PhilDawson8270
Veteran
So if a pedestrian is in the road and a cyclist sees them and sounds the horn
then rides into them it's the ped's fault?
What if a pedestrian steps off the kerb into the path of a cyclist on the road?
So if a pedestrian is in the road and a cyclist sees them and sounds the horn
then rides into them it's the ped's fault?
The legal definition of what's usually called a pavement? It's "any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers" in the Highways Act 1835, which is what prohibits pavement cycling thanks to some later law defining not-yet-invented-as-we-know-it pedal cycles as carriages.@mjray this strikes me as the sort of thing you might know.
The above is how I understand it. The law and junction layouts should be changed IMO. Footways and cycle tracks should continue across more minor roads but they don't yet.No. The footway goes round the bend of the junction it absolutely does not continue across the junction. There is another footway on the other side or the road across the junction.
How is this any different to a pedestrian stepping of the curb without looking? Guy on the bike is an idiot.
It absolutely blows my mind that people on here are arguing the case for the cyclist. Whilst the driver should have checked his blind spot
Once again, the driver knew the cyclist was there. Watch the clip.
The idiot on a bike should have given way before crossing at the mouth of a junction. Do you see many joggers run straight out into the road? The usually slow down and have a cursory glance. Not this fool.Once again, the driver knew the cyclist was there. Watch the clip.
A problem to which the solution appears to be to deliberately turn your car into the path of a perceived offender in order to create an unavoidable collision? That's violent vigilantism.The idiot on a bike should have given way before crossing at the mouth of a junction. Do you see many joggers run straight out into the road? The usually slow down and have a cursory glance. Not this fool.
I suppose it would have been OK if he had ridden out into a roundabout also? As of course the motorists using that roundabout would have seen him.
If you don't believe the cyclist was at fault, you're part of the problem on the roads today.
A problem to which the solution appears to be to deliberately turn your car into the path of a perceived offender in order to create an unavoidable collision? That's violent vigilantism.
Yes, vulnerable road users absolutely cannot rely on motorists obeying the Highway Code. Might makes right!It's like a pedestrian walking out in the road when they've seen a car indicating and turning down it. Then wondering why they've been run over.
How do you know that?the cyclist knew he was turning.
How do you know that?
The motorist ignored the highway code which states:The cyclist was a complete farkwit the driver simply followed the rules of the road. The cyclist broke the law and then ignored the highway code.