Pedestrians

[Angelfishsolo]

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.


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

No you didn't, you did not stop

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!

DC is simply one those cyclists who believes that he has a god given right to cycle where he wants, when he wants. I hate people like that.

 

[Tommi]

See my earlier reply regarding presumed liability.

There are 455 earlier comments, could you be little more specific?

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.


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.

Let me rephrase.. If bicycle or car enters an area that is exclusively for pedestrian use they'll get sanctioned, and if there is a conflict they are at fault. When a pedestrian enters an area that exclusively for bicycles there are no consequences for them, and the cyclists would *still* be at fault? Did I get the idea of "exclusive" use correct?

Common decency and reasonable behaviour would suggest pedestrians are to look after other shared path users but based on the discussion here that doesn't seem to apply to pedestrians. Makes me wonder how can oblivious behaviour ever be considered responsible as by definition you can't know it's not another pedestrian but a cyclist you're causing conflict with if you didn't look. (And no, you can't rely on children behaving expectedly.)

 

[locker]

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 that it isn't really a "shared" path.

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

I think you`re on a loser with this as even some States, I believe, may have different laws for cyclists as we do the the UK some countys (could be called States) have some different by-laws to each other.
Even I agree that pedestrians have priority but disagree that they have no responsibily, everyone has a responsibily to be safe & make sure they do not carry out anything that may endanger other people

If one group is given priority over another group on a shared then its still a shared path, it is not a shared path when only one group can use it.

It doesn`t matter what you have been taught or been told, can you be sure the person teaching or telling you is right

 

[benb]

Let me rephrase.. If bicycle or car enters an area that is exclusively for pedestrian use they'll get sanctioned, and if there is a conflict they are at fault. When a pedestrian enters an area that exclusively for bicycles there are no consequences for them, and the cyclists would *still* be at fault? Did I get the idea of "exclusive" use correct?

Common decency and reasonable behaviour would suggest pedestrians are to look after other shared path users but based on the discussion here that doesn't seem to apply to pedestrians. Makes me wonder how can oblivious behaviour ever be considered responsible as by definition you can't know it's not another pedestrian but a cyclist you're causing conflict with if you didn't look. (And no, you can't rely on children behaving expectedly.)

I think if a pedestrian stepped into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there was no possibility of avoiding a collision, the cyclist would not be at fault (assuming they were cycling at a reasonable speed for the road). The same would apply to a motor vehicle, again if they were under the speed limit.

If a pedestrian steps into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there is time to avoid them, but the cyclist rides into them anyway, then the cyclist is at fault.

Pedestrians have the right to cross the road where they want, but obviously shouldn't go throwing themselves into moving traffic.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

There are 455 earlier comments, could you be little more specific?

Oops, sorry, I meant this one.

Let me rephrase.. If bicycle or car enters an area that is exclusively for pedestrian use they'll get sanctioned, and if there is a conflict they are at fault. When a pedestrian enters an area that exclusively for bicycles there are no consequences for them, and the cyclists would *still* be at fault? Did I get the idea of "exclusive" use correct?

Ah, OK, I guess the answer, then, is that there are indeed no places that are exclusively for the use of bicycles. (At least not in any way that absolves them of responsibility.)

Common decency and reasonable behaviour would suggest pedestrians are to look after other shared path users but based on the discussion here that doesn't seem to apply to pedestrians. Makes me wonder how can oblivious behaviour ever be considered responsible as by definition you can't know it's not another pedestrian but a cyclist you're causing conflict with if you didn't look. (And no, you can't rely on children behaving expectedly.)

Again, it comes down, IMHO, to the points that I made in the earlier post. The person bringing the greater risk to the space should be prepared to take the bulk of the responsibility.

 

[benb]

I think you`re on a loser with this as even some States, I believe, may have different laws for cyclists as we do the the UK some countys (could be called States) have some different by-laws to each other.
Even I agree that pedestrians have priority but disagree that they have no responsibily, everyone has a responsibily to be safe & make sure they do not carry out anything that may endanger other people

If one group is given priority over another group on a shared then its still a shared path, it is not a shared path when only one group can use it.

It doesn`t matter what you have been taught or been told, can you be sure the person teaching or telling you is right

You mean like not making sure you give a pedestrian enough room and pass them at a safe speed?

The default position is that paths are for pedestrians. If they wander around erratically they're not much of a danger to each other. The risk is tiny.
Cyclists are allowed to use the paths, as long as they do not increase the risks to pedestrians that they already pose to each other.

Cyclists are bringing the risk, so it is for cyclists to modify their behaviour to minimise that risk, not for the pedestrians to modify theirs. If a pedestrian suddenly changes direction without looking and you collide with them, then you were too close or too fast.

The only situation where I can imagine a collision being unavoidable is if the pedestrian deliberately hurls themselves into the path of the bicycle from behind a tree or something.

 

[rowan 46]

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.


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.

 

[locker]

You mean like not making sure you give a pedestrian enough room and pass them at a safe speed? We all make mistakes

The default position is that paths are for pedestrians. If they wander around erratically they're not much of a danger to each other. The risk is tiny.
Cyclists are allowed to use the paths, as long as they do not increase the risks to pedestrians that they already pose to each other. Not much in agruing with you on this as you have still got your blinkers on.

Cyclists are bringing the risk, so it is for cyclists to modify their behaviour to minimise that risk, not for the pedestrians to modify theirs. Or this one. If a pedestrian suddenly changes direction without looking and you collide with them, then you were too close or too fast. Or the pedestrian should have been more responsible for their actions

The only situation where I can imagine a collision being unavoidable is if the pedestrian deliberately hurls carelessly doesn`t look where they are going & hurls themselves into the path of the bicycle from behind a tree or something. It happens

Glad you are starting to change some of the things you stated at the start of the thread, a few pages more & you`ll never know where you are, what you have written, asking yourself "did I really write that"

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The only situation where I can imagine a collision being unavoidable is if the pedestrian deliberately hurls carelessly doesn`t look where they are going & hurls themselves into the path of the bicycle from behind a tree or something. It happens

Glad you are starting to change some of the things you stated at the start of the thread, a few pages more & you`ll never know where you are, what you have written, asking yourself "did I really write that"

 

[benb]

Glad you are starting to change some of the things you stated at the start of the thread, a few pages more & you`ll never know where you are, what you have written, asking yourself "did I really write that"

Now you're just deliberately being retarded, and you dare accuse me of having blinkers on!

You can disagree all you like, but legally and morally, it is the cyclists responsibility to avoid pedestrians, taking into account the fact that they can and do behave unpredictably.

I don't think I've really changed much of what I wrote, except saying "minimise risk" instead of "not pose a hazard".
My point stands, that paths are primarily for pedestrians, and we cannot and should not expect them to check over their shoulder every time they change direction.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I think if a pedestrian stepped into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there was no possibility of avoiding a collision, the cyclist would not be at fault (assuming they were cycling at a reasonable speed for the road). The same would apply to a motor vehicle, again if they were under the speed limit.

If a pedestrian steps into the road, or a cycle lane on a road, and there is time to avoid them, but the cyclist rides into them anyway, then the cyclist is at fault.

Pedestrians have the right to cross the road where they want, but obviously shouldn't go throwing themselves into moving traffic.

In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.

 

[benb]

In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.

True. That doesn't mean they can or should jump into moving traffic though!

It does annoy me that we have come to the situation where pedestrians are expected to only cross at pedestrian crossings. They are there because it's the only way to force traffic to stop, not because that is the only place a pedestrian should cross.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

In law once a pedestrian has one foot on a road they have right of way.

Pedestrians always have right of way on a public road. I think you mean priority.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

True. That doesn't mean they can or should jump into moving traffic though!

It does annoy me that we have come to the situation where pedestrians are expected to only cross at pedestrian crossings. They are there because it's the only way to force traffic to stop, not because that is the only place a pedestrian should cross.

Ben, please don't get me wrong. If a pedestrian steps straight out into a 60mph road then they are asking for trouble. The law does not protect against death. There is a ped right of way along a 60mph bypass road near me and I think it is a suicide route. No one has been killed there yet but that is because to my knowledge it is not used!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Pedestrians always have right of way on a public road. I think you mean priority.

Er yes I do mean priority. Slap on the wrist for me!