# Hitting a pedestrian



## Cold (1 Jul 2014)

Recently a friends son stepped out into the road without looking and was hit by a bike, the son was bruised and had gazes but other wise ok the guy on the bike was ok.
The guy has now contacted them asking for nearly £500 as his bike is damaged they don't have the money to pay for the bike to be fixed.
Has anyone been in a similair situation and how did you resolve it?


----------



## jarlrmai (1 Jul 2014)

If this happened to me and I had the details I would want compensation for the bike to be honest. However I would have camera evidence of the incident as well.

Ask to see the quotes/receipts for the bike repairs to make sure that you are not being had.

Have the police been involved? Were there witnesses?

If you don't pay they may pursue through the courts.


----------



## RhythMick (1 Jul 2014)

I'm led to believe that in the Netherlands and other countries a collision between a bike and a pedestrian is aimed to be the bikers fault unless proved to the contrary. 

Just saying...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Jul 2014)

I would want compensation.

I would expect to get told to rack off.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Jul 2014)

"Negligently" would be the test.

Negligent =/= careless
Negligent =/= deliberate


----------



## Profpointy (1 Jul 2014)

If the son is a little boy rather than 25 year old, then if the cyclist wins, he can probably be made to pay it off at 5 pence per week for the next 200 years


----------



## Alembicbassman (1 Jul 2014)

Check your home insurance policy. It sometimes covers the occupier for public liability anywhere in the World


----------



## jarlrmai (1 Jul 2014)

User30090 is pretty much correct, without any evidence/witnesses at all you can just ignore the claim and there's nothing they can do.

Witnesses, CCTV footage etc might change things.


----------



## Cold (1 Jul 2014)

I'm just hearing it second hand but knowing where it happened I doubt there was any witnesses an ambulance that was passing after the event stopped and checked them out the son is 14.


----------



## Alembicbassman (1 Jul 2014)

Lawyers say: You can't sue a man of straw

Case is dead in the water. A 14 year old has no money.


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Jul 2014)

Tell him to get a tougher bike. 

£500 after colliding with a pedestrian? What's he riding? A Ming vase?


----------



## .stu (2 Jul 2014)

Whatever happened to doing the right thing? From the description it sounds like the son was at fault and should feel obliged to pay for any damage caused to the cyclist or his bike. At the very least the parent should offer to pay for some of the repair cost to set a good example to his son.

If it had been a car that hit the cyclist then most of the posters on here would be screaming blue murder and telling the cyclist to sue him for everything he's got.


----------



## classic33 (2 Jul 2014)

Why the delay between the collision and contacting the other person involved?


----------



## classic33 (2 Jul 2014)

Why the delay between the collision and contacting the other person involved?
Nothing to stop a person pursuing a pedestrian for money for damage caused, but generally only worthwhile doing if that person has sufficient money to cover what is being claimed for.


----------



## spen666 (2 Jul 2014)

Some very incorrect legal advice being given here.

Also some dreadful attitudes exhibited.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> Whatever happened to doing the right thing? From the description it sounds like the son was at fault and should feel obliged to pay for any damage caused to the cyclist or his bike. At the very least the parent should offer to pay for some of the repair cost to set a good example to his son.
> 
> If it had been a car that hit the cyclist then most of the posters on here would be screaming blue murder and telling the cyclist to sue him for everything he's got.


The cyclist hit a kid. The kid didn't hit anyone.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> The cyclist hit a kid. The kid didn't hit anyone.


That doesn't make it the cyclist's fault though. From the description - which is all we have - it sounds like it was the pedestrian's fault.

Obviously I don't know the specifics of this case, but it is not difficult to conceive of a situation in which an accident was entirely the fault of the pedestrian. Why imply that it must always be the fault of the cyclist?

(I'd also add that given that both the cyclist and the pedestrian were moving - presumably perpendicular to each other - that from a physics perspective they 'hit' each other)


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> That doesn't make it the cyclist's fault though. From the description - which is all we have - it sounds like it was the pedestrian's fault.
> 
> Obviously I don't know the specifics of this case, but it is not difficult to conceive of a situation in which an accident was entirely the fault of the pedestrian. Why imply that it must always be the fault of the cyclist?
> 
> (I'd also add that given that both the cyclist and the pedestrian were moving - presumably perpendicular to each other - that from a physics perspective they 'hit' each other)



Of course it's the fault of the cyclist if he hits a kid who is crossing the road. We don't need a discussion about physics for this. And to add insult to injury (literally - the kid is hurt and he isn't) he now wants money. I'd struggle to remain polite under the circumstances.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> Of course it's the fault of the cyclist if he hits a kid who is crossing the road. We don't need a discussion about physics for this. And to add insult to injury (literally - the kid is hurt and he isn't) he now wants money. I'd struggle to remain polite under the circumstances.



It can happen that a pedestrian just walks out in front of a vehicle. I know of someone who knocked over a pedestrian with a car (no injuries, luckily) because the pedestrian just started crossing the road without looking, for reasons she herself couldn't explain. As she was very close to the car when she started crossing even an emergency stop didn't stop the car in time and it knocked her over travelling at very low speed. But there was nothing the car driver could have done -the pedestrian walked out of a side street (so unseen) across a narrow pavement and straight onto a busy road without looking or slowing down. It's all well and good saying you should anticipate it, but if you have to drive/ride anticipating that everyone you pass might just step out in front of you when you've not enough room to stop we'd all drive /cycle at 2mph.

As I say I don't know the details of this case, but it is perfectly possible to conceive of a situation in which it is the fault of the pedestrian,as the OP presents it. Whether or not that is what happened I don't know. But it's plausible.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> It can happen that a pedestrian just walks out in front of a vehicle. I know of someone who knocked over a pedestrian with a car (no injuries, luckily) because the pedestrian just started crossing the road without looking, for reasons she herself couldn't explain. As she was very close to the car when she started crossing even an emergency stop didn't stop the car in time and it knocked her over travelling at very low speed. But there was nothing the car driver could have done -the pedestrian walked out of a side street (so unseen) across a narrow pavement and straight onto a busy road without looking or slowing down. It's all well and good saying you should anticipate it, but if you have to drive/ride anticipating that everyone you pass might just step out in front of you when you've not enough room to stop we'd all drive /cycle at 2mph.
> 
> As I say I don't know the details of this case, but it is perfectly possible to conceive of a situation in which it is the fault of the pedestrian,as the OP presents it. Whether or not that is what happened I don't know. But it's plausible.



I'm afraid I don't find it plausible at all. Pedestrians, especially kids, cross without looking all the time. It's the stuff of every day cycling and is entirely predictable. They don't come out of nowhere. Occasionally pedestrians deliberately jump out at cyclists - usually drunks in Greenwich or Plumstead IME - but that isn't what happened.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

I find it plausible that a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian could be the fault of the pedestrian, and you do not (even though you give an example of where it would be the case).

Neither of us know much about the incident in question.

I guess there is not much else to say.


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

I have a scar on my fore head which has been there since I was 11 years old caused by a car that had no chance, I stepped out from behind a lorry without looking straight into it's path. I would say there are times when a pedestrian can cause an incident that the cyclist may not have time to react to. 

Theclaud, what is the stopping distance of a bike from say 15mph?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

FFS! The cyclist possesses the most KE of the two, therefore the cyclist must take greater care around other more vulnerable road users who may well behave unpredictably.. If the cyclist can't ride in a manner that avoids the transfer of their KE to a pedestrian then they have no business cycling near pedestrians. Just as a car driver who can't drive in a manner that avoids the transfer of their KE to a cyclist has no business driving.

If I was a nobber might expect to be compensated. Nobber or not I would expect to be told to take a hike.


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I find it plausible that a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian could be the fault of the pedestrian, and you do not (even though you give an example of where it would be the case).
> 
> Neither of us know much about the incident in question.
> 
> I guess there is not much else to say.


That will not stop TC


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

In this incident the pedestrian T boned the cyclist causing him to fall off. The front wheel of the bike had passed the pedestrian when the pedestrian turned and run at the bike.


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Shimano or Campagnolo?



Give me both, you seem a clever sort of chap, sometimes.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> FFS! The cyclist possesses the most KE of the two, therefore the cyclist must take greater care around other more vulnerable road users who may well behave unpredictably.. If the cyclist can't ride in a manner that avoids the transfer of their KE to a pedestrian then they have no business cycling near pedestrians. Just as a car driver who can't drive in a manner that avoids the transfer of their KE to a cyclist has no business driving..



And in a situation where the pedestrian and cyclist are using their designated spaces (pavement and road) but the pedestrian then strays onto the road without looking and too close to the cyclist them to stop?

I do actually also know another person who knocked a cyclist over (minor injuries) and two independent witnesses, the cyclists friend and the cyclist himself all said it was the fault of the cyclist.

Of course the faster your vehicle the more care you must take, but that doesn't mean that the one travelling fastest is always to blame. Sometimes the slower party does something stupid.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

screenman said:


> In this incident the pedestrian T boned the cyclist causing him to fall off. The front wheel of the bike had passed the pedestrian when the pedestrian turned and run at the bike.


So our ninja pedestrain was poised on the kerb with his back to the cyclist poised to strike like a cobra... So why didn't the cyclist ride further away from the kerb?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> And in a situation where the pedestrian and cyclist are using their designated spaces (pavement and road) but the pedestrian then strays onto the road without looking and too close to the cyclist them to stop?
> 
> I do actually also know another person who knocked a cyclist over (minor injuries) and two independent witnesses, the cyclists friend and the cyclist himself all said it was the fault of the cyclist.
> 
> Of course the faster your vehicle the more care you must take, but that doesn't mean that the one travelling fastest is always to blame. Sometimes the slower party does something stupid.


Why is the cyclist "too close" (your words) and what's this nonsense of designated spaces? Pedestrians can walk where they want in most shared spaces; they are only cowed into using the pavement because of fear of the motors.

UK car culture once again clouds the mind of a cyclist.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I have a certain sympathy for the cyclist. On a number of occasions I've been hit by pedestrians stepping into the road and into me on the bike. One one of those occasions I was injured and the bike quite badly damaged. On another occasion I was on the Trice - how the f*ck do you miss that? On all occasions the pedestrian was on their mobile phone...
> 
> The fact the the presumption of liability laws on the continent allow for pedestrians to be found at fault I think acknowledges that it is not always the fault of the cyclist.


I've been taken out twice by south Londoners.

Pedestrians step off the kerb without looking all the time.
You know this.
They've been doing so since long before the invention of the mobile phone.
You know this.
The onus is on you ride in a way so as to avoid the things you know pedestrians do.
You know this too.

Same as you drive expecting the cyclist up ahead to swerve to avoid the pot hole or wasp or whatever.


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> So our ninja pedestrain was poised on the kerb with his back to the cyclist poised to strike like a cobra... So why didn't the cyclist ride further away from the kerb?



It was a squeeze point and a lorry had pushed him over nearer to the curb, the pedestrian moved very quickly as he is an athlete with lightning fast reactions, unlike the 70 year old cyclist.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why is the cyclist "too close" (your words) and what's this nonsense of designated spaces? Pedestrians can walk where they want in most shared spaces; they are only cowed into using the pavement because of fear of the motors.
> 
> UK car culture once again clouds the mind of a cyclist.


Well I'm imagining it happening on the road I'm looking at as I type, which has a pavement either side of a four lane road. The pavement is for pedestrians only. The road has two lanes either way. At the moment one each way is reserved for buses, taxis and cyclists, and one each way is for any type of vehicle.

Vehicles cannot use the pavement. Pedestrians can cross the road, but vehicles have priority on it - at least where I am looking, there is a crossing a hundred yards or so in either direction but I can't see either. I think this is a pretty average road set up? Pavements for pedestrians flanking a road where pedestrians can cross but vehicles have priority?

Of course a pedestrian cannot expect to just walk across the road without paying attention. And of course it is possible to step on to the road in such a way as it is inevitable that a vehicle will hit you if you do so too close. One would hope that the rider/driver would see you and stop, but that isn't always possible. For example there is a post box and advertising board by the side of the road that I can see. If a pedestrian were to emerge from behind that onto what is currently the bus/taxi/cycle lane as a cyclist were passing I doubt a cyclist could stop in time - especially as there is a junction slightly further ahead (and the crossing mentioned) which the cyclist might be looking at briefly. Besides which I've had people cross in front of me when cycling and had to lock on to avoid them twice since I got back on a bike a few months ago - pedestrians don't see bikes as much as motorists don't.

I don't suggest that it is often the fault of the pedestrian, just that it is possible.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3158811, member: 45"]Vehicles do not have priority on the roads.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that, and obviously it's not true for all roads (e.g. motorways are roads on which no pedestrians are allowed) What is the actual law?


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I didn't know that, and obviously it's not true for all roads (e.g. motorways are roads on which no pedestrians are allowed) What is the actual law?



Drive as fast as you can with your fingers crossed, seems the one's some live by.


----------



## .stu (2 Jul 2014)

A few weeks ago I was cycling along a dual carriageway with a 30mph speed limit. It was clear ahead of me, and there were a few cars behind me. There was an old man waiting at a pelican crossing just ahead of me but the lights were green. When I was about 2-3 metres from the crossing he suddenly decided to cross in front of me. I served but he continued to cross oblivious to my presence. I barely managed to swerve in front of him and missed him by inches. 

No amount of anticipation would have prevented him from crossing. If I had been in my car I would not have been able to avoid him. When I had passed him I looked back and the lights were still on green as the cars behind were following me through. God knows why he decided to cross when he did.


----------



## MarkF (2 Jul 2014)

As I posted in another thread, my car was damaged, twice, by kids riding cycles into it, significant cosmetic damage. There were minors and the parents refused to consider paying (anything) and I had no legal recourse. I tried, police and insurers.

I would have paid and in this instance I'd compensate the rider too, I would want to have the bike taken to be assessed at my LBS though...........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I do.
> 
> However, I also acknowledge that there can be times when, even if you exercise utmost caution, collisions will occur. Sometimes accidents do happen.
> 
> I also believe that we all, irrespective of our mode of transport, have a duty of care to each other in public spaces. 'Sharing the road' doesn't mean one group not having any responsibility to the others. The higher the risk to others your mode of transport the more care you should take - but that doesn't entirely absolve others of their responsibility to take due care. That's the basis of a presumption of liability.


The duty of care is shared equally. The amount of care needed to exercise that duty of care is not. KE determines the hierarchy. Physics is a harsh mistress.

EDIT: and no sense from either the OP nor your post that 'utmost caution' was being deployed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> A few weeks ago I was cycling along a dual carriageway with a 30mph speed limit. It was clear ahead of me, and there were a few cars behind me. *There was an old man waiting at a pelican crossing just ahead of me but the lights were green.* When I was about 2-3 metres from the crossing he suddenly decided to cross in front of me. I served but he continued to cross oblivious to my presence. I barely managed to swerve in front of him and missed him by inches.
> 
> No amount of anticipation would have prevented him from crossing. If I had been in my car I would not have been able to avoid him. When I had passed him I looked back and the lights were still on green as the cars behind were following me through. God knows why he decided to cross when he did.


So, on seeing him standing there waiting to cross the road, why didn't you slow down? He doesn't have to wait for the green man you know...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

screenman said:


> It was a squeeze point and a lorry had pushed him over nearer to the curb, the pedestrian moved very quickly as he is an athlete with lightning fast reactions, unlike the 70 year old cyclist.


Why not have him beemed down from the starship Enterprise? It would be a less ludicrous example.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Jul 2014)

MarkF said:


> significant cosmetic damage.



Were you able to make up afterwards?


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The duty of care is shared equally. The amount of care needed to exercise that duty of care is not. KE determines the hierarchy. Physics is a harsh mistress.


So, to give an extreme example - if I jump out from behind an advertising board in front of you as you cycle past, it will be your fault because you had more kinetic energy?

Or, another example. One of my friends is very overweight - he is about 30 stone. He has more kinetic energy moving at 1mph than my 24kg daughter does on her 7kg bike at 37mph (c.17.8kJ joules vs 18 kJ) If she rides into him at 37mph (unlikely with stabilisers, admittedly) who is to blame?

You can't ascribe blame according to physics.


----------



## Markymark (2 Jul 2014)

We don't have presumed liability in this country. As it stands, fault has to be proved one way or the other. If it cannot it is 50/50 (or somewhere in between), the default is not the most vulnerable.

That is not to say I wouldn't like presumed liability to be brought in. The most vulnerable have priority but that does not mean they are immune to criminal negligence.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> God knows why he decided to cross when he did.


He didn't see you and thought he had room before the cars he had seen arrived (which it sounds like he did).

I've not had it on the cycle yet but on the motorbike I've had people lock eyes with me, or so it seemed, and then pull out regardless obviously having not even registered my presence. There's never a guarantee they've seen you.


----------



## .stu (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> So, on seeing him standing there waiting to cross the road, why didn't you slow down? He doesn't have to wait for the green man you know...



How do you know I didn't slow down already? Maybe I wasn't going that fast in the first place? My point was that he decided to cross when I was just yards from him - whether I had slowed down or not was irrelevant by this point. 

If people cycled the way you suggest, they would have to slow to virtual standstill every time they passed a pedestrian who they had not made eye contact with. I suspect you don't cycle the way you tell others to either.


----------



## spen666 (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Any chance you stop doing this sort of post. It doesn't help at all and you could easily expand on it so that it does.


 Sorry Adrian, I will run my post via you in future and get your consent to have an opinion


alternatively, you could get over yourself and realise this is a forum where people express their views


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jul 2014)

On another note, I stepped out in front of a train the other day from a bush, the train didn’t anticipate my suicide attempt and therefore should buy me new legs, and anyway it had for more kinetic energy than me so must deffo pay out.


----------



## cd365 (2 Jul 2014)

So @spen666 what is the legal stance here? I'm very interested to know, thanks


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> How do you know I didn't slow down already? Maybe I wasn't going that fast in the first place? My point was that he decided to cross when I was just yards from him - whether I had slowed down or not was irrelevant by this point.
> 
> If people cycled the way you suggest, they would have to slow to virtual standstill every time they passed a pedestrian who they had not made eye contact with. I suspect you don't cycle the way you tell others to either.


I suspect that most people cycle exactly the same way they drive... on auto-pilot in respect of other road users that they don't perceive as threats.

And how can your speed ever be irrelevant in avoiding a collision?


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Railway lines are fenced off with no right of access.


 
On another note, I stepped out in front of a train truck the other day from a bush, the train Truck didn’t anticipate my suicide attempt and therefore should buy me new legs, and anyway it had for more kinetic energy than me so must deffo pay out.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> So, to give an extreme example - if I jump out from behind an advertising board in front of you as you cycle past, it will be your fault because you had more kinetic energy?
> 
> Or, another example. One of my friends is very overweight - he is about 30 stone. He has more kinetic energy moving at 1mph than my 24kg daughter does on her 7kg bike at 37mph (c.17.8kJ joules vs 18 kJ) If she rides into him at 37mph (unlikely with stabilisers, admittedly) who is to blame?
> 
> You can't ascribe blame according to physics.


You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

Peter Armstrong said:


> On another note, I stepped out in front of a train truck the other day from a bush, the train Truck didn’t anticipate my suicide attempt and therefore should buy me new legs, and anyway it had for more kinetic energy than me so must deffo pay out.


Suicide? So deliberate. Determined. Not a lapse in judgement.

And thus eff all to do with the circumstances of the original post.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Suicide? So deliberate. Determined. Not a lapse in judgement.
> 
> And thus eff all to do with the circumstances of the original post.


 
On another note, I stepped out in front of a train truck the other day from a bush, the train Truck didn’t anticipate my suicide attempt lapse in judgement and therefore should buy me new legs, and anyway it had for more kinetic energy than me so must deffo pay out.


----------



## Dan B (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Why the assumption that there wasn't? Perhaps that says more about your potential bias than anything...


Assumption or presumption?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Why the assumption that there wasn't? Perhaps that says more about your potential bias than anything...


Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't.

Were you exercising the utmost caution in the run up to your collisions then? I'd have thought you, of all people in here, would have mentioned that in your narrative...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

Peter Armstrong said:


> On another note, I stepped out in front of a train truck the other day from a bush, the train Truck didn’t anticipate my suicide attempt lapse in judgement and therefore should buy me new legs, and anyway it had for more kinetic energy than me so must deffo pay out.


Still eff all to do with the OP. But do keep trying.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Still eff all to do with the OP. But do keep trying.


 
On another note, I stepped out in front of a train truck the other day from a bush, the train Truck didn’t anticipate my suicide attempt lapse in judgement and therefore should buy me new legs, and anyway it had for more kinetic energy than me so must deffo pay out.


----------



## Markymark (2 Jul 2014)

Cyclists have been killed by a pedestrian suddenly stepping in the road without looking as the cyclist may serve ti avoid or fall into the path of oncoming traffic after collision. 

I regularly see pedestrians walking in same direction as my cycling but think the cars are a long way from the kerb so step into the road before looking back only to five themselves stepping directly in front of a cyclist. I usually ride further away from the kerb but I've seen a pedestrian without any obvious clues step right in front of a cyclist. Luckily it was a tiny bump as cyclist was going slowly but could easily been worse. I have no doubt who was at fault.


----------



## Bman (2 Jul 2014)

What law requires pedestrians to behave with a "duty of care" ?

As far as I'm aware, there isnt any. Although stupid, stepping out in front of moving traffic isnt illegal. 

As crappy as the situation is, this means that the cyclist is entirely at fault.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jul 2014)

Isn't there a general presumption that people don't do things that put other people in danger of injury?

Pedestrians figure on my 'danger radar' as do solid items I can't see past (because a pedlemming may be hidden behind them) I'm yet to hit one, I've had a few decide the road was the safe place for them to the contrary of all evidence, I find a shout works. A lot of my riding is balancing probabilities.


----------



## Cycling Dan (2 Jul 2014)

People here are suggesting that no matter how a ped is never at fault or has any remote responsibility if someone hits them. This is plain stupid 

From some people they would say in cases like below the ped has no fault.

I'm sorry but if your the idiot in the situation then you are at fault



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

View: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=159_1260463028





Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

View: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8db_1364542416


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Jul 2014)

I did a bit of searching, and found this. Now, this is specifically for car/pedestrian incidents, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.
http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/road-accident-claim/pedestrian-claims.html
_*4. If the pedestrian was clearly at fault can a driver claim against the pedestrian for vehicle damage?*
It is very rare that a driver would claim against a pedestrian for vehicle damage, but there is theoretical right to do so. It would depend totally on the facts of the accident and also whether the pedestrian had the means to pay for such a claim. Often building and contents insurance might be able to pay for such claims.
Where the pedestrian is a child it would be even more rare and as a claim would have to be made against the child pedestrian direct it is very unlikely the child would have the means to meet any claim subject to being included under the parents building and contents insurance._


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jul 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> I did a bit of searching, if you did too you'd stop spouting rubbish.
> 
> 
> Ner.


 
Fixed that for you.

Didn't you know bringing facts in to this is against the rules.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.





GrumpyGregry said:


> You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.


You were ascribing blame according to physics though, which is very different.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Jul 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Didn't you know bringing facts in to this is against the rules.


 I feel such a fool


----------



## Profpointy (2 Jul 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> I did a bit of searching, and found this. Now, this is specifically for car/pedestrian incidents, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.
> http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/road-accident-claim/pedestrian-claims.html
> _*4. If the pedestrian was clearly at fault can a driver claim against the pedestrian for vehicle damage?*
> It is very rare that a driver would claim against a pedestrian for vehicle damage, but there is theoretical right to do so. It would depend totally on the facts of the accident and also whether the pedestrian had the means to pay for such a claim. Often building and contents insurance might be able to pay for such claims.
> Where the pedestrian is a child it would be even more rare and as a claim would have to be made against the child pedestrian direct it is very unlikely the child would have the means to meet any claim subject to being included under the parents building and contents insurance._



Agreed - I wasn't being entirely flippant when I said even if the cyclist won, any damages would have to be paid out of pocket money. And if any small claims writ named the parent, rather than child - the it would immediately get thrown out. I'd also suggest a claim for £500 wasn't entirely plausible - so regardless of blame my sympathies would with the kid here. "jog on mate" might be.my response


----------



## Peter Armstrong (2 Jul 2014)

If the Childs parents can not anticipate them stepping out in the road how was the cyclist suppose to?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jul 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Agreed - I wasn't being entirely flippant when I said even if the cyclist won, any damages would have to be paid out of pocket money. And if any small claims writ named the parent, rather than child - the it would immediately get thrown out. I'd also suggest a claim for £500 wasn't entirely plausible - so regardless of blame my sympathies would with the kid here. "jog on mate" might be.my response


 
Yup, whatever the right or wrong of trying to get money back from the accident, as soon as one of the parties is a minor you are pretty much stuffed. You might get somewhere if it's a huge claim (the accident had paralysed you, or chopped your thumbs off or some such) but for a bit of damage to your bike. You'd be better off buying a lottery ticket.


----------



## Bman (2 Jul 2014)

Ok, neither video was filmed in the UK, but the second video description even says that the driver was charged. 

I agree most people would argue that the pedestrian is at fault, but in the eyes of the law, the pedestrian has no legal responsibility to cross safely. 

I am happy for someone to find any relevant law that says otherwise.


----------



## Markymark (2 Jul 2014)

Bongman said:


> Ok, neither video was filmed in the UK, but the second video description even says that the driver was charged.
> 
> I agree most people would argue that the pedestrian is at fault, but in the eyes of the law, the pedestrian has no legal responsibility to cross safely.
> 
> I am happy for someone to find any relevant law that says otherwise.


Pedestrians are Road Users - see here
Road users in the UK, have a Duty Of Care

I would suggest that therfore Pedestrians have a duty of care although it is not expressly written.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> How do you know I didn't slow down already? Maybe I wasn't going that fast in the first place? My point was that he decided to cross when I was just yards from him - whether I had slowed down or not was irrelevant by this point.
> 
> *If people cycled the way you suggest, they would have to slow to virtual standstill every time they passed a pedestrian who they had not made eye contact with*. I suspect you don't cycle the way you tell others to either.



This always comes up, and it simply isn't true. I'm a relatively nippy commuter by Swansea standards, and I also cycle a lot in London, where there are plenty of faster people than me but I'm still no dawdler. There are occasions when one does have to slow almost to a standstill, but most of the time it is possible to maintain a reasonable speed by anticipating and choosing a different line. One learns to read the trajectory of pedestrians quite well. Not infallibly of course, but the obvious advice is that the less sure you are, the greater the allowances you need to make. The simplest way I can put this is to say that you should take responsibility for the danger you present to others and cycle within the limits of your abilities.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You were ascribing blame according to physics though, which is very different.


I think not.


----------



## TheJDog (2 Jul 2014)

If you say you can't envision a scenario where you might hit a pedestrian who steps into the street and it is their fault, you are being deliberately obtuse and quite irritating.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

TheJDog said:


> If you say you can't envision a scenario where you might hit a pedestrian who steps into the street and it is their fault, you are being deliberately obtuse and quite irritating.


It is not a binary situation. There is always question of degree of fault to be established.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The duty of care is shared equally. The amount of care needed to exercise that duty of care is not. KE determines the hierarchy. Physics is a harsh mistress.





KneesUp said:


> So, to give an extreme example - if I jump out from behind an advertising board in front of you as you cycle past, it will be your fault because you had more kinetic energy? Or, another example. One of my friends is very overweight - he is about 30 stone. He has more kinetic energy moving at 1mph than my 24kg daughter does on her 7kg bike at 37mph (c.17.8kJ joules vs 18 kJ) If she rides into him at 37mph (unlikely with stabilisers, admittedly) who is to blame?
> 
> You can't ascribe blame according to physics.





GrumpyGregry said:


> You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.





KneesUp said:


> You were ascribing blame according to physics though, which is very different.



If you weren't implying that you can't ascribe blame according to physics then I'm not sure what your point is. Are you just saying that people in charge of things with more kinetic energy need to be more careful? That's hardly controversial, or illuminating, especially since we know nothing about the amount of care either party was taking, in which case I think it fair to assume the cyclist was taking reasonable care given the kinetic energy being generated and the fact that most cyclists are careful on account of all the motorised vehicles about the place. Also, if the cyclist had been riding whilst playing the accordion blindfolded and whistling _La Marseillaise_ I presume the OP would not be saying it was the pedestrians fault.

However, let's take your point purely in terms of responsibility. Can you not imagine a situation in which the cyclist is being perfectly responsible and the pedestrian walks out on him anyway? Have you really never ridden a bike and thought 'they didn't see me'? Do you really expect every cyclist to ride at walking pace in case a pedestrian waiting to cross steps out in front of them?


----------



## TheJDog (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It is not a binary situation. There is always question of degree of fault to be established.



I'm pretty sure the fault can be ascribed 100% to one party.

There have been two posts by OP, neither describes what happened. You are deliberately being irritating. I am blocking you. Ain't no one got time for this.


----------



## numbnuts (2 Jul 2014)

After reading all of this it looks like as a cyclist we are “stuffed every which way you can”


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

TheJDog said:


> I'm pretty sure the fault can be ascribed 100% to one party.
> 
> There have been two posts by OP, neither describes what happened. You are deliberately being irritating. *I am blocking you.* Ain't no one got time for this.


Excellent.

Mind how you go.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

We're not in the playground any more @GrumpyGregry


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> However, let's take your point purely in terms of responsibility. Can you not imagine a situation in which the cyclist is being perfectly responsible and the pedestrian walks out on him anyway? Have you really never ridden a bike and thought 'they didn't see me'? *Do you really expect every cyclist to ride at walking pace in case a pedestrian waiting to cross steps out in front of them?*


No, for the reasons explained above and below


theclaud said:


> This always comes up, and it simply isn't true. I'm a relatively nippy commuter by Swansea standards, and I also cycle a lot in London, where there are plenty of faster people than me but I'm still no dawdler. There are occasions when one does have to slow almost to a standstill, but most of the time it is possible to maintain a reasonable speed by anticipating and choosing a different line. One learns to read the trajectory of pedestrians quite well. Not infallibly of course, but the obvious advice is that the less sure you are, the greater the allowances you need to make. The simplest way I can put this is to say that you should take responsibility for the danger you present to others and cycle within the limits of your abilities.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Jul 2014)

Bongman said:


> I agree most people would argue that the pedestrian is at fault, but in the eyes of the law, the pedestrian has no legal responsibility to cross safely.
> 
> I am happy for someone to find any relevant law that says otherwise.


Try this: http://www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk/latestDetail.php?Personal-Injury-Update---September-2011-67

_There have, historically, been many cases where the pedestrian was found wholly liable and are worth noting for defendant practitioners:
*Brophy v Shaw* (1965) Times, 25th June [...]
*Barlow v Smith LTL 15/5/2000 EXTEMPORE *[...]_
*Roda Sam v Atkins [2005] EWCA Civ 1452, [2005] All ER (D) 113 (Nov)*
...etc...

Although you can balance this with, from the same source: "_A man had an absolute right to be (on the road) and it is a duty of drivers of vehicles not to run him down_" so said the House of Lords in *Craig v Glasgow Corporation* (1919) 35 TLR 214.

That link above is an interesting read.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> We're not in the playground any more @GrumpyGregry


You may not consider this a playground of sorts but you can not be certain that is not how it is viewed by others, myself included.

As to @TheJDog his "I am blocking you" response, like I give a toss having never knowingly interacted with this person before in my life, is the equivalent of him sticking his fingers in his ears and standing there going "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la" in the playground.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No, for the reasons explained above and below



anticipating and choosing a different line. One learns to read the trajectory of pedestrians* quite well. Not infallibly of course*, but the obvious advice is that *the less sure you are, the greater the allowances you need to make*. The simplest way I can put this is to say that you should take responsibility for the danger you present to others and cycle within the limits of your abilities.​(my bold)

You can never know what pedestrians will do with absolute certainty. Now matter how sure you are, you can never be totally sure - so by the logic of the post you quoted above, you should always make _some_ allowance for that uncertainty. This much I agree with.

The point is that given that you can never be totally sure, there is a chance that the amount of 'allowance' you are making is incorrect - which you seem to be saying means that any incident will be the fault of the cyclist because you seem to think the pedestrian has no responsibility at all.

But the logical conclusion of the post you quoted is that unless you are totally sure that no-one is going to leap out in front of you, you should ride at walking speed or slower. And given that one can never be totally sure that won't happen, I might as well hang my bike on the wall and call it art.


----------



## Cold (2 Jul 2014)

TheJDog said:


> I'm pretty sure the fault can be ascribed 100% to one party.
> 
> There have been two posts by OP, neither describes what happened. You are deliberately being irritating. I am blocking you. Ain't no one got time for this.




All I know is that the kid stepped off the pavement and was hit by a cyclist from behind and that the road he was hit on is very wide with no parked cars.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You may not consider this a playground of sorts but you can not be certain that is not how it is viewed by others, myself included.



I was rather suggesting that your "ner ne ner ner ner I'm not bothered anyway" response was somewhat beneath you.

Perhaps I was wrong.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> If anyone's interesting, there's a rather good explanation of the current case law here.


I'm not interesting, but I'll read the link


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> But the logical conclusion of the post you quoted is that unless you are totally sure that no-one is going to leap out in front of you, you should ride at walking speed or slower. And given that one can never be totally sure that won't happen, I might as well hang my bike on the wall and call it art.


That is not a logical conclusion but rather an example of _reductio ad absurdam_ surely?

I think we are far better at assessing and managing risk than to require that sort of attenuated response.

You/we cannot be sure you/we won't be one of the several thousand cyclists killed or seriously injured on our roads each year. And yet you/we still ride.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> That is not a logical conclusion but rather an example of _reductio ad absurdam_ surely?
> 
> I think we are far better at assessing and managing risk than to require that sort of attenuated response.
> 
> You/we cannot be sure you/we won't be one of the several thousand cyclists killed or seriously injured on our roads each year. And yet you/we still ride.


But you're ruling out the possibility that there can be a crash between a cyclist and a pedestrian in which the pedestrian is at fault - which means you *must* have concluded that in any situation where the two collie, the rider wasn't paying enough attention, even if the pedestrian leapt out at them from a concealed location. As we can never rule this out completely, the only way to be totally sure you are never at fault is not to ride a bike.

It's your complete reluctance to accept that a pedestrian can ever have any fault that leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot ride at all.


----------



## theclaud (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You can never know what pedestrians will do with absolute certainty. Now matter how sure you are, you can never be totally sure - so by the logic of the post you quoted above, you should always make _some_ allowance for that uncertainty. This much I agree with.
> 
> The point is that given that you can never be totally sure, there is a chance that the amount of 'allowance' you are making is incorrect - which you seem to be saying means that any incident will be the fault of the cyclist because you seem to think the pedestrian has no responsibility at all.
> 
> But the logical conclusion of the post you quoted is that unless you are totally sure that no-one is going to leap out in front of you, you should ride at walking speed or slower. And given that one can never be totally sure that won't happen, I might as well hang my bike on the wall and call it art.



Presumably you actually ride a bike already, so unless you are either very lucky or actively bullying people out of your way, then you are probably making such allowances every day. If you fear you are likely to hit someone, then you probably need to be making more. If you are overconfident of your abilities and hit someone as a result, it's your fault. If you're confident you have the skills, then you might (for example) judge it likely, when a gang of teenagers are larking about on the nearside pavement and you are batting along at 25mph, that one of them might drift or be bounced into the road. So perhaps you check your right shoulder to see what will be overtaking you at the moment you will need to pass them, hold off the would-be overtaker with a hand gesture, and pull out very wide whilst simultaneously taking account of any oncoming or forward hazards. Then you can hold your speed. If you can't manage doing whatever it takes to create the space to pass them wide, then pass them nearer but slow down accordingly. The closer you take it, the slower you'll need to go and the more ready you'll need to be to hit the brakes, plus if you're squeezed between them and other traffic you're no longer taking control of your lane so you will probably worrying more about the car behind. You could even ride on the pavement, but then you'd probably be stuck behind a gaggle of annoying teenagers. The point is that none of this is their problem.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> But you're ruling out the possibility that there can be a crash between a cyclist and a pedestrian in which the pedestrian is at fault - which means you *must* have concluded that in any situation where the two collie, the rider wasn't paying enough attention, even if the pedestrian leapt out at them from a concealed location. As we can never rule this out completely, the only way to be totally sure you are never at fault is not to ride a bike.
> 
> It's your complete reluctance to accept that a pedestrian can ever have any fault that leads to the absurd conclusion that one cannot ride at all.


Where have I said a pedestrian can never have any fault? Where have I said a cyclist can never "be to blame"? Cos if I have, I'm obviously talking cr@p.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I was rather suggesting that your "ner ne ner ner ner I'm not bothered anyway" response was somewhat beneath you.
> 
> Perhaps I was wrong.


I'm flattered. But very little is beneath me.


----------



## .stu (2 Jul 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> And how can your speed ever be irrelevant in avoiding a collision?



In that I was far too close to stop and braking whilst swerving is not a good idea.


----------



## Cyclopathic (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> A few metres. 3 to 6 depending on the variables.


You say that but when a car turned right in front of me I went from about 17mph to stop in about 6 inches. Well my bike did. I carried on a ways until I bounced off the bonnet of another car until eventually the floor broke my fall.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2014)

I was going to work out the force involved in stopping the average bike with the average rider from 20mph to 0mph in 6 metres, but then I remembered I've forgotten the little I ever knew about Calculus


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> In that I was far too close to stop and braking whilst swerving is not a good idea.


And your speed played no part in getting you and your bike to the point where you were far too close to stop at that particular point in time. I see.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I was going to work out the force involved in stopping the average bike with the average rider from 20mph to 0mph in 6 metres, but then I remembered I've forgotten the little I ever knew about Calculus


There you go. The average rider that rides at 20mph in the direction of, and in close proximity to, pedestrians might want to consider their

bike handling skills
judgement
-and-
insurance cover


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion


I'll take your link to wikipedia and raise you

http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html


----------



## Dan B (2 Jul 2014)

v^2 = u^2 + 2as
0 = 8.9*8.9 +2a*6
a = - (8.9*8.9) / 12
a = -6.6

6.6 m/s^2 is about 0.7g. Please check my working becuase I haven't


----------



## broadway (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I've been taken out twice by south Londoners.
> 
> Pedestrians step off the kerb without looking all the time.
> You know this.
> ...



Must have been the South London Ninjas


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

broadway said:


> Must have been the South London Ninjas


I should have avoided both. Today I probably would.

One was horrid. I knocked her clean out.


----------



## spen666 (2 Jul 2014)

User said:


> If you would care to express your opinion more usefully perhaps?


I expressed my opinion clearly enough thank you



If you don't like the fact I express my opinion, not your opinion, then tough


----------



## spen666 (2 Jul 2014)

cd365 said:


> So @spen666 what is the legal stance here? I'm very interested to know, thanks


The legal position is..........something I couldn't tell you without all the facts of the incident.

I am not going to advise on the law without knowing what actually happened, unlike some barrack room lawyers on here


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Jul 2014)

Dan B said:


> v^2 = u^2 + 2as
> 0 = 8.9*8.9 +2a*6
> a = - (8.9*8.9) / 12
> a = -6.6
> ...


What factor does mass play versus speed?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (2 Jul 2014)

Just reading this http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ and I never knew ;


"...according to Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 the courts have the power to disqualify a cyclist from driving a car for _any_ offence: "The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed after 31st December 1997 may, instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence.""

Seems a bit silly to me, as presumably you'd still be allowed to use the bike you caused the problems on in the first place.


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Jul 2014)

I was thinking about this thread today, after an incident on the road between Handforth & Wilmslow.

I was riding, in traffic, and saw a group of male teenagers (4 or 5 of them) by a pedestrian crossing. They were doing the sort of larking about that age group is prone to, so I kept an eye on them, slowed a bit and covered my brakes.

All of them made a sudden run across the road (at a pedestrian crossing that was still green for traffic on the road).

Four of them stopped short of crossing completely (remaining across the carriageway on my side) and one narrowly made the other side of the road in front of a non-articulated LGV, which didn't seem to have braked or slowed (if the miss was by more than a metre, I'd have been surprised).

I'd seen them and adjusted speed &c in advance, but I don't *think* any of the other traffic did. There's not much doubt as to who would be at fault, I think, but in hindsight, it seemed fairly obvious that shenanigans were impending, and pretty easy to avoid them. I'm not sure why no one else did, unless the added incentive of not losing (more) skin to the tarmac tends to make cyclists more careful.


----------



## screenman (2 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why not have him beemed down from the starship Enterprise? It would be a less ludicrous example.



I take you know the exact circumstances then.


----------



## jarlrmai (3 Jul 2014)

I avoided a woman who stepped (pretty much jogged) out further into the road from behind a van parked on the roadside, this was down a slight decline and I was doing around 20, I avoided her mainly because I was riding in a very primary position out of the door zone, pretty much by the white line, I still had to warn her, brake sharply and swerve slightly to avoid her.

The closest i've had is a jogger step from the pavement into the road, I presume to avoid something on the pavement, I was right alongside him at the time, now I treat all joggers as if they are going to do this.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2014)

Dan B said:


> v^2 = u^2 + 2as
> 0 = 8.9*8.9 +2a*6
> a = - (8.9*8.9) / 12
> a = -6.6
> ...


I've not much idea what this means but I intend to "like" it anyway, on trust.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (3 Jul 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> now I treat all joggers as if they are going to do this.


Never trust a jogger, they're the ones that always find the bodies.

You have to treat opaque vehicles as you would anything else you can't see through. You can get a bit of a hint by looking low, you sometimes see the legs, but really give them space, or pass them slow if you don't want to end up hitting someone one day.


----------



## Dan B (3 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> What factor does mass play versus speed?


None at all, for that particular calculation. Mass might play a part in calculating the maximum possible deceleration (perhaps a heavier vehicle grips the road better, for example) and will certainly be related to how much damage you do if you _don't_ stop in the space available, but the question posed was merely "how hard would you have to brake to stop in 6 metres" not "is that even possible on a bike".

For the record http://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...ing-road-bike-braking-power.html#post10349193 suggests that the answer to the latter question is "yes, sometimes, if you're good at it"


----------



## Markymark (3 Jul 2014)

But surely that's just the deceleration, nothing to do with the force? Anything changing from velocity to rest will have the same acceleration (deceleration in this case). 6.6 m/s/s means nothing in the context of a feather as oppsoed to a bowling ball

The point, I thought, is about the force required to stop and that is directly linked to mass with F=ma. You have calculated the acceleration, but to get the force (ie how hard to brake), you'll need the mass too.


----------



## .stu (3 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> And your speed played no part in getting you and your bike to the point where you were far too close to stop at that particular point in time. I see.



Oh ffs quit your trolling please.

I did not hit the old man, nor was I riding dangerously or recklessly - the fact of the matter was that he did something unpredictable, and I only mentioned it because I wanted to highlight the fact that pedestrians can do things that cause collisions with other road users, and for which they are solely responsible. However, you, who who not there, seem to find fault in my riding ability no matter what I say. Does that make you feel big?


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jul 2014)

.stu said:


> Oh ffs quit your trolling please.
> 
> I did not hit the old man, nor was I riding dangerously or recklessly - the fact of the matter was that he did something unpredictable, and I only mentioned it because I wanted to highlight the fact that pedestrians can do things that cause collisions with other road users, and for which they are solely responsible. However, you, who who not there, seem to find fault in my riding ability no matter what I say. Does that make you feel big?


@GrumpyGregry gets confused. He holds that the more kinetic energy you in control of, the more care you must take - which is a reasonable rule of thumb. Unfortunately he seems to extend this to suggest that all accidents are caused by the rider/driver/thing with most kinetic energy not paying attention, and therefore the fault is always with the thing with most kinetic energy. Although of course we don't know which had the more kinetic energy in the original situation - a light cyclist on a light bike might easily have less kinetic energy than a fat person running, for example.


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jul 2014)

User said:


> When someone is standing at a crossing and wanting to cross, their behaviour is highly predictable. They are extremely likely to cross the road at some point.


And very unlikely to do so in front of oncoming traffic. I think most of us would predict that they would wait, wouldn't we?


----------



## cd365 (3 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> And very unlikely to do so in front of oncoming traffic. I think most of us would predict that they would wait, wouldn't we?


Not on this forum


----------



## Markymark (3 Jul 2014)

A fast bike can have greater KE than a small car going slowly around a corner.


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jul 2014)

User said:


> In the example given, that was the prediction. It turned out not quite right.


That's in the nature of predicting the behaviour of living things we don't control, though.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> And very unlikely to do so in front of oncoming traffic. I think most of us would predict that they would wait, wouldn't we?


Seeing as almost everyone has umpteen stories about pedestrians doing very similar "unpredictable" things, you would imagine that we would adjust the way we make predictions, rather than hope that people's behaviour will adjust to fit our faulty ones.


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> Seeing as almost everyone has umpteen stories about pedestrians doing very similar "unpredictable" things, you would imagine that we would adjust the way we make predictions, rather than hope that people's behaviour will adjust to fit our faulty ones.


The vast majority of pedestrians do not walk out in front of people. It would be a dull forum if we told each other about it though.


----------



## Markymark (3 Jul 2014)

Expect the unexpected.

I expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition over that.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> *The vast majority of pedestrians do not walk out in front of people.* It would be a dull forum if we told each other about it though.


Do you live in Sweden?


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> Do you live in Sweden?


I've been there once, and I didn't die.

Why do you ask?


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Jul 2014)

Nothing worse than indecisive people, the ones that hover. You know they want to cross but they either:
- wait until the road is clear of *any* visible traffic, 
- wait until all vehicles have come to a *complete* stop at the crossing... or,
- dither about and then blindly make a dash for it without making eye contact.
My reaction when seeing people standing on the crossing is to stop and let them cross regardless, sometimes you then discover that they are just standing there with no intention of crossing but then at least you haven't knocked anyone down, so win-win.


----------



## Dan B (3 Jul 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The point, I thought, is about the force required to stop and that is directly linked to mass with F=ma. You have calculated the acceleration, but to get the force (ie how hard to brake), you'll need the mass too.


Well, OK, a=0.7 and m=80 (or so) and you've practically provided your own answer. But I don't know what you want to do with it.


----------



## Dan B (3 Jul 2014)

The vast majority of cars waiting at side roads do not pull out in front of cyclists either, but if you cycle often enough or far enough you have a reasonable chance nonetheless of encountering one of the tiny minority that do. I bet most of us act accordingly


----------



## Origamist (3 Jul 2014)

User said:


> If anyone's interested, there's a rather good explanation of the current case law here.


 
That makes for an interesting read, thanks.

It certainly seems the case that m’learned friends in the Court of Appeal are rather more forgiving than the cycle-chatters who populate the commuting forum (which is predicated on wise owls hooting their counsel of perfection with regard to the "mistakes" of fellow cyclists).

Back to the OP, I hit a child and damaged myself, my clothes and my bike a few years ago (the kid, thankfully, escaped unhurt). It did not even occur to me to seek compensation as I felt partially responsible. I think the chances of the cyclist getting any money are vanishingly small.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> Do you live in Sweden?


Not Sweden, but just over the other side of the Gulf of Finland in Helsinki they are very disciplined about use of crossings. Unlike here where we stroll nonchalantly out on a red signal if we think that the likelihood of instant death has fallen to a merely moderate level.

I remember waiting at a pedestrian crossing in Helsinki for ages. There is no traffic in sight. Red man. Wait. Wait. Still red. Still no traffic. Still red. Wait ... Eventually my nerve snapped and I felt I just had to cross, so I strolled out into the road. Immediately a tram appeared, as if from nowhere, bearing down on me, and I had to sprint out of the way - feeling the Hard Stares of the waiting Finns on me as I did so.

Another thing I found was that the Finnish cyclists don't tolerate peds, even lost English ones, wandering aimlessly around on the cycle paths in Helsinki.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Jul 2014)

screenman said:


> I take you know the exact circumstances then.


I think you say "Beam me down Scotty" and it goes from there.


----------



## .stu (3 Jul 2014)

User said:


> When someone is standing at a crossing and wanting to cross, their behaviour is highly predictable. They are extremely likely to cross the road at some point.



Yes, but given that they would need to walk 20 yards to reach the crossing, regardless of which direction they came from (there are no houses or shops here so only side roads), and there is no barrier in the middle of the dual carriageway to prevent them from crossing straight opposite whichever side road they came out of (which is what 99% of people do), it seems odd that, having made the effort to walk to the crossing, he decided to not use it and cross anyway.


----------



## nickyboy (3 Jul 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Not Sweden, but just over the other side of the Gulf of Finland in Helsinki they are very disciplined about use of crossings. Unlike here where we stroll nonchalantly out on a red signal if we think that the likelihood of instant death has fallen to a merely moderate level.
> 
> I remember waiting at a pedestrian crossing in Helsinki for ages. There is no traffic in sight. Red man. Wait. Wait. Still red. Still no traffic. Still red. Wait ... Eventually my nerve snapped and I felt I just had to cross, so I strolled out into the road. Immediately a tram appeared, as if from nowhere, bearing down on me, and I had to sprint out of the way - feeling the Hard Stares of the waiting Finns on me as I did so.
> 
> Another thing I found was that the Finnish cyclists don't tolerate peds, even lost English ones, wandering aimlessly around on the cycle paths in Helsinki.


 
Same in Hong Kong. They seem to have out-Britished the British. I'm somewhat embarrassed to sneak across on a red there, under the watchful gaze of the locals from their moral high ground


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Jul 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Same in Hong Kong. They seem to have out-Britished the British. I'm somewhat embarrassed to sneak across on a red there, under the watchful gaze of the locals from their moral high ground


We have crossings in Crewe that simply don't change, even if you continually press the button in a frustrated sort of a way. 

We also have one that is impassable when the green man does show his face, because drivers can't be bothered to leave the crossing clear as they queue to enter the station roundabout. I waited with a wheelchair user for four changes, on one memorable occasion, until our motorised overlords finally deigned to leave us space to cross.

The obverse is, I suppose, the almost routine running of red lights on the pedestrian phase at some junctions. Manchester's Fairfield Road/London Road junction (by Picadilly station) is particularly bad for this, and I pity the inattentive newcomer to Manchester who expects the green man to indicate that the cars, busses and vans will have bothered to stop.


----------



## Learnincurve (3 Jul 2014)

I don't understand this thread, if someone walks out into the road without looking it's their fault. Look right, look left, look right again. Yes anyone already on the road be they a bike or a HGV has to be aware that a pedestrian standing on the pavement may be about to cross and prepare accordingly if they are able to, but if they go from walking down the street to walking across the road without warning then they should consider themselves lucky it was a bike and not a lorry + national selection in action.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> ...but if they go from walking down the street to walking across the road without warning then they should consider themselves lucky it was a bike and not a lorry + national selection in action.


Define "without warning".

Admittedly, it's anecdote, but in the example from my ride last night, it was fairly obvious what was going to happen (if you were watching the road, rather than just the carriageway) - the pedestrians were still at fault, but what the hey, I lost a couple of seconds (if that) of journey time, and got to enjoy not having road rash for the rest of the week.


----------



## Learnincurve (3 Jul 2014)

John the Monkey said:


> Define "without warning".



It's as I said, walking out without stopping and looking. If someone is stationary and facing the road you know that they may very well step right out and have a chance to ready yourself. If they are clearly looking left and right you also know that they may very well step right out because everyone has moments of the stupid sometimes so you ready yourself- how many times have you looked at your watch and then realised 5 seconds later that you forgot to actually read the time. Someone just blindly walking off the pavement and into traffic in front of you is an idiot and there is no way you could have known they were going to do that.

Either way, it's a road, and it's on the pedestrian to check and see if anything is coming, we don't live in a third world country where pedestrians cross the road when and where they like without looking and die all the time, we follow the green cross code here. Yes cyclists should always assume that people are stupid but no court in the land would convict a cyclist if a pedestrian walked out into the road in front of them (unless it was on a level crossing or whatnot) and nor would they convict a car, van or lorry driver either.


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> It's as I said, walking out without stopping and looking.


Fits the example I gave. The warnings were mostly in the way they were messing about on the pavement.

I'm not sure how the truck driver felt about it (like I say, he didn't seem to alter speed at all) or how he'd have felt had he hit the one who barely made it to the other side ahead of him, but I was pretty glad to be spared another scrape along the asphalt, personally. 

Similarly, there's a stretch up in town a lot of cyclists complain about "peds" on. Traffic doesn't move quickly (save for in the bike lane) and folk will often cross in gaps left by stationary traffic. The warning doesn't come from them stopping and looking, it comes from seeing for likely gaps in the traffic, and watching the whole road, not just the bit where the cars are. 

Another example - I've seen someone hit crossing further up than that stretch, going through a gap left by a bus (to the right of the bike lane). The pedestrian was screened from sight by the bulk of the bus, but the fact that the bus was stationary while traffic ahead was moving, and that an adjacent traffic island (the other side of the bus from the bike lane) makes this a likely place to cross meant that I'd already reduced speed and covered my brakes. The rider ahead maintained speed, and ran into a pedestrian crossing in the gap left by the bus. I was able to avoid running into both of them, and stop to help out. The rider ahead could probably have avoided the collision, or at least collided with less speed, and probably had a more comfortable ride home than they did.

I don't discount the possibility that someone could genuinely "come from nowhere" entirely, but more often than not, the signs are there for you to see - it's a useful bit of roadcraft to know, if you like your skin where it is


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162238, member: 45"]..and it's on the driver to check that there's nothing in front of them. They're not allowed to run people over.[/QUOTE]

But a pedestrian walking right out is pretty much the same as someone opening a car door into you at times. I've only ridden in heavily built up pedestrian areas twice and twice have I had people check to see if anything was coming, look right at me and cross anyway. Once was a old lady with a trolly the other was a pack of people with a pram. It's a road,_ it's my right of way by law. _I could have ridden right into them but I didn't because I'm not an arse, it still does not make them any less obnoxious. 

I'm sorry but I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone if they get hurt because they were not paying attention. It's all a big symptom of a law suit nation and nanny culture. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more and can't bare the thought that they might be in the wrong. These days it's: "OMG did you hear dave fell off his ladder!" "OMG!! is he hurt!! He should put a claim in against the ladder maker for that!" 20 years ago it would be "Dave fell off his ladder!", "lol what a twunk is he ok?"


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

also @User you seem to selectively forget that the highway code also covers pedestrians 
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossing-the-road-7-to-17

It very very clearly states that pedestrians can not walk right out into traffic, but I will highlight

"D. *If traffic is coming, let it pass.* Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."
and

*"Bus and cycle lanes.* Take care when crossing these lanes as traffic may be moving faster than in the other lanes, or against the flow of traffic."


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> That is why we pass parked cars more than a door width away.


 
Agreed, but there are times when the cycle lane or feeder lane to an ASL doesn't allow for that margin.

GC


----------



## vickster (4 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> I'm sorry but I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone if they get hurt because they were not paying attention. It's all a big symptom of a law suit nation and nanny culture. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more and can't bare the thought that they might be in the wrong. These days it's: "OMG did you hear Dave fell off his ladder!" "OMG!! is he hurt!! He should put a claim in against the ladder maker for that!" 20 years ago it would be "Dave fell off his ladder!", "lol what a twunk is he ok?"



But it's not the pedestrian in this case suing for their injury IIRC from page 1? But the cyclist for damage to their bike (not themselves)


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> But a pedestrian walking right out is pretty much the same as someone opening a car door into you at times. I've only ridden in heavily built up pedestrian areas twice and twice have I had people check to see if anything was coming, look right at me and cross anyway. Once was a old lady with a trolly the other was a pack of people with a pram. It's a road,_ it's my right of way by law. _I could have ridden right into them but I didn't because I'm not an arse, it still does not make them any less obnoxious.



Have you seen Mr Paul's sig line? It's from the preamble to the Highway Code;

"The rules in The Highway Code *do not give you the right of way in any circumstance*, but they advise you when you should give way to others. _*Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident*_."

(My emphasis). Keeping that in mind has changed the way I drive, and ride for the better. Further, if people are driving/riding in the sort of heavy pedestrian traffic you describe and can't stop if someone were to step out, I'd argue that they are doing it all wrong.


> I'm sorry but I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone if they get hurt because they were not paying attention. It's all a big symptom of a law suit nation and nanny culture. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions any more and can't bare the thought that they might be in the wrong. These days it's: "OMG did you hear dave fell off his ladder!" "OMG!! is he hurt!! He should put a claim in against the ladder maker for that!" 20 years ago it would be "Dave fell off his ladder!", "lol what a twunk is he ok?"


I come at it the other way - there's an attitude that what's on the road (especially if it has a motor) should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, and it's for others to stay out of the way. It's a conception of road safety that allows (mostly drivers) faster, more dangerous road users to abdicate responsibility for changing the way they observe, drive &c when road conditions change. Paul Gannon's well known piece on pedestrian priority is well worth a read.

I'd also reiterate my previous point, that a case of genuinely having "no warning" is pretty rare, although the amount of warning you get is very much dependent on the observational skill (and willingness to exercise it) of the rider or driver.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> That would be why we don't use ill conceived facilities.


 
You might not, what about the many cyclists who do?

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I set an example where I can.


 
Come on Adrian, an answer addressing the question would have been appreciated.

GC


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2014)

Jeez that's half an hour of my life I'm not going to get back reading this thread. 

I agree with TC, most of us predict what peds are going to do fairly well. We do get it wrong occasionally but as I was told by a judge after a cycling accident many years ago, if you're going too fast to stop then you're going too fast for the situation.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> What more do you want? You can campaign against them, ignore them, follow them blindly.


 
I'm referring, as I'm sure you're already aware, to the comparison being made by learnincurve between a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the path of a vehicle and the door of a car suddenly being opened in the path of a cyclist.

The more experienced riders will avoid that zone where possible but we both know there are many cyclists who don't. 
Is the doored cyclist to blame for his own injuries or damage?

GC


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

martint235 said:


> Jeez that's half an hour of my life I'm not going to get back reading this thread.
> 
> I agree with TC, most of us predict what peds are going to do fairly well. We do get it wrong occasionally but as I was told by a judge after a cycling accident many years ago, if you're going too fast to stop then you're going too fast for the situation.



We all drive and ride too fast then, according to that judge.

I cycled to work this morning in a bus lane next to a pavement. At any point a pedestrian could have tripped or collapsed and fallen into my path. Should I then have ridden at walking pace the whole way, just in case?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

martint235 said:


> ... if you're going too fast to stop then you're going too fast for the situation.


 
That's overly simplistic nonsense.

GC


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162448, member: 45"]You're responsible for an ongoing assessment of what's an appropriate speed. In a bus lane you can easily ride far enough from the kerb that you'd miss anyone who falls into the road.[/QUOTE]
I don't think any of us have the skill to make an ongoing assessment of whether or not a pedestrian on the path next to the cycle lane is going to drop dead - especially when other things are more likely and need more attention, such as the actual traffic on the same road.

However, the judge's opinion seems to be that we should exercise absolute caution at all times and be prepared for even the most unlikely scenario.

I would counter that nothing is ever that black and white.


----------



## vickster (4 Jul 2014)

I thought this was about a kid who unwittingly (interpret as you wish) stepped into the path of a bike...not an act of God of something dropping dead off the kerb into the path of a cyclist in a bus lane who is riding in yen gutter


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162464, member: 45"]

See, you're deferring responsibility. I spoke about assessing your speed. You're pefectly capable of monitoring how far you are from a pedestrian, considering how hard you'd hit them if they crossed your path, and then deciding what you think is an acceptable speed to hit them at.[/QUOTE]
^^^ This.

It's not very difficult. In about 20 years of riding in London I've only managed to hit one pedestrian. And that's including dealing with the New Cross Ninjas who just step out from between buses in the dark wearing all black clothing. If you're not capable of continually assessing your speed and the environment around you then there's a case to be made that you shouldn't be on a bike.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162464, member: 45"]

See, you're deferring responsibility. I spoke about assessing your speed. You're pefectly capable of monitoring how far you are from a pedestrian, considering how hard you'd hit them if they crossed your path, and then deciding what you think is an acceptable speed to hit them at.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes I am.

But the calculation of risk is something like:

Risk = Kinetic Energy x probability of collision

In calculating this one tries to keep 'risk' below a certain level. Hence on the part of my commute this morning where I was going down a wide, straight suburban street with wide, empty pavements and no parked cars I went quite fast. When I went down the little shortcut where (confession time) you're not actually supposed to ride a bike I went very slowly even though there is almost never anyone walking there, because it's quite bendy and very narrow so if there were someone walking I'd be very likely to hit them if I went at any speed.

Obviously if we know that the probability of collision is 1 *in advance* we would stop in advance.

My point is that 'probability of collision' is only an estimate, and sometimes you will get it wrong because totally unpredictable things happen.

I ride allowing room to cope if things that are 'pretty unlikely' happen. But if I were to ride in a way that covered all eventualities (perhaps the passenger in that car has been kidnapped and will jump out as soon as it slows down, perhaps that pedestrian is deaf dumb and blind, perhaps the driver of that van has had a stroke and can't stop) I'd have to ride very slowly indeed.

It is never as black and white as 'if you crash it was because you were going too fast'.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162537, member: 45"]Don't overcomplicate it. Keep thinking "if he ran out/fell over/dawdled into my path now, how fast would I hit him?"[/QUOTE]
You have to judge how likely it is too though. I cycle past a school on the way to work. It's on a main road but the kids are all in lessons when I go past, so I go quickly even though there are people around, because I judge them fairly unlikely to wander into the road. On the odd occasion I ride past at home time I go much more slowly because there are excitable kids everywhere, and the chances of one of them wandering into my path are much higher.

Would you ride at 'kids are all over' speed in the day, too, because the adult pedestrians might run/fall/dawdle in to your path? Or would you ride faster then because you judge it much less likely that they would?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> The driver is legally responsible for checking that it is safe for the vehicle's door to be opened. The wise cyclist puts them self out of reach.
> The pedestrian is responsible for looking before crossing. The wise cyclist reads the warning signs, covers the brake, and moves out to give a bit more space.


 

Is the doored cyclist to blame for his own injuries or damage?


GC


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is the doored cyclist to blame for his own injuries or damage?
> 
> 
> GC


@User appears to be making that argument.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162624, member: 45"]No I'm not. If only you'd read what was being said.

You can choose to avoid door zones. You can choose how fast you run into a pedestrian.[/QUOTE]
I can choose to avoid them. If I don't choose to avoid them, is it my fault if I get 'doored'?


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162671, member: 45"]If you can choose to avoid them then why are you considering the consequences of not avoiding them?[/QUOTE]

Answer the question.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162676, member: 45"]Again, you're trying to defer. You've tried to defer to other people, now you're trying to defer to an position which you would (hopefully) not choose to be in.[/QUOTE]
Without wishing to be all Jeremy Paxman, that doesn't answer the question.

If, as a cyclist you are 'doored', is it your fault? Answer "yes, always", "no, never" or "it depends"


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> For goodness sake, have a word with yourself.


I'm just trying to establish what's going on. It seems that if I hit a pedestrian on my bike it's always my fault because I should be able to stop - but that same argument implies that it is also my fault if I hit a car door.

My point is that you can't have a blanket rule about it always being the fault of one party, and it's ridiculous to try and impose one.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162700, member: 45"]Have I said it's always your fault? Or have I said that you choose the speed at which you run into pedestrians?[/QUOTE]

So, let's assume I have a speed on 10m/s and the pedestrian a speed of 5m/s

There is a collision because the pedestrian unexpectedly, illogically and without warning stepped out in front on my bike.

You are arguing that I "chose" to hit the pedestrian at 10m/s.

Now let's put the pedestrian in a car. I'm still cycling past as 10m/s

There is a collision because the person in the car unexpectedly, illogically and without warning opened their car door in front of my bike.

Are you arguing that I "chose" to hit the car door at 10m/s?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> As I said, the driver of the car is responsible (see 106 Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regs 1986. The wise cyclist looks to avoid it happening.


 

I'm not used to seeing such wordy posts from you. Can I sum that up as 'no'?

GC


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (4 Jul 2014)

But the door may have opened due to the impact of the piano falling on the car


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162697, member: 45"]I'm not going to get doored, so don't need to consider the question. Why are you asking?[/QUOTE]


I suppose he's asking because it's a _very_ common cause of injury to cyclists.

Between 2009-2011, 1,587 cyclists were injured as a result of vehicle doors opening into their path, 224 of them seriously - a further two cyclists were killed.

So, while you might never ride in a door zone, it's a wholly pertinent question that reflects the real world and is a valid comparison with a pedestrian suddenly entering the path of a vehicle.

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162238, member: 45"]..and it's on the driver to check that there's nothing in front of them. They're not allowed to run people over.[/QUOTE]
The courts don't really seem to mind thobut.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162448, member: 45"]You're responsible for an ongoing assessment of what's an appropriate speed. In a bus lane you can easily ride far enough from the kerb that you'd miss anyone who falls into the road.[/QUOTE]
What of a very very tall person like the Slender Man? He could block a bus lane. Were he not a myth.

Doh!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is the doored cyclist to blame for his own injuries or damage?
> 
> 
> GC


Is the doored cyclist responsible for their riding in the door zone, or does a higher power force them to do it?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Without wishing to be all Jeremy Paxman, that doesn't answer the question.
> 
> If, as a cyclist you are 'doored', is it your fault? Answer "yes, always", "no, never" or "it depends"


Fault and Blame =/= Responsible


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Is the doored cyclist responsible for their riding in the door zone, or does a higher power force them to do it?


 
Is that a yes, a no, it depends, or don't know answer to my question?

GC


----------



## Dan B (4 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> It's a road,_ it's my right of way by law. _I could have ridden right into them but I didn't because I'm not an arse, it still does not make them any less obnoxious.



The common law right of passage and repassage on the public highway is a right held by people, not just by car drivers. Or cyclists. If you had "ridden right into them" you would be denying them the exercise of exactly the same right that you are so eager to claim for yourself.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3162960, member: 45"]Do you ride in the door zone?[/QUOTE]

Does 'door zone' mean the space in which an open car door can get in the way? 

In the example, obviously, otherwise there would be no collision.

In real life, yes because a lot of the roads I cycle on are narrow, and I choose cycling in 'the door zone' over 'waiting for a never ending stream of oncoming traffic to go' and 'riding at oncoming traffic'


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I suppose he's asking because it's a _very_ common cause of injury to cyclists.
> 
> Between 2009-2011, 1,587 cyclists were injured as a result of vehicle doors opening into their path, 224 of them seriously - a further two cyclists were killed.
> 
> ...



Cyclists can be forced into the door zone by a close overtake, a passing car sideswipes the rider and to avoid a collision the cyclist rides in the door zone. It doesn't help that all over LBWF the cycle lanes are painted slap bang in the door zone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Is that a yes, a no, it depends, or don't know answer to my question?
> 
> GC


My answer to your question, and the only pragmatic real world response to the situation, is "Don't ride in the door zone" but you didn't see fit to include that in your list of 'acceptable' responses for some reason.

I can't think why not.


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

This is why I pre-empted my reply with the highway code as regards to pedestrians. People here are picking and choosing bits that they like and throwing out bits that they don't like. You have one line saying that cyclists have to give way, and I don't know what part of the code that comes from although I have a feeling it's the bit that talks about the times you have pedestrians sharing paths with cyclists/horses. 

I don't have to cherry pick lines, I have a entire section of the highway code saying that pedestrians have to follow the green cross code and not walk out in front of anything on the road which will then force the bike/car/bus/200 ton lorry to avoid them. I'm not saying that you wouldn't avoid hitting them if they do walk out in front of you no matter if you were walking yourself or doing 120 mph but it's absolutely categorically their fault if you do and It's a bit special that people are arguing that they should be allowed to just blindly walk out into the road and if they get hit by a cyclist then it's the cyclist's fault to be honest. 

Again: https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Cyclists can be forced into the door zone by a close overtake, a passing car sideswipes the rider and to avoid a collision the cyclist rides in the door zone. It doesn't help that all over LBWF the cycle lanes are painted slap bang in the door zone.


One of the many reasons I frequently forsake cycle lanes. All the cycle lanes I can think of locally run through the door zone. Useless.

I'm quite happy to block cars behind me and/or route myself away from double parking/door zone hell. I accept everyone can't do that. Local drivers don't seem to be much bothered by my blocking, maybe they 'get it'?


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jul 2014)

I'd get hooted at, I think the roads called Alexandra Road in Leyton, single lane, cycle lane in the door zone so I ignore it and it puzzles and confuses idiot drivers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> This is why I pre-empted my reply with the highway code as regards to pedestrians. People here are picking and choosing bits that they like and throwing out bits that they don't like. You have one line saying that cyclists have to give way, and I don't know what part of the code that comes from although I have a feeling it's the bit that talks about the times you have pedestrians sharing paths with cyclists/horses.
> 
> I don't have to cherry pick lines, I have a entire section of the highway code saying that pedestrians have to follow the green cross code and not walk out in front of anything on the road which will then force the bike/car/bus/200 ton lorry to avoid them. I'm not saying that you wouldn't avoid hitting them if they do walk out in front of you no matter if you were walking yourself or doing 120 mph but it's absolutely categorically their fault if you do and It's a bit special that people are arguing that they should be allowed to just blindly walk out into the road and if they get hit by a cyclist then it's the cyclist's fault to be honest.
> 
> Again: https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6


You do get that the bits for pedestrians are just advice/guidance not law? Else we'd all get banged up for not wearing our Sam Browne's at night when walking back from the pub.

The weakness of the HC when it comes to vulnerable road users is that it assumes motor transport is king of the hill and everyone else has to modify their natural behaviour to acknowledge that. The HC is a product of UK car culture just as much as the 'hot hatch' of yesteryear.


----------



## Markymark (4 Jul 2014)

glenn forger said:


> I'd get hooted at, I think the roads called Alexandra Road in Leyton, single lane, cycle lane in the door zone so I ignore it and it puzzles and confuses idiot drivers.


That whole one-way system is a fudging nightmare. Apparently the cycle lanes for that bit cost £1m.


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

If someone opens a car door into the road without checking to see if anything is coming then they are an idiot and good luck with that bus.


----------



## Dan B (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> So, let's assume I have a speed on 10m/s and the pedestrian a speed of 5m/s
> 
> There is a collision because the pedestrian unexpectedly, illogically and without warning stepped out in front on my bike.
> 
> ...



10 m/s is 22 mph, which around here is probably fast enough to quite comfortably take the lane on any road with parked cars on it


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

Dan B said:


> 10 m/s is 22 mph, which around here is probably fast enough to quite comfortably take the lane on any road with parked cars on it


I'm over here, though, in the North 

(and it was an example)


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You do get that the bits for pedestrians are just advice/guidance not law?



You do get that for the most part they have the exact same legal weight as the rules for cyclists in a court of law? The only bits that are actual law are the ones that say "you must" looks like the part that sig quote comes from is about unsegregated tracks and not the road just as I thought.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3163086, member: 45"]Yes they are. Anyhow...[/QUOTE]
Yes, anyhow ...

According to the rationale you posted earlier, it would be the fault of the cyclist for going to fast to avoid it, unless you want to explain the distinction between someone doing something unpredictable on foot and someone doing something unpredictable sitting in a car.

Is that a fair summary?


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Yes, anyhow ...
> 
> According to the rationale you posted earlier, it would be the fault of the cyclist for going to fast to avoid it, unless you want to explain the distinction between someone doing something unpredictable on foot and someone doing something unpredictable sitting in a car.
> 
> Is that a fair summary?


You're cycling along a road. You notice that there is a driver sat in a car some way in front of you. If he opens his door, is that truly unpredictable? I'd say it's quite high up on the list of "What happens next?".

Similarly, you're cycling along a road. There's a pedestrian on the pavement. They begin to turn to face the road. Again is it truly unpredictable that they may step into the road?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

Our cyclist can only control their own actions. They cannot control the actions of others, predictable or unpredictable.

Our cyclist therefore needs to ride accordingly.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

martint235 said:


> You're cycling along a road. You notice that there is a driver sat in a car some way in front of you. If he opens his door, is that truly unpredictable? I'd say it's quite high up on the list of "What happens next?".
> 
> Similarly, you're cycling along a road. There's a pedestrian on the pavement. They begin to turn to face the road. Again is it truly unpredictable that they may step into the road?


No - you've given two very good examples of people behaving in predictable ways.

Try these ones:

You're cycling along a straight road with good visibility. There is a parked car some distance away. It was stationary when first you saw it, and you saw the driver get out. As you get close there is a bus coming the other way, but you don't mind going close to the car because you saw the driver get out a few minutes earlier. As you pass the car the child in the back seat that was too short for you to see opens the door to go and see what's keeping daddy so long.

You're cycling along a road. There is a pedestrian on the pavement walking in a straight line. As you get alongside them they see the bus that loops around to their house coming along the road, so they run across the road directly in front of you without warning to catch it, because they couldn't hear any traffic.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (4 Jul 2014)

please, I'm having enough trouble the The Door Zone without you just posting



martint235 said:


> You're cycling along a road. You notice that there is a driver sat in a car some way in front of you. You have just entered. The Door Zone! di di di dee di di di dee
> 
> If he opens his door, is that truly unpredictable? I'd say it's quite high up on the list of "What happens next?".


 
I'd kind of hope that most decent cyclists would shoulder check and then make room. Just the same as you assess if the car might have someone about to open a door. Or if you can't see around a corner you slow down before going round it (fridge theory, approach every unknown as if someone has dropped a fridge off of their van on the other side).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You're cycling along a road. There is a pedestrian on the pavement walking in a straight line. As you get alongside them they see the bus that loops around to their house coming along the road, so they run across the road directly in front of you without warning to catch it, because they couldn't hear any traffic.


To be sure of hitting them every time I'd need to practise.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You're cycling along a straight road with good visibility. There is a parked car some distance away. It was stationary when first you saw it, and you saw the driver get out. As you get close there is a bus coming the other way, but you don't mind going close to the car because you saw the driver get out a few minutes earlier. As you pass the car the child in the back seat that was too short for you to see opens the door to go and see what's keeping daddy so long


Always expect the unexpected. Especially where children and short people may be involved.

Or, alternatively, don't ride in the door zone.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Always expect the unexpected. Especially where children and short people may be involved.
> 
> Or, alternatively, don't ride in the door zone.



So if anyone gets 'doored' it is their fault for not doing that?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

I used to ride in the door zone.
I got doored.
I lived to ride again.
I no longer ride on the door zone.
I have not been doored again.

My approach to playing with matches is rather similar.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I used to ride in the door zone.
> I got doored.
> I lived to ride again.
> I no longer ride on the door zone.
> ...


Was it your fault when you got 'doored'?


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

oh kay, so when I quote the the highway code it means absolutely nothing, but that one line in the highway code about shared pathways and giving way is sacrosanct then? 

Or did no one bother to click the link and see that I have been directly quoting the highway code: https://www.gov.uk/highway-code you can tell it's the highway code from the way it's on a .gov.uk web page and has "the highway code" in big letters on it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> My answer to your question, and the only pragmatic real world response to the situation, is "Don't ride in the door zone"...


Your response is not a real world answer, it doesn't even address the nub of the question. The real world has hundreds and hundreds of cyclists being injured by car doors every year, as I showed in post #215.

I'm not interested in which members of this forum steadfastly avoid the door zone, rather I am interested in the views of you and others as to whether any cyclist who _is_ involved in such a collision is to blame or not for his own injuries or damage.



> ... but you didn't see fit to include that in your list of 'acceptable' responses for some reason.
> 
> I can't think why not.


 
I can: your answer tells me nothing about what I'd asked, which remains:



glasgowcyclist said:


> Is the doored cyclist to blame for his own injuries or damage?
> 
> GC


 



GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Was it your fault when you got 'doored'?


I was responsible for the choice I made to ride in the door zone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

We go around in circles....



glasgowcyclist said:


> I suppose he's asking because it's a _very_ common cause of injury to cyclists.
> 
> Between 2009-2011, 1,587 cyclists were injured as a result of vehicle doors opening into their path, 224 of them seriously - a further two cyclists were killed.
> 
> ...


Given 19,000 cyclists are killed or injured in reported road "accidents" every year according to ROSPA then if the mean dooring per year is 500ish pa I think I take issue with "_very_ common". Be that as it may...



glasgowcyclist said:


> Is that a yes, a no, it depends, or don't know answer to my question?
> 
> GC


If you wish to attribute fault or ascribe blame feel free to do so. Not a game I play. But since we are asking questions and demanding answers...

Is the cyclist responsible for the choice they made to ride in the door zone?


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I was responsible for the choice I made to ride in the door zone.


That is true, but equally I am responsible for my choice in coming to work today, but if some nutter bursts in and sprays me with bullets it won't be my fault if there is blood on the floor.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

and thus we move from 


> Recently a friends son stepped out into the road without looking and was hit by a bike


to


> some nutter bursts in and sprays me with bullets



because, obviously, the two are equivalent.

I think I'll pop this thread on the back burner and go for a ride.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> and thus we move from
> 
> to
> 
> ...


I'm not claiming they are equivalent. I am making the point that being responsible for your decisions does not also mean that you are at fault. But you are being deliberately obtuse.

Enjoy your ride. It's just started raining here


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Why are you dreaming up more and more extreme examples?


Because perfectly sensible ones get ignored?


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Is that going to get sensible ones addressed or just make you look mad?


If hyperbole makes me "look mad" then I guess it will make me "look mad"

Why would I care?


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

The problem here is that at this point most people who would have argued that pedestrians shouldn't cross the roads without looking and people should not open car doors without checking have slowly backed out of this thread shaking their heads in disbelief while wondering why cyclists are being portrayed as lesser beings on a cycling forum.


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> No - you've given two very good examples of people behaving in predictable ways.
> 
> Try these ones:
> 
> ...


Do you really do your risk assessments in such splendid isolation? Ped = low risk. Bus = low risk. Bus + ped = increased risk. You can even add unseen elements so bus+ped+school kicking out time = further increased risk.

In the first, true you can't fully remove the risk but you canbe aware of other elements: did he lock the car?; did he appear to be talking to a car that you presumed empty?

You can never fully remove risk but you can mitigate against probability and impact. People charge hundreds of pounds to teach you this stuff and not a scrap of it is outside the boundaries of common sense and a bit of logic. I've always wondered how they got away with it but reading this thread explains it.


----------



## Dan B (4 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> The only bits that are actual law are the ones that say "you must" looks like the part that sig quote comes from is about unsegregated tracks and not the road just as I thought.


That's odd, because I see it (verbatim) on the page containing "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders". At the top. Which makes me think it's probably their general advice to all drivers and riders and has nothing specifically to do with unsegregated tracks at all

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> No idea, I just felt you ought to know.


You didn't tell me anything, you asked a question.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3163372, member: 45"]No, you're not listening.

The cyclist should be able to avoid it, except for in exceptional circumstances, is what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
Finally we get there!

You agree that there are 'excptional circumstances' and it isn't as black and white as it always being the cyclists fault.

That's all I've been trying to say.


----------



## cd365 (4 Jul 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> . Or if you can't see around a corner you slow down before going round it (fridge theory, approach every unknown as if someone has dropped a fridge off of their van on the other side).


Having passed my test over 25 years ago I have never seen anyone drive to the fridge theory. Every driver I have ever seen has gone around a bend at a speed they think they could navigate it safely, with no thought that there might be a fridge in the road! Don't get me wrong, on my commute which is around country roads I wish they would, but in the real world it does not happen. Though there a few posters on CC who would have you believe that when they drive there is a person with a red flag walking in front of them; they are safer than safe!


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Did you try saying it? It would have saved all that dreaming up unlikely scenarios.


Yes, four pages ago ...



KneesUp said:


> I would counter that nothing is ever that black and white.


----------



## uclown2002 (4 Jul 2014)

Do you guys ever get time to ride your bike?
Seem to spend all day arguing the toss on here!


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> Then you should have seen that no one was ever arguing that it is black, or is it white?


I don't particularly want an argument about a discussion. Just read the thread.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Finally we get there!
> 
> You agree that there are 'excptional circumstances' and it isn't as black and white as it *always being the cyclists fault.*
> 
> That's all I've been trying to say.


Where has anyone said that....


----------



## KneesUp (4 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I have. The black and white came from the cyclist not at fault side.



I didn't know there were 'sides' You've lost me I'm afraid. 

As we now all agree, shall we, you know, leave it?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3163374, member: 45"]I've tried that one.[/QUOTE]
I'd run out of original ideas by this point, given that someone was arguing about what I hadn't said.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3163470, member: 45"]You too?[/QUOTE]
Kinetic energy does funny things to a fellow.


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3163381, member: 45"]No, it means what it says. Legally, it refers you to the relevant law if necessary.

You're misinterpreting the HTC.[/QUOTE]

and you are ignoring the entire section of the highway code that covers pedestrians and focusing entirely on the bike bit. Yes you should avoid an accident if you can, that's a no shoot sherlock thing, but that does not make you at fault if you are unable to avoid the accident because someone else was not following the part of the highway code relevant to them and walked right out without giving you time to react. 

The rules in the_ highway code_ may not give you right of way, but their are other laws, both government made and natural selection. A pedestrian simply does not have the right to wander out into the road as they wish, and people who think that they should be able to should go to visit Nepal and see the absolute madness and death that it brings.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Jul 2014)

Cripes, now I remember why I stopped reading the commuting forum.


----------



## theclaud (4 Jul 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You agree that there are 'excptional circumstances' and it isn't as black and white as it always being the cyclists fault.
> 
> *That's all I've been trying to say*.



Well, b****r me - you didn't half make a meal of it. 

I'm quite happy to fall into your cunningly-designed trap, BTW, and say that it if someone "doors" a cyclist by opening a vehicle door without looking, then it is the doorer's fault. But then I don't think your trap is as cunning as you think it is, because the two things are Not The Same. And the others are right to point out that there's a simple way to avoid being doored, which works in most circumstances and which is also the preferable thing to do for all sorts of other reasons.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> But then I don't think your trap is as cunning as you think it is, because the two things are Not The Same.


How can you say that? We are operating in a world where there is apparently some sort of equivalence between getting hit by a bike when stepping off the kerb, getting doored by a car, and getting riddled with bullets at work.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jul 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> We go around in circles....



No, you manage that all by yourself - my question hasn't changed and you can't give a straight answer, preferring an evasive style worthy of Michael Howard.

I see no point in continuing the discussion with you.

GC


----------



## Dan B (4 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> because the two things are Not The Same.


Sorry, you've lost me there. The experience of being ridden into at 20mph is surely exactly the same no matter whether you're a pedestrian or a car door


----------



## theclaud (4 Jul 2014)

Dan B said:


> Sorry, you've lost me there. The experience of being ridden into at 20mph is surely exactly the same no matter whether you're a pedestrian or a car door


Sorry. I'm afraid I'm a member of the anti-door brigade.


----------



## Dan B (4 Jul 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> A pedestrian simply does not have the right to wander out into the road as they wish, and people who think that they should be able to should go to visit Nepal and see the absolute madness and death that it brings.


Or for a similar experience closer to home they could visit, say, the exit from Liverpool St station onto Bishopsgate (this is in London, for the avoidance of doubt) and see that - oh, wait, it is not especially mad and rarely causes any deaths at all. And that's not even one of those new-fangled "shared street" places, it's just a road on which (almost) all road users understand that foot traffic is equally as important as the people in cars.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Jul 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> No, you manage that all by yourself - my question hasn't changed and you can't give a straight answer, preferring an evasive style worthy of Michael Howard.
> 
> I see no point in continuing the discussion with you.
> 
> GC


You pose a question and then prescribe a list of acceptable answers and call it a discussion.


----------



## swansonj (5 Jul 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Do you guys ever get time to ride your bike?
> Seem to spend *all day *arguing the toss on here!


That's why DZ organises night rides for us.


----------

