Hit by cyclist

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W K said:

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email hidden]> wrote

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>So you were jaywalking.
>
>Be glad you didn't do it in front of a car.

Somewhat harsh.

Yes. In one of those moods.

Quoted message said:

The original poster could be

1. A troll trying to illicit the kind of respose you gave, thus

perpetuating

Quoted message said:

the myth that "cyclists" think themselves above the law.

I thought it was a troll, but uk.t types would be (in fact,

_regularly_are_)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quite happy to blame pedestrians crossing in front of vehicles.

Well, they're in the wrong then. It has never, I believe, been established in the English courts
whether it is legal to drive a car on any road in England,

Quite probable. After all, it has never been established in the English courts whether it is illegal
to murder people :-)

Quoted message said:

and (I believe, but this may be an urban myth) that a High Court judge has unofficially said that
considering the law as a whole it probably is not.

If this is true, I'd be interested in the logic - and why (or if) there is a differentiation between
motorised vehicles and non motorised vehicles (which I believe is a relatively recent idea).

Quoted message said:

Whereas walking on any road except a
motorway is unambiguously legal.

Strictly speaking - it is illegal to walk on a road where a TRO banning pedestrians has been imposed
and motorways aren't legally roads - rather "special roads".

But thats just pedantery :-)

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Marcgan' usenet- said:

The original poster i.e. me, falls into category No.2 on Helen's list.

I fully appreciate that many cyclists are poisoned against motorists - and probably with some
justification. However, those cyclists who dole out the sort of comment made by WK (above) have
clearly lost their sense of place and have become to pedestrians as many motorists are to
cyclists. I should be very sorry as a pedestrian to find myself obliged to reconsider my
attitude towards cyclists.

I'm trying to understand what happened here..

You were crossing TCR when a cyclist travelling along TCR nearly collided with you?

If this is the case (and the cyclist hadn't just jumped red lights etc.) :

Given the width of TCR and the time it takes to cross, the cyclist must

have

Quoted message said:

been clearly visible for some time (or you were dodging through traffic so the view was obscured,
either ay your description isn't complete)

If you saw him then you must have known that you were on a collision

course

Quoted message said:

and have expected him to brake sharply or otherwise take avoiding action which could be difficult
or hazardous at speed. If you didn't see him then either you weren't looking (and failing then to
proceed with due care and attention) or views were obscured and he was as surprised as you were.

It is not normal to expect pedestrians to just walk in front of you

In some circumstances I would say it *is* normal for pedestrians to just walk out in front of you.
Leamington's Upper Parade sprigns to mind.

"Cicero" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No, he didn't but I replied to a post timed at 12:34 from 'WK' who

described

Quoted message said:

the offending cyclist as '.....this OAP lycra lout......'. That's why I enclosed the description
in single quotes. You can read it for yourself.

And so I did, so apologies for having a go at you. But WK.....

Quoted message said:

I don't make judgments on the way people dress, no matter how different

they

Quoted message said:

are from me.

Yes, but not everybody has your standards :-)
--
Regards, Pete

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Cicero" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ezQUb.8214$Tu1.74872096@news-
text.cableinet.net...

Quoted message said:

No, he didn't but I replied to a post timed at 12:34 from 'WK' who

described

Quoted message said:

the offending cyclist as '.....this OAP lycra lout......'. That's why I enclosed the description
in single

quotes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can read it for yourself.

And so I did, so apologies for having a go at you. But WK.....

Quoted message said:

I don't make judgments on the way people dress, no matter how different

they

Quoted message said:

are from me.

Yes, but not everybody has your standards :-)
--
Regards, Pete

===========
No offence taken, I assure you.

Cic.

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you saw him then you must have known that you were on a collision

course

Quoted message said:

and have expected him to brake sharply or otherwise take avoiding action which could be difficult
or hazardous at speed. If you didn't see him then either you weren't looking (and failing then to
proceed with due care and attention) or views were obscured and he was as surprised as you were.

Yebbut, the same applies to the cyclist and regardless of who had precedence the cyclist would have
had time to slow down unless he was travelling at a speed that didn't allow sufficient distance to
slow down........and I've read plenty in the uk.tosspot flame wars about what cyclists think of
motorists who drive in a similar manner. Surely any cyclist with a sense of self-preservation
expects peds to potentially step in front of them (and this ped had nearly completed his crossing so
therefore hadn't just stepped out) and cycle accordingly, after all the cyclist may come off as bad,
or worse, than the ped.
--
Regards, Pete

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Cicero" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ezQUb.8214$Tu1.74872096@news-
text.cableinet.net...

Quoted message said:

No, he didn't but I replied to a post timed at 12:34 from 'WK' who

described

Quoted message said:

the offending cyclist as '.....this OAP lycra lout......'. That's why I enclosed the description
in single

quotes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You can read it for yourself.

And so I did, so apologies for having a go at you. But WK.....

Go on then.

The OP still hasn't given enough info to make me convinced that this was not an exaggerated rant
(from him ... not me!). Up to 0.8 seconds before the "accident" the cyclist may have been behaving
somewhere between badly and slightly carelessly (or just perplexed at meandering pedestrians).

The OP seems to have concentrated on what happened from the moment the cyclist would have realised
an accident was about to happen. At this point cyclist is crapping themself and seems to be behaving
extremely offensively- if the OP had done much cycling, he might have recognised what happens to
one's body and mind when you get such a huge boost of adrenaline. "Lycra Lout", for me, is more of
an insult to those who use the term, than those who get the term slapped on them, as you (PB) were
perhaps hinting in your first post on this subject - ie "surely he was clad in Lycra".

W K said:

The OP still hasn't given enough info to make me convinced that this was not an exaggerated rant
(from him ... not me!).

It seems beyond reasonable doubt to me.

Personally, I like to see cyclists behaving badly, riding dangerously and incompetently. Given that
there are undoubtedly lots of aggressive, inconsiderate and incompetent people about, it would be
better for everyone if they rode bicycles rather than driving cars.

James

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

I do like it when people are suitably subservient to me ;-)

I think a lot of people would rather enjoy being suitably subservient.

I'll get my coat.
--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

3. A pedestrian who looks out for cars but not for bikes when crossing

4. A pedestrian that looks for neither cars nor bikes when crossing.

etc

Indeed - and didn't set limits on what the options could be. But for it to be *assumed* the
pedestrian was jaywalking is as bad as the believers of the Church of Clarkson (or anyone else)
who assume all cyclists are in the wrong :-)

Absolutely.

In message <[email hidden]>, Marcgan <usenet-
[email hidden]> writes

although many cyclists ride in a moderate, self-preserving and cooperative way, those who do not -
and there are many of them - ride with a wanton disregard for other road users and seem to assert a
right to behave in any way they wish regardless of the interests or welfare of others.

Nothing new there - there's loads of comments on this group (many from me this year alone) about how
people on bicycles ignore the rules of the road.

--
congokid Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google congokid.comcongokid.comOpen ↗

Nathaniel Porter said:

In some circumstances I would say it *is* normal for pedestrians to just walk out in front of you.
Leamington's Upper Parade sprigns to mind.

Try cycling through Southall. :-)

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Adrian Boliston
"Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is "jaywalking"? Since when did a pedestrian lose the right to cross the road at any point he
chooses unless there is a specific prohibition (e.g. No Pedestrian Sign) in place?

It is however customary to wait for a gap in the traffic. I did recently see a man who looked like a
tramp cross the busy 4 lane road outside my flat by just walking out and put his hand out to stop
the traffic, which I guess is legal, but I'm not sure I'd go for that method!

Good grief - in the UK pedestrians can jump right out in front of you and have right-of-way? And I thought riding in the States was complicated!

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:42:25 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

🙂 )"Marcgan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
🙂"]news:[email hidden]... )> This morning, 10.00 London - Chenies Road at
:the junction with Tottenham )> Court Road. I was crossing the road and was almost at the other side
🙂> when a cylclist travelling fast shouted at me and raced through the 3' )> gap between me and the
:kerb ) )So you were jaywalking.

I take it he was walking on a public highway - which he has a legal right to do so.
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:13:41 -0000, "Stephen \(aka steford\)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote: )>> So you were jaywalking. )>> )>> Be glad you didn't do
:it in front of a car. )> )> Somewhat harsh. )> )> The original poster could be )> )> 1. A troll
:trying to illicit the kind of respose you gave, thus )> perpetuating the myth that "cyclists" think
:themselves above the law. )> )> 2. An entirely honest poster who was almost run-over by a cyclist
🙂> behaving in a stupid and dangerous manner. Not all cyclists are )> paragons of virtue and *if*
:the original poster is legitimate and not )> trolling - such bad behaviour by a cyclist, or any
:road user, should )> not be condoned. )> )3. A pedestrian who looks out for cars but not for bikes
:when crossing ) )4. A pedestrian that looks for neither cars nor bikes when crossing.

Yes I know them - they have a white stick and listen for the cars...
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:27:11 -0000, "Adrian Boliston"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂"Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
🙂"]news:[email hidden]... ) )> What is "jaywalking"? Since when did a
:pedestrian lose the right to )> cross the road at any point he chooses unless there is a specific
🙂> prohibition (e.g. No Pedestrian Sign) in place? ) )It is however customary to wait for a gap in
:the traffic.

I think customary is putting it a bit strong ! Courteous, perhaps. Equally courteous for the vehicle
drivers/riders to stop to allow the ped to cross.

I did recently see a
🙂man who looked like a tramp cross the busy 4 lane road outside my flat by just )walking out
:and put his hand out to stop the traffic, which I guess is legal, but )I'm not sure I'd go for
:that method!

It works with care. I do it on the bike now an underpass has been closed.
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:22:08 +0000, Richard Bates
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂The highway code states that when turning into a side road, )pedestrians crossing that side road
:have priority over you. It says )nothing about situations when there is no junction involved.

It sort of does. But no legal requirement. But it also doesn't mention that the ped will have rights
to sue you if you hit him - whether at a junction or a straight bit of road.

🙂 )Somebody knowledgeable may know the answer to this: The highway code )many years ago lost the
:phrase "the pedestrian has right of way at all )times". Even though it is no longer in the HC, does
:it still appear in )the Road Traffic Act ?

My own interpretation is that on a "normal" bit of highway, you have the right to the bit of highway
you are on whether on foot, a bike or driving any other vehicle.

Where your next bit of highway is also going to be the next bit for someone else, there's a problem
and one or the other has to give way. The person who gets to it first has the right to it and the
right to not be moved off it by a 38tonne truck travelling at 70MPH if the ped got there first !
--
Comm again, Mike.

Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

" He probably was. "

In the absence of the cyclist's own account and the noted absence of any significant further
information from the OP in secondary postings I'm happy to offer expert comment to inform the debate
on this incident (10 years courier and still intact - stop nattering at the back).

TCtRd is a straight 3/4 mile multi-lane one-way race track northbound punctuated by several traffic
lights and on which motorised vehicles generally strive to reach green or amber or just-turned-red
lights to avoid being held at unarguably red. There are no significant restraints such as visible
speed/lights cameras.

There are two W-E one-way routes crossing it. One is Goodge St/Chenies St at a staggered junction
(about 10 yards) which includes a set of lights at the Goodge St side. The most likely scenarios for
the cyclist are that he was at the head of traffic released by lights either northbound on TCtRd or
eastbound from Goodge St. In either event his main objective would be to enter Chenies St before
vehicles turn right across his path at the Chenies St junction. All cyclists here know that this
manoeuvre is what leg muscles are for.

The alternative scenarios - that the cyclist was in free flowing traffic, either northbound or
eastbound, would suggest a minimum speed through the junction of about 15 mph for the cyclist. Less
would be deadly dangerous and more would be preferable. (Speed differentials increase the risk for
cyclists in moving traffic.)

I can't be judge as well as expert witness so I can't find for the cyclist or the pedestrian but I
can coin the expression DEFENSIVE PEDESTRIANISM and yes, I did shout that.

M

Put Mars in subject of any direct reply or you'll be trashed.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:26:35 GMT, terryhutt1959
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂Adrian Boliston wrote: ) > "Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote
🙂 > in message :3ev620tt-"]news:[email hidden]:3ev620tt- ) >
:[email hidden]... ) > > What is "jaywalking"? Since when did a pedestrian lose
:the right to ) > > cross the road at any point he chooses unless there is a specific ) > >
:prohibition (e.g. No Pedestrian Sign) in place? ) > It is however customary to wait for a gap in
:the traffic. I did recently ) > see a man who looked like a tramp cross the busy 4 lane road
:outside my ) > flat by just walking out and put his hand out to stop the traffic, which ) > I guess
:is legal, but I'm not sure I'd go for that method! ) ) ) )Good grief - in the UK pedestrians can
:jump right out in front of you )and have right-of-way? And I thought riding in the States was
🙂complicated! )

Pedestrians were here first !

Also, we stick to the global scheme of things where bigger gives way to smaller...

shipping tankers give way to smaller powered vessels which give way to sail powered which give way
to rowing boats.

747s give way to light aircraft which give way to gliders which give way to balloonists.

Pedestrians are banned from motorways - it is illegal for them to be there. However, that doesn't
make it legal to run them over !
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:30:02 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂W K wrote: )> )> We only have one side of the story, and I certainly didn't have enough )>
:information at the start to know that he was turning into a side road (which )> has a specific
:mention) - which does make one hell of a difference. )> ) )Having one side of the story has not
:stopped a round condemnation in the past )when the victim was a cyclist. Why change the rules now?

I don't even think the other side of the story is even necessary in this case as it is in effect
only hypothetical.
--
Comm again, Mike.

"pmailkeey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

terryhutt1959 said:

Pedestrians were here first !

Also, we stick to the global scheme of things where bigger gives way to smaller...

shipping tankers give way to smaller powered vessels which give way to sail powered which give way
to rowing boats.

Er no,not quite. There exists a set of International rules (COLREGS) which define who gives way to
whom. Basically boats are divided into power or sail. Power gives way to sail but with some
exceptions; manouvring with difficulty, constrained by draught, navigating in narrow channel,
engaged in fishing. Two powered vessels in open water give way depending on their relative position,
size has nothing to do with it.

HTH Julia

Quoted message said:

747s give way to light aircraft which give way to gliders which give way to balloonists.

Pedestrians are banned from motorways - it is illegal for them to be there. However, that doesn't
make it legal to run them over !
--
Comm again, Mike.