Zebra crossing footage

[Accy cyclist]

cyclist was at fault .... he never even slowed down. Had he hit the pedestrian, he would be working for many years paying the liability charges

No, according to those claim for accidents firms, you can't claim off them if they don't have personal insurance.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I've decided to endorse this view without bothering to watch the video.

I haven't watched it either though, fearing Ian's right, I'm going to pretend I have no opinion.

 

[Drago]

I wear cloth caps.

 

[winjim]

I agree with TC.

But it sounds from the descriptions that the pedestrian did something illegal, while the cyclist merely skated very close to doing so.

That's interesting. As far as I was aware, there was no specific offence of jaywalking in this country. Does this mean that jaywalking is an offence, but only if you're on a crossing? I would love that to be true.

 

[Paul139]

 

[snorri]

I agree with TC.

But it sounds from the descriptions that the pedestrian did something illegal, while the cyclist merely skated very close to doing so.

The pedestrian reversed his direction of movement for no apparent reason as the cyclist approached, which would be a breach of Para 19, but the cyclist was behaving in a threatening manner by intending to pass very close behind the pedestrian. Two idiots collide......nearly.

 

[Profpointy]

That's simply not true.

Might be a grain of truth in it in the sense that a claims company won't bother claiming off someone without insurance as they'd have to prove their claim. Insurers are likely to settle even dubious claims to make them go away.

Legally no difference of course

 

[hatler]

Taxi does pretty much the same thing on the opposite lane. Didn't see anyone jump in front of him(her)

Indeed. Taxi was going too fast to stop. Far worse behaviour than the cyclist's IMO.

 

[Dave 123]

I wear cloth caps.

You sir, are a degenerate.

 

[MontyVeda]

The pedestrian reversed his direction of movement for no apparent reason as the cyclist approached, ....

Pedestrian reversed direction to stop the cyclist's progress, then did it again and again and again. The cyclist is a selfish nobber, the actions of the pedestrian amused me.

 

[mjr]

cyclist was at fault .... he never even slowed down. Had he hit the pedestrian, he would be working for many years paying the liability charges

Similarly, if the cyclist hadn't managed to unclip and had toppled over, the pedestrian might be paying the liability charges for that assault.

I tried to watch it but all I got was an advert for a car.

Here's another copy:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

That's interesting. As far as I was aware, there was no specific offence of jaywalking in this country. Does this mean that jaywalking is an offence, but only if you're on a crossing? I would love that to be true.

Not quite, as jaywalking's usually crossing without a crossing signal. This was more like highway obstruction that escalated into a minor assault.

 

[r04DiE]

I don't see why the cyclist didn't just stop.

 

[mjr]

I don't see why the cyclist didn't just stop.

He thought there was a sufficiently wide clear path through the crossing, so even if a walker fell, he would still be clear and not have committed any offence, as @srw and @snorri correctly explained. He just failed to allow for the mistaken vigilante doing a U-turn and grabbing him.

 

[potsy]

I can't believe people are sticking up for that piss poor bit of cycling.

 

[mjr]

But it sounds from the descriptions that the pedestrian did something illegal, while the cyclist merely skated very close to doing so.

Haven't the 1997 regulations been revoked and replaced by this section of the 2016 TSRGD?[