# Pedestrian Collision



## DanH (13 Mar 2015)

Feeling bad for knocking down a pedestrian on my commute home last night. But I'm wondering if there was really anything I could have done to avoid it.
Hopefully my crude sketch is helpful!





Basically the road traffic was stationary in a long line.
I was using the cycling lane on the inside (travelling at 19mph according to my GPS).
Pedestrians crossed directly in front of a stationary HGV and walked into the cycle path at the exact moment I was coming through.
Surely there was no way I could anticipate this? Maybe I shouldn't be using the cycle lane when the traffic is stationary? I don't know. It's put lots of doubt in my mind... Whaddya think?


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (13 Mar 2015)

If I were a pedestrian I would not cross the road in front of a lorry onto a cycle path. In my opinion you did nothing wrong, just one of those unfortunate accidents.


----------



## matiz (13 Mar 2015)

I get this a lot on Weymouth seafront the only thing I tend to do is keep the speed down a bit when passing stationary traffic


----------



## Rooster1 (13 Mar 2015)

As a pedestrian, when crossing between stationary cars, I always hesitate and look to check for bikes and motorbikes when I get to the other side of the vehicle - a quick peep to check.
Just because all the cards, lorries and buses are not moving, that it is safe.
I learnt this from a visit to London when I nearly got taken out by a courier motorbike as I crossed a traffic island - I assumed all the traffic was at a standstill - common sense I guess.

I would not consider this to be your fault.
I hope the pedestrian is OK.


----------



## Markymark (13 Mar 2015)

You shoukd always proceed very slowly alongside stationary traffic. Especially lorries as you can't see through or over them.

Pedestrian should have looked but you shoukd have been going at a speed appropriate and as such if you did hit something that came in front it would be minor.

EDIT. Just noticed the 19mph bit. That is too fast alongside stationery vehicles.


----------



## ianrauk (13 Mar 2015)

Not your fault. Unfortunately these things happen.
Wayward peds can be a problem. Even if you were going at a slower speed it won't stop a non paying attention wayward ped walking into you from between stationary traffic and knocking you off the bike..


----------



## si_c (13 Mar 2015)

Pedestrians can be stupid. Had more than one step out into my path from between high sided vehicles.

Doesn't sound like your fault, I remember it being drilled into my head as a kid not to step into the road from between cars as it was dangerous. Sounds like this one never had this lesson.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (13 Mar 2015)

si_c said:


> Pedestrians can be stupid. Had more than one step out into my path from between high sided vehicles.
> 
> Doesn't sound like your fault, I remember it being drilled into my head as a kid not to step into the road from between cars as it was dangerous. Sounds like this one never had this lesson.


Until now.


----------



## mustang1 (13 Mar 2015)

You done nothing wrong. 

The pedestrian takes care when crossing in front of motor vehicles but not cyclists?

Having said that, I keep my speed quite low when in a bike lane going past stationary by tactic and slow right down next to larger vehicles coz pedestrians I find to be mainly dumb. You ever played lemmings?

Its not a good feeling when you have a collision, but don't blame yourself for it.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (13 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3586560, member: 45"]The correct reply is that you should always anticipate and prepare for a pedestrian appearing from a gap in front of a truck as happened with you.

The reality is that this would mean you riding at 3mph all the way down the line.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, learnt from motorbike days (although then on the right, not the left) you ride to your sight lines and vans and lorries completely obscure what you can see so the only safe way is to slow and look. I'd not be passing the inside of the lorry at 19mph and I'd be covering the brakes and doing everything I could to check that the space in front of the lorry didn't contain a danger be that a ped, bicycle or errant pizza delivery scooter. Of course, my slowing down probably means one day I'll get a fast moving bicycle straight up my jacksie so it's hardly perfect :-)

You only need to slow for the bits that you can't see so unless it was a line of lorries and vans you'd not be crawling along the whole length.

A common enough incident, I'd put the majority of the fault with the ped, they should have looked especially with a cycle lane in front of them, but if you want to stop it happening again it is possible to do things on your part.


----------



## Drago (13 Mar 2015)

I don't think it's your fault per se. I dislike the painted on cycle lanes that share the tarmac with the rest if the traffic, as it little more than officially sanctioned filtering, and that can be a risky pastime.


----------



## PK99 (13 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3586560, member: 45"]The correct reply is that you should always anticipate and prepare for a pedestrian appearing from a gap in front of a truck as happened with you.

The reality is that this would mean you riding at 3mph all the way down the line.[/QUOTE]

not 3mph, but 19 mph with view blocked by the lorry, is not what i would want to do.
rule 160 (for motorcyclists) says keep speed low whan filtering


----------



## Stephen C (13 Mar 2015)

As much as I agree that it is the pedestrians fault, I would say that 19mph is certainly too fast with restricted visibility. If you have to cycle at 5mph to stay safe, so be it. As well as being extra vigilant with vehicles that you can't see over (lorries, buses etc), watch out for gaps in the queue of traffic around junctions, they could be letting a car through.

Unfortunately, I've learnt most of this through experience...


----------



## vickster (13 Mar 2015)

Agreed, going much too fast for the traffic conditions in a cycle lane, as tempting as it may be

If you don't have 3rd party indemnity insurance already, it might be worth investing (through British Cycling or CTC)


----------



## glenn forger (13 Mar 2015)

No filtering, there's a lane, you've even got a picture to explain to you, sheesh.


----------



## Dan B (13 Mar 2015)

The pedestrian certainly bears some responsibility, but (on the description you've given) 19mph is too fast for the conditions. Granted that even if you'd been going slower you might still have hit him, less kinetic energy -> less potential for injury


----------



## w00hoo_kent (13 Mar 2015)

PK99 said:


> not 3mph, but 19 mph with view blocked by the lorry, is not what i would want to do.
> rule 160 (for motorcyclists) says keep speed low whan filtering


Yup, presuming everything else in the diagram was a car then I'd be going at a reasonable clip (probably not 19mph thanks to current fitness plus the narrowness of options because you're on the left of a line of cars and almost definitely in the door zone) then at around the 'r' of Lorry I'd back off, probably drift left slightly to increase view angle and cover brakes, at around the line drawn for the cab vision would open up so I could see if I needed to brake for someone or not, 99.5% of the time the answer would be 'no' and I'd pick the speed back up (I'd probably have checked low for legs if the lorry cab was high enough), if the rest of the line was cars then I'd be back up to speed being able to see over them for most of the likely dangers but again would be back in to 'door worry' mode. Of course, in London I'd then be slowing down for the twenty delivery vehicles and taxis parked across the cycle lane.


----------



## biking_fox (13 Mar 2015)

Depends a bit on your sight lines and how well you know that stretch of road, how wide the cycle lane is, etc. I'd probably not have gone that fast, - there is always a danger of traffic turning across your path, into a driveway or petrol station or junction, or, as I very nearly encountered, someone who pushed there pram into the cycle lane before they could see it was clear. That results in a lot worse than a bruised ped.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (13 Mar 2015)

True, that's the other issue with a lorry in the traffic, you can't be certain that the car in front of it is directly in front of it. It might have left a gap for something big and metallic to be pulling in to, that encroaches on the cycle lane and you can be in much bigger trouble if you're moving along at a clip.


----------



## Markymark (13 Mar 2015)

Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to blame the lorry.


----------



## Cyclist33 (13 Mar 2015)

I wouldn't have a clue how the underwriters would argue it one way or the other, I mean most of us are not experts in insurance I'm guessing.

In my completely subjective opinion, the ped was completely crazy to cross the road that way, and you were going far too fast in the situation described. Straying well outside the realm of pure fact, it's possible you were relishing the fact that the motorised traffic was at a standstill and you didn't have to be, and were going even faster as a result.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (13 Mar 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to blame the lorry.


Naturally if the lorry drive was a true professional he'd have spotted the incident coming up and warned both parties beforehand. It's just another example of the shoddy way our roads are full of delinquent yorkie eaters.

Will that do? :-)


----------



## Keith Oates (13 Mar 2015)

I think that both you and the ped together contributed to the accident and should share the responsibility but let's hope the injury to the ped is minor.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 Mar 2015)

Pretty much a birdstrike. Sometimes it makes sense to slow down when there is a line of stationary traffic with gaps. And you see the peds doing this all the while but most at least look both ways when they come thru a gap.


----------



## Origamist (13 Mar 2015)

First off, I hope you and the pedestrian are not too badly hurt.

I'll often move quickly in cycle lanes (with stationary, same direction traffic to the right) if they are wide enough and sightlines are OK. However, buses and HGVs substantially obscure visibility and it's worth scrubbing off speed as you come alongside the bigger vehicle as it will mitigate the consequences of a collision. Be extra careful when passing larger vehicles if there is a gap in front of them or a junction/bus stop close by.

There is the offside of stationary traffic which is often preferred when passing, but if traffic in the opposite direction was heavy or the available road space was narrow, there is nothing wrong with using the cycle lane to make progress. One of the issues when passing stationary traffic on the right is that pedestrians are still obscured by large vehicles and many will check to the left, but not the right when emerging from a stationary traffic.


----------



## cd365 (13 Mar 2015)

I don't think the OP was at fault, even with his speed. You are taught not to between parked vehicles and if you do you have to check before stepping out, if the ped had of done this then there would have been no collision.
If I had been the OP I would have been spitting feathers at the ped!


----------



## Turbo Rider (13 Mar 2015)

I hope the pedestrian was wearing a helmet...I hate it when they don't wear helmets...


----------



## MichaelW2 (13 Mar 2015)

Cycle lanes are never safe. You have to expect pedestrians so slow down a bit.
In addition, as cycle lanes cross junctions, turning cars pose a danger.


----------



## mjr (13 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> A common enough incident, I'd put the majority of the fault with the ped, they should have looked especially with a cycle lane in front of them, but if you want to stop it happening again it is possible to do things on your part.


Basically this ^^ and as well as backing off when approaching the blind corner of the lorry, I'd also be ringing the bell. I sound like the bell section of the Bicycle Orchestra when riding in cities but I've not hit anyone there... yet! Out in the villages, I'd feel guilty about disturbing the peace, but the motorists are already doing that in cities far more than my music system and bell...


----------



## w00hoo_kent (13 Mar 2015)

mjray said:


> far more than my music system and bell...


Please, please tell me you are playing some seriously niche gangster rap out of the sound system...


----------



## mjr (13 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Please, please tell me you are playing some seriously niche gangster rap out of the sound system...


Seriously niche is the phrase! It usually plays a rather random mix of royalty-free (Creative Commons, out of copyright, whatever...) bicycle-related music in all different styles - not much gangster rap yet though.


----------



## buggi (13 Mar 2015)

You did nothing technically wrong, it was the pedestrians responsibility to look before crossing. HOWEVER you could have anticipated it and avoided it. You knew you couldn't see beyond the HGV and therefore it stands to reason that anything beyond the HGV couldn't see you. Also the traffic was stationary and therefore there are likely to be people taking the chance to cross, just as cars take the chance to pull in and out of side roads. You should always proceed with care where you can't see ahead or something is blocking your view of the road, even if only partially. If a driver drove round a blind corner on his side of the road and crashed into a stationery vehicle or horse, you could say he didn't technically do anything wrong because he was on his side of the road, however we would all know that he shouldn't have presumed the way was clear, and proceeded with care, and the same rule applies in this scenario.

This is the difference between responsibility and avoidability. Practicing this can avoid both you, or a pedestrian, becoming injured.


----------



## vickster (13 Mar 2015)

cd365 said:


> I don't think the OP was at fault, even with his speed. You are taught not to between parked vehicles and if you do you have to check before stepping out, if the ped had of done this then there would have been no collision.
> If I had been the OP I would have been spitting feathers at the ped!



Except the highway code does tell road users to look out for more vulnerable road users - i.e. cyclists look out for ped, and to moderate speed where there are potential hazards, i.e. lorries


----------



## cd365 (13 Mar 2015)

vickster said:


> Except the highway code does tell road users to look out for more vulnerable road users - i.e. cyclists look out for ped, and to moderate speed where there are potential hazards, i.e. lorries


It was 19mph, that's not exactly head down busting a gut. I am not a fan of this "you must slow down to a suitable speed to avoid morons who might do something stupid in front of you" attitude that seems to be getting more and more common on here. What is a suitable speed? In @buggi 's example above the only safe thing to do was to stop, get off and walk past the lorry, or go at less than walking speed. Who in reality does that? This is the real world and other road users should take care when using the road, but to expect everyone to come to an almost stop when using a cycle lane in this instance just will not happen. Personally I don't filter nor use cycle lanes, too dangerous!

I do not cycle thinking about the "what if" scenarios, if I did I wouldn't get on my bike, car or motorcycle. I have to trust that other people take as much reasonable care as I do.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Mar 2015)

vickster said:


> Except the highway code does tell road users to look out for more vulnerable road users - i.e. cyclists look out for ped, and to moderate speed where there are potential hazards, i.e. lorries



No it does not. There is nothing in the HC that says slow down near lorries.


----------



## Drago (13 Mar 2015)

I'm not a fan of that attitude either, though there's a lot to be said for it if it stops a ped dismounting you and breaking your neck.


----------



## mjr (13 Mar 2015)

I'm also not a fan of that attitude but I've been around long enough that it's second nature to think about some reasonable "what if"s, like what my emergency exit is if another person doesn't take reasonable care, which often means backing off a bit and covering the brakes (and some scenarios would result in my bike colliding with a careless person or their vehicle while I land in a heap on the verge!). Everything has "what if"s. What if you don't get on you bike, car or motorcycle? Are you going to waste away tucked up in bed? Ask a supermarket worker to reverse a van at your house? What if they get the throttle instead of the footbrake? Everything has "what if"s.


----------



## vickster (13 Mar 2015)

cd365 said:


> It was 19mph, that's not exactly head down busting a gut. I am not a fan of this "you must slow down to a suitable speed to avoid morons who might do something stupid in front of you" attitude that seems to be getting more and more common on here. What is a suitable speed? In @buggi 's example above the only safe thing to do was to stop, get off and walk past the lorry, or go at less than walking speed. Who in reality does that? This is the real world and other road users should take care when using the road, but to expect everyone to come to an almost stop when using a cycle lane in this instance just will not happen. Personally I don't filter nor use cycle lanes, too dangerous!
> 
> I do not cycle thinking about the "what if" scenarios, if I did I wouldn't get on my bike, car or motorcycle. I have to trust that other people take as much reasonable care as I do.



That's faster than I would cycle on the flat in traffic ever. In traffic downhill I would't ride that fast either, too risky

10 mph covering the brakes is perfectly reasonable in such circumstances. Some nasty injuries documented on this site of people who were going fast and a car cut across through queuing traffic. Yes, you can sue the driver and get a few quid, not much good if you're dead though

I don't think what the OP describes constitutes reasonable care, but we are all entitled to an opinion 

How was the ped, do we know?


----------



## cd365 (13 Mar 2015)

vickster said:


> but we are all entitled to an opinion



It is all about opinions, life would be boring if we all thought the same


----------



## vickster (13 Mar 2015)

In this case, there might be a less battered pedestrian though (and possibly less battered cyclist and bike)

Did the OP report the accident, check the ped was ok, exchange details if needed etc?


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Mar 2015)

Barrelling along at 19mph into a series of blind corners is reckless.

It's fast enough to beat a pedestrian's left/right glance.

But were I the ped I would have stuck my head out from in front of the lorry for a look.

And probably been clouted by your elbow as you whizzed past.


----------



## vickster (13 Mar 2015)

Presumably this queuing traffic was in a built up area where there might be pedestrians around, not on a dual carriageway for example?


----------



## cd365 (13 Mar 2015)

Let's red flag cyclists!
If a ped can't look left and right and see a cyclist in the cycle lane that he wants to cross then they better get themself to Specsavers and fast!

I would put money on the ped not wanting to give any details since they were at fault


----------



## vickster (13 Mar 2015)

The OP presumably posted to get opinions, the view seems to be that he was going too fast given the traffic conditions, the presence of the lorry etc. We don't know what the lighting was like, whether he had good lights, the pedestrian may have already been in the cycle path or not, they may or may not have looked properly but a bike coming at sort of speed may not have been very obvious especially if poorly lit
Hopefully some sort of lesson was learnt and nobody was seriously hurt


----------



## Firestorm (13 Mar 2015)

One on Mansell st this evening
slightly different situation.
bso going wrong way down the one way street in the cycle lane , ped pulling a case on wheels steps off at the pelican when the road is completely clear the right way.
cyclist struck the case , last seen muttering and trying to straighten his handlebars....


----------



## DrLex (13 Mar 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to blame the lorry.


:-)
I was thinking "if he'd have been doing mid-twenties, he'd have been past the pedestrian"...


----------



## goody (13 Mar 2015)

From he OP's drawing it looks like a very large lorry. Crossing the road in front of one of these whilst theyr'e in stationary traffic and not at a crossing or traffic light is madness the driver of the lorry might not be able to see the pedestrian and move off without knowing they're there. When one of those runs you over you normally only come out under a sheet.


----------



## Cp40Carl (13 Mar 2015)

This can operate at two levels - traffic violations and civil torts (negligence). In terms of the latter, the pedestrian is likely to be held liable as he or she entered the cycle lane without looking (although could evade liability if could show that not aware of cycle lane, possibly due to narrow field of vision when crossing next to lorry). If the pedestrian is found to be negligent, however, it may be that you could also be liable, by way of 'contributory' negligence, if it was reasonably foreseeable that a pedestrian may emerge from the side of the lorry and cross in front of you and you did not adjust your speed to that possibility, or failed to slow down after having seen the pedestrian approach the cycle lane without any apparent intention to stop or look around.

In such cases, any damage award in your favour would be reduced by a percentage based upon the level of contributory negligence on your part. If you think that the pedestrian will sue then go and see a lawyer.

I haven't gone into the traffic violation side of things but hope that the above might give you an idea of some of the general legal principles that may apply should the pedestrian bring an action against you in the civil courts.


----------



## goody (13 Mar 2015)

If you'd been going at 25mph you would have passed before they stepped out.
Ride faster next time.


----------



## _aD (13 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3586560, member: 45"]The correct reply is that you should always anticipate and prepare for a pedestrian appearing from a gap in front of a truck as happened with you.
The reality is that this would mean you riding at 3mph all the way down the line.[/QUOTE]

One of my favourite cycle tracks through town, which I use every time I ride there, is dotted with blind entrances along its length.

The correct way is that you should always anticipate and prepare for a pedestrian appearing from a gap in front of the bush/adjoining wall etc. The reality is that this would mean riding at 10mph all the way down the track. So I do. I have never hit a pedestrian.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Mar 2015)

Cp40Carl said:


> I haven't gone into the traffic violation side of things.



Cos there aren't any.


----------



## buggi (13 Mar 2015)

cd365 said:


> It was 19mph, that's not exactly head down busting a gut. I am not a fan of this "you must slow down to a suitable speed to avoid morons who might do something stupid in front of you" attitude that seems to be getting more and more common on here. What is a suitable speed? In @buggi 's example above the only safe thing to do was to stop, get off and walk past the lorry, or go at less than walking speed. Who in reality does that? This is the real world and other road users should take care when using the road, but to expect everyone to come to an almost stop when using a cycle lane in this instance just will not happen. Personally I don't filter nor use cycle lanes, too dangerous!
> 
> I do not cycle thinking about the "what if" scenarios, if I did I wouldn't get on my bike, car or motorcycle. I have to trust that other people take as much reasonable care as I do.



Or the other option... Slow down until you ascertain nothing is coming, whether a car or pedestrian. 
i think your trust is seriously misplaced. "To err is human". Everybody makes mistakes... and i hope for your sake that if a driver hits you, albeit his responsibility, you don't spend the rest of your life in a wheel chair wishing you'd slowed down and could possibly have avoided it.. Because no amount of compensation will fix that.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Mar 2015)

So when you're driving buggi you slow to a crawl every time you pass a parked car?


----------



## HLaB (13 Mar 2015)

Not really your fault but you can anticipate it a bit and reduce speed when something stupid may occur. That anticipation however, is only something you'll gain through experience.


----------



## Cuchilo (13 Mar 2015)

Not an opinion on what happened to the op but in traffic I always slow down and check no one is crossing / stepping between traffic . Only because when I started cycling I stopped for a young lady that had been knocked off by a ped stepping back out of traffic . Her head wound from hitting the curb was very nasty and its stuck in my mind that she was just out for a ride and her day/ weekend had been ruined because of something so silly and it could have been avoided . An accident .


----------



## Stinboy (13 Mar 2015)

cd365 said:


> It was 19mph, that's not exactly head down busting a gut. I am not a fan of this "you must slow down to a suitable speed to avoid morons who might do something stupid in front of you" attitude that seems to be getting more and more common on here. What is a suitable speed? In @buggi 's example above the only safe thing to do was to stop, get off and walk past the lorry, or go at less than walking speed. Who in reality does that? This is the real world and other road users should take care when using the road, but to expect everyone to come to an almost stop when using a cycle lane in this instance just will not happen. Personally I don't filter nor use cycle lanes, too dangerous!
> 
> *I do not cycle thinking about the "what if" scenarios*, if I did I wouldn't get on my bike, car or motorcycle. I have to trust that other people take as much reasonable care as I do.



You should. No matter what form of transport you are on/in. There is no way I am going to risk my life assuming that other people take the same amount of care as I try to. 19mph alongside stationary traffic is reckless.

I'm new to this forum and am really surprised that there's even a conversation about this....


----------



## S.Giles (14 Mar 2015)

cd365 said:


> It was 19mph, that's not exactly head down busting a gut. I am not a fan of this "you must slow down to a suitable speed to avoid morons who might do something stupid in front of you" attitude that seems to be getting more and more common on here.


As has been mentioned several times, 19mph is much too fast for the road conditions described. It seems that your policy is to ride as fast as you like and _hope_ nothing untoward happens. One day your (and/or someone else's) luck may run out.



cd365 said:


> I do not cycle thinking about the "what if" scenarios, if I did I wouldn't get on my bike, car or motorcycle. I have to trust that other people take as much reasonable care as I do.



When I was training for my pilot's licence, thinking 'what if' is exactly what I was told to do. 'What if the engine stops right now?' is a particularly important one. Of course, it _shouldn't_ stop, but _assuming_ that it won't just isn't good enough. If road users took care to ensure the same margins of safety that pilots adhere to, then traffic accidents would be a much less frequent occurrence.

Rest assured though, people_ don't _always take reasonable care. It only takes a moment's inattentiveness. I discovered that the hard way a couple of years ago.


----------



## slowmotion (14 Mar 2015)

I don't think the cycle lane is relevant. The pedestrian was crossing a road in traffic and has a responsibility for their own safety....*BUT....*we live and ride in the real world. If I'm riding in slow moving or stationary traffic I try and make sure that I can spot them crossing between vehicles like lorries or buses before I cross the gap. It's not always easy, and you can't anticipate every event, but it's a good idea to assume that something sudden is going to happen. Who cares about who is at fault? I just want to stay upright and unhurt, and I hope pedestrians stay that way as well.


----------



## Cp40Carl (14 Mar 2015)

↑
I haven't gone into the traffic violation side of things.



glenn forger said:


> Cos there aren't any.



I was thinking about s28-29 Road Traffic Act 1988 dangerous or inconsiderate cycling. This applies to pavements as well as roads although I'd have to look at this further to confirm it encompasses cycle lanes. There may also be bye law infringements.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Mar 2015)

None of that applies. That's why you will be unable to find any case, anywhere, where a pedestrian walking into a lane successfully claims damages.


----------



## Cyclist33 (14 Mar 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Not an opinion on what happened to the op but in traffic I always slow down and check no one is crossing / stepping between traffic . Only because when I started cycling I stopped for a young lady that had been knocked off by a ped stepping back out of traffic . Her head wound from hitting the curb was very nasty and its stuck in my mind that she was just out for a ride and her day/ weekend had been ruined because of something so silly and it could have been avoided . An accident .



Sounds like young lady might have failed to anticipate on that occasion.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Mar 2015)

Drivers should not suddenly throw open their doors and leap out in front of us, so it should be perfectly ok to overtake parked vehicles at speed within inches, right? 

I have seen pedestrians going in the direction of traffic and distracted by iPods step out into the road without looking to overtake other pedestrians. They should not do it but I know that some idiots do, so I make allowances for their potential stupidity by riding more slowly, further out in the road, covering my brakes, and watching out for them doing it!

If being in the right is the important thing, then debate 'undertaking' at speed. From a safety perspective - don't undertake at speed!


----------



## glenn forger (14 Mar 2015)

It's not undertaking though Colin. It's not undertaking and not filtering, a cycle lane is a lane, that's why it's called a lane.


----------



## Cp40Carl (14 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> None of that applies. That's why you will be unable to find any case, anywhere, where a pedestrian walking into a lane successfully claims damages.



I agree - you are unlikely find a reported case as civil claims in the lower courts are generally unreported. However, I don't wish to lock horns on this as my intention was to advise and help out the OP (I have some expertise in this area). I've said my bit so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## srw (14 Mar 2015)

DanH said:


> Feeling bad for knocking down a pedestrian on my commute home last night. But I'm wondering if there was really anything I could have done to avoid it.


You're right to feel bad - there was something you could have done, as others have pointed out - go more slowly, or go around the outside, not up the inside. 10mph is about right in heavy traffic where there are likely to be pedestrians.

I'm afraid there are an awful lot of apologists for bad cycling on this thread, which doesn't help the image of cycling.


----------



## Exile (14 Mar 2015)

Should you feel bad for hitting the pedestrian? Yes. I bumped one and felt bad. It's just human. We don't like hurting other people so if we do, we feel bad. Was there much you could do? Filter on the right could've helped in this incident, but then someone walking the other way could step out and the result would be the same. Cycle slower? Again, it would've helped with this incident. but I'm not convinced it's the best solution long term.

If a ped steps out from the front of a wagon, surely they're obscured from view until the moment they actually step out? 20 mph, 10 mph or 100 mph (Rocket assisted, of course), they're still stepping out and leaving you no reaction time so what does cycling slower achieve? Yes, if you hit a pedestrian whilst you were travelling at 20, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph then they would've stepped out with enough time to react. By the same token, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph and someone steps out right in front of you, if you'd been doing 20 you wouldn't have been there when they stepped out 

Without stopping and dismounting whenever traffic is stopped and sight-lines are iffy, I'm not sure what sorts it, being honest. Segregated cycle track? Helps with the lack of vision from stopped high-siders, but people can still do silly things and step into your path without looking. Ride around at walking pace? Again, people still can step literally into you, so even that doesn't guarantee anything. Public information campaign telling pedestrians to look both ways when crossing the road, not to cross around large vehicles, and to try and look where they're going? Probably a good idea, but people might be too engrossed in walking out from behind a bus whilst staring at their phone and listening to their iPod to notice the adverts so...


----------



## S.Giles (14 Mar 2015)

Exile said:


> 20 mph, 10 mph or 100 mph (Rocket assisted, of course), they're still stepping out and leaving you no reaction time so what does cycling slower achieve?


_Kinetic Energy_ = 1/2*_m_*_v_^2



Exile said:


> By the same token, if you'd been cycling at 10 mph and someone steps out right in front of you, if you'd been doing 20 you wouldn't have been there when they stepped out


So all accidents could be avoided by travelling at a slightly different speed (or leaving home at a slightly different time)! Why has no-one thought of this before!


----------



## Exile (14 Mar 2015)

S.Giles said:


> Kinetic Energy = 1/2*M*V^2



Cycling slower does indeed achieve less kenetic energy when the inevitable happens, you got me there. I asked a poorly worded question and you were right to take me to task.



S.Giles said:


> So all accidents could be avoided by travelling at a slightly different speed (or leaving home at a slightly different time)! Why has no-one thought of this before!



A little too simple... Perhaps we could try and organise a block-working system for the roads and pavements to ensure we are all safe to proceed about our daily business without fear of having to pay attention to anything other than the colour of the next signal.


----------



## Markymark (14 Mar 2015)

Exile said:


> Cycling slower does indeed achieve less kenetic energy when the inevitable happens, you got me there. I asked a poorly worded question and you were right to take me to task.


Get off this site. How dare you humbly admit to not ask a question properly. The correct reply in cyclechat is to never admit you're wrong and argue the indefensible with pedantic diversions.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It's not undertaking though Colin. It's not undertaking and not filtering, a cycle lane is a lane, that's why it's called a lane.


You are still concentrating on the debating and not the safety!

I am more interested in avoiding tragedies like THIS this than discussing words and legal rights.

It isn't much use being in the right, but crippled or dead!


----------



## Dan B (14 Mar 2015)

ColinJ said:


> It isn't much use being in the right, but crippled or dead!


It's not much more use being right but leaving someone else crippled or dead either.


----------



## Markymark (14 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It's not undertaking though Colin. It's not undertaking and not filtering, a cycle lane is a lane, that's why it's called a lane.


Pedesteians shouldn't walk into cycle lane without looking. Cyclists shouldn't cycle up the inside of lorries. The more dangerous operator in the equation should be taking the extra care due to the danger they pose to the more vulnerable.

I usually give pedesteians near the kerb extra space and slow down when children are around as they sometimes do the unpredictable. Even if I'm in a cycle lane.


----------



## CopperBrompton (14 Mar 2015)

I agree with what seems to be the majority view here: the pedestrian has the main responsibility, but 19mph is much too fast for a situation where it's entirely predictable that pedestrians will cross, and especially when you are unsighted by a large vehicle. "Never put you or your vehicle anywhere your eyes and brain haven't visited first."


----------



## boydj (14 Mar 2015)

Would a pedestrian even have been aware of a cycle lane? In most places outside of London bikes on the road are normally few and far between, so don't normally figure in a pedestrian's thinking when crossing the road. In this instance, I think the cyclist was going too fast in a situation where his visibility was obscured.


----------



## Bazzer (14 Mar 2015)

Personally I always slow down a little when in the situation you have described and get my fingers wrapped around the anchor levers just in case. Slowing to what speed will depend entirely upon the circumstances, road surface, expectations of pedestrians etc. But the speed you have quoted would be very uncomfortable for me in the circumstances you have described..
Having said that, I think your diagram shows accurately shows the person was d*ck.

Broken lane markings would equally apply to a dual carriageway or to a two lane approach to (say) a roundabout..Would the person walk across a multiple car lane without looking, or at the very least being wary of oncoming traffic.Why the difference with a cycle lane?

Even if there there were not broken white lines, why should there be an assumption there would be no vehicles, or anything else, undertaking traffic?


----------



## Dommo (15 Mar 2015)

I guess in I'm line with most people on this. The ped is obviously at fault, but 19mph feels fast for the situation described. It all comes down to judging how likely the lemmings are to pop out, which comes from riding the same road repeatedly. My morning commute takes me up King William St and Moorgate and they might as well be called Psygnosis Alley - I rarely exceed 10 mph up there, but instead I get my morning enjoyment out of sarcastic comments and insults to phone zombies. Other places I ride regularly, for example CS7 down through Clapham and Balham I would be going quicker alongside stationary traffic. It would be nice to live in a world where peds took more care about how they cross but sadly it's not the real one....


----------



## biking_fox (16 Mar 2015)

> Would a pedestrian even have been aware of a cycle lane? In most places outside of London bikes on the road are normally few and far between,


Have you ever ridden outside London? In Cambridge perhaps, or Oxford, or Bristol, or Manchester? or anywhere that isn't remote countryside and even there you get a lot of riders out for weekend and evening rides.


----------



## EthelF (16 Mar 2015)

I once had a similar incident to the OP. Riding in a cycle lane, with a hatcheded area separating it from the main traffic lane where all motor traffic was stationary. A pedestrian walking along the pavement to my left with her back to me stepped out to cross without looking. Straight into my path. I tried to swerve round her, clipped her ankle and went down like a sack of spuds, hitting the ground hard with my head & shoulder. I ended up with concussion, she with an injured ankle. She immediately took full blame as she hadn't looked. Yet I still felt bad about hitting her even though I came off worse. I reckon I was going too fast. Probably about 16mph. 

I now go more slowly in such situations. I also no longer complain about the lack of attractive young ladies hurling themselves at me!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Mar 2015)

This is a situation where the silence of a bike can be a disadvantage.

GC


----------



## hennbell (16 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Barrelling along at 19mph into a series of blind corners is reckless.
> 
> It's fast enough to beat a pedestrian's left/right glance.
> 
> ...


 
There were no blind coners involved, the cyclist was going in a stright line. If a ped chooses to walk into the roadway without looking they are at fault. This like suggesting that in any bike lane you should haver go faster than 3 mph in case a ped decides to jump into the middle of the lane.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3592504, member: 45"]Do other people not make motorbike noises?[/QUOTE]

Only when the ice-lolly stick has broken in the spokes.

GC


----------



## boydj (16 Mar 2015)

biking_fox said:


> Have you ever ridden outside London? In Cambridge perhaps, or Oxford, or Bristol, or Manchester? or anywhere that isn't remote countryside and even there you get a lot of riders out for weekend and evening rides.



OP is in Wigan, I ride in the Glasgow area. There are not many places where the volume of cyclists on the road is enough to raise awareness of pedestrians. Cyclists are more likely to be a problem on pavements if my experience of cycle commuting in Glasgow is anything to go by.


----------



## jonny jeez (16 Mar 2015)

Sorry to say...but you did ask.

I think this is as much your fault as the peds. There's nothing wrong with your speed just your hazard perception.

If I am bowling along a clear lane with stationary traffic at my side I am always looking for crossing vehicles and peds.

If this person had been a motorcycle, the outcome would not have gone in your favour.

If you see a large vehicle like a bus or van that restricts your view over the top of cars, the you HAVE to slow down and move to secondary position, for your own safety.

Ditto if you spot any gaps in the stationary traffic.

Sorry to be a downer.

If it helps I have nearly done the same when on my motorbike.(within an inch) the shock of it perhaps makes me more cautious.

Trick is to maintain progress and not become timid ir nervous because of this incident.

Good luck


----------



## Tynan (17 Mar 2015)

He must have been in secondary if he was riding in a marked cycle lane up the inside of traffic

The cyclist is not at fault at all, the only advantage in slowing is to minimise damage to both parties, even 19 is slower than the general traffic will go if it gets the chance, any pedestrian stupid/unthinking enough to step across a road without being able to see what's coming deserves what they get as a result, I've not hit a pedestrian in a long time but they can step/sprint off a pavement without warning and without looking, you don't need a high sided vehicle (although it helps)

To this day my memorable accident with a pedestrian was a long time ago, in the dark, coming fast down the top of Essex Lane, all on my own, in primary, three women in dark clothing sprinted out from between two buses on the other side of the road, as I shouted a warning they all stopped in a line across my path at which point I hit one absolutely plumb and stopped a rather heavy MTB and 15st of me dead.

I was asked if I'd seen them, they all in black, me in a yellow Nightvision top with lights, I thought that rather rich


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Mar 2015)

You sound like you actually enjoyed the whole episode.

So let me just confirm, you were going fast downhill in the dark in an urban environment where there were multiple stationary large road vehicles, and you think that your anticipation and judgment skills were unquestionable in the circumstance?


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2015)

hennbell said:


> This like suggesting that in any bike lane you should haver go faster than 3 mph in case a ped decides to jump into the middle of the lane.


Only if walking is like jumping, which in my experience it tends not to be.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Mar 2015)

Rider did nothing wrong. You should sue the ped for damages.


----------



## vickster (17 Mar 2015)

Interestingly, I don't think the OP has been back to respond to comments


----------



## Dommo (17 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3592504, member: 45"]Do other people not make motorbike noises?[/QUOTE]

Oh yes! Especially after watching the South Park episode "The F-word" with the Harley riders


----------



## hennbell (17 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> Only if walking is like jumping, which in my experience it tends not to be.


 
With people watching their phones and listening to music I think people play less attention than you give them credit. I have had a phone user step onto the road without looking.


----------



## J.Primus (17 Mar 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> You sound like you actually enjoyed the whole episode.
> 
> So let me just confirm, you were going fast downhill in the dark in an urban environment where there were multiple stationary large road vehicles, and you think that your anticipation and judgment skills were unquestionable in the circumstance?



I can't see anything wrong with his (Tynan's in case that isn't clear) anticipation and judgement. How fast would you go on a road where your side is completely clear? Or do you slow to a crawl if cars are parked on the other side of the road?


----------



## J.Primus (17 Mar 2015)

hennbell said:


> With people watching their phones and listening to music I think people play less attention than you give them credit. I have had a phone user step onto the road without looking.


I nearly garrotted someone with the collar of their polo neck after they tried to walk into the path of a motorbike going fast whilst listening to their iPod. I figured it was better than getting hit for them and the biker.


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2015)

hennbell said:


> With people watching their phones and listening to music I think people play less attention than you give them credit. I have had a phone user step onto the road without looking.


I make no comment on how much attention they're paying, the relevant point here is how fast they're moving.


----------



## Arfcollins (17 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3592504, member: 45"]Do other people not make motorbike noises?[/QUOTE]
Clothes peg and card does the business.


----------



## hennbell (17 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> I make no comment on how much attention they're paying, the relevant point here is how fast they're moving.


 
The relevant point here is that a someone is crossing where they should not whilst not taking appropriate precautions. If the ped had moved to a mark crosswalk this would not be an issue. If the ped had stopped and looked before stepping out from a lorry this would not have happened.


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2015)

hennbell said:


> The relevant point here is that a someone is crossing where they should not whilst not taking appropriate precautions.


No, that's not even vaguely relevant either to your assertion that "This like suggesting that in any bike lane you should haver go faster than 3 mph in case a ped decides to jump into the middle of the lane" or to my response that this is rubbish, as you have plenty of time to adjust your speed and/or direction in order to avoid riding into pedestrians when you can see them moving at walking pace on the footway.


----------



## jonny jeez (18 Mar 2015)

A


Tynan said:


> He must have been in secondary if he was riding in a marked cycle lane up the inside of traffic
> 
> The cyclist is not at fault at all, the only advantage in slowing is to minimise damage to both parties, even 19 is slower than the general traffic will go if it gets the chance, any pedestrian stupid/unthinking enough to step across a road without being able to see what's coming deserves what they get as a result, I've not hit a pedestrian in a long time but they can step/sprint off a pavement without warning and without looking, you don't need a high sided vehicle (although it helps)
> 
> ...


Apologies for some reason I had it In my mind the OP was in a bus lane.

Other than that I stand by my comment a disagree with yours. Stationary traffic...with blocked views is a major hazard that deserves extra caution


----------



## hennbell (18 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> No, that's not even vaguely relevant either to your assertion that "This like suggesting that in any bike lane you should haver go faster than 3 mph in case a ped decides to jump into the middle of the lane" or to my response that this is rubbish, as you have plenty of time to adjust your speed and/or direction in order to avoid riding into pedestrians when you can see them moving at walking pace on the footway.


 
If a ped decides to walk into a bike lane 2 feet ahead me odds are good I am going to hit them. If I have no control of when a Ped steps out into a traffic lane I have no responsibility if I hit them.


----------



## Dan B (18 Mar 2015)

hennbell said:


> If a ped decides to walk into a bike lane 2 feet ahead me odds are good I am going to hit them.


Well perhaps you should slow down then, so it won't hurt as much


----------



## mjr (18 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> Well perhaps you should slow down then, so it won't hurt as much


Especially slow down as you approach a blind corner, whether it's formed by a wall or a truck cab.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

was the ped in hi vis?


----------



## Tynan (19 Mar 2015)

there is no speed low enough to avoid a ped stepping out from a blind spot right in front of you

to avoid any chance of knocking them over and breaking their skull you'd have to ride along cycle lanes in traffic at what? 5mph?

yes the slower you go the less chance you have of hurting yourself but that's a risk you accept, the pedestrian can likewise accept their own risk by crossing the road sensibly, does anyone expect cars to drive at 5mph in case a pedestrian jumps out from behind a high sided vehicle? And yet they have a hugely higher chance of killing a pedestrian

the last ped I hit (and knocked unconscious for over an hour) was on a clear road, the span on their heel and ran into the road, i suppose i was going too fast then? I didn't even touch the brake lever it was that sudden, even her friends all told the cops it was entirely her fault


----------



## Tynan (19 Mar 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> You sound like you actually enjoyed the whole episode.
> 
> So let me just confirm, you were going fast downhill in the dark in an urban environment where there were multiple stationary large road vehicles, and you think that your anticipation and judgment skills were unquestionable in the circumstance?



Why would have i enjoyed it? You've made that up to suit your stance

The urban environment was the top of Essex Road, big and wide, I was in primary in high viz and lights, vehicles were on the other side of the road, my side was clear, you weren't there, I posted that to illustrate that sometimes the accident is unavoidable unless you stay at home in bed

I don't like posting this over and again but if you don't ride in London traffic, you can't appreciate what it's like for hazards


----------



## Dan B (19 Mar 2015)

Tynan said:


> I don't like posting this over and again but if you don't ride in London traffic, you can't appreciate what it's like for hazards


This is the cycling equivalent of "you wouldn't understand unless you're a parent", isn't it?


----------



## Dan B (19 Mar 2015)

Tynan said:


> there is no speed low enough to avoid a ped stepping out from a blind spot right in front of you


This would be relevant if cycle lanes were composed entirely of blind spots or if it was impossible to vary the speed of a bicycle to go faster in the parts that are not.


----------



## Tynan (19 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> This is the cycling equivalent of "you wouldn't understand unless you're a parent", isn't it?


yes, it is true though, I'm not just saying it to sound superior and to to dismiss anyone else's argument


----------



## Dan B (19 Mar 2015)

Tynan said:


> yes, it is true though, I'm not just saying it to sound superior and to to dismiss anyone else's argument


That's good, because as it happens I do ride in London. 60 miles a week is not mega mileage but enough to know what it's like


----------



## Tynan (19 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> This would be relevant if cycle lanes were composed entirely of blind spots or if it was impossible to vary the speed of a bicycle to go faster in the parts that are not.


It's a plain statement of fact and entirely relevant to OP's situtation

I can't imagine a rider slowing to 5mph every time they started to pass a high sided vehicle, either parked or to the right of a cycle lane, i ride carefully but the accident i dread is the car turning right through gap in the traffic, the pedestrian stepping out from from my right behind stopped bus is almost impossible to allow for I think, i will slow down or ride wide when passing a stopped bus but I've had frights when buses let passengers get off when they're stuck in traffic and on one seriously shitty bit of a cycle lane on the Lea Bridge Road, the cycle path runs along a long straight downhill path, the bus stop is just a stop, no layby, a bus can stop in front of you and people just step straight off into the cycle lane on a narrow path without a care in the world, it amazes me as a piece of layout, i don;t ride that way anymore, not in that direction


----------



## Tynan (19 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> That's good, because as it happens I do ride in London. 60 miles a week is not mega mileage but enough to know what it's like


Would you like me to change it to 'unless you ride at least 100 miles a week in London traffic'?


----------



## Dan B (19 Mar 2015)

Tynan said:


> on one seriously shitty bit of a cycle lane on the Lea Bridge Road, the cycle path runs along a long straight downhill path, the bus stop is just a stop, no layby, a bus can stop in front of you and people just step straight off into the cycle lane on a narrow path without a care in the world, it amazes me as a piece of layout, i don;t ride that way anymore, not in that direction


I ride that way most mornings (I wonder if we've passed each other?) and I find it quite easy to predict when people are getting off the bus: it's usually when the bus stops and the doors open. 

I grant you that the cycle lane is awful, though: too narrow, too lumpy, and very often covered in wet leaf mulch. Hopefully the Superhighway thing will fix at least some of those problems. Have you done the survey thing that WFCycling/the Council keep plugging?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Mar 2015)

Tynan said:


> Would you like me to change it to 'unless you ride at least 100 miles a week in London traffic'?


I pretty much qualify and call bollocks. I don't ride everywhere at 5mph, I do ride in all sorts of mixed traffic and I can't start a sentence 'the last pedestrian I hit...' Yes, it sounds like turning on their heel and running under your wheels was a tough one to avoid. Thankfully, my stories are near miss ones where I've been able to avoid, or stop,thanks to anticipation. I've heard the 'no option but' excuse plenty of times from cyclists, bikers, drivers. You know what, if there's a corner I can't do safely at 5mph, I slow down to 5mph, I can think of a lane near me that is just that in the car, but that's Kent for you. It's patience and safety, not rocket science or torture.


----------



## J.Primus (19 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I pretty much qualify and call bollocks. I don't ride everywhere at 5mph, I do ride in all sorts of mixed traffic and I can't start a sentence 'the last pedestrian I hit...' Yes, it sounds like turning on their heel and running under your wheels was a tough one to avoid. Thankfully, my stories are near miss ones where I've been able to avoid, or stop,thanks to anticipation. I've heard the 'no option but' excuse plenty of times from cyclists, bikers, drivers. You know what, if there's a corner I can't do safely at 5mph, I slow down to 5mph, I can think of a lane near me that is just that in the car, but that's Kent for you. It's patience and safety, not rocket science or torture.


I've never been in a car accident. Therefore everyone that has must be at least a little bit to blame. Because let's face it if it was possible to be in a car accident where it wasn't your fault at all it would have happened to me by now.


----------



## mjr (19 Mar 2015)

Maybe the motorists who hare past blind corners ARE a bit to blame?


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Mar 2015)

Tynan said:


> Why would have i enjoyed it? You've made that up to suit your stance
> 
> The urban environment was the top of Essex Road, big and wide, I was in primary in high viz and lights, vehicles were on the other side of the road, my side was clear, you weren't there, I posted that to illustrate that sometimes the accident is unavoidable unless you stay at home in bed
> 
> I don't like posting this over and again but if you don't ride in London traffic, you can't appreciate what it's like for hazards


I once hit a pedestrian when on my motorbike (old Kent road, broad daylight, loud bike, lights the lot) He was at a bus stop talking to his mate who was in a car sat in traffic. Clocked him from a good distance away and could see he was laughing and edging back and forth towards stepping off the curb. I slowed and yet at the exact moment I came level with him, oblivious to me, he literally jumped off the curb and onto my front wheel.

I Skidded and came to a stop with him still riding the front of my bike. When I stopped, he fell to the road, got up and walked off without a word.

Dented my front fairing/mudguard and scratched my screen to hell...no apology...literally didn't give a feck.

I agree, you cannot mitigate utter stupidity but I think it dangerous to offer advice to those that may not be in your exact position in the future, that there is no point in taking caution and practicing enhanced hazard awareness.

Ps, in the moment I was just so relieved to have kept the motorbike upright and that no one was hurt...2 minutes later I circled back in a massive fit of rage ( I was literally shaking) intent on taking the bloke to the cleaners but fortunately for us both he had left.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2015)

If you clocked him from a good distance away, why not hit the horn?

It's like cyclists not using their bells when they see someone who's probably going to walk out daftly... why wouldn't you flick the bell while grabbing the brakes?


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Mar 2015)

mjray said:


> If you clocked him from a good distance away, why not hit the horn?
> 
> It's like cyclists not using their bells when they see someone who's probably going to walk out daftly... why wouldn't you flick the bell while grabbing the brakes?


And if he had stayed put...i would have been honking a perfectly innocent pedestrian for standing at the side of the road, talking to a friend

Honking every potential hazard isn't really practical.

Can you imagine how many times I would sound the horn if I took that advice driving through london in the rush hour. It would sound like I was sending Morse code.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2015)

Well I sound like a Morris troupe riding my bike in London at rush hour but I've not hit anyone yet.

It's not every potential hazard. Just the probable ones, like nutters about to step out to talk to their mate in a car. Sounding the horn isn't hard work, is it?

Rush hour London is oddly honk-free compared to Paris or Brussels. You consider it rude to beep but knocking people down is fine because it's mostly their fault? Bizarre!


----------



## summerdays (21 Mar 2015)

If you are about to hit something then you could be wasting seconds hitting a bell that they may not hear because they have bits in their ears. You could shout but usually in these circumstances it happens very fast. I've not hit someone yet but I've had plenty test my reactions, most frequently by the Abbeywood MOD.entrance but at least I'm expecting it there and I'm going slow enough that I can stop.


----------



## cd365 (21 Mar 2015)

mjray said:


> Well I sound like a Morris troupe riding my bike in London at rush hour but I've not hit anyone yet.
> 
> It's not every potential hazard. Just the probable ones, like nutters about to step out to talk to their mate in a car. Sounding the horn isn't hard work, is it?
> 
> Rush hour London is oddly honk-free compared to Paris or Brussels. You consider it rude to beep but knocking people down is fine because it's mostly their fault? Bizarre!


So you ride around honking your horn at people who might be a hazard, I bet you aren't half annoying. I'm surprised you haven't been thumped by someone for it, plenty of people out there who get upset when a horn is aimed in their direction.


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2015)

Come on, the one @jonny jeez hit obviously didn't have earphones in and was recognised as likely to step off the kerb a long way out. There's possible and there's near certain... And how does flicking the bell waste seconds? Put the bell so it's accessible!


----------



## w00hoo_kent (21 Mar 2015)

mjray said:


> Come on, the one @jonny jeez hit obviously didn't have earphones in and was recognised as likely to step off the kerb a long way out. There's possible and there's near certain... And how does flicking the bell waste seconds? Put the bell so it's accessible!


I'm not a fan of bells, but do shout which seems to help and takes no resources at all. It's very hard to analyse an anecdote and I agree @jonny jeez has painted two pictures already (one where the ped was hopping in and out of the road, one where they weren't). In the former I'd probably have given a short horn beep on a motorbike or changed my path, I'm unclear how he was filtering at this point. It is of course always easier to look back at something, but that's why you'd hope people in general would use previous experiences to make future road use safer.


----------



## donnydave (21 Mar 2015)

mjray said:


> flicking the bell


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2015)

Shout if you prefer, or fit a horn. Something, anything! Why wouldn't you? It's far ruder to collide!


----------



## summerdays (21 Mar 2015)

A bell/horn/shout can not be relied on to prevent a collision. They could be deaf, or deep in conversation and just ignore it assuming it wasn't meant for them. In the same way the drivers in cars look for motor vehicles at junctions, pedestrians probably look for them too. I will always reach for the brakes first to kill as much speed as possible.

Depending on how close it is I might also let out a girly screech!


----------



## mjr (21 Mar 2015)

cd365 said:


> So you ride around honking your horn at people who might be a hazard, I bet you aren't half annoying. I'm surprised you haven't been thumped by someone for it, plenty of people out there who get upset when a horn is aimed in their direction.


Not "might" - just the ones who look like a very good chance of doing something silly. There's a lot of them around much of central London, although I've also ridden past the Abbeywood site on the edge of Bristol that @summerdays mentioned a few times, heading to/from events at UWE - that's much worse for wanderers than you'd expect from looking on map.

As for being thumped... very few people get upset with a short friendly bip. It's like the difference between a ding-dong bell and a full blast on an airzound - one is a little hello, the other is a scream... make friends with your motor vehicle horn as well as your bike bell ;-)


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Mar 2015)

Guys...for clarity...i was on my motorbike, not the pushbike. Never cone close to this when on the road bike oddly.

The guy was sitting, then standing, then sitting then standing and waving his arms about and laughing . I clocked his "animated" demeanour a while back and slowed, he was not stepping in and out of the road. Just behaving odd at the bus stop next to it.

My point in this post was to support @Tynan In Saying that you cant mitigate for the complete lack of awareness of some but this should not stop us suggesting caution to new riders.

Carry on.


----------



## summerdays (21 Mar 2015)

But on the whole the ones at the MOD are predictable, and most do look first and wait. The only place I know where pedestrians stay on their side and bikes on the other generally, though the students aren't as predictable as the MOD staff.


----------

