Nearly flatened a pedestrian this morning



E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 22 Nov, 00:57, Andy Morris <[email protected]> wrote:


> > 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?


Well, it's what I was taught to do when learning to drive in the early
'90s.

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:

> 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.


If both brothers learned something then that's even better.

Cheers,
Luke


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

bugbear

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


Any references or evidence?

BugBear
 
B

bugbear

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> 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.


Let me imagine your case:

Ekul: M'Lud, I was walking along the pavement, when without
warning I stepped out into the road.

Barrister:
Did you look before you took this potentially
dangerous action?

Ekul: No.

Barrister:
Thank you. Do go on.

Ekul:
A cyclist then hit me, and I claim this constitutes assault.

Barrister:
Do you consider the cyclist could have avoided you?
By your own admission, your action was unpredictable.

Ekul:
....

BugBear
 
B

bugbear

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> 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.


Hmm. If many pedestrians adopt this tactic,
and car drivers do too, we would appear to have
invented a particularly lethal game
of "call my bluff"

BugBear
 
On Nov 23, 10:30 am, bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> Hmm. If many pedestrians adopt this tactic,
> and car drivers do too, we would appear to have
> invented a particularly lethal game
> of "call my bluff"


well I take a calculated risk in order to achieve the benefit of
exercising my priority. I hope that I am doing my bit to promote
adhereence to that particluar HC rule. I would hope that a driver
using the same technique to intimidate a pedestrian into cedeing (sp?)
that priority would be doing his bit towards losing his license
eventually :)

best wishes
james
 
E

Ekul Namsob

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

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > 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.

>
> Let me imagine your case:


No. Because I'm not stupid enough to act in the way you imagine. You,
however, seem to think it's fine to assault people.

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

>
> Any references or evidence?


Well, you might wish to start your search with the Highway Code.

Luke


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

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <1i81pzj.ut9b4x1fz8j49N%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
> bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
> > Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> > >>> 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.

> >
> > Any references or evidence?

>
> Well, you might wish to start your search with the Highway Code.
>

So you can't support your claim? I couldn't find any 'musts' regarding
pedestrians (apart from the obvious motorway and level crossing stuff).
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Rob Morley <nosp[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1i81pzj.ut9b4x1fz8j49N%
> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> [email protected] says...
> > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> >
> > > Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > > > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> > > >>> 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.
> > >
> > > Any references or evidence?

> >
> > Well, you might wish to start your search with the Highway Code.
> >

> So you can't support your claim? I couldn't find any 'musts' regarding
> pedestrians (apart from the obvious motorway and level crossing stuff).


I haven't made a claim. Please read the above more carefully.

Cheers,
Luke


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

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <1i82n1x.25psg31lr0pziN%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i81pzj.ut9b4x1fz8j49N%
> > [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> > [email protected] says...
> > > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > > > > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> > > > >>> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Any references or evidence?
> > >
> > > Well, you might wish to start your search with the Highway Code.
> > >

> > So you can't support your claim? I couldn't find any 'musts' regarding
> > pedestrians (apart from the obvious motorway and level crossing stuff).

>
> I haven't made a claim. Please read the above more carefully.
>

OK, so you can't support your belief/understanding/whatever?
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1i82n1x.25psg31lr0pziN%
> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> [email protected] says...
> > Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1i81pzj.ut9b4x1fz8j49N%
> > > [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> > > [email protected] says...
> > > > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ekul Namsob wrote:


> > > > > > My understanding is that a pedestrian already crossing has the same
> > > > > > legal right of way as a pedestrian using a zebra crossing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any references or evidence?
> > > >
> > > > Well, you might wish to start your search with the Highway Code.
> > > >
> > > So you can't support your claim? I couldn't find any 'musts' regarding
> > > pedestrians (apart from the obvious motorway and level crossing stuff).

> >
> > I haven't made a claim. Please read the above more carefully.
> >

> OK, so you can't support your belief/understanding/whatever?


No. That's why I wrote what I did. However, there are plenty of sections
of the Highway Code which suggest that more consideration should be
shown to pedestrians than some recent posters to this group have been
willing to show:

"give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which
you are turning"

"older pedestrians who may need more time to cross the road. Be patient
and allow them to cross in their own time. Do not hurry them by revving
your engine or edging forward"

Clearly, the Highway Code's advice [1] cannot be taken as Gospel since
otherwise pedestrians would often find themselves stranded:

"If traffic is coming, let it pass... Do not cross until there is a safe
gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time."

If I followed that advice, I would be unable to cross many roads in
Preston without a detour of up to a mile during peak hours.

Drivers and riders are told:

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any
circumstance... Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

"try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do. If
pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may
step out into the road without seeing you"

"Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road
users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204)."

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning.
If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

In summary, although my earlier understanding does not appear to be the
case, bugbear's attack on a pedestrian certainly appears to be contrary
to several sections of the Highway Code.

Cheers,
Luke


[1] advice does not contain the word 'must'
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
D

David Lloyd

Guest
"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i7y9ai.1kq0qke1k1ejb0N%[email protected]
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>


Oh dear. I seem to have opened up a right can of worms here.

We are all human and make mistakes, but there are obviously those here that
are intolerant towards the slight failings of others. These people would
cast the proverbial stones despite their own failings, which I doubt they
would own up to.

I think there is a world of difference between colliding or nearly colliding
with a numpty who walks or runs out into the street without looking, and
running into someone you've seen already crossing the road. We should all
take care to check that the exit is clear as we pass through a junction, or
round a blind corner. I know that I would have been remiss on this one at
various time, but thankfully there hasn't been a coming together.

We should all remember, 'If in doubt, slow down'. Let's face it, pedestrians
in dark clothes, on dark roads, walking straight out into the road without
checking are a known phenonenom/fenonomen/phenomanen (stratch that)
happening. There is little point in trying to aportion blame if we could
avoid the situation by being a bit more alert, taking a correct position on
the road and adjusting our speed to counter what we don't see, as opposed to
what we do see. Easily said, hopefully not hard to practice.

David Lloyd
 
David Lloyd wrote:
> happening. There is little point in trying to aportion blame if we could
> avoid the situation by being a bit more alert, taking a correct position on
> the road and adjusting our speed to counter what we don't see, as opposed to
> what we do see. Easily said, hopefully not hard to practice.


David, this is Usenet. Stop being so sensible, you're ruining the argument.


-dan
 
D

David Lloyd

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> David Lloyd wrote:
>> happening. There is little point in trying to aportion blame if we could
>> avoid the situation by being a bit more alert, taking a correct position
>> on the road and adjusting our speed to counter what we don't see, as
>> opposed to what we do see. Easily said, hopefully not hard to practice.

>
> David, this is Usenet. Stop being so sensible, you're ruining the
> argument.
>

Hey, it's my arguement ;-)

David Lloyd
 
L

longwayround

Guest
On 24 Nov, 14:52, "David Lloyd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message


> > If you're referring to me: I know that I'm imperfect. I try very hard
> > not to be, however. If you're not referring to me, I'll do something
> > about my paranoia. ;-)

>
> I was being general. I didn't really pick any specific post to come back
> into the conversation.


Phew! I'll put my paranoia away...

Cheers,
Luke
 
B

bugbear

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

>> Let me imagine your case:

>
> No. Because I'm not stupid enough to act in the way you imagine. You,
> however, seem to think it's fine to assault people.


No; read back; I simply braced myself in the face of an
unavoidable (remember...?) collision.

Any assault is in your mind, not my actions.

BugBear
 
A

Andy Leighton

Guest
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:43:39 +0000,
bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Let me imagine your case:

>>
>> No. Because I'm not stupid enough to act in the way you imagine. You,
>> however, seem to think it's fine to assault people.

>
> No; read back; I simply braced myself in the face of an
> unavoidable (remember...?) collision.
>
> Any assault is in your mind, not my actions.


So when you said "I shoulder-checked him, hard" you were lying were you?
Shoulder-check implies an active choice in my book. Also you mentioned
no avoiding action, or braking in your original post. Indeed by adding
hard it looks as though you didn't do your best to avoid the collision.

So let us turn the tables and imagine that you are cycling along and
had to stop suddenly. Would it be OK for the car driver to act in
the same way you described? If not, why not?

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
B

bugbear

Guest
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:43:39 +0000,
> bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Let me imagine your case:
>>> No. Because I'm not stupid enough to act in the way you imagine. You,
>>> however, seem to think it's fine to assault people.

>> No; read back; I simply braced myself in the face of an
>> unavoidable (remember...?) collision.
>>
>> Any assault is in your mind, not my actions.

>
> So when you said "I shoulder-checked him, hard" you were lying were you?
> Shoulder-check implies an active choice in my book. Also you mentioned
> no avoiding action, or braking in your original post. Indeed by adding
> hard it looks as though you didn't do your best to avoid the collision.


More information *was* forthcoming:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/79b25a7c270aea72

BugBear
 
E

Ekul Namsob

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

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > bugbear <[email protected]_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> >
> >> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> Let me imagine your case:

> >
> > No. Because I'm not stupid enough to act in the way you imagine. You,
> > however, seem to think it's fine to assault people.

>
> No; read back; I simply braced myself in the face of an
> unavoidable (remember...?) collision.
>
> Any assault is in your mind, not my actions.


The assault is explicit in your use of the words "I shoulder checked him
(hard)".

As you clearly have no intention of continuing the discussion honestly,
I shall bow out.

Luke


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