Riding without lights...

[bonj2]

Here's an easy analogy: Take all the vehicles out of your example. Where is the danger now? Easy - your mate's pissed mum doesn't cause any danger in this example.

here's another analogy: take mate's pissed mum out of the equation. Where's the danger now? Correct, there isn't one. Therefore she is the one that causes the danger.
I know what BentMikey's trying to say - his attitude is that it shouldn't be taken for granted that cars are going to be there in the first place, they haven't always been there throughout history and therefore they shouldn't expect other road users to take it for granted that they're going to be there.
But unfortunately the world we live in today is one in which roads have been built and expanded simply to cope with the demand to drive cars on them, so you unfortunately do have to expect cars to be there.

 

[Cab]

If a car hit a bike at night and he could prove the bike didn't have lights, then it'd be unlikely to come out as his fault.

I know. Sucks, doesn't it? I'm not saying that the cyclist is always blameless (you do see some muppet-ish riding in the dark), but in many towns the street lights are bright enough such that your visibility at night is excellent.

 

[Cab]

Errr, wrong. The danger was brought by the heavier and faster vehicle, not the pedestrian.

Errm... How? Sorry to ask, but go back to the example, pedestrian wearing dark clothing steps out in front of a cyclist or in front of any other vehicle without first looking. Hit a pedestrian on a bike and it could kill you both. Surely you accept that both parties have responsibility to try to avoid accident, and that a careless pedestrian is increasing risk for others?

 

[BentMikey]

My point is just that the pedestrian doesn't bring danger, the cyclist or driver does by virtue of his/her higher speed and weight. OK, the cyclist doesn't bring much danger at all compared with the car, but significantly more than the pedestrian does. If the pedestrian walks/runs into another pedestrian, it's unlikely to be very serious. The cyclist or the driver, on the other hand could more easily cause serious injury or even death by hitting a pedestrian.

I of course accept that everyone has responsibility in this sort of situation. That's not what I'm referring to.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I think we're talking about risk here are we not? Levels of risk are affected by all sorts of things. It's not a straightforward case of "bike with no lights = dangerous". It's not a case of "a pedestrian is dangerous". Surely everyone here can see this and we don't need to get into a discussion about "who brought the danger"?

 

[Cab]

I see what you're saying. I don't entirely accept it though. If I walk into someone on a bicycle, if I'm the one who makes the mistake and steps out right in front of the cyclist, then although I'm perhaps presenting less of a risk to others than a cyclist would be, I'm still bringing danger to him. I totally accept that with increased velocity and mass comes greater responsibility, I just don't accept that you can extend the point further.

 

[Cab]

Surely everyone here can see this and we don't need to get into a discussion about "who brought the danger"?

We do risk reducing this to a rather semantic discussion.

 

[gambatte]

My point is just that the pedestrian doesn't bring danger, the cyclist or driver does by virtue of his/her higher speed and weight. .

But that’s nothing new. I know that from an early age we’ve been told roads are dangerous places (anyone remember the Tufty Club? The Green Cross Man?) Not to be treated in the same manner as pavements etc. Whether we like it or not you can expect to find cars on the road and should act appropriately

 

[BentMikey]

I totally accept that with increased velocity and mass comes greater responsibility

This bit is what it comes down to for me.

I do see what you're saying on the other points, but our split in opinion then comes down to where to split the duty of care between the fast/heavy vehicle and the pedestrian. On a general point, the UK standard seems to fall far too much on the vulnerable road user who very rarely causes anyone else any harm.

 

[gambatte]

I thought the thread started out relating to the responsibility of cyclists. Too many times these threads seem to filter down to the point where thje responsibility of the cyclist/pedestrian has been ignored or diminished and it’s all the responsibility of the car driver.

Sorry but, it starts to sound like typical ‘victim culture’, ( “OK maybe we should do better, BUT ITS NOT OUR FAULT, LOOK AT THEM!!”)

I’ve got a lot of ‘beefs’ with the attitude of certain car drivers, but that doesn’t absolve me from behaving responsibly on the roads.

 

[bonj2]

My point is just that the pedestrian doesn't bring danger, the cyclist or driver does by virtue of his/her higher speed and weight. OK, the cyclist doesn't bring much danger at all compared with the car, but significantly more than the pedestrian does. If the pedestrian walks/runs into another pedestrian, it's unlikely to be very serious. The cyclist or the driver, on the other hand could more easily cause serious injury or even death by hitting a pedestrian.

I of course accept that everyone has responsibility in this sort of situation. That's not what I'm referring to.

So what's the meaning of the phrase "bring the danger" then? What's the point in saying 'it's the faster heavier vehicle that brings the danger' if it doesn't bear any relation to or help to decide who was to blame in the event of an accident or help to improve road safety in general? Why say it?

 

[bonj2]

We do risk reducing this to a rather semantic discussion.

I see what you're saying. I don't entirely accept it though. If I walk into someone on a bicycle, if I'm the one who makes the mistake and steps out right in front of the cyclist, then although I'm perhaps presenting less of a risk to others than a cyclist would be, I'm still bringing danger to him. I totally accept that with increased velocity and mass comes greater responsibility, I just don't accept that you can extend the point further.

The point is, BentMikey's deliberately segregated the concepts 'bring danger' and 'bear responsibility', and made them into separate terms by saying that the former doesn't necessarily imply the latter. Presumably the reason for this forced segregation is in order to maintain the ability to cast negative aspersions on motorists in cases of accidents even when it wasn't the motorist's fault.

 

[bonj2]

My point is just that the pedestrian doesn't bring danger, the cyclist or driver does by virtue of his/her higher speed and weight. OK, the cyclist doesn't bring much danger at all compared with the car, but significantly more than the pedestrian does. If the pedestrian walks/runs into another pedestrian, it's unlikely to be very serious. The cyclist or the driver, on the other hand could more easily cause serious injury or even death by hitting a pedestrian.

But if a pedestrian walks into the path of a motorcyclist travelling at speed, then he could come off his bike causing significant injury - the pedestrian has brought this danger to him.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Each presents a risk, each is responsible for that risk, and levels of risk differ in different situations obviously. What's the problem?

 

[bonj2]

Each presents a risk, each is responsible for that risk, and levels of risk differ in different situations obviously. What's the problem?

Any road user could quite easily cause death to any other through carelessness or recklessness, so therefore I don't really see any merit in saying 'we're all responsible but they should be more responsible because they're heavier yadda yadda yadda'...