Just zis Guy said:I also very much doubt that any collision would occur because, as has been repeatedly pointed out,
the cyclist is narrower, and it is easier for a cyclist to move sideways by the margin necessary
to avoid someone in the road.
I've been following this thread with interest but have been reluctant to wade in, because I'm really
not sure where my opinions lie.
I'm not entirely convinced that the front of a bike is less pedestrian friendly than the front of an
average car. Sure, most 2WD drive cars these days are supposed to be designed to scoop up peds and
to have a minimum of protrusions, but the bumper's still ideally positioned to break a leg.
And although I'm confident that a bike is much more maneouvrable than a car, as well as being much
narrower and having significantly less kinetic energy, the point that's nagging away at me (and that
I haven't seen made yet) is that you can never be sure which way the ped will jump.
Anyway, reading the latest today I suddenly remembered the incident a couple of years ago when a
pensioner was hit by a cyclist on Bathwick Hill in Bath. From the description it would seem quite
clear that the pensioner was at fault, if not for the fact that peds always have right of way. I'm
not even sure how relevant it is here, but the time seems right to bring it up.
There was a thread about it here in May 2002, headed "Bath Chronicle news story ...". And a Google
search found that there's more information at
thebikezone.org.ukjustice.htmlOpen ↗ (everything between here and my .sig is
pasted from Bikezone):
The case of Richard Brady.
As Richard Brady, an international triathlete, approached a central traffic island on Bathwick Hill
in bath 66 year old Sonia Tuckett and her husband Philip stepped into the road. Brady and Mrs
Tuckett collided and Brady was thrown off his bike and hit a parked van. His £1600 cycle was written
off and Mrs Tuckett suffered serious injuries requiring 4 weeks in hospital.
The magistrates argued that Brady was 'on a high quality cycle' and could have taken action to avoid
the collision. He was found guilty of careless cycling, fined £100 and ordered to pay £100 costs.
The verdict also left Brady open to a private prosecution for damages.
The prosecutor, Karen Boyes, argued that although Tuckett has stepped into the path of the cyclist,
the speed the cyclist was travelling meant 'he was unable to swerve out of the way'. Tuckett had
claimed they had "looked carefully before crossing" and that "there was no traffic either way".
Brady, said: "I was expecting that they would see me and realise it was my right of way, as if I was
a car. As I continued down the hill the person stepped out in front of me at which point I had very
little time to stop or move out of the way."
When Mrs Boyes asked if he made allowance for the possibility that Mrs Tuckett would step out, he
replied: "I was cycling as I always cycle down that hill. I was already slowing down."
Defence solicitor Harriet Heard said: "This isn't a pedestrian crossing. It is whether a cyclist
would expect to have his right of way respected. His evidence is that he had every reason to expect
Mrs Tuckett would stop."
Chairman of the bench John Price said the the accident could have been avoided. "He saw them cross
the road. He knew a danger existed. He did not exercise due care."
After the hearing, Mrs Tuckett said she hoped it would be a warning to other cyclists. She said she
was planning to sue Mr Brady for compensation through the civil courts, and was writing to Bath MP
Don Foster calling for compulsory insurance for cyclists.
This case seems to argue that it is the duty of a cyclists to ride no faster then a speed that
allows them to 'swerve out of the way' of errant pedestrians who step into their path, even if they
are not using a recognised pedestrian crossing. Much was made of the 'speed' of the cyclist,
suggesting that the law feels what is an acceptable speed for a cyclists is much less then that
which is acceptable for a motor vehicle, even though the motor vehicle presents a much greater
danger due to its size and weight. Most fundamentally, it also suggests that the courts feel that
cyclist on seeing a potential hazard (perhaps a group of school children on the footpath, or someone
looking as if they might be waiting to cross the road) should modify their behaviour to take in to
account the fact the pedestrian might fail to take an observation and step into their path. It may
well be that such a position has merit. However, it is certainly not applied to the drivers of motor
vehicles. Also, if a cyclist had swerved into the path of a motor vehicle, for example when exiting
a cycle path, it is almost certainly the case that a driver would not be held responsible on the
basis they should have assumed that the cyclists might well act in such a manner. Consequently it
seems cyclists may well be held to be responsible for the errors of third parties, even though even
a speeding driver will be held to be free of any blame should they hit and kill someone who steps
into their path and drivers frequently escape prosecution even when they have failed to modify their
behaviour in response to a hazard caused by others.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
