Was I in the wrong/being careless?

antfly

biondino wrote:

I'd have given him hell of abuse. Or the old "you're ace, you are. I wish I was as ace as you".

You call that abuse?Surely you can do better than that.
WVM would probably just think that you admired him.

_Brun_

The whole point is that pedestrians stepping into a relatively small gap between a stationary vehicle and a kerb is entirely not unexpected. To compare it with someone walking into a bus lane on the A23, or a dog running out into an otherwise empty road is utterly stupid.

Filtering on a bike is a privilege as far as I'm concerned, particularly on the inside of traffic. Extra care has to be taken beacuse it's completely reasonable to assume pedestrians won't expect something to be travelling at speed on that particular part of the road. At fifteen stone plus bike you're likely to do serious damage to anyone you hit at even 10mph, I think there's even a pretty good chance you could actually kill someone.

While I can understand why you took exception to pjr's initital post, the fact that you've continued to argue your corner into a fifth page suggests you don't have a very good appreciation of your responsibilities to the safety of other road users. Dare I suggest you should try leaving the helmet at home and see if it changes your attitude?

DonDaddyD

_Brun_ wrote:

The whole point is that pedestrians stepping into a relatively small gap between a stationary vehicle and a kerb is entirely not unexpected. To compare it with someone walking into a bus lane on the A23, or a dog running out into an otherwise empty road is utterly stupid.

Filtering on a bike is a priviledge as far as I'm concerned, particularly on the inside of traffic. Extra care has to be taken beacuse it's completely reasonable to assume pedestrians won't expect something to be travelling at speed on that particular part of the road. At fifteen stone plus bike you're likely to do serious damage to anyone you hit at even 10mph, I think there's even a pretty good chance you could actually kill someone.

While I can understand why you took exception to pjr's initital post, the fact that you've continued to argue your corner into a fifth page suggests you don't have a very good appreciation of your responsibilities to the safety of other road users. Dare I suggest you should try leaving the helmet at home and see if it changes your attitude?

I think the bold bit is a rather flippant assumption.

But, this has gone beyond the point of being constructive and is (and has clearly been previously) bordering into personal attacks and an attempt to vilify for reasons I don't fully care to understand.

When coming up to the lights its not uncommon to see cyclists riding/rolling/one leg pushing their bikes to the front of the ASL (if for anything else their own safety) on the left and right side of traffic. Filtering to you may be a priviledge but is it breaking the law?

I don't expect to see pedestrians in the road especially those completely obscured until they fully step out into clearly moving traffic.

To expect someone to be prepared for every eventuality in a situation where they can only control their actions is naive IMO. I was on the brakes I braked I couldn't brake no more. Even rolling one legged to the ASL I would have hit this person. Should I have got off my bike and walked?

I don't think my example was utterly stupid. It emphasised my perceptions of unexpected circumstances. If you have a different perspective on the matter born out of your experience, more power to you.

I don't believe myself to be dangerous cyclist. If you or others do at this point, I don't care.

prj45

DonDaddyD wrote:

Filtering to you may be a priviledge but is it breaking the law?

Depends how you do it. If you boil out from behind a truck at a speed that means you would "go right through" a pedestrian as you suggested you do when it's dry then I suspect it is breaking the law to ride like this.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't expect to see pedestrians in the road especially those completely obscured until they fully step out into clearly moving traffic.

Well you should expect it. It's called defensive riding.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was on the brakes I braked I couldn't brake no more. Even rolling one legged to the ASL I would have hit this person. Should I have got off my bike and walked?

But you said had it been dry you would've been travelling much faster. I ask again, do you think this is a sensible way to ride a bike, belting out from behind stationery (or indeed stationary) trucks?

prj45

prj45 wrote:

But you said had it been dry you would've been travelling much faster. I ask again, do you think this is a sensible way to ride a bike, belting out from behind stationery (or indeed stationary) trucks?

Come on DonDaddyD, answer the question, it'd be good for you!

steve-m

_Brun_ wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Let me give you a similar scenario:

On Monday I was essentially undertaking slow moving traffic. A guy steps appears on the right from the front of a lorry (so he was crossing the road). I couldn't see him in time to brake so smack I crashed into him. Lucky for him it was raining and I made it a point to go slow, had it been today given the weather, I'd have gone straight through him.

I don't think you should ever filter at any significant speed down the inside of large vehicles when you can't see what's infront of them. While unseen pedestrians obviously shouldn't step out without looking, it's bordering on reckless to just assume they won't.

Even when filtering on the outside of stationary traffic, extra care should be taken when you can't see past a vehicle because the majority of pedestrians will almost always only look to their left, towards oncoming traffic in the right hand lane.

Out of interest, does anyone do N-South Holloway road morning commute - it is a nightmare, because of parked cars and pending bus lanes, from the north traffic tends to be on the right leaving little room to safely overtake but plenty of room to filter - but with junctions and peds you can hardly do this at speed. The traffic is hardly moving south but fairly quick going north. I should probably just find a different route.

DonDaddyD

prj45 wrote:

prj45 wrote:

But you said had it been dry you would've been travelling much faster. I ask again, do you think this is a sensible way to ride a bike, belting out from behind stationery (or indeed stationary) trucks?

Come on DonDaddyD, answer the question, it'd be good for you!

Your terminology is inflammatory. "Travelling much faster" "Belting out from behind trucks". These are far from the reality.

Consider this: It is not every road or every situation where you can filter down the middle or the far right.

The final answer I will give is this:

I do not think the way I was riding down the road on that day or other days, regardless of weather conditions, has been in any way purposely dangerous or intentionally devoid of sense i.e. less than sensible.

Dangerous and less than sensible implies that I would willingly or consciously jeopardize my own safety and that of others. This is something I wouldn't willingly or consciously do.

prj45

DonDaddyD wrote:

Your terminology is inflammatory. "Travelling much faster" "Belting out from behind trucks". These are far from the reality.

Well, I can't understand why you originally used the term "gone straight through him".

That implies quite a speed don't you think?!

DonDaddyD

prj45 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Your terminology is inflammatory. "Travelling much faster" "Belting out from behind trucks". These are far from the reality.

Well, I can't understand why you originally used the term "gone straight through him".

That implies quite a speed don't you think?!

I posted this 3 days ago.

DondaddyD wrote:

Anything above 12mph when you take my weight and size into consideration would go through some one. 12mph isn't really a stupid speed.

Seriously, you've read into something that I've written and made it into something much larger than its intent.

I've already said that I don't think its safe to ride on the outside of traffic on that section of the road. I've said that I wouldn't ride that section of the road fast - 15mph above - mostly because of my road position and circumstance. I've already explained that despite already squeezing the brakes and braking hard when the guy (unexpectedly) stepped out I could do nothing to prevent hitting him.

And when I think about it more on a dry day I'd have gone straight through the guy not entirely because of my speed but mostly because I wouldn't have already been on the brakes.

Had I gone straight through him, much like hitting him (keep in mind I was apologetic and so was he, we touched each other on the shoulder expressed concern and he said not to worry no one was hurt) I would have been regretful. But in that instance there was not much more I could have done not to hit him save got off my bike and walked.

I don't understand what purpose repeatedly going over this serves.

prj45

DonDaddyD wrote:

And when I think about it more on a dry day I'd have gone straight through the guy not entirely because of my speed but mostly because I wouldn't have already been on the brakes.

And you don't think you should be on the brakes and going very slowly (i.e. 3 or 4 mph max) coming out from behind a stationary lorry?

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't understand what purpose repeatedly going over this serves.

Well, so next time you (or anybody reading this) comes out from behind a stationary lorry they're covering their brakes, going at a suitable speed and expecting a ped to jump out in front of them, whatever the weather!

DonDaddyD

prj45 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

And when I think about it more on a dry day I'd have gone straight through the guy not entirely because of my speed but mostly because I wouldn't have already been on the brakes.

And you don't think you should be on the brakes and going very slowly (i.e. 3 or 4 mph max) coming out from behind a stationery lorry?

I wasn't coming out from behind a lorry. I was riding alongside traffic in the appropriate road position under those circumstances. The pedestrian came out completely from the front of a lorry without checking or peeping.

So Nope.

prj45

DonDaddyD wrote:

I wasn't coming out from behind a lorry.

You said you were filtering along the left hand side of a lorry. From the pedestrian's perspective you came out from beind a lorry, just as he came out from the front of the lorry from your perspective.

DonDaddyD wrote:

The pedestrian came out completely from the front of a lorry without checking or peeping.

And you came out from behind the lorry without checking or peeping?

DonDaddyD

Behind the lorry suggests that I was at the back of the lorry - and this is where my description or use of the word filtering may have been wrong. I was never behind or at the back of the lorry.

I was riding along a straight road between a long line of traffic and the curb. I was to the left of the traffic.

As I was passing a lorry a pedestrian steeped out from the front of the lorry.

(I riding/filtering down one side of traffic, I wasn't weaving in and out of traffic)

prj45

DonDaddyD wrote:

Behind the lorry suggests that I was at the back of the lorry - and this is where my description or use of the word filtering may have been wrong. I was never behind or at the back of the lorry.

So would it be true that for the pedestrian you appeared to come out from behind the lorry, from his point of view?

You were filtering down the left hand side of the lorry right, and you and the ped came into contact just in front of it, just forward of its passenger side door?

DonDaddyD

prj45 wrote:

So would it be true that for the pedestrian you appeared to come out from behind the lorry, from his point of view?

This is subjective to the perception of the individual. Therefore I cannot speak from the pedestrians 'point of view'. However, from my point of view I didn't come from behind the lorry. Having been party to the incident, from my point of view had I been the individual, I would have thought the bike was riding along the road as I wouldn't and couldn't have seen the bike coming from 'behind the lorry' - that would be an assumption. The only thing I would be aware of is the bike riding along the road at the moment I stepped out and collided with it.

[side comment]

Lol,

This reminds me of a legendary conversation - back when I frequented www.newsarama.com (it actually happened on another comic board the link to it was on newsarama) - between Kurt Busiek (Avengers, Avengers vs JLA and Trinity writer - comic books) and an over zealous fan who was trying to confuse and wear Kurt down in order to get his point across.

For many days and some 68+pages (that was as much as I was wiling to skim read) the fan continually tried to make wild accusations in an attempt to get his point across. He believed Kurt's interpretation of Superman and the ideology of the character Kurt had portrayed was frankly wrong. Kurt, true to his reputation of being completely measured during the often overblown internet discussions, displayed a herculean effort as he remained patient and rational. He even managed to stay on topic for the length of the conversation and eventually getting his point across.

[/side comment]