What do you think: some sort of viral marketing campaign, or just a graceless d*ck?

[jefmcg]

Saw this here

"I hit you with my bike, you were annoyed, now I'm posting smug messages while you limp past to get to work so I get the last word"

 

[BlackPanther]

Amber means stop if safe to do so. If the light was amber, then it's the peds fault, unless it was flashing amber, then it's the cyclist fault.....I'd be tempted to do a new sign.

 

[400bhp]

bell end

Half hearted apology.

 

[martint235]

Amber means stop if safe to do so. If the light was amber, then it's the peds fault, unless it was flashing amber, then it's the cyclist fault.....I'd be tempted to do a new sign.

If it was amber then the cyclist should have stopped. As you say, amber means stop if safe to do so. Ped has priority anyway

 

[Leedsbusdriver]

Pedestrians have priority when crossing the road,doesn't matter what colour the lights were.

 

[ohnovino]

They collided on Valentine's Day - sounds like Act One of a Richard Curtis film.

Pedestrians have priority when crossing the road,doesn't matter what colour the lights were.

Having priority doesn't absolve someone from blame if they step out into traffic before the lights change.

 

[martint235]

They collided on Valentine's Day - sounds like Act One of a Richard Curtis film.



Having priority doesn't absolve someone from blame if they step out into traffic before the lights change.

True. What it does is split the blame. If a ped steps out while the traffic light is green, it will probably become a 50/50 in that the ped was at fault but so was the cyclist in going to quickly to avoid the accident.

That's not the issue here though. The light was amber. Cyclist should have stopped unless there was an explicit issue of safety which stopped him/her from doing so. Blame solely lies with the cyclist.

 

[Crackedheadset]

If it was amber then the cyclist should have stopped. As you say, amber means stop if safe to do so. Ped has priority anyway

This.

Looks to me as though the cyclist tried racing the lights when he should have stopped. A smug message like that confirms my hypothesis above and that the cylist is a bit of a twat.

 

[Feastie]

That guy is an idiot. Pedestrians can't see you often (as in, a cursory glance doesn't allow them to spot you) especially if you're coming in fast, and dashing at the last moment on an amber light is stupid but we've all done it, I'm sure - especially if we can't hear traffic. Pedestrians are really stupid for these reasons, so you should be predicting they'll jump out in front of you every time you pass one standing close to the edge of the pavement. I can't count the number of people who've walked out to cross the road, paused to think as they realise that yes indeed cars ARE coming very fast down the other side and decided to walk backwards again RIGHT in front of me!

So IMO always slow down for them. I've not hit anybody yet but have crashed/come off my bike 3 times avoiding these indecisive back-steppers. Including one where the chain came off my bike as I did an emergency turn/brake out of the way of a woman (they always stand and stare at you rather than moving...) whilst shouting "watch out!" and she then started telling ME off for 'telling her off' when it was all an 'accident' and 'just go away, stop making a big deal out of it!' ... er yes, I know it's an accident, all I did was shout at her to move when I became panicked she was walking into me, and finally - no I cannot cycle off with no chain on my bike!

Anyway I don't mean to ramble. Basically my point is that pedestrians are stupid and do stupid things and it's none of it intentional - and some of us just react with aggression when we're shocked and surprised, even if it's irrational and stupid. Having full knowledge of this, you should take precautions and be ready to react to this kind of thing BEFORE it happens - and forgiving when it does!

 

[gaz]

How anyone can come to any sort of a conclusion with only a sign is strange.
We have no idea the position of the cyclist, pedestrian or when the lights changed.

What we can obviously tell though, is that the cyclist and pedestrian did not clear things up at the scene.

 

[martint235]

Gaz, we know the light was amber by the cyclist's admission. That does put the onus of blame on them almost entirely regardless of what the ped was doing.

If there were mitigating circumstances "I had a 30 ton truck right behind me and not stopping" or "I had an emergency vehicle on call behind me", I would expect these to be mentioned on the poster.

Plus naturally if there was a 30 ton truck not stopping, then there's no pedestrian to write to.

 

[gaz]

Gaz, we know the light was amber by the cyclist's admission. That does put the onus of blame on them almost entirely regardless of what the ped was doing.

If there were mitigating circumstances "I had a 30 ton truck right behind me and not stopping" or "I had an emergency vehicle on call behind me", I would expect these to be mentioned on the poster.

Plus naturally if there was a 30 ton truck not stopping, then there's no pedestrian to write to.

If it turned amber just before the cyclist got to the line, he can't stop in time.

 

[martint235]

If it turned amber just before the cyclist got to the line, he can't stop in time.

True but I'd expect different wording if that was the case. This notice is by a cyclist trying to justify that he hit a ped while cycling through an amber light when he really should have been stopping.

 

[Maz]

To answer the OP's question, the correct answer was (B) Graceless dick*.

[*Judges will also accept 'twat'/'bastard'/'idiot'/'knob',...]

 

[martint235]

To answer the OP's question, the correct answer was (B) Graceless dick*.

[*Judges will also accept 'twat'/'bastard'/'idiot'/'knob',...]

Don't forget cockwomble!