Wiped out by a pedestrian...

fizz

Meh. It had to happen sooner or later, I've been knocked off my pushbike whilst cycling home.

Pedestrian crossed the road in front of me, walked right off the kerb and didnt look at all. I had no time to stop and wallop I'm sprawling along the floor on my ar*e.

His missus then comes out of the house and starts calling me a w*nker and having a right go at me for riding in to him !!

I'm at this point picking myself up off the road and all the neighbours have come out to see what happened, they rush to his aid and I get ignored. Ah well just as well there was no car behind me or I wouldnt be posting this now.

It happened so quick I couldnt get up out of the road as I was still clipped into the pedals.

So matey boy is laying on the pavement rolling around in pain and one neighbour is on the phone to the ambulance, they've got him covered up with a blanket and a pillow for his head.

I get un clipped and pick myself up out of the road and sit down on the walll outside their house to gather my thoughts again his wife is calling me a wanker and said I was going to fast. Er.. its a 30mph limit and I was doing about 20mph. My comment of "I bet he wouldnt have walked out in front of me if I'd be driving my car" finally shut her up. its not like my bike isnt lit well either. 2 Watts of LED front light and my kit is bright orange and reflective...

One of the neighbours asks me if I'm alright eventually, and after about 5 minutes matey gets up and walks indoors, his missus is telling him not to and glaring at me and I'm waiting for the "we're going to sue you" comment, but it never comes.I'm getting the distinct impression that for some reason this is my fault... I explain to the neighbour that he walked out in front of me and never looked, he kind of mutters an agreement but quite clearly doesnt wan to get involved. His comment of "that was a massive impact it made hell of bang, isnt really helping either.

Then she goes indoors and shuts the front door and nothign else is said to me. I'm f*cked if I am giving them my name and address either. So I sort the bike off and ride the mile and a half home.

I'm back at home now, right wrist is a bit sore and I've scrapped a small patch of skin of my left knee which stings a bit, right knee is probably going to be a bit sore in the morning to as I suspect my left ankle will be.

Saddle on the bikes all ripped to sh*te, handlebars are twisted and the rear mudguards got a broken stay, but apart from that its still rideable.

I think I'm bl**dy lucky and I'm glad I wear my helmet...

Now for a cup of tea and some theraputic chocolate I think...

Feltup

Sounds like you got away fairly lightly for a 20mph crash. Glad you and the bike aren't too badly damaged but make sure you check the frame and forks very carefully just in case. Speedy recovery!

BUICK

Don't know what you reckon, but it might be worth reporting the collision to the police. Just in case 'matey' decides to make false claims and it bites you on the harris. Might be better NOT to give them time to cook up a story and bully the neighbours into backing up the story.

On the other hand, it might be fine...

Feel better

akcc05

BUICK wrote:

Don't know what you reckon, but it might be worth reporting the collision to the police. Just in case 'matey' decides to make false claims and it bites you on the harris. Might be better NOT to give them time to cook up a story and bully the neighbours into backing up the story.

On the other hand, it might be fine...

Feel better

Yeah, should notify the police just to be on the safe side, don't want to be sued right? Did the ambulance come? or did they call it off after a while?

If anything the guy should pay for the damage on your bike despite his injuries! But obviously that's not gonna happen, I guess it's just the way our society is...sad really, it wasn't even your fault.

I know you didn't get hurt much but still, get well soon.

prj45

Isn't it an offence NOT to report this to the police within 24 hours, or does that just apply to collisions involving cars?

Going to have to say this; you shouldn't have hit him, sounds like you weren't being observant enough.

redvee

Sounds like, as a lot of peds do these days, that he crossed the road withe his ears and not his eyes. Couldn't hear a car etc coming so thought it was safe to cross, this happens quite often in Broadmead and I wait till I'm passing behind the peds the tell them to look next time :shock:

prj45

redvee wrote:

Sounds like, as a lot of peds do these days

These days?

I tell you, fast electric cars are going to be a real killer, unless they're kitted out to emit engine noises, or equipped with 'ped' catchers.

akcc05

prj45 wrote:

redvee wrote:

Sounds like, as a lot of peds do these days

These days?

I tell you, fast electric cars are going to be a real killer, unless they're kitted out to emit engine noises, or equipped with 'ped' catchers.

that's so true. it freaks me out everytime i see those electric cars accelerate at a light. they do make a small amount of noise from the gears and tire/ground contact though.

always_tyred

prj45 wrote:

Going to have to say this; you shouldn't have hit him, sounds like you weren't being observant enough.

H o w - o n - e a r t h do you come up with this statement on the basis of the OP?

downfader

If you do go to the police make sure you tell them the verbal abuse you got and how people left you lying on the deck...

..people thesedays are just too concerned with their mobile, nevermind the road, its their bubble and it will burst. :?

Nick6891

pedestrians never look for bikes, they think we can make some kind of emergency slide to the other side of the road and avoid them

don_don

prj45 wrote:

Isn't it an offence NOT to report this to the police within 24 hours, or does that just apply to collisions involving cars?

Going to have to say this; you shouldn't have hit him, sounds like you weren't being observant enough.

That bit of the law relates to 'motorised' vehicles only, not bicycles.

I think its up to you whether to report it to the Police. If you are thinking of taking legal action then probably yes, although that would identify you to them, if matey-boy has already made a complaint.

I hope you and the bike are OK though.

Stu07

You can report it to the Police but as don_don said because it's not a motor vehicle it doesnt count as an RTC and therefore they wont report the facts in a booklet and depending on other priorities will prob do nothing more than give you an incident number.

Having said that it's better than nothing because if you do decide to take any action the first question you'll be asked is if you reported it to the Police.

Who cares if it identifies yourself, from what you say you've done nothing wrong so you've got nothing to worry about.

If you dont plan on doing anything though i wouldnt bother.

nwallace

Always Tyred wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Going to have to say this; you shouldn't have hit him, sounds like you weren't being observant enough.

H o w - o n - e a r t h do you come up with this statement on the basis of the OP?

I come up with it too.

Pedestrians have right of way over just about anything on the road. It's the vehicular roads users responsibility to anticipate Mr Pedestrian being a prick and walking into the road without looking.

The observation section of Cycle craft doesn't specifically mention pedestrians on the pavement but it does tell you to consider minor things too.

How to be a better driver has an example commentary for a picture, it ends:
" .... There is a zebra crossing ahead which looks busy .... The pavements are very narrow and there is a mother with a pushchair and two unrestrained children - one of whom is carrying a football. Ahead the market square looks busy"

And I remember anticipation of pedestrians actions being included in my "training" for the DSA Car Driving test.

Of course if they give absolutely no indication that they are about to side step, hop, jump slide etc. onto the road way then you would probably be right to feel hard done by if charged for careless. Which had you been driving a car and the same happened is almost a certainty once the polis turned up.

Stu07

I can safely say if a pedestrian steps out into the road in front of you, you are NOT going to face a careless driving charge!

The world would be an extremely ridiculous place if pedestrians ruled the road. Techinically its correct they have a right of way once they are on the road, but common sense tends to be applied ie if they step out right in front of you into your path you are not going to go to court.

fizz

nwallace wrote:

Of course if they give absolutely no indication that they are about to side step, hop, jump slide etc.

Nope none, there was nobody walking on that compelete section of pavement for a good 1/2 mile. There was a Renault Clio parked on double yellow lines outside the house he went back into. I'm wandering he has walked out of his front door to get into the car and not looked or his vision was obscured by the parked car as mine might also have been and then walked straight into me.

The thing that makes me think this is that somebody picked up his car keys off of the road and gave them back to him., so maybe his keys were in his hand as he was about to get into his car ?

One second he wasnt there and then then he was, he appeared from nowhere. If he had been walking on the pavement before he crossed I would have seen him. I dont cycle around with my eyes shut and I'm an experienced motorcycle rider to. So I'm not knew to this lark by any means.

always_tyred

nwallace wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Going to have to say this; you shouldn't have hit him, sounds like you weren't being observant enough.

H o w - o n - e a r t h do you come up with this statement on the basis of the OP?

I come up with it too.

Pedestrians have right of way over just about anything on the road. It's the vehicular roads users responsibility to anticipate Mr Pedestrian being a prick and walking into the road without looking.

The observation section of Cycle craft doesn't specifically mention pedestrians on the pavement but it does tell you to consider minor things too.

How to be a better driver has an example commentary for a picture, it ends:
" .... There is a zebra crossing ahead which looks busy .... The pavements are very narrow and there is a mother with a pushchair and two unrestrained children - one of whom is carrying a football. Ahead the market square looks busy"

And I remember anticipation of pedestrians actions being included in my "training" for the DSA Car Driving test.

Of course if they give absolutely no indication that they are about to side step, hop, jump slide etc. onto the road way then you would probably be right to feel hard done by if charged for careless. Which had you been driving a car and the same happened is almost a certainty once the polis turned up.

You are both engaging in supposition. You suppose that since this hasn't happened to you, you would have avoided it.

Btw, having laws that do not make use of pedestrian crossings mandatory is not the same as providing pedestrians with priority.

Mind you, if you are correct, then it would be a jolly good wheeze to step out in front of a few cars, incur an occasional minor injury and purchase new cycling aparrel with the proceeds.

spen666

fizz wrote:

nwallace wrote:

Of course if they give absolutely no indication that they are about to side step, hop, jump slide etc.

Nope none, there was nobody walking on that compelete section of pavement for a good 1/2 mile. There was a Renault Clio parked on double yellow lines outside the house he went back into. I'm wandering he has walked out of his front door to get into the car and not looked or his vision was obscured by the parked car as mine might also have been and then walked straight into me.

The thing that makes me think this is that somebody picked up his car keys off of the road and gave them back to him., so maybe his keys were in his hand as he was about to get into his car ?

One second he wasnt there and then then he was, he appeared from nowhere. If he had been walking on the pavement before he crossed I would have seen him. I dont cycle around with my eyes shut and I'm an experienced motorcycle rider to. So I'm not knew to this lark by any means.

If your vision was obscured to such an extent, then perhaps it was not appropriate to be going so fast in a residential area.

He could not appear from no where. If he was not previously on the pavement, then where was he? As far as I am aware, people do not teleport themselves. [mind you I am only speaking about London, it may be different elsewhere]



Fizz, you need to think carefully what you are saying. On what you have said here, in this post, I would have no doubt that a civil court would find you liable.

I have highlighted a couple of passages that would count against you

don_don

I was thinking about this as I cycled home from work tonight.

Regardless of the issues of blameworthiness etc that have been discussed, it strikes me that when a pedestrian is hit by any kind of vehicle, the natural reaction of bystanders is to have concern for the pedestrian first and driver / rider second.

I think the other subconcious reaction from bystanders, is that the 'road-user' (ie. driver, cyclist, whatever) must be at fault. I think this is a reaction to the shock of seeing something traumatic and having your perception skewed by that.

So I think what I'm trying to say is that the unfriendly / unconcerned reaction to fizz might be more to do with how people naturally react to seeing an 'accident' involving a pedestrian, than to any antipathy towards cyclists per se.

If that makes any sense....!

prj45

Always Tyred wrote:

You are both engaging in supposition. .

Well quite, that's what you do on a messge board.

Always Tyred wrote:

You suppose that since this hasn't happened to you, you would have avoided it

I have clipped a pedestrian before; I blame myself. Alright he was running in the road but I was the one that got hurt. Pedestrians have ultimate right of way, if people in or on vehicles strike them then EPIC FAIL.

always_tyred

There's a bit of a gang mentality on the forum sometimes.

And Spen, to say "I would have no doubt that a civil court would find you liable" in this context is complete cobblers.

Guys, there are indications both ways, but in typical moralising forum fashion you lot have jumped on your preferred interpretation (of several possible interpretations, including that it was an accident or that it was the pedestrian's fault) and like a dog clamped to a trouser leg, you won't let go.

According to your own arguments, you lot should be pretty jumpy on your cycle in this morning. Anyone or anything at any time can, without any warning change trajectory into your path, with insufficient time for you to stop, and it will all be YOUR fault. So be careful out there.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

There's a bit of a gang mentality on the forum sometimes.

And Spen, to say "I would have no doubt that a civil court would find you liable" in this context is complete cobblers.

Really?

I do have absolutely no doubt that on the basis of what is posted a civil court would find against the op.

For you to say that is complete cobblers is wrong.

I know what I believe better than you do

Guys, there are indications both ways, but in typical moralising forum fashion you lot have jumped on your preferred interpretation (of several possible interpretations, including that it was an accident or that it was the pedestrian's fault) and like a dog clamped to a trouser leg, you won't let go.

According to your own arguments, you lot should be pretty jumpy on your cycle in this morning. Anyone or anything at any time can, without any warning change trajectory into your path, with insufficient time for you to stop, and it will all be YOUR fault. So be careful out there.

You are supposed to drive/ ride your vehicle so that you can stop if something strays into your path.

In this case we have a cyclist who was doing a relatively fast speed for a bike.
We have a pedestrian- no suggestion pedestrian was doing anything faster than walking pace

We have a cyclist weho admits that his vision ( & that of pedestrian) may have been obscured by a known object ( parked car) but does not slow down to a speed where he can deal with anything straying into his path.

We also have a pedestrian who "appears from nowhere" and was not apparently walking on the pavement before appearing in the road.

The above all suggest to me that the cyclist was travelling too fast for the field of vision and or was not paying proper attention. If he had been paying attention, he would know where the pedestrian came from.

fizz

spen666 wrote:

The above all suggest to me that the cyclist was travelling too fast for the field of vision and or was not paying proper attention. If he had been paying attention, he would know where the pedestrian came from.

OK well my memory is a little clearer this morning and being able to look at the damage on my bike a little better...

The road is lined with 1930's terraced houses with no front garden and the doors open out into the street with no front garden.

So I think the chap that I hit, has walked out of his front door across the pavement and the straight out into the road into my path. I dont think I have hit him straight on because my front wheel is straight, but my handlebars were twisted around to the left and that where I think the impact was.

So I think he's probably just walked straight into the side of me and I've hit him with my left hand handlebar and then its tipped me across the road to the right, This would also tie up with I think the fact that I've got a very sore left shoulder today despite the fact that I fell onto my right hand side.

I had no warning because I didnt see him, as I said he wasnt walking along the pavement prior to the accident. Not much I can do if he's walked out of his front door and then into the side of me is there whcih is what I think has happened.

Like I said he was definately not walking along the pavement prior to me hitting him, the road is straight for about 1/2 mile or so and I had a good view of the pavement prior to my vision being impeded by the parked car on the double yellow lines. I even moved out wider prior to passing the car to give myself a better view of the road ahead.

My fault for going to fast, well I'm man enough to admit that this a posibility, my fault for being knocked off, I'm struggling with that one. I feel the chap I hit must take some blame purely because I'm 100% conviinced he didnt look at all before he stepped out into the road.

chromehoof

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

The above all suggest to me that the cyclist was travelling too fast for the field of vision and or was not paying proper attention. If he had been paying attention, he would know where the pedestrian came from.

He stated the speed limit was 30 m.p.h and he was going 20 m.p.h. Hence he wasn't going too fast.

Glad you're ok in the main fizz. I had a similar experience about 6/7 weeks ago. It was in the center of the city, there was a break in vehicular traffic, and a woman, obviously assuming that because no cars were whizzing by, the lights must be red, stepped out into my path. I couldn't stop and tried my best to swerve away from her. I ended up clipping her with my right handlebar (enough to knock her over), and I ended up landing on a kerb, hitting a wall. I knew straight away that I was ok (apart from a knock to the knee), and the instinctive reaction was to check on her well being. When I went over to her she was very embarrassed by the whole thing, and started apologising. I didn't really care about the accident at that stage - I just needed to know she was ok. She was, we went our separate ways, and that was that.

I didn't report it, and If it was me in your situation I wouldn't report it.

I find pedestrians a particularly nasty hazard these days. We don't have any notion of a jaywalking law thats enforced in any way, and the amount of people crossing between traffic is getting ridiculous. I had 2 close calls on my way home from work yesterday. People just don't pay attention like they should. Once traffic stops they think its ok to cross, regardless of the colour of the lights. Cyclists coming up on the inside are the last thing on anyone's mind.

squired

Out of interest, was it daylight or nighttime when the accident happened? One thing I've become acutely aware of is how invisible pedestrians are at night, often due to being clad head-to-toe in dark clothing.

If the guy walked into the side of you I think he is at fault. I remember a while back when a child ran across the road into my brother's rear wheel. In this case we were actually surprised as the mother was actually having a go at the child and apologising for what happened.

AyrshireBacon

chromehoof wrote:

He stated the speed limit was 30 m.p.h and he was going 20 m.p.h. Hence he wasn't going too fast.

Please bear in mind that 30 is a limit to the speed and not a target. Sometimes the limit is 30 and travelling at 30 will be safe. Sometimes the limit is 30 but the safe speed may be 10. We don't know what a safe speed is for this journey in those conditions as we were not there. This might still have happened had the OP been going at barely walking pace, no way of telling now.

Not having a go at the OP in any way. Hope you are Ok now BTW.

fizz

It happened about 17:45 last night, it was on a road in the town I live in so there were some streetlights. I've got a Cateye Single Shot Plus on my bike which is more than ample for town riding. So its not like I wasnt lit up properly.

I remember just seeing a black blob in front of me and when I was looking at the guy as he was getting out of the road he was dressed in black trousers and a black jacket.

Shoulder is a bit sore this morning, and the gravel rash on my knees is sore, and I have nice watch shaped brusie on my wrist.

I'm not planning on reporting but I am feeling bad about what happened, but I didnt ride away until I felt happy that this guy wsa OK, he got up and walked un aided into his house and he refused the ambulance and said he was OK...

The Chingford Skinhead

Glad you're OK fizz.

Interesting wider debate about fault / blame and our assumptions. In the round (rather than a comment on this specific incident) I would say that many cyclists would like the European system whereby the presumption in any accident is that the bigger vehicle is at fault, until proved otherwise. So, generally for cyclists, if you get clipped by a car, van, bus etc then as the more vulnerable road user you are assummed to be the victim. That puts the onus on the drivers of more powerful vehicles to be more aware and careful.

In my view that is the right approach - even though we all know that accidents aren't always the fault of the bigger vehicle and that some cyclists are nutters (messengers ought to be exempt from the rule for example!!). It doesn't absolve the more vulnerable from responsibility of course, it just changes the starting point for considering the facts.

However, the European system would also mean that if a pedestrian is hit by any form of traffic - including cyclists - then the trafic will be assumed to be at fault.

Keep your eyes peeled folks

chromehoof

AyrshireBacon wrote:

Please bear in mind that 30 is a limit to the speed and not a target. Sometimes the limit is 30 and travelling at 30 will be safe. Sometimes the limit is 30 but the safe speed may be 10. We don't know what a safe speed is for this journey in those conditions as we were not there.

agree 100%

In a roundabout way that was kind of the point I was trying to make. Based on a brief enough description of the event its not really possible to comment on whether they were going too fast or not. Once they were not over the speed limit then you can't say for certain that they were.

il_principe

Christ there are some sanctimonious folk on here this morning. Fizz, I hope you're ok, ignore some of the tosh being posted on here, I suspect many of the have a go brigade don't cycle at walking pace wherever there might be peds about. The bloke walked into you despite your being lit up and on the road, glad you're both seemingly ok, but he's a c0ck for not looking. As you said, had you been a car it could have been much worse.

biondino

Jash on the money. Yes, Sometimes the limit is 30 but the safe speed may be 10 is true, but on an empty, straight road this isn't the case! Idiocy from a ped plus an unfortunate set of circumstances led to this accident, and if fizz can learn anything from it, that might be to take a more primary position, when safe to do so, on this road in the future (apart from anything else, he'll avoid a potential dooring).