Pedestrians

[Angelfishsolo]

Was there going to be a response to the quoted post?

 

[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.

I said that it sounds crazy, not that it was crazy. I am not sure that I agree with your implication that the USA is uncivilised but I take your point about presumed liability. I misspoke myself so consequently it came out as rubbish. I still feel that for a pedestrian on a shared path it it would be wise of them to show increased awareness but agree they are under no obligation to do so.

 

[rowan 46]

Was there going to be a response to the quoted post?

sorry about that my connection appears to be playing up

 

[Angelfishsolo]

sorry about that my connection appears to be playing up

No worries

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?

 

[GrasB]

Angelfishsolo, you didn't just get an email from IAM did you?

I'm referring to this IAM poll

 

[benb]

Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?

I quite like the idea, but they would have to be mercilessly enforced, and have a big education programme promoted too.

 

[Dan B]

Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?

It's been tried a couple of times: google for "naked streets" or "shared streets". I am not altogether convinced it works as well as its proponents says: the average taxi driver at Seven Dials in my experience tends to put his foot down and gun the engine rather than make eye contact and amicably negotiate priority with the pedestrians in his path, but perhaps it just needs to be backed up with legislation that makes "scaring the shoot out of people" an arrestable offence

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Out of interest In Holland there are zones called Woonerfs. Do we think this could catch on over here?

I quite like the idea, but they would have to be mercilessly enforced, and have a big education programme promoted too.

I felt the following statement was pretty typical of the British "way":

In the United Kingdom, similar areas are known as home zones, but do not enjoy similar protection in law.

 

[Dan B]

Actually, one example that comes to mind of where "shared spaces" really do work is in pedestrianised areas which have banned through traffic but to in which vehicles are allowed for access/deliveries. Perhaps that's the real underlying distinction here: between people who want to be where they are, and people who want to be somewhere else and see everything from here to there as an obstacle to be negotiated

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I quite like the idea, but they would have to be mercilessly enforced, and have a big education programme promoted too.

That was basically my response on the I.A.M poll from which I learned about them.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Actually, one example that comes to mind of where "shared spaces" really do work is in pedestrianised areas which have banned through traffic but to in which vehicles are allowed for access/deliveries. Perhaps that's the real underlying distinction here: between people who want to be where they are, and people who want to be somewhere else and see everything from here to there as an obstacle to be negotiated

That is a very interesting point indeed.

 

[Norm]

Or when they're riding against the flow of traffic i.e. a salmon cyclist...

Not meaning to interrupt or detract from the discussion, but what a great phrase! Salmon cyclist. Love it.

 

[locker]

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

You can disagree all you like, but legally and morally, it is the cyclists everyones responsibility to act safely avoid pedestrians, taking into account the fact that they the human being 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 stupid point stands is stupid, that paths cycle paths are primarily for pedestrians shared use, and we cannot and should not expect them (human beings) to check over their shoulder every time they (human beings) change direction.

 

[locker]

[QUOTE 1484615"]
I've never known of a pedestrian do this locker. Have you?

I've seen a couple of examples of a cyclist deliberately career into a pedestrian though...
[/quote]


Damn! Can`t find that ignore button - where the hell is it?