Here we go again

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Try getting out of your car and walking along an unlit road with your
back to the traffic and then try it facing the traffic.

I grew up in the Peak District.
I live in the Chilterns.

I am, thank you, rather used to walking on roads with no pavement.

There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk with
the traffic rather than against.

I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, when driving on such roads, take notice of which is easier to
see, a person with their face towards you or the person with their
back towards you.

It doesn't actually make any difference whatsoever in the
circumstances described.

To whom?

Quoted message said:

It *might* make a slight difference on a dark night to a road user
with inadequate vehicle lighting, if the pedestrian is wearing dark
clothing and the reflection off a pale skinned face is the only
contrast available.

But since the OP's already stated that it was known to be a bright
sunny day...

The pedestrian would have better sight (dpending on road configuration and
other variables) if facing oncoming traffic.

Adrian said:

cupra ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

I certainly agree about the folly of walking with your back to
traffic....

I don't. It's really not that simple.

It's all dependent on circumstances. It may be that there's more of a
verge on one side than the other (the OP mentions that the deceased's
head hit a wall). It may be that the road curves. It may be for a
number of reasons.

That's mentioned in the HC quoted above... FWIW I grew up in the Chilterns
and never read the HC as a child but still had enough common sense to walk
the lanes in a sensible manner, crossing and recrossing sides as necessary
to make myself visible to oncoming traffic.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article said:

Dave Larrington ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Cyclists already pay the same VED as other low-emission vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may wish to either narrow that statement down or investigate a
little further.

Quoted message said:

Investigates:
Band A Up to 100 g/km CO2: VED £0.00

Keep going.
Clue: Count the wheels.

Obviously cyclists should only pay half of that, just as electric scooters do.

(But yes, it's a bit unfair that a motorbike that would be in Band A if ICE
bikes were done on emissions would still has to pay the same rate as an old
125cc two-stroke.)

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Try getting out of your car and walking along an unlit road with
your back to the traffic and then try it facing the traffic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I grew up in the Peak District.
I live in the Chilterns.

I am, thank you, rather used to walking on roads with no pavement.

There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk with
the traffic rather than against.

Quoted message said:

I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

So why are you arguing the opposite?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, when driving on such roads, take notice of which is easier to
see, a person with their face towards you or the person with their
back towards you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It doesn't actually make any difference whatsoever in the
circumstances described.

Quoted message said:

To whom?

To the visibility of the pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It *might* make a slight difference on a dark night to a road user
with inadequate vehicle lighting, if the pedestrian is wearing dark
clothing and the reflection off a pale skinned face is the only
contrast available.

But since the OP's already stated that it was known to be a bright
sunny day...

Quoted message said:

The pedestrian would have better sight (dpending on road configuration
and other variables) if facing oncoming traffic.

Indeed. But that doesn't affect how the cyclist failed to see him.

The cyclist cycled into the pedestrian. The pedestrian didn't walk into the
cyclist.

PC Paul said:

Matt B said:

Lets divide the number of "vehicles with contributory factors" by the
number of "100 million vehicle kilometres" travelled for each vehicle
type.

Contri- 100M Accident contributions
Type butions VKM per 100M VKM
------------- ------- ---- ------------
LGV 7366 643 11
HGV 5673 291 19
Cars 117717 4024 29
Buses 2640 54 49
Pedal cycles 5751 46 125
Motorcycle 12749 52 245

Now we see a better picture of the number of "accidents" each vehicle
type contributes to, taking account of exposure.

Surely in this case 'hours spent at risk' should be used - i.e. use the
average speed of each type of vehicle to determine how long it's on the
road for...

No, he just wants to massage the figures to suit his prejudices, there's no science
involved here.

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Try getting out of your car and walking along an unlit road with
> your back to the traffic and then try it facing the traffic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I grew up in the Peak District.
I live in the Chilterns.

I am, thank you, rather used to walking on roads with no pavement.

There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk with
the traffic rather than against.

Quoted message said:

I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

So why are you arguing the opposite?

I'm not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also, when driving on such roads, take notice of which is easier to
> see, a person with their face towards you or the person with their
> back towards you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It doesn't actually make any difference whatsoever in the
circumstances described.

Quoted message said:

To whom?

To the visibility of the pedestrian.

As you've already said, that depends on the circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It *might* make a slight difference on a dark night to a road user
with inadequate vehicle lighting, if the pedestrian is wearing dark
clothing and the reflection off a pale skinned face is the only
contrast available.

But since the OP's already stated that it was known to be a bright
sunny day...

Quoted message said:

The pedestrian would have better sight (dpending on road
configuration and other variables) if facing oncoming traffic.

Indeed. But that doesn't affect how the cyclist failed to see him.

Do you know the full circumstances?

Quoted message said:

The cyclist cycled into the pedestrian. The pedestrian didn't walk
into the cyclist.

Oh dear. That's well below your usual standard.

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk with
> the traffic rather than against.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why are you arguing the opposite?

Quoted message said:

I'm not.

I must have misunderstood you, then, when you said

# Sadly it was the pedestrian who failed to take sensible precautions in
# that he was walking with his back to the traffic.

in reply to

## Unless the pedestrian suddenly stepped out in front of the cyclist, it
## is surely incumbent on a vehicle operator to drive with due care for
## those around.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It doesn't actually make any difference whatsoever in the
> circumstances described.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To whom?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To the visibility of the pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

As you've already said, that depends on the circumstances.

And in the circumstances AS DESCRIBED?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. But that doesn't affect how the cyclist failed to see him.

Quoted message said:

Do you know the full circumstances?

We know that it was a day with good visibility.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cyclist cycled into the pedestrian. The pedestrian didn't walk
into the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Oh dear. That's well below your usual standard.

*I'm* the one that's being a bit dense today? C'mon, Brim. Admit you're
wrong, and stop flailing. It's beneath you.

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk
>> with the traffic rather than against.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why are you arguing the opposite?

Quoted message said:

I'm not.

I must have misunderstood you, then, when you said

<quote snipped>

Indeed you did.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> It doesn't actually make any difference whatsoever in the
>> circumstances described.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> To whom?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To the visibility of the pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

As you've already said, that depends on the circumstances.

And in the circumstances AS DESCRIBED?

We don't know the circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. But that doesn't affect how the cyclist failed to see him.

Quoted message said:

Do you know the full circumstances?

We know that it was a day with good visibility.

And?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The cyclist cycled into the pedestrian. The pedestrian didn't walk
into the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Oh dear. That's well below your usual standard.

*I'm* the one that's being a bit dense today? C'mon, Brim. Admit
you're wrong, and stop flailing. It's beneath you.

If I was wrong I would (well maybe) but I'm not.

Unless there are very good reasons for not doing so pedestrians should walk
on the righthand side of the road so that they are facing the oncoming
traffic.

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Indeed. But that doesn't affect how the cyclist failed to see him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you know the full circumstances?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We know that it was a day with good visibility.

Quoted message said:

And?

And that's all you need to know to know that it doesn't make any difference
to the pedestrian's _visibility to the cyclist_ as to whether he was facing
the cyclist or facing away.

Only to the visibility of the cyclist to the pedestrian.

cupra said:

Bazza said:

cupra said:

Brimstone wrote:
> cupra wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:17:56 +0100,
>>>> Brimstone <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>>> Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily,
>>>>>> sounding much like they were saying :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "My brother was run into from behind in August last year
>>>>>>>>>>> by a cyclist,hit his head against a wall, died 6 weeks
>>>>>>>>>>> later still in a coma "
>>>>>>>>>> This was in Sowerby near Halifax, he was walking along a
>>>>>>>>>> quiet country lane.
>>>>>>>>> Does this lane have a footpath?
>>>>>>>> No footpath, the lane is just wide enough for 2 cars to pass.
>>>>>>> OK, that provides an explanation for the incident and does
>>>>>>> rather change the emphasis of responsibility.
>>>>>> No, it really doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A vehicular road user hit a pedestrian who was walking along
>>>>>> the road perfectly legally, correctly and safely.
>>>>> Not if the pedestrian was hit from behind he wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing that changes is that the vehicular road user
>>>>>> wasn't illegally using the pavement. It's still their fault,
>>>>>> unless the pedestrian suddenly dived into the road giving no
>>>>>> chance for avoidance.
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108
>>>>>
>>>>> Rule 2 refers.
>>>> There is no MUST / MUST NOT in rule 2.
>>> So one should automatically discount the sound advice contained in
>>> it? Walking with one's back to the traffic might not be illegal
>>> (since there are no laws relating to pedestrians AIUI) but it's
>>> neither correct nor safe.
>>>> It is exactly the same kind of wording as rule 59 which says that
>>>> cyclists should wear helmets and light coloured clothing.
>>> Nevertheless anyone with their wits about them walks on an road
>>> with no footpaths or lighting so that they can see what's
>>> approaching them. Walking with one's back to approaching traffic
>>> is a recipe for disaster as this poor chap found out.
>> Did he say which side of the road the collision took place on?
> Did he say that the cyclist was riding on the wrong side of this
> narrow lane?
He didn't say either as far as I can see.

Don't know which side of the road he was on or which way the cyclist
was travelling, still waiting for the inquest, but it was daylight
and with good visibility

Thanks for putting us right, Bazza.

(hope this thread isn't causing you any distress and the inquest gives you
some answers)

No I don't mind the thread at all, these accidents do happen always have
and always will, just part of life.
I take after my mother and have a practical outlook on life (she has
just gone 92 and has suffered more in life than I ever will) you just
pick yourself up and get on with it.

In this particular circumstance it was just unfortunate that he fell and
hit his head against the wall.

Brimstone said:

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

>>> There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk
>>> with the traffic rather than against.

Quoted message said:

>> I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

Quoted message said:

> So why are you arguing the opposite?

Quoted message said:

I'm not.

I must have misunderstood you, then, when you said

<quote snipped>

Indeed you did.

Dr Drivel, is that you?

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Indeed. But that doesn't affect how the cyclist failed to see him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Do you know the full circumstances?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We know that it was a day with good visibility.

Quoted message said:

And?

And that's all you need to know to know that it doesn't make any
difference to the pedestrian's _visibility to the cyclist_ as to
whether he was facing the cyclist or facing away.

Even given the fact that it does make a differnce?

Quoted message said:

Only to the visibility of the cyclist to the pedestrian.

Surely everyone should make themselves as visible as is possible and take
every opportunity to position themselves to see as much as they can?

Being legal doesn't stop one from being hit.

Steve Firth said:

Brimstone said:

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>>> There are a multitude of circumstances where it's safer to walk
>>>> with the traffic rather than against.

>>> I agree that there can be occasions when that's the case.

>> So why are you arguing the opposite?

> I'm not.

I must have misunderstood you, then, when you said

<quote snipped>

Indeed you did.

Dr Drivel, is that you?

Ah - a uk.diy legend!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And that's all you need to know to know that it doesn't make any
difference to the pedestrian's _visibility to the cyclist_ as to
whether he was facing the cyclist or facing away.

Quoted message said:

Even given the fact that it does make a differnce?

<awaits explanation of how>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only to the visibility of the cyclist to the pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

Surely everyone should make themselves as visible as is possible and take
every opportunity to position themselves to see as much as they can?

Indeed. That's not in doubt. What IS in doubt is your assertion that the
Person A standing *there* is more or less visible to me depending on
whether he's facing towards or away from me...

Bazza said:

Brimstone said:

Bazza said:

spindrift wrote:
> "My brother was run into from behind in August last year by a
> cyclist,
> hit his head against a wall, died 6 weeks later still in a coma "
>
> Oh my God, I'm sorry, where did this happen?
>
>
>
This was in Sowerby near Halifax, he was walking along a quiet
country lane.

Does this lane have a footpath?

No footpath, the lane is just wide enough for 2 cars to pass.

allways hated those types, compared to the single track ones nr my folks
place.

sorry about your brother.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He was cremated a year ago today, I allowed 4 hrs to
drive there (I can do it in 2.5 hrs on a good run) and arrived just after
the service
ended. 3 accidents on the M1 and one big one on the M62, I hate
driving on Fridays, always problems on the roads.

As ever, what can go wrong will.

Yes I am very philosophical about life, [censored] does happen and always
will, you just have to get over it and get on with life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And still waiting for the coroners report.

Sadly, all to common.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "My brother was run into from behind in August last year by a
>>> cyclist,hit his head against a wall, died 6 weeks later still in a
>>> coma "

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> This was in Sowerby near Halifax, he was walking along a quiet
>> country lane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Does this lane have a footpath?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No footpath, the lane is just wide enough for 2 cars to pass.

Quoted message said:

OK, that provides an explanation for the incident and does rather
change the emphasis of responsibility.

No, it really doesn't.

A vehicular road user hit a pedestrian who was walking along the road
perfectly legally, correctly and safely.

The only thing that changes is that the vehicular road user wasn't
illegally using the pavement. It's still their fault, unless the pedestrian
suddenly dived into the road giving no chance for avoidance.

if it was a lane, then if you drive, bike. pogo stick what ever, faster
than you can stop within sight. then you are asking for trouble. any
thing from livestock to mud on the road to branches or stones from a
wall.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Brimstone said:

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

>> Sadly it was the pedestrian who failed to take sensible precautions
>> in that he was walking with his back to the traffic.

Quoted message said:

> It may very well be that that was the correct place to be walking.

Quoted message said:

>> It's very possible that he was invisible to approaching traffic.

Quoted message said:

> <boggle>
> Yet if he'd been in EXACTLY the same position but rotated 180deg,
> he'd have been perfectly clearly visible?

Quoted message said:

More visible, yes

Ummm, Brim... Most kids realise that "I can't see you therefore you
can't see me" doesn't apply at about 6mo old...

Quoted message said:

and equally to the point, able to see the approaching traffic and
take action if needed.

Sorry, mate, but I fail to see how you can possibly claim this is
anything BUT the cyclist's fault

Why do you think the advice is in the HC?

Try getting out of your car and walking along an unlit road with your back
to the traffic and then try it facing the traffic. Also, when driving on
such roads, take notice of which is easier to see, a person with their face
towards you or the person with their back towards you. You might need to
recruit some help for the latter experiment.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that the cyclist wasn't (at best) careless, merely
that the pedestrian failed to follow "best practice".

Lanes will have people walking on them, as well as most other beasts.
and the odd rock or branch and all number of other things.

the wider lanes do have the problem that people drive them like they
would any other type of road, ie way too fast.

if your lucky and you drive like that then' you'll hit something soft,
unlucky it could kill you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even factoring in your normal
"Devil's Advocate" role.

Not applicable in this instance.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

And made eye contact with the car drivers before pulling back in.

I see this mentioned quite a lot on here as though it's a significant
thing. What about those of us who don't make eye contact at all? I've
never liked looking other people in the face and avoid it if at all
possible, I'd never do it when driving as my eyes are better employed
watching for other traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, people who use kids
in push-chairs as traffic calming devices by shoving them out into the
road ahead of them, etc. If I see a cyclist I tend to slow down or
otherwise adjust speed or position to give them roadspace, but I don't
make any kind of contact.

I'm probably in a minority, but not everyone makes eye contact, so
relying on it seems a bit risky IMHO?

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Pyromancer said:

I'm probably in a minority, but not everyone makes eye contact, so
relying on it seems a bit risky IMHO?

The point is not about relying on being going to make eye contact, but
that _having_made_ eye contact, you can be slightly more positive
about some things.

That is, if it's someone that doesn't make eye contact, you treat them
the same as someone that does, but just hasn't. If you do make eye
contact, you might adjust your behaviour.

At least, that's how I work.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Matt B said:

David Martin said:

Adrian said:

Brimstone ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (since there are no laws relating to pedestrians AIUI)
You may like to have a slightly less superficial glance at the HC's
pedestrian section - specifically rules 6, 16, 18, 34

Quoted message said:

Unless the pedestrian suddenly stepped out in front of the cyclist, it
is surely incumbent on a vehicle operator to drive with due care for
those around.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

The highway code is an excuse to allow motorists to
drive faster.

As indeed are many, if not /most/, manifestations of our orthodox "road
safety" policies.

Quoted message said:

The absence of reflective clothing, or any particular road position on
the part of another road user is no excuse for not being able to
conduct your vehicle safely on the public highway (motorways are not
highways )

Absolutely.

--
Matt B

Something is wrong here. We are in agreement.

...d