Here we go again

Adrian said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Not if the pedestrian was hit from behind he wasn't.

Would you care to point me to which law states that you have to walk
facing oncoming traffic - it's merely sensible advice in _some_
circumstances.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were in favour of people using
their commonsense and basic intelligence to make decisions, or are you
really suggesting that we should have laws to determine all our actions in
all circumstances?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Wrong.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Rule 2 refers.

Including the last para?
"It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand
bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you."

Indeed, and I would agree with that, hence I didn't cherry pick when
offering the quote.

Brimstone said:

Andy Leighton said:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:17:56 +0100,

Brimstone said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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?

Adrian said:

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

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

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. The highway code is an excuse to allow motorists to
drive faster. If the pedestrian was legally on the road and behaving
legally then one can only (on the limited evidence available) presume
that it was the cyclists fault. Cyclists do make mistakes. Fortunately
fatal ones for third parties are usually rare.

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 )

...d

David Martin said:

Adrian said:

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

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

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. The highway code is an excuse to allow motorists to
drive faster. If the pedestrian was legally on the road and behaving
legally then one can only (on the limited evidence available) presume
that it was the cyclists fault. Cyclists do make mistakes. Fortunately
fatal ones for third parties are usually rare.

Sadly it was the pedestrian who failed to take sensible precautions in that
he was walking with his back to the traffic. It's very possible that he was
invisible to approaching traffic.

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 )

Agreed.

cupra said:

Brimstone said:

Andy Leighton said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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?

Brimstone said:

cupra said:

Brimstone said:

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.

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.

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.

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

cupra said:

Brimstone said:

cupra said:

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.

Then why do you raise the question?

cupra said:

Brimstone said:

cupra said:

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

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.

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.

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

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

David Martin said:

Adrian said:

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

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Bazza said:

cupra said:

Brimstone said:

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)

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

Brimstone said:

cupra said:

Brimstone said:

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.

Then why do you raise the question?

I assumed from:

"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"

That you meant that the deceased was walking with his back to traffic - if
you meant another chap that I've missed then I do apologise.

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

Adrian said:

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

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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".

Quoted message said:

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

Not applicable in this instance.

cupra said:

Bazza said:

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.

Quite. For some reason I'd got the impression that the incident had taken
place at night.

Quoted message said:

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

Absolutely.

cupra said:

Brimstone 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.

Then why do you raise the question?

I assumed from:

"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"

That you meant that the deceased was walking with his back to traffic
- if you meant another chap that I've missed then I do apologise.

That is indeed what I meant.

Brimstone said:

cupra wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then why do you raise the question?

I assumed from:

"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"

That you meant that the deceased was walking with his back to traffic
- if you meant another chap that I've missed then I do apologise.

That is indeed what I meant.

I think Bazza's last post says it all - we don't know.

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

--
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:

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.

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.

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...

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.