Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

crashmonitor

Cyclist/ Pedestrian Collisions

Recommended Posts

Ok I guess it all depends on where your sympathies lie, but I make the following observations..

(1) The cyclist has 100% vision the pedestrian is blind.

(2) The cyclist is the one travelling at speed and should be overtaking with more caution.

(3) There is a pedestrian bridge so the possibility the pedestrian might suddenly cross is obvious.

(4) The pedestrian is preoccupied with his phone which should have acted as a warning.

(5) The manoeuver is telegraphed he is already wandering over well before the collision

(6) The pedestrian has barely crossed over the white line.

Cyclists would disagree, but the collision is the cyclist fault imo and not unavoidable as the caption shows. I think the law assumes the cyclist is always at fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IezwusQsFeE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclist is nearly always responsible. They have a bell - USE IT. Or slow down considerably if you think a pedestrian is not aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au/Community/ParksandRecreation/Pages/BicycleRoadRules.aspx

I am just taking a guess that this is the location. My feeling is that the cyclist should have used their bell as they approached the pedestrian as a warning

"Either a bell or horn fitted to the bike, within easy reach and in working order"

Would also be interested to know what speed the cyclist was at and if there is a case for reducing the speeds on footpaths if needed.

However, it does beg the question over the joint use of footpaths for peds and bikes. Is it feasible especially if there is a lot of road noise and only the occasional bike meaning peds don't take the care that they should. Don't have any answers to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been run over by a bicycle!

The pedestrian may be deaf, and may not hear a bell. I know a deaf lady that rides a motorbike!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I guess it all depends on where your sympathies lie, but I make the following observations..

(1) The cyclist has 100% vision the pedestrian is blind.

(2) The cyclist is the one travelling at speed and should be overtaking with more caution.

(3) There is a pedestrian bridge so the possibility the pedestrian might suddenly cross is obvious.

(4) The pedestrian is preoccupied with his phone which should have acted as a warning.

(5) The manoeuver is telegraphed he is already wandering over well before the collision

(6) The pedestrian has barely crossed over the white line.

Cyclists would disagree, but the collision is the cyclist fault imo and not unavoidable as the caption shows. I think the law assumes the cyclist is always at fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IezwusQsFeE

Do you notice how the camera moves from side to side as the video is recorded ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The driver of the overtaking vehicle, be it a truck, car, ship or bike, is always responsible. It's the rule of the road AND the sea.

Arrgh! Canons ready on port side! :blink: Admiral Pin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very poor anticipation from the cyclist.

The morass of shared use paths positively invite this sort of thing though, in the same way as crappy road/cycle infrastructure makes dangerous incidents more likely between bikes and cars. It's no good starting out from an assumption that everyone is paying attention, all the time. It is pisspoor to suppose that the cyclist has the pedestrian bang to rights here because they wandered over a line, perhaps in an idle moment.

'Le Mans' rules apply imo- if you have better vision and/or are in the faster vehicle or in an otherwise position of power vs a vulnerable party, then the onus should be on you to make smart choices. Doesn't matter whether it is car-car, car-bike, bike-car, pedestrian-horse, runner-cyclist, or vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Le Mans' rules apply imo- if you have better vision and/or are in the faster vehicle or in an otherwise position of power vs a vulnerable party, then the onus should be on you to make smart choices. Doesn't matter whether it is car-car, car-bike, bike-car, pedestrian-horse, runner-cyclist, or vice versa.

You are Pinworthy! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very poor anticipation from the cyclist.

The morass of shared use paths positively invite this sort of thing though, in the same way as crappy road/cycle infrastructure makes dangerous incidents more likely between bikes and cars. It's no good starting out from an assumption that everyone is paying attention, all the time. It is pisspoor to suppose that the cyclist has the pedestrian bang to rights here because they wandered over a line, perhaps in an idle moment.

'Le Mans' rules apply imo- if you have better vision and/or are in the faster vehicle or in an otherwise position of power vs a vulnerable party, then the onus should be on you to make smart choices. Doesn't matter whether it is car-car, car-bike, bike-car, pedestrian-horse, runner-cyclist, or vice versa.

Cyclist still at fault...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I splice the mainbrace, Sir???

I'll strap you to the binnacle, to entertain my CPO if you like? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclist is nearly always responsible. They have a bell - USE IT. Or slow down considerably if you think a pedestrian is not aware.

Yep, I don't have a bell but I do have the noisy free hub on my Hope evo hub on the back. A quick reverse pedal as I'm approaching and the pedestrian(s) are well aware of my presence. Obviously I slow down too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclist. I could have died of embarrassment when I decided I had to fit the little girly bell to my sexy titanium bike. But using it has saved me from countless collisions with pedestrians and they're generally very friendly and grateful towards me for using it.

Pedestrians jaywalk. You can either blame them or do something to avoid hitting them. The latter is probably the better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with bells is that if you ring one, you get the response "don't ring your ******ing bell at me" and if you don't you get "use your bloody bell".

Anyway, cyclist's fault - primary error being being on the pavement rather than the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclist. I could have died of embarrassment when I decided I had to fit the little girly bell to my sexy titanium bike. But using it has saved me from countless collisions with pedestrians and they're generally very friendly and grateful towards me for using it.

Pedestrians jaywalk. You can either blame them or do something to avoid hitting them. The latter is probably the better option.

Indeed. You should just accept that they are likely to be paying no attention/ glued to a phone screen! Blaming them isn't going to get you anywhere. I just feel sorry for the ones that find it necessary to always be on a phone.

There used to be a chap in the local town who'd walk about reading a book with it perched on his belly/ chest top. He would be just as guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with bells is that if you ring one, you get the response "don't ring your ******ing bell at me" and if you don't you get "use your bloody bell".

Anyway, cyclist's fault - primary error being being on the pavement rather than the road.

Ah, I hadn't though so much about town cycling - all of mine is done in the countryside or in villages, where people are less inclined to tell you where to go for trying to do them a favour. Cycling in towns terrifies me, quite honestly. A mate took me all through a big city one afternoon and I felt like I needed ten pairs of eyes just to prevent myself from going under a lorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. You should just accept that they are likely to be paying no attention/ glued to a phone screen! Blaming them isn't going to get you anywhere. I just feel sorry for the ones that find it necessary to always be on a phone.

There used to be a chap in the local town who'd walk about reading a book with it perched on his belly/ chest top. He would be just as guilty.

I had to double take on the guy that got hit, looks a bit like me each morning checking the Markets. Don't think it was me, unless a bout of post accident amnesia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. You should just accept that they are likely to be paying no attention/ glued to a phone screen! Blaming them isn't going to get you anywhere. I just feel sorry for the ones that find it necessary to always be on a phone.

There used to be a chap in the local town who'd walk about reading a book with it perched on his belly/ chest top. He would be just as guilty.

I've seen the cyclist equivalent of that. Years ago in Oxford I was stopped at traffic lights when some professor looking type, wearing the full elbow patched jacket and cycling clips, went bombing along the pavement on his old fixie and crashed straight into a "Road Ahead Closed" sign. God knows what he was looking at, but it wasn't where he was going. Poor old sod, I can't help laughing, even now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow motion makes it look avoidable in real time i think it would look a lot different the cyclist needs a little modification of their bike

hqdefault.jpg

50/50 would be generous on behalf of the pedestrian ,reason being is if they had stepped off the pavement into the path of a car instead of into the path of a cycleist on a cycle path i don`t think the car driver would be held responsible for the collision as the pedestrian was preoccupied with their phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I guess it all depends on where your sympathies lie, but I make the following observations..

My sympathies lie with responsible road users. Primary responsibility to the cyclist. But also to the pedestrian. And to powers-that-be who give us inappropriate and often dangerous psychlepaths, and encourage cyclists to encumber the mental faculties (both judgement and reactions) with silly hats.

[edit] Forgot to add, your post displays blatant prejudice in the words Cyclists would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclist is nearly always responsible. They have a bell - USE IT. Or slow down considerably if you think a pedestrian is not aware.

So on that assumption all car /pedestrian/cyclist collisions are the fault of the car because they have a horn?

When you are trying to avoid a collision the last thing you think about is the bell or horn ,slow motion makes it look avoidable in real time i think it would be a different story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sympathy for both sides there, it looks like a very poor road layout.

I had to check the video several times, there is very little there to indicate a cyclepath apart from a white line and what looks like some very faded symbols at the start of the path. Psychologically there's nothing to tell a distracted pedestrian that he's leaving the footpath and crossing onto a place where fast moving vehicles are travelling, to avoid this sort of thing you need either a physical barrier or at a minimum a very clear visual indicator such as red tarmac.

Councils seem to do this a lot, there's no shortage of funds to install cyclepaths but there's no interest in maintaining them; one near me used to be very clearly marked but these days I honestly can't tell you which side of the white line is which.

I'd call this about 80:20 against the cyclist, lack of awareness from both parties but the cyclist is the fast moving party so the onus is on him to avoid a collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   40 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.