Hit a ped

whome

whatever... but he is right.

- You should ride in such a manner as to be able to stop in case of an obstruction in front of you.
- You should be observant to the possibility of a pedestrian stepping out in front of you.
- If you can't stop for things you can see, predict or where you know there is a blind spot then you are going too fast.

Definately the questions you should ask yourself.
Yes, the pedestrian might come off worse,
yes they could take better care (for themselves),
doesn't make it all their fault,
doesn't mean you should not consider all the above points.

afctumike

I nearly bagged a pedestrian today. At a crossroads with traffic lights there is a designated cycle lane for left turning cyclists. The inside of the lane is bordered by bushes. I came around the corner to find a woman walking right down the cycle lane towards me. It's hardly as if it's ambiguous - it's bright green painted tarmac with a big bike symbol painted on top. Fortunately we avoided each other.

hamboman

they are just accidents though. With no blame attached. Like when cars run over and kill people and the courts/coroner decides it was no one's fault. happens all the time

Random Vince

TheFoolio888 wrote:

Some I learnt a very early is ALWAYS look and be very careful crossing the road.

The amount of people I see crossing roads, zebra crossing or at traffic lights without looking is rediculous.

They seem to think that it is your job to stop for them. Do that not realise that sometimes it isn't possible to avoid some cretin who steps into the road? Oh and don't get me started on the sorts of people who purposely walk slowly across the road just to be a pain...usually accompanied with some form of gansta limp... :evil:

at a zebra crossing it is your job to stop for them if you have the braking distance to do so

i get to zebra crossing and look right, if there isnt anything about to hit me i'll take a small step onto the crossing but ready to step back quick

its the only way of getting cars to stop for you.

spen666

hamboman wrote:

they are just accidents though. With no blame attached. Like when cars run over and kill people and the courts/coroner decides it was no one's fault. happens all the time

I'm not sure I agree with you.

The coroner does not decide that no blame lies in the example you gave.

There may be insufficient evidence to mount a criminal prosecution ( or in some cases a civil claim)but this is not the same thing as saying no blame attaches.

In fatal road traffic accidents, there may be a verdict of accidental death in a coroners court, but you can rest assured there will be a civil case and blame will be apportioned

spen666

afctumike wrote:

I nearly bagged a pedestrian today. At a crossroads with traffic lights there is a designated cycle lane for left turning cyclists. The inside of the lane is bordered by bushes. I came around the corner to find a woman walking right down the cycle lane towards me. It's hardly as if it's ambiguous - it's bright green painted tarmac with a big bike symbol painted on top. Fortunately we avoided each other.

This seems to attract pedestrians in the same was as insects are attracted to a light :oops:

Gambatte

TheFoolio888 wrote:

"anyone who steps into the road, be it on a crossing, or not, and doesn't double to check to make sure that nothing is coming, is a *%$&ing idiot who deserves to get knocked down."

So a couple of years ago. Pedestrian crossing on a dual carriageway on Ecclesall Road in Sheffield. Loaded down with 3 bags of shopping. I didn't need to look for traffic stopping as it all stopped on amber. Lights go red. Green man comes on with the accompanying beeping. I step onto the crossing and get spun round and onto my arse, because some Tw4t on a roady thinks the lights don't count for bikes?



And you think thats deserved??

Drfabulous0

Yes, it's deserved because you forgot for a moment that the world is full of idiots who aren't paying attention or just don't give a sh!t. You must always look out for yourself on the road because not everyone else will be.

Random Vince

Gambatte wrote:

TheFoolio888 wrote:

"anyone who steps into the road, be it on a crossing, or not, and doesn't double to check to make sure that nothing is coming, is a *%$&ing idiot who deserves to get knocked down."

So a couple of years ago. Pedestrian crossing on a dual carriageway on Ecclesall Road in Sheffield. Loaded down with 3 bags of shopping. I didn't need to look for traffic stopping as it all stopped on amber. Lights go red. Green man comes on with the accompanying beeping. I step onto the crossing and get spun round and onto my ars*, because some Tw4t on a roady thinks the lights don't count for bikes?



And you think thats deserved??

hence the advice to always check its clear.

Bugly

SecretSam wrote:

These things happen, especially on my route in London which is mainly cycle lanes - peds seem to forget we can be doing a fair old lick and also don't stop that quickly - especially in the wet

Think the 6 foot leap may have been an exaggeration?

Most important thing: no-one hurt.

if you cant stop quick enough in the conditions you are riding with undue care :shock: . Its the road users responsibility to drive to the condtions - and these can and do include surprises such as a pedistrian stepping in front of you, a parked car opening a door etc.

Maybe both parties will be more careful in the future?

Gambatte

Drfabulous0 wrote:

Yes, it's deserved because you forgot for a moment that the world is full of idiots who aren't paying attention or just don't give a sh!t.

In just the same way that if you're walking thro a park and someone accidentally hits you in the head with a cricket ball or football you 'deserve' it??

Cars were stopped, in both lanes. In such a situation with the lights and audible signals going, theres a reasonable expectation that its safe to cross.

chrisjsmith

Isn't it also a reasonable expectation that people aren't going to walk in front of you when there aren't lights and audible signals involved though (which is where the majority of accidents occur)?

Some people have no awareness of danger and at the end of the day and that is their problem. If someone hits them, then the person who hit them should be the victim (of their stupidity). If we accommodated everyone's stupidity, everything would be covered in foam and we'd all be limited to 5mph (this is slowly happening!).

People should be 100% accountable for their own actions.

FatBlokeFromFelixstowe

hamboman wrote:

they are just accidents though. With no blame attached. Like when cars run over and kill people and the courts/coroner decides it was no one's fault. happens all the time

No I don't agree with that. In this instance the ped you hit should have looked before crossing the road and / or you should have been going slowly enough to avoid this possibility especially as you were filtering. .

nwallace

misterben wrote:

Presumably, given that a bicycle is a vehicle, and was travelling on the road, he could be going the full speed limit if he liked, without it necessarily being regarded as "dangerous driving".

He could be doing the maximum limit for motor vehicles without it being dangerous however if you can not stop in the distance you can see to be clear it is dangerous.

It is also careless to travel at a speed at which you can not react in time to hazards potential hazards. If your observing the road in front in a town it is reasonable to also observe what is happening on a pavement, the kid bouncing the ball about 30m away being in the likely to cause an hazard category.

It was of course also careless of the pedestrian to assume that since all the traffic was stationary it was safe to cross but had it come to it, it would have been the operator of the vehicle being investigated for Causing Death.

Stig-OT-Dump

Dammit! I came to this post late. I looked at the thread titles a few days ago, saw this and thought it was a challenge. I've been cycling like a b*st*rd since hoping to score at least a couple to brag about, and haven't even clipped one!!

In fact the last one I hit was a bloke who ambled onto a cycle lane without looking and I may have broken his hand, but as I stared him down he admitted it was his own fault.

A few months back I nearly hit a bloke crossing between stationary traffic, but because of the amount of bus stops and nearby station it was foreseeable. The bloke didn't look in my direction once - I missed him by inches.

There's one controlled crossing on my route where the red man apparently means "start crossing" - I try to see how many I can make break into a run at that point.

prj45

Yeah what spen said. You were obviously going way too fast and should have been more observant.

Its your job NOT to hit pesky peds that step out into the road.

Ride more slowly and carefully in such conditions.

prj45

iainment wrote:

spen666 wrote:

hamboman wrote:

I feel really bad, it wasn't my fault but I hit a woman today who stepped off the curb into my path as I was filtering. I stayed on but she was knocked back a good six feet and looked a bit shaken. No damage done to me or her, so left her with her friend. Why won't they look, rather than just using their ears!?!

not being there, i cannot say if you were or were not to blame, but : -

should you not have been riding in such a manner as to be able to stop incase of an obstruction in front of you?

Should you not have been observant to the possibility of a pedestrian stepping out in front of you?

To knock her 6 feet, you were presumably travelling at a fair speed, was it too fast for the situation?

you were the only person from this board ( I presume) who was present at the scene of the accident and are the only person who can answer those questions.

Pompous ass.

:twisted:

Offering good advice is being a pompous arse?

prj45

Underscore wrote:

I disagree. He could be going the full speed limit if he liked,

Well, no, rules are differnt for cars and cycles, but driving too fast for the conditions (even if you aren't exceeding the posted limit) is an offense in a car. You do not have a legal right to travel at the maximum speed, hit people and get away with it.

Furious cycling is the equivilant for cyclists I believe.

prj45

TheFoolio888 wrote:

OK..fair point. I should have phrased it slightly differently. Thefore, I change my post to...


"anyone who steps into the road, be it on a crossing, or not, and doesn't double to check to make sure that nothing is coming, is a *%$&ing idiot who deserves to get knocked down."

Well, then, its OK for vehicle drivers to just wipe cyclists out if they change lanes without looking, or pull out between cars, or otherwise cross the path of said vehicle.

I see many people who drive cars write the same type of thing you did TheFoolio888, I think they're idiots too.

prj45

spen666 wrote:

The coroner does not decide that no blame lies in the example you gave.

There is always blame, it totals up to 100% and is distributed amongst the participates of a crash. If the blame is apportioned 50/50 then you could say BOTH were equally at fault.

No such thing as an accident in my book.

Commuter_2000

cupofteacp wrote:

Darwin at work

I think that says it all!

Given inadequate distance, "you can ne' beat the laws of physics". Be prepared, yes, but there is a point where the fault lies entirely with the other party.

Best regards,
Commuter_2000.

spen666

prj45 wrote:

Yeah what spen said. You were obviously going way too fast and should have been more observant.
....

i'm not sure I said he was going too fast.

I wasn't there, so can't say who was to blame.

I raised a series of questions the OP needs to ask himself in considering if he has any blame.

I am not blaming anyone as I qwasn't there and don't have all the facts to make a judgement upon

BentMikey

Spen's questions are quite fair, to be honest. Perhaps he just puts them quite controversially, but I would also be asking similar ones if I were in the OP's situation.

jedster

I would also be asking similar ones if I were in the OP's situation.

agreed

t4tomo

The rules are that Pedestrians should wait until traffic has stopped before setting foot on the crossing, but also that vehicles must give way once a pedestrian has stepped onto he crossing. Although slightly contradictory - it does make for the safest approach from both sides. I guess the second bit is there because as a Ped if the traffics doesn't stop, you are within your rights to cautiously put a foot on the crossing and force the traffic to stop.

Extend that approach to general cycling driving: yes pedestrians should look out for themselves but vehicles (including cycles) should be aware of what is going on and be prepared to stop if a ped gets in your way.

I quite often give a ting of the bell if I see someone who potentially may be about to cross in front of me (general raod not a crossing) but who blatently isn't looking, often due to Ipod or mobile phone having their attention.

By the same token if I have got some momentum up and someone starts to cross on the other side of a crossing I do sometime carry on through as long as in doing so I don't impede their progress, ditto crossing behind them, i.e. wave them on an slow enough so they've left your part of the crosssing and then zoom on through as they cross the other side of the road.

On the flip side - if I'm waiting to cross & just a cyclist is approaching, I wave them through before crossing as I know what a pain it is to have to stop and start agaian.

Another situation (like Zebra's) where the Pedestrian has priority is if they are crossing a side road the Car wished to turn into. From observation very few London drivers are aware of this.

TheFoolio888

prj45 wrote:

TheFoolio888 wrote:

OK..fair point. I should have phrased it slightly differently. Thefore, I change my post to...


"anyone who steps into the road, be it on a crossing, or not, and doesn't double to check to make sure that nothing is coming, is a *%$&ing idiot who deserves to get knocked down."

Well, then, its OK for vehicle drivers to just wipe cyclists out if they change lanes without looking, or pull out between cars, or otherwise cross the path of said vehicle.

I see many people who drive cars write the same type of thing you did TheFoolio888, I think they're idiots too.

Sorry I really don't understand how you read my post and came to that conclusion.

I was saying (in a tongue in cheek way), that if you step into the road without making damn sure that nothing is coming your way, then eventually something WILL hit you. I'm not saying you should hit them to teach them a lesson because they deserve it :roll:

There is nothing you can say, no words you can twist, that will convince me that there is ANY excuse for stepping into the road with out looking or maneouver you car/bike without paying due care and attention.

JinjaNinja

prj45 wrote:

Yeah what spen said. You were obviously going way too fast and should have been more observant.
Its your job NOT to hit pesky peds that step out into the road.

Ride more slowly and carefully in such conditions.

Complete B/S!

You could have been going 5mph, or 25mph. If someone steps out right in front of you then your not going to be able to stop in time. End of story.

Christ some people.

Bassjunkieuk

I've had a few occasions where I've had peds step out in front of me without looking, even had one this morning who just stepped out into the road to get past a crowd in Brixton, narrowly missing me as he jumped back onto the pavement!

I've only ever hit one person and this was when I was filtering up the inside of a bus stopped at some lights and a ped jumped off! As the bus wasn't at a stop this was the last thing I expected! I hit him at about 10MPH and gave myself quite a knock on the head! He was very apologetic and understanding and we both just continued on our way!

I think the best thing for avoiding accidents is a bell (for peds) and a high vis top (peds and "hopefully" cars!), I've felt a lot safer since getting both of these!

belgiangoth

misterben wrote:

Presumably, given that a bicycle is a vehicle, and was travelling on the road, he could be going the full speed limit if he liked, without it necessarily being regarded as "dangerous driving".

No, you are supposed to operate any vehicle sappropriately to the conditions, reguardless of the speed limits.

misterben

belgiangoth wrote:

misterben wrote:

Presumably, given that a bicycle is a vehicle, and was travelling on the road, he could be going the full speed limit if he liked, without it necessarily being regarded as "dangerous driving".

No, you are supposed to operate any vehicle sappropriately to the conditions, reguardless of the speed limits.

I don't disagree at all. But the point I was trying to make (badly) is that his speed is only one of many contributory factors - the implication (to me) was that if his speed was "too fast", then he was to blame.