Bmblbzzz wrote: The utility cyclist wrote:
Mick F wrote:I know we've had loads of discussion regarding the legality or otherwise of riding a bike on the pavement.
Saw a chap recently riding along in the dark on the pavement with no lights.
Not talking about shared use here, just a pedestrian pavement/footway alongside a normal road.
What's the legality of this?
Riding on the road between sunset and sunrise requires lights front and rear and also pedal reflectors by law.
What about on the pavement ................. notwithstanding the legality of being there in the first place?
That you were able to see this person in the dark with no lights, where is the need?
I agree totally with your point that the requirement to see ahead includes seeing unlit objects, but there could be some assumption here that everyone sees the same thing in the same way. In practice, some people have far better night vision than others (age plays a large role, unfortunately). Pedestrians are not required to carry lights (in the UK at least), someone with poor night vision might be walking along unlit at a pace which allows them to proceed safely but not to cope with the pace of even a slow cyclist. The "ideal" situation would be that drivers drive at a speed allowing them to see an unlit cyclist (or horse, as horse riders aren't even legally required to have lights, or wild animal or whatever) and so the cyclist whose lights have unfortunately failed or been forgotten would be safer on the road. In practice, that's not often the way it feels and so the cyclist uses the pavement. However, ride around any city at night and you'll see plenty of unlit cyclists on the carriageway and getting safely home.
Of course people are different in their physical and mental capabilities, yet what we know is that of this random jumble of people at all different stages in their lives produces a significant higher rate of 'at fault' deaths by people on foot when a person on a bike is the other party.
That already includes all of the people you describe, one group is already being significantly more careful than another despite the level of harm being similar in the scenario on a pavement.
Despite evidence from government only one group is pursued, vilified, attacked without provocation, demanded to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than any other group both in being more aware of others and to protect oneself.
Where is the even handedness in that?
An example, two 75 year olds, one on foot, one on bike with no light, both similar eyesight levels, one is travelling at 5mph, one travelling at 3mph, there is a collision, the 75 year old on a bike sees the 75yr old pedestrian first, they steer away from the person on foot but they in turn step in the direction of where they have steered, the person on the bike falls off dies through a head injury (not wearing a helmet or hi-vis and as mentioned no light).
What is the outcome/headlines/police report as to blame? Reverse that outcome, the pedestrian dies from head injury, obviously no helmet, no hi-vis, no light?
We already know how this ends, we have seen reports in recent times were a cyclist was blamed for their own death and would have been charged by police when there was a collision with a pedestrian (who was not seriously hurt), we already know that when a pedestrian walks/runs back into the path of a person on a bike who has braked, given audible warnings and is steering away from them and the pedestrian dies, how that ends.
So despite similar/same outcome for both parties, despite one group clearly being more careful than the other there is no balance in responsibility, none and yet when the disparity is massively worse for people on bikes (when there's a collision involving a motorist) that application of responsibility is flipped on its head.
As I said, there is no even-handedness, none whatsoever.