Nearly flatened a pedestrian this morning



D

Duncan Smith

Guest

>
> You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. IF you go around
> a corner, and there is an obstacle in the way, you should stop, not
> blindly cycle into it.
>


Naturally I would have stopped if I'd seen him, I'm not a monster.
The light-set was working well and I wasn't riding riding fast or
aggressively - so I don't think I was breaking the law in either of
those two regards.

If some guy walks around in the dark with his head down not looking or
checking where he's going then an accident is more likely to occur. I
think to some extent both parties could have been more careful - but
people should treat the roads with respect and keep a look out, not
simply rely on the fact that 'I've started so I'll finish and don't
need to care'.

Look right, look left, look again. Isn't that what they taught us at
the Tufty Club in Primary school?

If I cross a road that has high speed traffic coming around a 90deg
blind bend and don't find or wait for a pelican crossing I keep a
sharp look out to the left and get ready to break into a trot if needs
be. That's good common sense, no matter what the finer points of the
highway code may say.

Regards,

Duncan
 
On Nov 22, 11:31 am, bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 5:58 am, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <1i7y8w8.1u0e1g3ycwx8wN%
> >> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> >> [email protected] says...

>
> >>> I know of no authoritative source for this but believe (from a lot of
> >>> recent hearsay) that pedestrians pretty much always have right of way.
> >> So if a pedestrian leaps out in front if me, inside my minimum stopping
> >> distance, it's my fault when I hit him. Not.

>
> > well, that would depend on the circumstances but if, as is more
> > likely, a pedestrian steps out without looking and you are going too
> > fast to be able to avoid a collision then yes, it could well be wholly
> > or partially your fault. There is case law to support every road
> > user's duty to account for unwise behaviour by a second party

>
> I was riding at 17-18 mph, 1 yard out from
> the kerb.
>
> If you think this is inappropriate,
> what do you suggest I should have been doing?


IMO that is pretty fast for cycling that close to a pavement with
pedestrians on it. What I would suggest doing differently would
depend on the circumstances and I don't know enough detail about your
event to comment specifically but it would be likely to involve moving
further out or going more slowly

best wishes
james
 
On Nov 22, 11:43 am, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. IF you go around
> > a corner, and there is an obstacle in the way, you should stop, not
> > blindly cycle into it.

>
> Naturally I would have stopped if I'd seen him, I'm not a monster.

I am encourage to hear that ! :)
> The light-set was working well and I wasn't riding riding fast or
> aggressively - so I don't think I was breaking the law in either of
> those two regards.


but you didn't have time to avoid a collision with another party who
was undertaking a legal manouvre for which the highway code
specifically affords him priority over you. That has got to mean
either going to fast or not paying enough attention or both regardless
of whether the second party could have taken additional precautions
that would have mitigated the risk you posed


> If some guy walks around in the dark with his head down not looking or
> checking where he's going then an accident is more likely to occur. I
> think to some extent both parties could have been more careful - but
> people should treat the roads with respect and keep a look out, not
> simply rely on the fact that 'I've started so I'll finish and don't
> need to care'.


I deliberately try to avoid giving the impression that I have looked
when crossing a side road as a pedestrian. Perhaps he had seen you
and was relying on you doing the same and honouring his priority.
There was certainly some miscalulation between the two of you.

> Look right, look left, look again. Isn't that what they taught us at
> the Tufty Club in Primary school?


that and observing the highway code eg.


"103-158: General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and
riders
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists
and horse riders. The rules in /The Highway Code do not give you the
right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should
give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an
incident./"

and rules 205, 206 (esp bullet point 6)

>
> If I cross a road that has high speed traffic coming around a 90deg
> blind bend and don't find or wait for a pelican crossing I keep a
> sharp look out to the left and get ready to break into a trot if needs
> be. That's good common sense, no matter what the finer points of the
> highway code may say.


indeed it is common sense. A pedestrian might enounter you under
these circumstances :)

best wishes
james
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <f8849111-921e-4032-8c25-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
[email protected] says...

> well, that would depend on the circumstances but if, as is more
> likely, a pedestrian steps out without looking and you are going too
> fast to be able to avoid a collision then yes, it could well be wholly
> or partially your fault. There is case law to support every road
> user's duty to account for unwise behaviour by a second party
>

Show me some case law where a careless/reckless pedestrian caused an
accident with a legal road user and was found blameless.
 
D

Duncan Smith

Guest
On Nov 22, 12:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 11:43 am, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:> > You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. IF you go around
> > > a corner, and there is an obstacle in the way, you should stop, not
> > > blindly cycle into it.

>
> > Naturally I would have stopped if I'd seen him, I'm not a monster.

>
> I am encourage to hear that ! :)
>
> > The light-set was working well and I wasn't riding riding fast or
> > aggressively - so I don't think I was breaking the law in either of
> > those two regards.

>
> but you didn't have time to avoid a collision with another party who
> was undertaking a legal manouvre for which the highway code
> specifically affords him priority over you. That has got to mean
> either going to fast or not paying enough attention or both regardless
> of whether the second party could have taken additional precautions
> that would have mitigated the risk you posed
>
> > If some guy walks around in the dark with his head down not looking or
> > checking where he's going then an accident is more likely to occur. I
> > think to some extent both parties could have been more careful - but
> > people should treat the roads with respect and keep a look out, not
> > simply rely on the fact that 'I've started so I'll finish and don't
> > need to care'.

>
> I deliberately try to avoid giving the impression that I have looked
> when crossing a side road as a pedestrian. Perhaps he had seen you
> and was relying on you doing the same and honouring his priority.
> There was certainly some miscalulation between the two of you.
>
> > Look right, look left, look again. Isn't that what they taught us at
> > the Tufty Club in Primary school?

>
> that and observing the highway code eg.
>
> "103-158: General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and
> riders
> This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists
> and horse riders. The rules in /The Highway Code do not give you the
> right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should
> give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an
> incident./"
>
> and rules 205, 206 (esp bullet point 6)
>
>
>
> > If I cross a road that has high speed traffic coming around a 90deg
> > blind bend and don't find or wait for a pelican crossing I keep a
> > sharp look out to the left and get ready to break into a trot if needs
> > be. That's good common sense, no matter what the finer points of the
> > highway code may say.

>
> indeed it is common sense. A pedestrian might enounter you under
> these circumstances :)
>
> best wishes
> james


Some good points there, thanks. Though I still struggle to see why
the pedestrian always wins 100% of the time. Seems the cyclist always
rides into the pedestrian, with no scope for a careless pedestrian to
walk into a cyclist. Can pedestrians do no wrong, ever?

Regards,

Duncan
 
On Nov 22, 1:21 pm, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 12:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 11:43 am, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:> > You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. IF you go around
> > > > a corner, and there is an obstacle in the way, you should stop, not
> > > > blindly cycle into it.

>
> > > Naturally I would have stopped if I'd seen him, I'm not a monster.

>
> > I am encourage to hear that ! :)

>
> > > The light-set was working well and I wasn't riding riding fast or
> > > aggressively - so I don't think I was breaking the law in either of
> > > those two regards.

>
> > but you didn't have time to avoid a collision with another party who
> > was undertaking a legal manouvre for which the highway code
> > specifically affords him priority over you. That has got to mean
> > either going to fast or not paying enough attention or both regardless
> > of whether the second party could have taken additional precautions
> > that would have mitigated the risk you posed

>
> > > If some guy walks around in the dark with his head down not looking or
> > > checking where he's going then an accident is more likely to occur. I
> > > think to some extent both parties could have been more careful - but
> > > people should treat the roads with respect and keep a look out, not
> > > simply rely on the fact that 'I've started so I'll finish and don't
> > > need to care'.

>
> > I deliberately try to avoid giving the impression that I have looked
> > when crossing a side road as a pedestrian. Perhaps he had seen you
> > and was relying on you doing the same and honouring his priority.
> > There was certainly some miscalulation between the two of you.

>
> > > Look right, look left, look again. Isn't that what they taught us at
> > > the Tufty Club in Primary school?

>
> > that and observing the highway code eg.

>
> > "103-158: General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and
> > riders
> > This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists
> > and horse riders. The rules in /The Highway Code do not give you the
> > right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should
> > give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an
> > incident./"

>
> > and rules 205, 206 (esp bullet point 6)

>
> > > If I cross a road that has high speed traffic coming around a 90deg
> > > blind bend and don't find or wait for a pelican crossing I keep a
> > > sharp look out to the left and get ready to break into a trot if needs
> > > be. That's good common sense, no matter what the finer points of the
> > > highway code may say.

>
> > indeed it is common sense. A pedestrian might enounter you under
> > these circumstances :)

>
> > best wishes
> > james

>
> Some good points there, thanks. Though I still struggle to see why
> the pedestrian always wins 100% of the time. Seems the cyclist always
> rides into the pedestrian, with no scope for a careless pedestrian to
> walk into a cyclist. Can pedestrians do no wrong, ever?
>

glad we can achieve something positive. The ped gets extra points on
the hierarchy of VRUs so tends to get the benefit of the doubt but
leaving aside a pedestrian who is hell bent on achieving a collision
(which is rather a straw man) then either you can see a ped in time
and need to anticipate their behaviour (even if this means you need to
slow down and "waste" some of your effort) or you can't see them and
need to moderate your speed to account for the possibility of someone
"popping out of nowhere". There is obviously a continuum of
responsibilty between any two road using parties who interact but I
think that the reality is a lot closer to the pedestrian being
blameless than many non-ped road users assume

best wishes
james
 
B

bugbear

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I had a similar one yesterday near London Victoria. Man sauntering
>> across the road so I aimed to go round behind him when he suddenly sees
>> me and stops dead right on the spot I am heading for. I make a further
>> correction to go further behind him when he starts to step backwards in
>> panic. I eventually ended up coming to a stop in front of him and let
>> him sort himself out and go on his way. If only the dozy idiot had
>> carried on walking all would have been fine.

>
> A chap on a scooter used that excuse when I was using a zebra crossing.
> He has now been charged with dangerous driving. I stopped because I
> feared that he wouldn't stop in time. It may not have been a logical
> response. Please, cycle more carefully.


The key phrase that makes the two incidents less comparable is
"I was using a zebra crossing"

BugBear
 
B

bugbear

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> bugbear <bugbe[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> I wasn't going fast, but I knew that I'd have to keep an eye on the
>>>>> hooded young lady, in case she did something stupid. Sure enough, just
>>>>> before I reached them, she steps off the pavement, right into my path.
>>>> I had a school boy (guess age 17) do this;
>>>> He was of the "too cool for school" persuasion,
>>>> swaggering along, talking at his mates.
>>>>
>>>> Then he just stepped...
>>>>
>>>> I shoulder checked him - hard.
>>> Who had right of way?

>> Well, I'm willing to be corrected on the highway code,
>> but I was riding along, on the road, about 1 yard from the pavement.
>>
>> I think *I* had right of way.

>
> You are, as I understand it, wrong.
>
> I know of no authoritative source for this but believe (from a lot of
> recent hearsay) that pedestrians pretty much always have right of way.
>
> Certainly, if you shoulder checked me, hard, (as you say) I would be
> minded to report your assault to the police.


see you in court. good luck ;-)

BugBear
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:


> > Certainly, if you shoulder checked me, hard, (as you say) I would be
> > minded to report your assault to the police.

>
> see you in court. good luck ;-)


If that's your attitude, you truly should not be allowed on the roads.

Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 5:58 am, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <1i7y8w8.1u0e1g3ycwx8wN%
> >> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> >> [email protected] says...
> >>
> >>> I know of no authoritative source for this but believe (from a lot of
> >>> recent hearsay) that pedestrians pretty much always have right of way.
> >> So if a pedestrian leaps out in front if me, inside my minimum stopping
> >> distance, it's my fault when I hit him. Not.

> >
> > well, that would depend on the circumstances but if, as is more
> > likely, a pedestrian steps out without looking and you are going too
> > fast to be able to avoid a collision then yes, it could well be wholly
> > or partially your fault. There is case law to support every road
> > user's duty to account for unwise behaviour by a second party

>
> I was riding at 17-18 mph, 1 yard out from
> the kerb.
>
> If you think this is inappropriate,
> what do you suggest I should have been doing?


I would not ride 1 yard out from the kerb at that speed. There are far
too many potential hazards there.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I had a similar one yesterday near London Victoria. Man sauntering
> >> across the road so I aimed to go round behind him when he suddenly sees
> >> me and stops dead right on the spot I am heading for. I make a further
> >> correction to go further behind him when he starts to step backwards in
> >> panic. I eventually ended up coming to a stop in front of him and let
> >> him sort himself out and go on his way. If only the dozy idiot had
> >> carried on walking all would have been fine.

> >
> > A chap on a scooter used that excuse when I was using a zebra crossing.
> > He has now been charged with dangerous driving. I stopped because I
> > feared that he wouldn't stop in time. It may not have been a logical
> > response. Please, cycle more carefully.

>
> The key phrase that makes the two incidents less comparable is
> "I was using a zebra crossing"


My understanding is that a pedestrian already crossing has the same
legal right of way as a pedestrian using a zebra crossing.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 21 Nov, 22:46, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> > Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I suspect by the time I'd turned the corner, he was already in the
> > > road. It wasn't a zebra crossing and the traffic lights were on
> > > green. Surely that gives me right of way?

> >
> > What do you think that a green light means?
> >
> > > How do you work out that any bike or car hitting a pedestrian in the road
> > > is almost certainly the fault of the bike or car? Shouldn't pedestrians
> > > look both ways and make sure the way is clear before crossing?

> >
> > Please read the Highway Code.
> >
> > "There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping
> > unexpectedly into the road."
> >
> > "Drive carefully and slowly when... turning at road junctions; give way
> > to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are
> > turning"
> >

>
> I was cycling along the offside of a stationary line of traffic.


Are you Duncan Smith? If not, please ignore the following.

I thought you said "traffic lights were on green so I just turn left and
after a score of yards or so have a collision".

Firstly: what do you think that a green light means?

Secondly: did you drive carefully and slowly when... turning at road
junctions and give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road
into which you are turning?

> There was no oncoming traffic in sight. A pinstriped important person
> strode out right in front of me from between two cars, without looking in
> my direction. With a cry of "Mummy", I clashed shoulders with him, without
> knocking his bloody silly mobile phone out of his ear/hand (probably
> hardly interrupted the flow). I rode on with a slight oscillation,and some
> adrenalin entering my system (better late than never).
>
> And, apparently, I was to blame?


My personal opinion is that you were. My opinion, however, is
unimportant as I'm neither a judge nor a juror and this is not a court
of law.

Most pedestrians would not look out for vehicles overtaking a stationary
line of traffic. All I'm suggesting is that you see this from the
pedestrian's point of view and take more care in future.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. IF you go around
> > a corner, and there is an obstacle in the way, you should stop, not
> > blindly cycle into it.


> Naturally I would have stopped if I'd seen him, I'm not a monster.


I think a lot of motorists would use those exact words in a collision
with a vulnerable road user.

<snip>

> If I cross a road that has high speed traffic coming around a 90deg
> blind bend and don't find or wait for a pelican crossing I keep a
> sharp look out to the left and get ready to break into a trot if needs
> be. That's good common sense, no matter what the finer points of the
> highway code may say.


I thought this traffic was stationary. I'm really confused now. I was
taught /never/ to run across roads. I still don't.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:10:52 -0000, Mark McNeill
> <[email protected]> wrote:


> >And I'm curious at the equation of "he has right of way" with "you have
> >to stop" as opposed to,

>
> That's what right of way means... they have the right to use that part
> of the road, so you no longer do, therefore you don't have to stop -
> you could turn around, but you certainly cannot enter his part of the
> road...


Indeed, I believe the HC used words such as "you should not edge
forward" or "encroach". This is from memory.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i7zmy9.16l042bnf79p3N%[email protected]

> I thought this traffic was stationary. I'm really confused now. I was
> taught /never/ to run across roads. I still don't.


It's like a lot of things - it's best to teach that. However running across
roads is fine so long as you know what you're doing (ie have made the
appropriate checks, know where the stuff you're trying to avoid is, etc -
all basic road sense.)

cheers,
clive
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1i7zmy9.16l042bnf79p3N%[email protected]
>
> > I thought this traffic was stationary. I'm really confused now. I was
> > taught /never/ to run across roads. I still don't.

>
> It's like a lot of things - it's best to teach that. However running across
> roads is fine so long as you know what you're doing (ie have made the
> appropriate checks, know where the stuff you're trying to avoid is, etc -
> all basic road sense.)


The reason I don't run across roads nowadays has a lot to do with my
belief that running is for people who can't afford bicycles. :)

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
D

David Damerell

Guest
Quoting Duncan Smith <[email protected]>:
>green. Surely that gives me right of way? How do you work out that
>any bike or car hitting a pedestrian in the road is almost certainly
>the fault of the bike or car?


Because as a road user you are always responsible for looking where you
are going.

[In law, this principle has been diminished somewhat - for example, by the
requirement to fit rear lights - but not enough to save you.]
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, November.
 
S

Squashme

Guest
On 22 Nov, 16:31, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Squashme<[email protected]> wrote:


> > There was no oncoming traffic in sight. A pinstriped important person
> > strode out right in front of me from between two cars, without looking in
> > my direction. With a cry of "Mummy", I clashed shoulders with him, without
> > knocking his bloody silly mobile phone out of his ear/hand (probably
> > hardly interrupted the flow). I rode on with a slight oscillation,and some
> > adrenalin entering my system (better late than never).

>
> > And, apparently, I was to blame?

>
> My personal opinion is that you were. My opinion, however, is
> unimportant as I'm neither a judge nor a juror and this is not a court
> of law.
>
> Most pedestrians would not look out for vehicles overtaking a stationary
> line of traffic. All I'm suggesting is that you see this from the
> pedestrian's point of view and take more care in future.



Whatever happened to look both ways? And did I mention bloody, bloody
mobile phones?

"Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be
used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with
your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both
ways first. Always show due care and consideration for
others." (Highway Code)

Yes, I still am learning. I just get so fed up being my brother's
keeper though, especially as my brother appears to be so stupid.
Still, I expect that that brother learned something.
 
S

Squashme

Guest
On 22 Nov, 08:52, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <91dd0326-b6b2-4cfc-9da0-
> [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > I was cycling along the offside of a stationary line of traffic. There
> > was no oncoming traffic in sight. A pinstriped important person strode
> > out right in front of me from between two cars, without looking in my
> > direction. With a cry of "Mummy", I clashed shoulders with him,
> > without knocking his bloody silly mobile phone out of his ear/hand
> > (probably hardly interrupted the flow). I rode on with a slight
> > oscillation,and some adrenalin entering my system (better late than
> > never).

>
> > And, apparently, I was to blame?

>
> They must have been very tall cars or he was a very short person if you
> could not see him striding between the cars before he stepped out. Did
> you remember to utter the magic word SMIDSY to excuse yourself from any
> blame otherwise what do you expect?


I AM a very short, well, compact, neat and no unnecessary elevation,
kind of person, and unlikely to see much more than his head and
shoulders I should think. 4x4s are about 1.4 metres high? He was also
moving at fast "I'm a City businessman" pace, while doubtless phoning
to arrange the removal of the last avocados from the mitts of some
poor starving Ethiopian farmer for loose change. If he had come off
the pavement it would all have been more obvious, but this was less
so, and I think that my mind also said "No, he couldn't be that silly,
surely." Anyhow, like they always say, it all happened so quickly.

Of course, as a '60s person, I probably unconsciously wanted to ram
him. A kind of Freudian slap?
 
S

Squashme

Guest
On 22 Nov, 00:57, Andy Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
>
> >
> > I was cycling along the offside of a stationary line of traffic. There
> > was no oncoming traffic in sight. A pinstriped important person strode
> > out right in front of me from between two cars, without looking in my
> > direction. With a cry of "Mummy", I clashed shoulders with him,
> > without knocking his bloody silly mobile phone out of his ear/hand
> > (probably hardly interrupted the flow). I rode on with a slight
> > oscillation,and some adrenalin entering my system (better late than
> > never).
> >
> > And, apparently, I was to blame?

>
> yep, you should of had enough space between you and the line of traffic
> combined with a speed that lets you stop or avoid him.


A nice idea. Could it be applied to motorised traffic too?