5 - 6 mph and couldn't stop?
Some real good speed-walkers over the pond there!