Hit a ped

whome

going-too-fast and speed-limits are two separate concepts though.

People will do daft things, endangering themselves and putting you to inconvenience, but there is an assumption that pedestrians don't belong on the road and should only cross on sufferance of the legitimate road users.

A) this is rubbish, the right of way is to peds if anything.
it smacks too much of the car driver view that they own the road and cycles should not be there.

It is quite understandable to yell at someone who walks into your path, especially if they have not looked properly. But in retrospect you should review the questions spen666 had and consider that it is your responsibility as a vehicle operator to avoid pedestrians if at all possible.

bryanm

chrisjsmith wrote:

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.

Define "awareness of danger". If you're going to make people 100% accountable for their actions then everyone should stay home - motorists, cyclists & pedestrians. I guess if you get swiped from behind by a car you accept that it's your own fault for not being aware that there was some idiot behind you doing 50 in a 30 zone trying to make a phone call?
I guess by your reckoning it was my fault when I last got run down because some idiot motorist thought that he had right of way over me whilst I was walking on the pavement?

prj45

JinjaNinja wrote:

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.

Yes, but if you're going 25mph : -

1) The distance you can stop in is much greater, pedestrains in a hurry don't spend too long judging your speed so are more likely to step out within your collision zone, which is bigger when you're travelling faster

2) If somebody does step out RIGHT in front of you when you're travelling at 25mph the results are going to be much worse than if you were travelling at 5mph

For instance,

- going at 25mph whilst filtering in traffic with peds about is virtually suicidal

- going at 10mph whilst filtering in traffic with peds about is nowhere near as risky.

BentMikey

It does seem like quite a lot of cyclists and motorists don't take nearly enough care around pedestrians. Roads are for everyone, not just for cars and bikes.

prj45

chrisjsmith wrote:

If we accommodated everyone's stupidity, everything would be covered in foam and we'd all be limited to 5mph (this is slowly happening!).

What a drama queen.

Its perfectly OK to gun it along clear roads.

Its not OK to gun it whilst filtering in traffic where pedestrains might also be filtering in traffic.

Keithp88

As a 15 year old I once hit a ped. Broke her arm. Because I was 15 it was quite obviously her fault, and as I was explaining it to the policeman that I had to swerve 3 times before I hit her it all went horribly wrong.....

redvee

I was the victim of a cyclist today. Was walking along the pavement with an apres rush hour quiet road beside me and saw a cyclist heading towards me at a speed too high for the pavement. The inevitable happened and we made contact with our elbows and he turned round and gave me some verbals and I replied with that the pavements are for walking and theres the f*****g road.

secretsam

BentMikey wrote:

It does seem like quite a lot of cyclists and motorists don't take nearly enough care around pedestrians. Roads are for everyone, not just for cars and bikes.

Come on, Mikey, peds have pavements just for them, crossing the road puts them in a whole new set of rules. Ideally, one should cross roads where there are safe 'permissions' to do so, eg a crossing. Would you say a train ought to travel slowly in case a ped walked on the tracks? I rest my case .

Gambatte

SecretSam wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

It does seem like quite a lot of cyclists and motorists don't take nearly enough care around pedestrians. Roads are for everyone, not just for cars and bikes.

Come on, Mikey, peds have pavements just for them, crossing the road puts them in a whole new set of rules. Ideally, one should cross roads where there are safe 'permissions' to do so, eg a crossing. Would you say a train ought to travel slowly in case a ped walked on the tracks? I rest my case .

Poor case, its illegal to walk on the tracks

spen666

SecretSam wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

It does seem like quite a lot of cyclists and motorists don't take nearly enough care around pedestrians. Roads are for everyone, not just for cars and bikes.

Come on, Mikey, peds have pavements just for them, crossing the road puts them in a whole new set of rules. Ideally, one should cross roads where there are safe 'permissions' to do so, eg a crossing. Would you say a train ought to travel slowly in case a ped walked on the tracks? I rest my case .

You are not comparing like with like.

Railways are dedicated solely to trains- indeed it is a criminal offence to trespass on the railways..

roads are not dedicated to motor traffic or wheeled transport. Pedestrians have every right to use them


What the bent one says here is true- although it also applies the other way - ie pedestrians also do not take enough care around other road users

Basically it seems no-0one give a f*$k about anyone else

hamboman

spen666 wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

It does seem like quite a lot of cyclists and motorists don't take nearly enough care around pedestrians. Roads are for everyone, not just for cars and bikes.

Come on, Mikey, peds have pavements just for them, crossing the road puts them in a whole new set of rules. Ideally, one should cross roads where there are safe 'permissions' to do so, eg a crossing. Would you say a train ought to travel slowly in case a ped walked on the tracks? I rest my case .

You are not comparing like with like.

Railways are dedicated solely to trains- indeed it is a criminal offence to trespass on the railways..

roads are not dedicated to motor traffic or wheeled transport. Pedestrians have every right to use them


What the bent one says here is true- although it also applies the other way - ie pedestrians also do not take enough care around other road users

Basically it seems no-0one give a f*$k about anyone else

I kind of resent that. I ACCIDENTALLY hit her. She was walking along the pavement and I was filtering along past a taxi, as I recall. Not going too quick cos there was a red up ahead.

At the EXACT moment I was alongside her she stepped out (presumably she had been watching the other side of the road for a break in traffic and neglected to look right too). Had I been doing three miles and hour I still would have hit her. I could not reasonably have taken any more care than I did. This is why I don't feel responsible.

chrisjsmith

prj45 wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

If we accommodated everyone's stupidity, everything would be covered in foam and we'd all be limited to 5mph (this is slowly happening!).

What a drama queen.

Its perfectly OK to gun it along clear roads.

Its not OK to gun it whilst filtering in traffic where pedestrains might also be filtering in traffic.

And in the same vein, it's not ok for a pedestrian to not expect to be hit by something if you walk in the road without looking properly. You don't accidentally walk of a cliff because you're aware of the danger. You should be aware of the danger of walking in the road. Ignorance is not an excuse.

jedster

hamboman,

First I'm not saying that you are mainly to blame but I disagree with this

I could not reasonably have taken any more care than I did.

1. you were filtering very close to the kerb meaning that you had no room to raect to anyone stepping of the kerb. You could have avoided that situation.

2. were you aware that she was standing at the kerb looking to cross the road? did you anticipate that she might conceivably step out? Could you have given her a shout (I seem to use "steady!" for some reason unknown even to me) to warn her that you were coming?

I don't think any of those suggestions are particularly unreasonable.

I actually has a "ped steps out" incident a couple of nights ago (Grosvenor Square for the Londoners). I had much more room and was able to avoid her by braking and steering. She apologised to me but I actually returned the apology - the thing is, I pretty much knew from her body language that she was going to step out. Given that, I probably should have slowed earlier, moved wider, given her a warning or something. Certainly, if I'd hit her I would have felt a share of the blame.

TheFoolio888

The simple fact of the matter is that a large percentage of peds to not pay the kind of attention that many of you seem to be telling cyclists to pay! Cyclists are already experienced of doing everyone's thinking for the cretins that inhabit our roads....so thats not a problem. But...

I really am sick to death of having to peds stepping into the road, or cycle lane without looking properly to check that nothing is coming. The fact that I have not hit anyone shows that I am paying attention...isn't about time they started playing there part?

As I said earlier, and will say it again, if you insist on walking into the road without being 100% sure that nothing is going to hit you, then I'm afraid you reap what you sow...something will eventually teach you the lesson the hard way...no buts.

cupofteacp

This is a funny thread, all ready to blame ham.

Did you know that in London the biggest killer of cyclist, where it's the cyclist fault, is when the cyclist rides off the pavement into the traffic without looking

Rider at Fault
Within Lights Number %
4 229 229 Count 229 Riding Off Pavement 13 14%

So if you rode of the pavement without looking who's fault is it? The rider for not looking or the motorist for hitting and killing them.

I'd go for the cyclist I'm afraid, so in ham's case I'd blame the Ped. He was on the road travelling at a sensible speed. The ped was "joining the traffic without due care or attention"

woodgob

My commute to work is 95% seafront cycle-lane. Unfortunately, this is all cycle-lane which has been marked-out on promenade. This is a major problem. In summer, the cycle lane becomes a minefield as peds always seem to want to walk there. The lane is very clearly marked but I guess a bovine instinct kicks-in where some people just have to follow the yellow brick road! This frequently leads to frustration, confrontation and sometimes (more often than should) accidents. Earlier in the year I saw a little girl wiped-out by a commuter. He wasn't going particularly fast but the cycle lane was created to go around a barrier-surrounded underpass exit. The little girl was simply too small to be seen and ran out into the cycle lane. The cyclist didn't stand a chance and went straight over the bars. The girl was OK but very shaken and upset. He was bloodied, shaken but OK too. Luckily. It's just an unfortunate and crappy piece of town planning albeit with the best intentions. have had many run-ins (verbal) with peds who simply do not look. I believe in being prepared for gormless behaviour but human reflexes are only so fast. I myself came-off two nights ago when a kid on a BMX pulled out to cross the road from behind a van. He didn't look once. Had I been a quiet 4X4 they would have been hosing down the road next morning. That has made me more wary of my distance to parked cars. No simple answer - you can only be as aware as you can, stick on your lid and keep your eyes wide open to potential ped danger. It's a risk of the job!

prj45

TheFoolio888 wrote:

The fact that I have not hit anyone shows that I am paying attention...isn't about time they started playing there part?

What, you want to stop paying attention?

iainment

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:

just looked at this thread again and think I was a bit intemperate with this comment - even though I think the onus is on the ped not the cyclist in this instance.
Sorry.

:oops:

TheFoolio888

prj45 wrote:

TheFoolio888 wrote:

The fact that I have not hit anyone shows that I am paying attention...isn't about time they started playing there part?

What, you want to stop paying attention?

Cheers for the sarcastic comment...it made my day


I was actually asking for peds to START paying attention :P

spen666

iainment wrote:

...

just looked at this thread again and think I was a bit intemperate with this comment - even though I think the onus is on the ped not the cyclist in this instance.
Sorry.

:oops:

Thanks for your apology



The onus is on ALL road users (including pedestrians) to :

a) take steps to ensure their own safety
b) take steps to avoid unnecessary danger to others
c) be alert for others doing things to put themselves at risk