Charlie Alliston case - fixie rider accused of causing pedestrian death

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 4952835, member: 43827"]Put pedestrian crossings every 20 yards on every road then it just might be worth debating introducing jaywalking as an offence.

Would motorists and cyclists consider that a fair price for its introduction?[/QUOTE]
what do the pedestrians get for giving up their rights?

 

[jefmcg]

I don't think we do though.

Some people do....

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Can we drop the term jay walking please? No such thing in this country.

 

[MacB]

[QUOTE 4952865, member: 43827"]

That's the last time I try reductio ad absurdum.[/QUOTE]

Didn't work for Harry Potter either

 

[growingvegetables]

Back to the implications of the OP, sort of. Good article (imho!). Kinda like the argument - "bring the law into order - cyclists and motor-drivers should be treated the same ............. so why not charge drivers with manslaughter?"

 

[Inertia]

[QUOTE 4952865, member: 43827"]

That's the last time I try reductio ad absurdum.[/QUOTE]
If it helps, I didn't think you were being entirely serious. I was trying to make my own point,that's the last time I try that!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We keep talking as if crossings are a panacea, but I'm reflecting on the pedestrian collisions I have personal knowledge of -

1. There was a busy pelican crossing near St Paul's. I stopped for a red light and the pedestrians had stepped onto the road when a motorcyclist ran the red and knocked a woman down. I'd guess the woman sustained a broken wrist, and the motorcyclist came down heavily, but she seemed to be ok.
2. The aforementioned pedestrian unconscious and face down on a zebra crossing in old street.
3. My brother standing on the pavement waiting for the light to change when two cars collided in the junction and one of them spun into him, throwing him into the air, breaking his leg, and his laptop.

And two things from just today

1. Just half an hour ago I hesitated stepping off the kerb when the green man appeared as a car ran the light at speed.
2. From just upthread, 7 people walking legally on a country road, 2 dead, two badly injured. Jesus.

I wonder if we subtracted every example of "jaywalking"* from the road deaths, how much lower the total would actually be?

And without accusing CA of any further offences, I have seen cyclists (especially fixie riders) skimming around pedestrians on zebra crossings. I am not at all convinced that using a crossing would have saved her.

*FWIW, the definition of jaywalking from where I grew up would be something like (it's not a legal term):

1. Crossing against a red or amber OR
2. Crossing within 20m of a crossing point and not using it. Ie if the nearest pedestrian crossing is 21 metres away, you don't have to use it OR
3. Not choosing the most direct route across the road OR
4. Because it's Melbourne, extra rules about trams.

In our house over the weekend we had five adults. All adults related to me have been in contact, at least, with a motor vehicle that has run the red light on the ped. crossing by ours. Turned out the fifth adult, no relative, had ended up in hospital as a VIth former as a result of car running red on the ped, crossing further up our road outside her then VIth college.

 

[Profpointy]

In our house over the weekend we had five adults. All adults related to me have been in contact, at least, with a motor vehicle that has run the red light on the ped. crossing by ours. Turned out the fifth adult, no relative, had ended up in hospital as a VIth former as a result of car running red on the ped, crossing further up our road outside her then VIth college.

Time to introduce cyclist registration to clamp down on red light jumping. Oh hang on...

 

[Wobblers]

... and now with all this talk of "jaywalking" we're right back to victim blaming.

Sigh.

It ignores two things.

The first is the simple, and perfectly fair, principle that the person who brings the greatest risk has the greatest responsibility for safe conduct. Since the cyclist is the one with the greatest danger of inflicting injury - usually! - then the responsibility is theirs to look out for pedestrians. And this is predicated on simple physics: cyclist plus bike is heavier than pedestrian, so it's the pedestrian who will experience the greatest forces in any impact. Plus of course a bicycle is a hard object with rather many sharp corners.

The second thing is that the issue of blame doesn't actually matter. Not when there's a body underneath your wheels (whether they be powered by engine or yourself). Most people in that situation would be assailed by guilt and remorse, no matter who was to blame [1]. Which is why I'll continue to look out for pedestrians, to the best of my abilities: because I have no wish to harm anyone else, even if they are "at fault".

[1] And bluntly, anyone who isn't quite simply should not be allowed to operate any vehicle, powered or otherwise.

 

[KnackeredBike]

@McWobble, although I agree with your first point I don't agree that every cyclist should go at a speed that would allow them to stop if any pedestrian they passed walked without warning into their past. Simply that isn't the system we have, and if it was it would be impossible to make progress on most urban roads and combined pavement/cycle path.

We have a system where there is an expectation you will look and not unexpectedly cross in front of a cyclist or car. There are a few exceptions, such as around schools, but most of the time road users rely on each other to act predictably.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We have a system where there is an expectation you will look and not unexpectedly cross in front of a cyclist or car.

Where? Fairly sure I've been educated to expect any and all pedestrians/cyclists/drivers to do stupid things and so must drive/ride accordingly.

 

[DaveReading]

Where? Fairly sure I've been educated to expect any and all pedestrians/cyclists/drivers to do stupid things and so must drive/ride accordingly.

Very commendable.

But I suspect the OP meant that if everyone were to cycle at the 5 mph necessary to avoid the risk of ever colliding with an unpredictable pedestrian, the traffic in all our major cities would grind to a halt and cyclists would be universally hated.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Very commendable.

But I suspect the OP meant that if everyone were to cycle at the 5 mph necessary to avoid the risk of ever colliding with an unpredictable pedestrian, the traffic in all our major cities would grind to a halt and cyclists would be universally hated.

You don't need to cycle everywhere at 5mph. Pedestrians don't get beamed down in front of you by Scottie.

 

[DaveReading]

You don't need to cycle everywhere at 5mph.

So what's your stopping distance at 5 mph ?

You can hope and expect that a pedestrian will never enter that zone, but how do you guarantee it ?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So what's your stopping distance at 5 mph ?

You can hope and expect that a pedestrian will never enter that zone, but how do you guarantee it ?

Is a dead stop my only option then?

A lot of the time the probability that a pedestrian will enter the zone wherein I need to take significant avoiding action is almost zero. They aren't fleas, they tend not to leap.