What happens if you take out a Pedestrian?

VespaTrek

I've had two close ones with muppet pedestrians recently. The first on the Trek at about 6.30am in Battersea... the tosser just didn't look and only my quick reactions stopped a collision; the second was on the Vespa at about 5.40am near Waterloo and I didn't even see them walk out, not looking and under an umbrella and I just felt their shadow as I brushed past them - it was a kinda harry potter type was that actually real experience, but they were there. About 18mph and 30mph respectively for the two near hits.

So what happens if I took them out and was left with a broken bike (£1k) or a broken Vespa (£3.7k) - or some damage costing less than that? Any liability on their part? Can they be done by the police for walking without due care and attention? Can they be locked up for being a stupid tw@t?

Wallace1492

That is why you need insurance!!
And good eyes, and good reactions.....

If cars are to have the presumption of liability when in accidents with bikes, then bikes (and Vespa's) will have the presumption of liability in accidents with pedestrians.

I am sure you could sue them if you proved negligence, though they will not have any insurance, so may as well get your own for peace of mind.

greg66_tri_v2.0

As I recall (and it would be worth checking this) once a ped steps into the road he/she has right of way over vehicles. If so, you won't have to worryabout claiming any costs of damage from the ped.

VespaTrek wrote:

I didn't even see them walk out

Did you say SMIDSY?

waddlie

Technically a ped has right of way, although if they step out in to someone's path without looking or giving the cyclist the opportunity to take evasive action, they could still be liable - this liability would normally be covered by the ped's contents insurance.

Wallace1492

Greg66 wrote:

As I recall (and it would be worth checking this) once a ped steps into the road he/she has right of way over vehicles. If so, you won't have to worryabout claiming any costs of damage from the ped.

VespaTrek wrote:

I didn't even see them walk out

Did you say SMIDSY?

They do not have right of way if they step out in front of a vehicle/traffic. Maybe the only right of way in that case is straight to the pearly gates!! What you may be thinking of is this:
170. Take extra care at junctions. You should: watch out for pedestrians crossing a road onto which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.

Only way to protect yourself is to have insurance.

beverick

VespaTrek wrote:

I've had two close ones with muppet pedestrians recently. The first on the Trek at about 6.30am in Battersea... the tosser just didn't look and only my quick reactions stopped a collision; the second was on the Vespa at about 5.40am near Waterloo and I didn't even see them walk out, not looking and under an umbrella and I just felt their shadow as I brushed past them - it was a kinda harry potter type was that actually real experience, but they were there. About 18mph and 30mph respectively for the two near hits.

So what happens if I took them out and was left with a broken bike (£1k) or a broken Vespa (£3.7k) - or some damage costing less than that? Any liability on their part? Can they be done by the police for walking without due care and attention? Can they be locked up for being a stupid tw@t?

Whether an offence has been committed depends on circumstances and, assuming the police were involved, I imagine that a whole range of charges could be applicable to any party seen to be involved (from you being charged with careless cycling to the pedestrian being charged with various public order offences). However, in reality, unless there were aggravating circumstances (ie undue aggression on either part, impairment of either party through alcohol or drugs, or suspicion of a deliberate act), it is highly unlikley that any prosecution would be sought.

Regarding cost of reparation you have the following choices:

1) Assuming you can prove liability you can claim damages against them; or
2) Assuming you can't liability, or you can't be bothered persuing them through the courts, either:
a) put it down to experience and stand the cost yourself; or
b) claim on your own insurance.

Remebering of course, that in the case of 2b and depending on the amount claimed, your insurance may choose to prove persue the third party for at least part of the cost.

Bob

roger_merriman

the problem is people listen to traffic a few months back had a close call here, http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nw2+3ug&sll=51.44636,-0.29559&sspn=0.092865,0.263157&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=London+NW2+3UG,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.406812,-0.404071&spn=0.022674,0.065789&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.406765,-0.404254&panoid=CAYkPkkkXg64E464sUxshg&cbp=12,74.39,,0,5

where a runner upon not hearing any traffic running along the pavement moved out into the road just as I was upon him, I was lucky my shout of "easy!" and the tires screaching on hot tarmac. made him jump back, as he was cutting across my path.

but it was close very close. while i was braking I was still moving at speed, so a impact would of been nasty.

snailracer

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

Wallace1492

snailracer wrote:

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

They could only claim this if there was some sort of basis for doing so. For instance, they could not claim your lights were not BS approved if they were.

prawny

If the ped is at fault you can put a claim in through their home contents insurance which covers occupiers TP liabilities, also their kids and pets.

As wallace said the only time a ped has right of way over traffic is at junctions if your turning into a road that they have already started to cross AFAIK anyway.

snailracer

Wallace1492 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

They could only claim this if there was some sort of basis for doing so. For instance, they could not claim your lights were not BS approved if they were.

They could also claim they were not turned on, dim, dirty, badly fitted, not present at the time of the accident, etc. the laundry list that could be used to cast doubt is limited only by the solicitor's imagination.

Wallace1492

snailracer wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

They could only claim this if there was some sort of basis for doing so. For instance, they could not claim your lights were not BS approved if they were.

They could also claim they were not turned on, dim, dirty, badly fitted, not present at the time of the accident, etc. the laundry list that could be used to cast doubt is limited only by the solicitor's imagination.

And maybe the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Again, if you can show that they were perfectly well fitted, on, bright (if during lighting up time) then I am sure that you could turn this around and use it against them for false accusations. They will need to be careful that any speculation they have is based on reality, and not from a "shopping list". Perjury is a criminal offense.

Headhuunter

I'm afraid I've had a few close shaves with peds in the past and have hit a couple who just emerged from traffic without a glance. Usually I come off worse, clipped into the pedals I go down on the deck with them left standing, although 2 crashes I had involved both the ped and me spilling across the road. I think people in London are increasingly aware of cyclists but you do get the odd out of towner who doesn't look....

ESHER SHORE

If cars are to have the presumption of liability when in accidents with bikes, then bikes (and Vespa's) will have the presumption of liability in accidents with pedestrians

I asked my dad about this, he is a sitting magistrate that has dealt with these kind of cases before

he said its a common misconception that pedestrians have automatic right of way on UK roads

I asked him "what would happen if I ran over a pedestrian that carelessly stepped into the road without looking?"

he replied that as long as I was obeying the highway code, not racing or "cycling furiously", using approved lights (if at night) then the pedestrian would have no legal redress

in Europe its different, specifically in Holland motorists are automatically liable for any accidents involving cyclist and pedestrians, a motorist would have to prove the cyclist was at fault

Headhuunter

Yes, AFAIK, there is no law yet that motorists are automatically liable in accidents with cyclists and the same for cyclists and peds. It has merely been suggested...

ESHER SHORE

I then asked him what my position would be, to be able to claim damages if the pedestrian caused me injury or damage to my property (bike) and he said its legally a more murky area - you would probably have to bring a civil action for damages

but, if witnesses stated that they saw the pedestrian step straight in front of me, and this came to court, the pedestrian could be charged with "lack of due care or attention"

additionally, if the pedestrian tried to flee the scene of a road traffic accident they had caused, they could be charged by the Police under criminal law

I asked my accident insurers about this, and they said they would have no qualms about bringing a civil case against a careless pedestrian if such an incident occured

spen666

snailracer wrote:

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

Given the OP's repeated admissions in other threads of ignoring road traffic legislation etc, this could come back to haunt him at a trial.

The OP admits to ignoring ASL restrictions and cycle lane restrictions when on his motorbike.

If a lawyer for pedestrian were to be aware of those postings, they could comeback to haunt Op as they could be said to show a trend to disregard road traffic laws and safety of other road users

kurako

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

spen666

ESHER SHORE wrote:

If cars are to have the presumption of liability when in accidents with bikes, then bikes (and Vespa's) will have the presumption of liability in accidents with pedestrians

I asked my dad about this, he is a sitting magistrate that has dealt with these kind of cases before

he said its a common misconception that pedestrians have automatic right of way on UK roads

I asked him "what would happen if I ran over a pedestrian that carelessly stepped into the road without looking?"

he replied that as long as I was obeying the highway code, not racing or "cycling furiously", using approved lights (if at night) then the pedestrian would have no legal redress

in Europe its different, specifically in Holland motorists are automatically liable for any accidents involving cyclist and pedestrians, a motorist would have to prove the cyclist was at fault

You are confusing civil and criminal liability here.

The OP when asking about compensation is referring to civil law.

What you say may be relevant to criminal law, but the civil law position is different.

roger_merriman

Kurako wrote:

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

true but they don't move into your path at the last moment. i've not hit any one yet but I've come awfully close, as they haven't looked and just stepped out.

Headhuunter

Some peds are completely spatially unaware, this morning as I hobbled to the office from the bus stop some woman came out of City Thameslink station and literally just about walked straight into me. She was looking right at me, I was walking down the middle of the pavement in a straight line and she was heading diagonally across it towards the bus stop and she just shoulder barged me. No word of apology. I was visibly "disabled", hobbling along with my crash related injuries. Stoopid cow.

A few weeks ago I saw a bloke get hit by a moped. A fellow cyclist and I were travelling on one side of the road and he seemed to fixate us, walking out into the traffic from the other side of the road to us without a glance, then as he crossed the patch between the 2 lanes of traffic, a moped hit him from the side. Until that point he had just been staring at us cyclists!

kurako

roger merriman wrote:

Kurako wrote:

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

true but they don't move into your path at the last moment. i've not hit any one yet but I've come awfully close, as they haven't looked and just stepped out.

If you're riding defensively you should be able to make allowances. Its not hard to spot patterns. If they're busy looking at something other than the road then chances are they'll do something stupid. If you're filtering through traffic someone will almost certainly assume its safe to cross without looking properly.

If you don't have time to stop or can't see the road clearly then you're going too fast for the conditions.

If you spot a ped in the process of doing something stupid then assume they're not paying attention and slow down/ cover the brakes. Its also good to fix them with your most angry glare so they get the message that they're being incredibly thick. If they still don't see you then you need to take avoiding action. At that point its best to point out that they're being an idiot and you nearly hit them. Also works a treat with RLJers coming out of side roads.

Headhuunter

Kurako wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Kurako wrote:

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

true but they don't move into your path at the last moment. i've not hit any one yet but I've come awfully close, as they haven't looked and just stepped out.

If you're riding defensively you should be able to make allowances. Its not hard to spot patterns. If they're busy looking at something other than the road then chances are they'll do something stupid. If you're filtering through traffic someone will almost certainly assume its safe to cross without looking properly.

If you don't have time to stop or can't see the road clearly then you're going too fast for the conditions.

If you spot a ped in the process of doing something stupid then assume they're not paying attention and slow down/ cover the brakes. Its also good to fix them with your most angry glare so they get the message that they're being incredibly thick. If they still don't see you then you need to take avoiding action. At that point its best to point out that they're being an idiot and you nearly hit them. Also works a treat with RLJers coming out of side roads.

There's very little you can do at all in some situations. I've had peds simply emerge from the traffic right in front of me whilst I have been pootling at almost walking pace. Even at that speed I haven't stood much of a chance. It just means that they get off more lightly whilst I go down clipped into the pedals....

Wallace1492

Headhuunter wrote:

Kurako wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Kurako wrote:

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

true but they don't move into your path at the last moment. i've not hit any one yet but I've come awfully close, as they haven't looked and just stepped out.

If you're riding defensively you should be able to make allowances. Its not hard to spot patterns. If they're busy looking at something other than the road then chances are they'll do something stupid. If you're filtering through traffic someone will almost certainly assume its safe to cross without looking properly.

If you don't have time to stop or can't see the road clearly then you're going too fast for the conditions.

If you spot a ped in the process of doing something stupid then assume they're not paying attention and slow down/ cover the brakes. Its also good to fix them with your most angry glare so they get the message that they're being incredibly thick. If they still don't see you then you need to take avoiding action. At that point its best to point out that they're being an idiot and you nearly hit them. Also works a treat with RLJers coming out of side roads.

There's very little you can do at all in some situations. I've had peds simply emerge from the traffic right in front of me whilst I have been pootling at almost walking pace. Even at that speed I haven't stood much of a chance. It just means that they get off more lightly whilst I go down clipped into the pedals....

Thats why I unclip in traffic, and in filtering conditions.... not difficult really!!

tgotb

I think there's a more important issue here, which is what happens if you're at fault and you injure the pedestrian? Any one of us *could* be involved in an accident where we were genuinely at fault. Riding sensibly cuts down the odds, but I doubt any of us is perfect. Isn't it a matter of social responsibility to have 3rd party insurance?

In my youth (which was a long time ago) I was the driver at fault in a SMIDSY incident with a fairly reckless cyclist. Rider had a very nasty cut on her leg, and bike wasn't in good shape either. Fortunately, she was a member of the CTC and got them to pursue me for damages. I still reckon I could have argued that it was as much her fault as mine, but it felt much better to let the CTC take my insurers to court and get her some sort of recompense.

Third party insurance isn't very expensive; shouldn't we all have it?

Headhuunter

Wallace1492 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Kurako wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Kurako wrote:

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

true but they don't move into your path at the last moment. i've not hit any one yet but I've come awfully close, as they haven't looked and just stepped out.

If you're riding defensively you should be able to make allowances. Its not hard to spot patterns. If they're busy looking at something other than the road then chances are they'll do something stupid. If you're filtering through traffic someone will almost certainly assume its safe to cross without looking properly.

If you don't have time to stop or can't see the road clearly then you're going too fast for the conditions.

If you spot a ped in the process of doing something stupid then assume they're not paying attention and slow down/ cover the brakes. Its also good to fix them with your most angry glare so they get the message that they're being incredibly thick. If they still don't see you then you need to take avoiding action. At that point its best to point out that they're being an idiot and you nearly hit them. Also works a treat with RLJers coming out of side roads.

There's very little you can do at all in some situations. I've had peds simply emerge from the traffic right in front of me whilst I have been pootling at almost walking pace. Even at that speed I haven't stood much of a chance. It just means that they get off more lightly whilst I go down clipped into the pedals....

Thats why I unclip in traffic, and in filtering conditions.... not difficult really!!

Unclipping may help you get a foot down but it ain't going to stop you hitting an errant ped!

roger_merriman

Kurako wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Kurako wrote:

FFS! Pedestrians are really slow. They're only slightly more difficult to avoid than trees and lamposts.

true but they don't move into your path at the last moment. i've not hit any one yet but I've come awfully close, as they haven't looked and just stepped out.

If you're riding defensively you should be able to make allowances. Its not hard to spot patterns. If they're busy looking at something other than the road then chances are they'll do something stupid. If you're filtering through traffic someone will almost certainly assume its safe to cross without looking properly.

If you don't have time to stop or can't see the road clearly then you're going too fast for the conditions.

If you spot a ped in the process of doing something stupid then assume they're not paying attention and slow down/ cover the brakes. Its also good to fix them with your most angry glare so they get the message that they're being incredibly thick. If they still don't see you then you need to take avoiding action. At that point its best to point out that they're being an idiot and you nearly hit them. Also works a treat with RLJers coming out of side roads.

in all of my near misses they have just stepped out, didn't look. as they didn't hear any thing the runner was running on the pavement then moved into the road turning as he did to cross the road at a angle, there was nothing to indicate that he might take that action.

I do agree a lot of things can be predicted but unless you ride at walking pace if some one steps out you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

_Brun_

I had my only very near miss on Monday night when some woman on the pavement saw a gap in traffic coming in the other direction and ran straight out infront of me without looking. I was in primary but not going particularly fast (maybe ~10mph) because I'd been slowing down for a red when it changed.

Did manage to stop while frightening the life out of the daft bint with a loud 'OI!', but there was only about 6" in it and if she'd been a split second later I'd have flattened her.

spen666

_Brun_ wrote:

I had my only very near miss on Monday night when some woman on the pavement saw a gap in traffic coming in the other direction and ran straight out infront of me without looking. I was in primary but not going particularly fast (maybe ~10mph) because I'd been slowing down for a red when it changed.

Did manage to stop while frightening the life out of the daft bint with a loud 'OI!', but there was only about 6" in it and if she'd been a split second later I'd have flattened her.

Very near miss is surely a hit

Headhuunter

_Brun_ wrote:

I had my only very near miss on Monday night when some woman on the pavement saw a gap in traffic coming in the other direction and ran straight out infront of me without looking. I was in primary but not going particularly fast (maybe ~10mph) because I'd been slowing down for a red when it changed.

Did manage to stop while frightening the life out of the daft bint with a loud 'OI!', but there was only about 6" in it and if she'd been a split second later I'd have flattened her.

I've had that a number of times. A guy ran out from behind a van after the van flashed him or paused to let him through. I was already alongside the van, not travelling particularly fast, but the first I knew he was running right in front of me. I literally missed him by inches, my front wheel passed through his long coat.

Another chap ran right into the side of me outside Highbury and Islington station! He was busy watching the cars back over his right shoulder that he had already passed and just ran slap into me. I managed to hold it together and not go down, luckily.

biondino

A miss which, had the two parties been very slightly closer geographically at the moment of potential incident, would have been a hit.