Wiped out by a pedestrian...

always_tyred

fizz wrote:

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 ?

This for the mighty Spen. who is absolutely certain of gaining a conviction in civil court. The first two passages indicate that the cyclist was paying attention and was aware of road markings and was observing potential hazards in the way.

There then follow statements of pure speculation, that the pedestrian's vision might have been obscured (of course, the cyclist cannot know what the pedestrian was able to see) and that his view of the pedestrian might have been obscured by the vehicle. Of course, since he did not have time to see the pedestrian before they were in the road, this cannot be determined with any certainty.

Finally, there is some indication as to the pedestrian's intent and proximity to the vehicle; the presence of the car keys.

Unless you are proposing that the road user has a duty of care whereas the pedestrian does not? Are you arguing that irrespective of the circumstances, the pedestrian cannot be apportioned any liability? If not, there appears to be some basis for arguing both ways.

Hence my assertion that you cannot be certain of anything and that you are, indeed, talking cobblers.

I wouldn't worry, its quite normal.

spen666

chromehoof wrote:

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.

...

Erm speed limit is exactly that- a maximum limit

Doing less than the speed limit can be too fast depending on circumstances


Tell you what, next time there is thick fog on the motorway with visibility less than 50 feet- you try driving at 69mph and see if the Judge at the Crown Court when you are up for Dangerous Driving agrees with you. I think not.

What is too fast is dependant on all the circumstances- not the speed limit alone

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

This for the mighty Spen. who is absolutely certain of gaining a conviction in civil court. ...

Erm - at least I know you do not get convictions in civil court.


Erm - I think you will find I never used the word conviction.

I clearly understand the law a bit better than you in that I know that you do not get convictions other than in criminal courts.

il_principe

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

This for the mighty Spen. who is absolutely certain of gaining a conviction in civil court. ...

Erm - at least I know you do not get convictions in civil court.


Erm - I think you will find I never used the word conviction.

I clearly understand the law a bit better than you in that I know that you do not get convictions other than in criminal courts.

Yawn. Who fcuking cares.

Ped was a t0$$er, glad the OP is ok, sod the pointless (and dull) legal arguments.

Stupid peds.

spen666

fizz wrote:

....
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.

so he was wallking on the pavement- albeit across the same.

Given the type of properties, you should have been riding slow enough ( whatever that may be) so that you could stop if someone came out of their house, walked across the pavement and then foolishly stepped into the road.

The fact you did not see this person , suggests TO ME either you were cycling too fast for the conditions/ environment or you were not paying proper attention to your surroundings

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.

So how come you did not see someone walk out of their house, across the pavement and walk far enough into the road to be colliding with you?

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.

In most accidents no one is 100% to blame- there is usually something someone else could have done to lessen or reduce the accident.

Could it be that your attention had drifted? its easily done and I'm sure most people on here if they are honest will accept they do not pay 100% attention 100% of the time



The main thing of this is that you both appear to be ok and your bike isn't too badly damaged

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

This for the mighty Spen. who is absolutely certain of gaining a conviction in civil court. ...

Erm - at least I know you do not get convictions in civil court.


Erm - I think you will find I never used the word conviction.

I clearly understand the law a bit better than you in that I know that you do not get convictions other than in criminal courts.

I should certainly hope that you do know more about law than me. I'm not pretending to know about law. How is your statistical mechanics? No, I'm a simple layman pointing out that you are talking cobblers.

How come you've not re-asserted your certainty? Or has it been downgraded to "confidence", "likelihood" or "risk" in light of a reanalysis of the evidence (and the problem that you are talking cobblers)?

james w

Hi all

I had my first 'proper' collision just over a week ago, a woman pulled out of a side junction shortly ahead of me and I hit the side of her car. Won't bore you with the details but in reference to the earlier posts in this thread, I did contact the police, just to get my facts and statement officially recorded in case of insurance claims (wasn't sure if I needed a new wheel or just straightening at first)

Anyway, during the 1.5hrs of collision-form-filling-in at my friendly local station, the policeman actually discovered that according to the law, in a collision, I am actually a "pedestrian". There is no box on the collision form for "cyclist". Well, not in Merseyside Police anyway - not sure if it is different elsewhere. So esentially she hit a 'pedestrian' (me). And I suppose in your case, you had a ped/ped collision!

I think the right thing is just to be honest, be factual, keep it simple and report it. It's done then, I think it's good for all involved to be proactive, and keeps it official. In my case, the woman involved was brought in for an interview a week later and esentially given a stern talking to by the traffic section about how it's a good idea to look properly before emerging from a junction. They had discussed prosecution etc. with me but I didn't want to pursue this as I wasn't out for revenge and the woman had settled my repair costs with me. But it's all of file in case anything goes wrong in the future. Similarly, my doctor has it on record about my sore knee, even though it was better after a couple of days - if I develop problems in the future I've got a police record if the collision and a medical record of the associated injuries. Play it safe..

Good luck, speedy recovery, have a great christmas

James

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

Yawn. Who fcuking cares.

Busted. I just like using the word "Cobblers" this week.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

....
Unless you are proposing that the road user has a duty of care whereas the pedestrian does not? Are you arguing that irrespective of the circumstances, the pedestrian cannot be apportioned any liability? If not, there appears to be some basis for arguing both ways.

Hence my assertion that you cannot be certain of anything and that you are, indeed, talking cobblers.

I wouldn't worry, its quite normal.

Have I said at any time that no blame attaches to the pedestrian?

I think I have not.

Saying that OP would be found liable does not mean the pedestrian was not contributory negligent.

The fact the pedestrian may or may not be contributory negligent does not prevent OP from being liable unless degree of contributory negligence is 100% in which case OP would not be liable

spen666

james w wrote:

Hi all

I had my first 'proper' collision just over a week ago, a woman pulled out of a side junction shortly ahead of me and I hit the side of her car. Won't bore you with the details but in reference to the earlier posts in this thread, I did contact the police, just to get my facts and statement officially recorded in case of insurance claims (wasn't sure if I needed a new wheel or just straightening at first)

Anyway, during the 1.5hrs of collision-form-filling-in at my friendly local station, the policeman actually discovered that according to the law, in a collision, I am actually a "pedestrian". There is no box on the collision form for "cyclist". Well, not in Merseyside Police anyway - not sure if it is different elsewhere. So esentially she hit a 'pedestrian' (me). And I suppose in your case, you had a ped/ped collision!
...

That is not the law- its just a badly designed form

Clearly designed by someone who does not think cyclists are road users or marginalises their involvement. It is NOT a statement of the law

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

This for the mighty Spen. who is absolutely certain of gaining a conviction in civil court. ...

Erm - at least I know you do not get convictions in civil court.


Erm - I think you will find I never used the word conviction.

I clearly understand the law a bit better than you in that I know that you do not get convictions other than in criminal courts.

I should certainly hope that you do know more about law than me. I'm not pretending to know about law. How is your statistical mechanics? No, I'm a simple layman pointing out that you are talking cobblers.

How come you've not re-asserted your certainty? Or has it been downgraded to "confidence", "likelihood" or "risk" in light of a reanalysis of the evidence (and the problem that you are talking cobblers)?

Erm you are a lay person repeatedly spouting false and inaccurate things about the legalities of something.

If you are accepting that I know more law about you, then why are you repeatedly challenging ( wrongly) the legal facts and information I quote.

BTW- where does this certainty you refer to come from? I don't recall using the word certainty?

cougie

I'm no lawyer - but I cant see how the cyclist can be at blame if a ped steps out into his path.

Say it was on a motorway - can a car pull out into traffic from zero and expect it to be the other drivers fault if he gets hit ? You'd have to do about 10mph in the inside lane in order to be able to stop safely for that ?

Theres really no practical way that you could drive thru streets and be able to stop if a ped comes out from behind a van - as we've seen - even cycling speeds are too fast.

Would any of this have happened if the pedestrian had stopped looked and listened ? No - so it should be his fault and his membership of the Tufty Squirrel Road Safety Club should be revoked immediately.

I'd get a cycling friendly solicitor in on this. Hope you heal well.

biondino

cougie wrote:

I'd get a cycling friendly solicitor in on this. Hope you heal well.

So not spen then

Greg T

spen666 wrote:

If you are accepting that I know more law about you, then why are you repeatedly challenging ( wrongly) the legal facts and information I quote.

Perhaps it's because your pomposity just begs to be challenged?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Kangaroo Court he convened I put it to you that the Ped was in all respects guilty of being an idiot. That OP was not at fault and that Spen is being a bit of a dick in trying to blame him for "going too fast and where's your bell do you PAY road tax or insurance I thought not hangings too good for your type running red lights all of you a danger to me you are"

I rest my case

The Chingford Skinhead

jashburnham wrote:

Yawn. Who fcuking cares.

Ped was a t0$$er, glad the OP is ok, sod the pointless (and dull) legal arguments.

Stupid peds.

I think the legal arguments are interesting as they apply to accidents involving road users and our reactions to who is at fault / responsible / to blame. In the specific case it is a cyclist and a pedestrian - but the arguments apply equally higher up the power chain. Your natural alliance is to defend the cyclist and condemn the ped - just as WVM will defend the motorist and condemn the cyclist. Every newspaper blog about the death of a cyclist has a large share of motorists who will assume the motorised vehicle is innocent and it is just the "stupid cyclists" fault. It's actually quite nice (though not for Fizz) that not everyone on here assumes two wheels good, two legs bad. I doubt you'd get the same balance on a car forum discussing an accident with a cyclist who appeared from nowhere...

always_tyred

SPEN: "no doubt"

If you have no doubt, there must be a certainty.

I've actually said very little about the law. I've simply highlighted that the information that you have "no doubt" in regard of does, in fact, leave room for doubt. The very fact that a foolish lay person can drag the debate with you over a couple of pages suggests that there are points in the OP's statements that are open to interpretation.

Now, one might be tempted into a semanic debate as to the interrelationship between certainty and doubt. I do not hold any qualifications in philosphy and neither do you, I imagine. As a native speaker of the language, however, I can be very confident of this interrelationship. Of course that is not to say that I have no doubt, because one can never be certain.

Please.

dirk_van_gently

Fizz: Hope your fine, and your bike fixes up good.

Last week I had a Yuff deliberately run out into the road at me, screaming like a banshee. Got a shock when I turned round and went after him. I gave him the Bollocking of his life. He did apologies, but I think that was motivated more by fear than remorse.

Expect the unexpected, treat everyone else on the road as an idiot.

visual-hybrid

Pedestrians walk out in my path ALL the time without looking. It amazes me, do that in front of a car and they're dead.

Other day a lady walked right out without looking casing me to skid and almost hit into her.

I shout 'c'mon look where you are going' expecting apology back.. NOPE
she tells me to F off

Amazing

wgwarburton

Hi,

> Theres really no practical way that you could drive thru streets and be able to stop if a ped comes out from behind a van - as we've seen - even cycling speeds are too fast.

The responsibility lies with the vehicle operator to avoid pedestrians. A jury of your peers may be sympathetic, if there are mitigating circumstances, but fundamentally you should drive or ride in such a way as to be able to avoid hitting anyone.
If you can't see well enough, you ought to slow down (or manoeuvre so that you can).

There are any number of potential scenarios featuring trucks, cars, cyclists, give-ways, clueless pedestrians, children etc. In some of them the "operator" will be less culpable than others but at the end of the day whether you're riding a bike or driving a bus if you hit someone who's on foot you are probably in the wrong.

While common sense suggests that a pedestrian should look before they walk out onto the road and it's likely that a judge or jury will think them foolish not to, I'm not sure that there's any legal requirement for them to do so... Hence no-one gets prosecuted for jaywalking.

Cheers,
W.

PS. I'm not being sanctimonious here- I'm as guilty of taking calculated risks as the next guy. I'm just pointing out that I don't think I've any defence if I get it wrong.

chromehoof

spen666 wrote:

What is too fast is dependant on all the circumstances- not the speed limit alone

yes, exactly my point. And since we're only guessing what the circumstances were, lets not try and judge whether fizz was going too fast or not.

fizz

WGWarburton wrote:

The responsibility lies with the vehicle operator to avoid pedestrians.

I totally agree, But I believe that there is some form of responsibility on behalf of the pedestrain to look where they are going to.

My memory of the event is a little hazy still so its hard to recollect exactly what happened.

But for arguments sake, if the pedestrain had stepped off the kerb and walked into the side of me catching the left hand side handle bar in the process, How am I supposed to avoid him then ?

TheDrunkMonk

Its decided then. We all have to cycle at 2 MPH in case someone jumps out at us. We'll still probably hit them but the damage will be minimal.

For all of you suggesting a cyclist has to ride a speed that will always avoid a lemming pedestrian, ride at say 8MPH on a road next to a footpath, and every time you pass a pedestrian, imagine how you would avoid him/her if he/she decided to jump out sideways. Get real.

In fact never ride a bike again, because if a pedestrian runs head on at me along a straight stretch of road while I'm doing 2MPH and using my best balancing skills, I'm liable when he hits me???? Madness!!

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

SPEN: "no doubt"

If you have no doubt, there must be a certainty.

There is a world of difference between what I said ( in context) and what you quorte above. I said that I have no doubt, not that it was a certainty. I don't have any doubt at all that on what he said in Op, that OP would be found liable ( note- not a conviction as you seen to think). Not I have not excluded contributory negligence

I've actually said very little about the law. I've simply highlighted that the information that you have "no doubt" in regard of does, in fact, leave room for doubt.

You may have a doubt, I don't. The fact that you may reach a different conclusion does not make my genuinely held view any less genuinely held as you seemed to say earlier [/quote]
The very fact that a foolish lay person can drag the debate with you over a couple of pages suggests that there are points in the OP's statements that are open to interpretation.

[/quote] Ah yes- like the conviction in the civil courts that foolish lay people want to bring irrelevantly into the issue.

The fact that you raise so many things that are completely wroong in law does tend to necessitate pages of replies rebutting them, so that other forum users are not misled by such nonsensical answers.

Now, one might be tempted into a semanic debate as to the interrelationship between certainty and doubt. I do not hold any qualifications in philosphy and neither do you, I imagine. As a native speaker of the language, however, I can be very confident of this interrelationship. Of course that is not to say that I have no doubt, because one can never be certain.

Please.

spen666

chromehoof wrote:

spen666 wrote:

What is too fast is dependant on all the circumstances- not the speed limit alone

yes, exactly my point. And since we're only guessing what the circumstances were, lets not try and judge whether fizz was going too fast or not.

your point was the speed limit was not being exceeded therefore he was not going to fast was it not?


That is completely the opposite of what I have said.

I have based my answers on the circumstances as given by the OP, so I am not guessing at them, but using the information relayed to me by one of the parties to the incident

The Chingford Skinhead

TheDrunkMonk wrote:

Its decided then. We all have to cycle at 2 MPH in case someone jumps out at us. We'll still probably hit them but the damage will be minimal.

For all of you suggesting a cyclist has to ride a speed that will always avoid a lemming pedestrian, ride at say 8MPH on a road next to a footpath, and every time you pass a pedestrian, imagine how you would avoid him/her if he/she decided to jump out sideways. Get real.

In fact never ride a bike again, because if a pedestrian runs head on at me along a straight stretch of road while I'm doing 2MPH and using my best balancing skills, I'm liable when he hits me???? Madness!!

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. But if that is how you interpret it I suggest the next time you hear a fellow cyclist moan about being clipped by a car near a pinch point or being cut up by a car at a left turning junction or being hit and the driver saying I didn't see you mate, rather than sympathise you tell them to get real too. All that is being said is that all road users hav to ride giving due care and attention for the actions of others.

I know I'm certainly not perfect as a cyclist or as a pedestrian (and if I could drive I wouldn't be perfect as a motorist either).

TheDrunkMonk

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

I suggest the next time you hear a fellow cyclist moan about being clipped by a car near a pinch point or being cut up by a car at a left turning junction or being hit and the driver saying I didn't see you mate, rather than sympathise you tell them to get real too. .

I don't think that would be right. But I promise if a fellow cyclist is moaning that a car driver hit him after wheelying off the pavement into moving traffic, I'll tell him to get real.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

There is a world of difference between what I said ( in context) and what you quorte above. I said that I have no doubt, not that it was a certainty. I don't have any doubt at all that on what he said in Op, that OP would be found liable ( note- not a conviction as you seen to think).

I believe that my ego will withstand misue of the terminology "conviction". Had I been to law school I might be a bit ashamed.

I challenged your belief that the cyclist was certain to be liable. You asserted that you had not indicated this. I drew your attention to the statement that you had "no doubt" that the cyclist was liable, and proposed that to have no doubt in an outcome is to be certain of it. You now argue that there is a world of difference between having no doubt and being certain.

From some online dictionaries:

CERTAIN: Adj. Sure, positive, not doubting.
CERTAIN: adj 1 proved or known beyond doubt

Accordignly, I maintain that (a) you are or were certain and that (b) this is cobblers in view of the available information.

Of course, had you been in little doubt, or been almost certain, then we would be in agreement. But to be certain? Please.

Headhuunter

I had almost exactly the same experience about a year or so ago. I was heading along one of the main roads in the City towards the top end of London Bridge. I could see the lights ahead were green so I was bowling along at about 25mph when I saw a large bloke in a suit emerge from an office on the side of the road. He stepped onto the pavement and looked down the road at me, I mean right at me! And then proceeded to walk out into the road in front of me.

I slammed the brakes on, but clipped him, knocking him flying into the gutter, whilst I came off my pedals and skidded face down across the tarmac. Luckily the traffic didn't run me down and I was able to get up. I walked to the side of the road with the bike, limping slightly, I had quite a few scratches and bruises. Everyone was crowded round the bloke, completely ignoring me with my wounds. To be honest the guy was in worse shape than me. He was very shook up and had cuts on his hands and was also limping about and had tobe lifted out of the road by 2 other pedestrians.

At one point someone asked him what had happened and he said something about being hit by a "crazy cyclist". Me crazy? He was the one who walked out in the road! If I'd been on a moped or motorbike, he would have been in a far worse state! He should have counted himself lucky.

I hung around to maks sure he was OK, then he started going on about getting money out of me for medical bills or something. I gave him my address but there was absolutely no way I was admitting responsibility or paying him a penny! He should have been paying me, I had a bruised shoulder and a scratched bike! Anyway I never heard another peep from him so I suppose he realised it was his fault.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There is a world of difference between what I said ( in context) and what you quorte above. I said that I have no doubt, not that it was a certainty. I don't have any doubt at all that on what he said in Op, that OP would be found liable ( note- not a conviction as you seen to think).

I believe that my ego will withstand misue of the terminology "conviction". Had I been to law school I might be a bit ashamed.

I challenged your belief that the cyclist was certain to be liable. You asserted that you had not indicated this. I drew your attention to the statement that you had "no doubt" that the cyclist was liable, and proposed that to have no doubt in an outcome is to be certain of it. You now argue that there is a world of difference between having no doubt and being certain.

From some online dictionaries:

CERTAIN: Adj. Sure, positive, not doubting.
CERTAIN: adj 1 proved or known beyond doubt

Accordignly, I maintain that (a) you are or were certain and that (b) this is cobblers in view of the available information.

Of course, had you been in little doubt, or been almost certain, then we would be in agreement. But to be certain? Please.

I made it clear that it was I who had no doubt. that is different from saying something is certain. One is subjective, one is objective.

You are not in a position to say that what I state my belief to be is cobblers.

it may be cobblers that OP is certain to be held liable. It is however not cobblers that I am in no doubt that OP would be held liable.

Try to keep up

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

.... If I'd been on a moped or motorbike, he would have been in a far worse state! He should have counted himself lucky.
...

One difference between riding a pedal cycle and riding/ driving a motorised vehicle is that the brakes are likely to be better at stopping you in motorised vehicle, so a simple comparision of damage caused speed- eg cycling or driving at 30mph is not always a fair comparison


This is just a general comment and not meant as a reflection on your riding in that case