Cyclists

I saw this a day or two ago. It seems like a simple scenario to judge and an odd outcome, but there are crucial details missing from the news reports, mainly how far away was the cyclist when the pedestrian stepped out?

The headlines make it sound like the pedestrian stepped out right into the cyclists path leaving no time to react. But within the story it says the pedestrian stepped back once she saw the cyclist coming into the path of his evasive manoeuvre which suggests that she stepped out far enough ahead for him to react, but his reaction was not the right one.

I commute through central London daily on a bike and I have always said that pedestrians are the worst road users out there, worse than cyclist and even worse than taxi drivers! But there are some cyclists that react to the common stupidity of some pedestrians by riding aggressively towards them, deliberate close passes and shouting. The one thing that is not an option to them is slowing down.
Funnily it is much the same behaviour that you see from bad drivers towards cyclists.

I can understand the frustration and wanting to give phone zombies a bit of a fright in the hope that they will start paying more attention, but one poor judgment can easily result in an accident. Much better to give a wide berth and shout some obscenities.

And before this thread goes the inevitable way, it's someones behaviour that makes them an idiot, not their chosen mode of transport. A bad cyclist will be just as much as an idiot driving a car, riding a motorbike or bouncing a space-hopper.
 
From what I have read and apparentlya witness gave a statement confirming the fact, but the cyclist made use of the very loud horn he had on his bike to warn the woman as soon as he could when she stepped out into the road. Apparently both the cyclist and pedestrian were knocked unconscious as a result of the collision, so I doubt it was a case of him not trying to slow or avoid a collision and wanting to give her a scare. It could have turned out worse, her actions could just easily put the cyclist under the wheels of a passing car or lorry.
I was nearly once the victim of colliding with an errant pedestrian many years ago as I cycled to work. A woman just stepped off the pavement without looking right in front of me. It was pouring with rain and the brake blocks struggling to stop the bike. Fortunately there was a man with the woman, he had stopped to look and was able to pull the woman back as I desperately tried to avoid a collision.
 
Wasn’t this the guy that was riding a fixed wheel bike . Which enhanced his inability to slow down or control his speed .. bit like a car being stuck in gear with the accelerator glued to the floor
 
No it’s a different case.

The kicker for me in this case, as some who drives around 20 miles a day and cycles 12 (Drive wife to work, return car home and then cycle to my work) is that it occurred at traffic lights. At traffic lights a green light means check the road is clear and proceed, which he doesn’t seem to have done sufficiently well.
 
the black fox said:
Wasn’t this the guy that was riding a fixed wheel bike . Which enhanced his inability to slow down or control his speed .. bit like a car being stuck in gear with the accelerator glued to the floor
Click to expand...

Different case. The pedestrian in that incident was killed. The cyclist was convicted of wanton or furious driving, but cleared of manslaughter.
Early last year, I think, or maybe 2017.
 
the black fox said:
Wasn’t this the guy that was riding a fixed wheel bike . Which enhanced his inability to slow down or control his speed .. bit like a car being stuck in gear with the accelerator glued to the floor
Click to expand...
Just to straighten things out, riding with a fixed wheel does not affect the ability to slow down, but removing the brakes (as in that case) did, though not in the manner you describe.
 
In my opinion there are 2 types of cyclists out there: those who see their bicycles as a means of transport and those who see them as some kind of road warrior steed. I consider myself as one of the former and am regularly appalled by the antics of the latter. The judge's summing up says it all so far as I'm concerned...

it seems to me that Mr Hazeldean owed a duty to other road users to drive with reasonable care and skill. Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way.
Click to expand...
 
Pedestrians have always had right of way when in the road, something other road users don't seem to understand.
any road user should make allowances for pedestrians and slow down or even stop in the event of possibly coming into contact with a pedestrian.
 
Mr Bump said:
Pedestrians have always had right of way when in the road, something other road users don't seem to understand.
any road user should make allowances for pedestrians and slow down or even stop in the event of possibly coming into contact with a pedestrian.
Click to expand...

No, really?
I'd never have thought of that.
And here's me been ploughing them down for decades.
Silly me.:facepalm:
 
Mr Bump said:
Pedestrians have always had right of way when in the road, something other road users don't seem to understand.
Click to expand...
That doesn't give pedestrians the right to cross when they feel like it or not pay attention when doing so. From what I can see the woman was crossing at a controlled crossing. The cyclist had a green light so the pedestrian would have had a red light.
Odd that the judge deemed the fault as 50/50 but awarded damages to the woman as the cyclist hadn't made a counter claim. Judge is a bit of a knob if you ask me.
 
"Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way."

I'm sure the judge knows the law better than me but the above seems odd. It appears, "... established on the road ..." means the moment a pedestrian steps on to a road, irrespective of whether they have the right of way or not, or if they are, or are not, paying attention to the traffic then they have the right of way.

It seems the award of the damages was based more on legal procedure than fault.

I would have hoped that given a 50/50 decision by the judge the pedestrian might have withdrawn her claim, although it terms of the the amount the cyclist is liable for, the damages are minor.

I hope that some sense can prevail but I feel it might be the beginning of a insurance companies rubbing their hands together.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
"Even where a motorist or cyclist had the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way."

I'm sure the judge knows the law better than me but the above seems odd. It appears, "... established on the road ..." means the moment a pedestrian steps on to a road, irrespective of whether they have the right of way or not, or if they are, or are not, paying attention to the traffic then they have the right of way.

It seems the award of the damages was based more on legal procedure than fault.


Dave
Click to expand...

I think it is a law that seriously needs to be reviewed. If it is a road with no pavements, fair enough, pedestrian should have some priority, but I would still suggest they look and only cross if safe to do so. If it is a road with a controlled crossing in close vicinity they should only get priority at the crossing and only when the crossing gives them that priority by displaying a green light to them.
Pedestrians also need to learn that a mobile phone is just a phone that they can take with them, the word mobile doesn't mean carry on walking without paying attention to their surroundings. Just as when in a car, stop in a safe convenient place then, make or take a call and stop being a dick.
 
Tringa said:
It appears, "... established on the road ..." means the moment a pedestrian steps on to a road, irrespective of whether they have the right of way or not, or if they are, or are not, paying attention to the traffic then they have the right of way.
Click to expand...
As I have always understood it, all road users have an absolute duty not to collide with any other road user - regardless of what that other road user is doing or not doing.The RAC have a fact page that seems to cover this: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/
 
I think right of way, in this case was established by the pedestrian 'being seen' by the cyclist. Or right not to be run over, at least.

It's always best for a pedestrian who have been seen, not to make any sudden change of direction. Which happened in this case. But that is very difficult not to do. Making it difficult for the cyclist to judge what avoidance manoever to make.

As a cyclist I've hit pedestrians in 2 instances. Both stepped out in front of me suddenly without looking, leaving no time to brake, bell or even shout a warning.

In this court case it's likely, and hopeful, the judge weighed up all these factors and decided the cyclist could have behaved differently. I don't think there is any new precedent set.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
As I have always understood it, all road users have an absolute duty not to collide with any other road user - regardless of what that other road user is doing or not doing.The RAC have a fact page that seems to cover this: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/
Click to expand...
But it seems this duty doesn't apply to pedestrians and the law is automatically stacked in their favour. Everyone should be showing that duty of care and that includes not putting yourself in that position in the first place, regardless of being a pedestrian, horse rider, cyclist or motorist.
 
ianp5a said:
In this court case it's likely, and hopeful, the judge weighed up all these factors and decided the cyclist could have behaved differently. I don't think there is any new precedent set.
Click to expand...
Apparently the judge awarded 50/50 blame. The pedestrian was awarded compensation from the cyclist because the cyclist hadn't counter claimed. Surely if it was 50/50 blame the pedestrian should have got nothing.
 
nilagin said:
But it seems this duty doesn't apply to pedestrians and the law is automatically stacked in their favour.
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask a judge and even then I think s/he'd say "it depends". Remember also that there are different rules for civil and criminal cases.
 
ianp5a said:
If the driver had had time to toot the horn and attempt to avoid it, then yes.
Click to expand...

I assume it's because car insurance is compulsory, the troubling thing is the joint culpability - but this is debased by his failure to cross sue, seems mildly unfair if the judgement is that both are equally liable, in my uneducated opinion - the default position should be a net zero.
 
nilagin said:
But it seems this duty doesn't apply to pedestrians and the law is automatically stacked in their favour. Everyone should be showing that duty of care and that includes not putting yourself in that position in the first place, regardless of being a pedestrian, horse rider, cyclist or motorist.
Click to expand...
There are situations where the law stacked deliberately in favour of the most vulnerable, in an attempt to reduce road deaths.
 
Gogster said:
I assume it's because car insurance is compulsory, the troubling thing is the joint culpability - but this is debased by his failure to cross sue, seems mildly unfair if the judgement is that both are equally liable, in my uneducated opinion - the default position should be a net zero.
Click to expand...
I don't think the insurance affects the liability laws.
And in this case, whether you counter sue or not does not affect the legal position. I think that the liability was judged by the actions of both parties.
 
ianp5a said:
There are situations where the law stacked deliberately in favour of the most vulnerable, in an attempt to reduce road deaths.
Click to expand...

But does that alleviate them from responsibility of checking before crossing the road?

Moons ago I used to be in the police in South Wales, where I attended a RTC where a child had been knocked down. Unfortunately the boy died - the driver was not prosecuted because it was accepted that the boy just stepped out in front of the car.

Now, anecdotes are what they are - but if we can accept that the child shouldn't have stepped into the road, why can't the court accept the same from a fully functioning adult?

I note, because I missed it earlier, this is the result of the woman suing, not a criminal prosecution.
 
ianp5a said:
I don't think the insurance affects the liability laws.
And in this case, whether you counter sue or not does not affect the legal position. I think that the liability was judged by the actions of both parties.
Click to expand...

No not liability, more to do with his ability to pay or challenge the judgment - as noted above, I didn't realise this was a private prosecution.
 
Many, many years ago I hit hut a pedestrian who stepped out from behind a van, right in front of me, fortunately the street sweeper was further down the road coming my way and saw it, no charges were brought but I had to pay £25 for the ambulance call out.
 
ianp5a said:
There are situations where the law stacked deliberately in favour of the most vulnerable, in an attempt to reduce road deaths.
Click to expand...
Pedestrians (the most vulnerable) being held accountable for their actions will reduce road deaths, laying the blame on the unfortunate person who happens to collide with them won't. They need to introduce jaywalking laws.
We had The Tufty Club, Green Cross Code and other means teaching kids how to cross the road and the exact same rules apply to adults. If they ignore the rules, they are the ones to blame pure and simple. This woman must have had a red light against her, as the cyclist had ridden through a greenlight. She had no right to be crossing the road until the lights give her priority.
 
It's the folk with earpieces in - looking at their mobile phones, not the roads, that really irritate me. They think they can do just what they like and don't need to obey traffic signals
 
camerassassin said:
It's the folk with earpieces in - looking at their mobile phones, not the roads, that really irritate me. They think they can do just what they like and don't need to obey traffic signals
Click to expand...

Sadly, if they are pedestrians, they can do just what they like in the UK. It's not compulsory to use crossings and they can walk across or indeed along (on either side) any road that isn't either a motorway or signed specifically as no pedestrians.

Now more than ever I think this should be addressed with legislation because, as you say, the phone zombies aren't even looking where they're going most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top