Wiped out by a pedestrian...

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

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

So you are saying that you are in no doubt of something which is cobblers. Thanks for clarifying.

I apologise for missing the step of reasoning that to believe cobbers and expound that belief constitutes talking cobbers. This may have caused you to become confused and elderly for 3 1/2 pages.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

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

So you are saying that you are in no doubt of something which is cobblers. Thanks for clarifying.

I apologise for missing the step of reasoning that to believe cobbers and expound that belief constitutes talking cobbers. This may have caused you to become confused and elderly for 3 1/2 pages.

There is little point in trying to debate an issue when you simply misquote what I say and turn the issue away from the facts of the case.


I have not said that which you are now attributing to me, in a similar way to the fact I have not said most of the other things you attribute to me

chromehoof

spen666 wrote:

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

my point was that the only evidence that we can categorically use to determine whether he was going too fast or not was the speed limit, because that is the only thing we were certain of.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

There is little point in trying to debate an issue when you simply misquote what I say and turn the issue away from the facts of the case.

Honestly, I just click on the little "quote" button at the top there. Maybe the "misquote" button doesn't work with firefox?

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

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

Definitely true, but in this case I was literally a few metres away when he decided to step off the pavement. There was barely any time to react

spursn17

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.

Burn his house and kill his first born son.

fizz

Headhuunter wrote:

Definitely true, but in this case I was literally a few metres away when he decided to step off the pavement. There was barely any time to react

The guy I collided with yeserday wasnt even a few metres away when he stepped off the pavement. It was more like centre metres from me.

When they're that close to you, theres no way you're going to stop no matter how good your brakes or reactions are. As I said if I had been a car at that distance he'd be seriously injured or worse now.

jedster

headhunter wrote

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 think this illustrates one of two slight different attitudes expressed in this thread.

One school of thought (which I share) is that as a road user, you have a repsonsibility to try to anticipate problems, even if they are caused by other peoples stupidity. In this case, I am quite sure that I would have moved towards the centre of the road and/or covered the brakes, eased off before that bloke stepped off the kerb. I would not have assumed that he had seen me and would stay put.

The other school of thought is that people have a responsibility to act sensibly (which of course they do) and if they don't well that's tough but don't expect me to make allowances.

Now in the OP's case, I think it's quite tough to see how the ped could have been avoided if the really came from the side (although I'm a little surprised that you could get a big impact from the side). I do wonder if you weren't cycling a bit too close to the parked car though. SOunds like you were in the door zone. I tend to give parked cars a wide berth for several reasons including the risk of peds stepping out.

I'm not trying to take anyone to task here, just suggesting how to avoid these kind of problems in the future.

J

spen666

chromehoof wrote:

....

my point was that the only evidence that we can categorically use to determine whether he was going too fast or not was the speed limit, because that is the only thing we were certain of.

The speed limit can only determine if driver/ rider was going too fast

If you are exceeding the speed limit, then you are automatically in law driving too fast.

The converse does not apply. You cannot claim to be driving safely at 69mph on the motorway in thick fog with a visibility of less than 50feet on the basis you did not exceed the speed limit.



BTW this is all irrelevant in this case as the speed limit does not apply to pedal cycles on the ordinary road.

spen666

spursn17 wrote:

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.

Burn his house and kill his first born son.

that's a bit extreme for hitting a pedestrian :twisted:

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

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

So are you suggesting that it is safer for a car to be travelling at, for example, 30mph than a bicycle?

There is a distinct danger of talking cobblers about Newtonian mechanics here.

The brakes on motor vehicle are better because they are required to dissipate considerably more kenetic energy. Therefore, better brakes on motor vehicles do not necessarily mean shorter stopping distances. Furthermore, for a given energy of collision, impact speed of a motorised vehicle would have to be considerably lower than a pedal cycle. A low speed collision with a motor vehicle (for example at 10mph) may very well cause more damage than a high speed collision with a bicycle (for example at 20mph).

Therefore, according to these considerations, a "safe" speed for a motor vehicle is less than for a bicycle.

Please argue this point to the far end of a fart with me.

don_don

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.

Whilst I normally hate to get involved in the 'legal argument threads' we get here now and again, I think spen has a point:

Civil courts decide on the 'balance of evidence', not 'beyond reasonable doubt', or 'certainty'.

I think what spen is 'certain' about is that (in his experience) a civil court would find that, on balance, the cyclist was liable, based on what fizz said near the start of the thread. Of course, he has said a bit more since then so that may have changed by now.

What I think spen is not 'certain' about is that fizz was actually at fault, based on the fact that he didn't have the full story - only what was written.

That at least is how I've read it.

Anyway, argue away folks. I'm off to Cake Stop. Good luck fizz

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

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

So are you suggesting that it is safer for a car to be travelling at, for example, 30mph than a bicycle?

did I say that?

Or are you just inventing things again


i said a simple comparison of damage caused by speed is not always a fair comparison. I said nothing more than that.

Stop inventing things and then accusing me of suggesting them please

There is a distinct danger of talking cobblers about Newtonian mechanics here.

The brakes on motor vehicle are better because they are required to dissipate considerably more kenetic energy. Therefore, better brakes on motor vehicles do not necessarily mean shorter stopping distances.

did I say they did mean shorter distances?

Furthermore, for a given energy of collision, impact speed of a motorised vehicle would have to be considerably lower than a pedal cycle. A low speed collision with a motor vehicle (for example at 10mph) may very well cause more damage than a high speed collision with a bicycle (for example at 20mph).

Therefore, according to these considerations, a "safe" speed for a motor vehicle is less than for a bicycle.

Please argue this point to the far end of a fart with me.

Headhuunter

jedster wrote:

headhunter wrote

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 think this illustrates one of two slight different attitudes expressed in this thread.

One school of thought (which I share) is that as a road user, you have a repsonsibility to try to anticipate problems, even if they are caused by other peoples stupidity. In this case, I am quite sure that I would have moved towards the centre of the road and/or covered the brakes, eased off before that bloke stepped off the kerb. I would not have assumed that he had seen me and would stay put.

The other school of thought is that people have a responsibility to act sensibly (which of course they do) and if they don't well that's tough but don't expect me to make allowances.

Now in the OP's case, I think it's quite tough to see how the ped could have been avoided if the really came from the side (although I'm a little surprised that you could get a big impact from the side). I do wonder if you weren't cycling a bit too close to the parked car though. SOunds like you were in the door zone. I tend to give parked cars a wide berth for several reasons including the risk of peds stepping out.

I'm not trying to take anyone to task here, just suggesting how to avoid these kind of problems in the future.

J

Don't know about you, but my commute is in central London, I pretty much permanently have my hands covering the brakes, but a couple of metres is just not enough time to slow to a complete stop even if you're hands are on the brakes. I couldn't have moved to the middle of the road either as it was filled with vehicles, I always ride in the primary road position if at all possible. There are just some situations in which a crash is unavoidable.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Or are you just inventing things again

i said a simple comparison of damage caused by speed is not always a fair comparison. I said nothing more than that.

Stop inventing things and then accusing me of suggesting them please

No, you said, "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".

There is an implied link, established by the word "so", between the "brakes that are likely to be better at stopping you" and a "fair comparison", necessitating a narrower interpretation than might be made from your later statement, "a simple comparison of damage caused by speed is not always a fair comparison" (which your former statement falls within the scope of).

I am simply pointing out the shortcomings of such a simple correlation and postulating that the respective mass of the vehicles might be a significant parameter worthy of consideration.

Stu07

I think everyone is taking this a bit too seriously.

1. No Police investigation did or will take place even if reported to them.
2. No collision investigator attended as no death or serious injury occurred and therefore no measurements or marks were recorded.

Therefore there is not enough evidence for a civil court for a gobby ped to stand in court and say "he hit me" and for the cyclist to be found liable.

Roadcraft states that you need to be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear and anticipate hazards. HOWEVER even Mystic Meg cannot anticipate all hazards. All you can do when you pass peds is to move over a metre or so (if safe) and watch for body language to indicate their intentions. If they step out with no warning you can then show you have done everything a reasonable road user should.

Therefore you would not be guilty of careless riding as the level of your riding has not fallen below the level expected of a competent road user.

I rest my case.

always_tyred

Stu07 wrote:

I think everyone is taking this a bit too seriously.

Christ, no, not seriously at all. Really, its a pointless semantic debate which I find quite entertaining. I think there was something about cycling right at the start though.

prj45

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 see exactley the same argument on pro car/anti cyclist sites:

Yawn. Who fcuking cares.

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

Stupid cyclists.

I'd like to add that I'm not attributing blame to the OP, but he ended up on his face in the road, a potentially lethal situation so it really doesn't matter what occured before that.

Defensive riding is the key.

andrewgturnbull

fizz wrote:

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.

Hi there.

fizz - how closely did you pass (or were about to pass) his parked car? If you were riding defensively you would want to be more than a car door's width out from the car. That should have given him enough room to walk around his car without you hitting him, no?

Cheers, Andy

fizz

I'm really not sure how closely I passed the parked clio. I always give them a wide berth. As others have said, having had doors opened on me a couple of times I do give parked cars a good amount of room.

Also something I learnt on my motorbike is that if you take a wider line around vehicles it iimproves the about of visability that you have around the car and you're not sat in a potential blind spot for a long length of time. its something I have got into the habbit of doing.

But like I said I really can't remember exactly what happened just prior to the impact. I guess a possibility is that I did pass the Clio to close and didnt leave enough room.

I think its just an unfortunate set of circumstances.In that he's walked out of his door just as I was passing the car and then walked round the bonnet into my path.

I walked down the road it happened on today in the daylight, its good and straight like I said first of all. If he'd been on the pavement either walking towards me or away from me I would have seen him way before he got near the place where the accident happend.

il_principe

prj45 wrote:

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 see exactley the same argument on pro car/anti cyclist sites:

Yawn. Who fcuking cares.

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

Stupid cyclists.

I'd like to add that I'm not attributing blame to the OP, but he ended up on his face in the road, a potentially lethal situation so it really doesn't matter what occured before that.

Defensive riding is the key.

You visit car forums? :shock:

No reasoning with you then.

prj45

jashburnham wrote:

You visit car forums? :shock:

No reasoning with you then.

Primarily to wind up the pro car anti cyclist nut jobs, and boy there are quite a few of them!

spen666

Stu07 wrote:

I think everyone is taking this a bit too seriously.

1. No Police investigation did or will take place even if reported to them.
2. No collision investigator attended as no death or serious injury occurred and therefore no measurements or marks were recorded.

Therefore there is not enough evidence for a civil court for a gobby ped to stand in court and say "he hit me" and for the cyclist to be found liable.

Roadcraft states that you need to be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear and anticipate hazards. HOWEVER even Mystic Meg cannot anticipate all hazards. All you can do when you pass peds is to move over a metre or so (if safe) and watch for body language to indicate their intentions. If they step out with no warning you can then show you have done everything a reasonable road user should.

Therefore you would not be guilty of careless riding as the level of your riding has not fallen below the level expected of a competent road user.

I rest my case.

Stu - you are competing with Alwatys Tyred to confuse the issue

Are you talking about liability in a civil court or a prosecution in a criminal case?

you start of talking re a civil court and liability ( a civil term) and end up by concluding that

Therefore you would not be guilty of careless riding

You seem to ignore the fact that guilty verdicts are only in criminal courts and that careless riding is a criminal offence, not a matter for a civil court.

andy jackson

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh!


.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Stu07 wrote:

I think everyone is taking this a bit too seriously.

1. No Police investigation did or will take place even if reported to them.
2. No collision investigator attended as no death or serious injury occurred and therefore no measurements or marks were recorded.

Therefore there is not enough evidence for a civil court for a gobby ped to stand in court and say "he hit me" and for the cyclist to be found liable.

Roadcraft states that you need to be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear and anticipate hazards. HOWEVER even Mystic Meg cannot anticipate all hazards. All you can do when you pass peds is to move over a metre or so (if safe) and watch for body language to indicate their intentions. If they step out with no warning you can then show you have done everything a reasonable road user should.

Therefore you would not be guilty of careless riding as the level of your riding has not fallen below the level expected of a competent road user.

I rest my case.

Stu - you are competing with Alwatys Tyred to confuse the issue

Are you talking about liability in a civil court or a prosecution in a criminal case?

you start of talking re a civil court and liability ( a civil term) and end up by concluding that

Therefore you would not be guilty of careless riding

You seem to ignore the fact that guilty verdicts are only in criminal courts and that careless riding is a criminal offence, not a matter for a civil court.

Spen, do you think you are capable of assimilating the concept that, in lay terms, "guilt" and "innocence" are synonymous with "liable" and "not liable", move on from the precise legal distinction and address the actual post? You appear pitiably mired by an inability to communicate with people less intelligent than you.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

Spen, do you think you are capable of assimilating the concept that, in lay terms, "guilt" and "innocence" are synonymous with "liable" and "not liable", move on from the precise legal distinction and address the actual post? You appear pitiably mired by an inability to communicate with people less intelligent than you.

That is a bit like saying that a car is a bike.
We are either talking about civil liability or criminal prosecutions

The two are not similar at all.

The laws are different, the evidential rules are different and the standards of proof are different

Lets get it clear what we are debating. This is nothing to do with being precise. It is to do with the basis of what we are talking about.

Do you want to talk about the liability of road user in civil court or their risk of conviction in a criminal case.

As I said before, the two things are wholly different.

AT you also seem to miss the fact that previous poster talks about civil courts, liability and then ends up referring to criminal offences. It is not being imprecise, it is being confused as to what one is talking about.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Spen, do you think you are capable of assimilating the concept that, in lay terms, "guilt" and "innocence" are synonymous with "liable" and "not liable", move on from the precise legal distinction and address the actual post? You appear pitiably mired by an inability to communicate with people less intelligent than you.

That is a bit like saying that a car is a bike.
We are either talking about civil liability or criminal prosecutions

The two are not similar at all.

The laws are different, the evidential rules are different and the standards of proof are different

Lets get it clear what we are debating. This is nothing to do with being precise. It is to do with the basis of what we are talking about.

Do you want to talk about the liability of road user in civil court or their risk of conviction in a criminal case.

As I said before, the two things are wholly different.

We are talking about a civil case, at least you and I were, and the posts were following on from that discussion. In circumstances such as this, rather than become stopped in one's plodding mental tracks, one might make an assumption on the balance of evidence, clarify the basis on which you propose to comment, and proceed with the debate. (Or cobblers, as the case may be).

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

..We are talking about a civil case, at least you and I were, and the posts were following on from that discussion. In circumstances such as this, rather than become stopped in one's plodding mental tracks, one might make an assumption on the balance of evidence, clarify the basis on which you propose to comment, and proceed with the debate. (Or cobblers, as the case may be).

Great - if we are talking about a civil matter, then the previous poster was confusing the issue by talking about someone being found guilty [ a criminal term] of careless driving [ a criminal offence]. Which is what I said and which you seem to take exception to.


If you and other posters are interchanging between criminal and civil law matters, it is not clear to me what we are talking about. Is it wrong to try to clarify what it is that is being discussed?

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

..We are talking about a civil case, at least you and I were, and the posts were following on from that discussion. In circumstances such as this, rather than become stopped in one's plodding mental tracks, one might make an assumption on the balance of evidence, clarify the basis on which you propose to comment, and proceed with the debate. (Or cobblers, as the case may be).

Great - if we are talking about a civil matter, then the previous poster was confusing the issue by talking about someone being found guilty [ a criminal term] of careless driving [ a criminal offence]. Which is what I said and which you seem to take exception to.


If you and other posters are interchanging between criminal and civil law matters, it is not clear to me what we are talking about. Is it wrong to try to clarify what it is that is being discussed?

Not at all, but it was self evident. Glad I could help clarify things again for you.

cee

So thats why my last legal bill was so high. Can I share someones cake?