Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

John Holiday
Posts: 425
Joined: 2 Nov 2007, 2:01pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby John Holiday » 28 Jun 2019, 9:32am

Just had a similar incident on local estate roads.
Riding back from morning swim & lady on phone walking towards me. She then steps into the road still on her phone. About 15m away I rang my Dutch 'ding dong' loudly and braked. She leapt about a foot in the air & apologised!
Why do people have to wander about glued to their phones?

aaronaardvark
Posts: 5
Joined: 8 Jun 2019, 6:38pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby aaronaardvark » 28 Jun 2019, 11:22am

"Was he covering the brakes?"

A question notable for its absence in the judgement notes.

kwackers
Posts: 13726
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby kwackers » 28 Jun 2019, 11:47am

aaronaardvark wrote:"Was he covering the brakes?"

A question notable for its absence in the judgement notes.

Covering? What use is covering?

Covering only means you're ready to brake if you need to.
He needed to but left it too late therefore the point is moot.

aaronaardvark
Posts: 5
Joined: 8 Jun 2019, 6:38pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby aaronaardvark » 28 Jun 2019, 12:25pm

kwackers wrote:
aaronaardvark wrote:"Was he covering the brakes?"

A question notable for its absence in the judgement notes.

Covering? What use is covering?

Covering only means you're ready to brake if you need to.
He needed to but left it too late therefore the point is moot.



My point is that, sooner or later, a civil court may apply the National Standard for Cycle Training as a gauge of liability. According to the barrister's notes, in this case they didn't.

The Standard says cover your brakes. Either the defendant was covering them or he wasn't. The witnesses weren't asked in this case. In future they may be. This concerns me.

kwackers
Posts: 13726
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby kwackers » 28 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

aaronaardvark wrote:The Standard says cover your brakes. Either the defendant was covering them or he wasn't. The witnesses weren't asked in this case. In future they may be. This concerns me.

You're never going to get a witness who can confidently say whether or not you were covering your brakes.
Certainly wouldn't concern me.

aaronaardvark
Posts: 5
Joined: 8 Jun 2019, 6:38pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby aaronaardvark » 28 Jun 2019, 12:53pm

kwackers wrote:
aaronaardvark wrote:The Standard says cover your brakes. Either the defendant was covering them or he wasn't. The witnesses weren't asked in this case. In future they may be. This concerns me.

You're never going to get a witness who can confidently say whether or not you were covering your brakes.
Certainly wouldn't concern me.



The more riders and drivers get trained, the riskier that assumption becomes.

AlaninWales
Posts: 1540
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby AlaninWales » 28 Jun 2019, 1:28pm

John Holiday wrote:Just had a similar incident on local estate roads.
Riding back from morning swim & lady on phone walking towards me. She then steps into the road still on her phone. About 15m away I rang my Dutch 'ding dong' loudly and braked. She leapt about a foot in the air & apologised!
Why do people have to wander about glued to their phones?

I'm glad you didn't ride into her: Well done.
But can you tell me why you bothered to use one hand to ring a ("Dutch 'ding dong'") bell? Wouldn't that hand have been better employed braking or even just controlling the handlebars? Unless the braking didn't need to be emergency-style, in which case it was not (IMO) a "similar incident".

Surely someone walking towards you talking on their mobile 'phone is potential hazard which any competent vehicle driver/rider would recognise (people talking on mobiles are notoriously distracted from their surroundings), and we all prepare in case they step out without looking? I know I do (similarly for people walking pets, chatting to their friends, checking over their recent shopping or indeed riding a pedal cycle); do others simply ride/drive past these people blithely assuming they will maintain their current course? :shock:

PH
Posts: 7578
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby PH » 28 Jun 2019, 1:58pm

AlaninWales wrote:
John Holiday wrote:Just had a similar incident on local estate roads.
Riding back from morning swim & lady on phone walking towards me. She then steps into the road still on her phone. About 15m away I rang my Dutch 'ding dong' loudly and braked. She leapt about a foot in the air & apologised!
Why do people have to wander about glued to their phones?

I'm glad you didn't ride into her: Well done.
But can you tell me why you bothered to use one hand to ring a ("Dutch 'ding dong'") bell? Wouldn't that hand have been better employed braking or even just controlling the handlebars? Unless the braking didn't need to be emergency-style, in which case it was not (IMO) a "similar incident".

Surely someone walking towards you talking on their mobile 'phone is potential hazard which any competent vehicle driver/rider would recognise (people talking on mobiles are notoriously distracted from their surroundings), and we all prepare in case they step out without looking? I know I do (similarly for people walking pets, chatting to their friends, checking over their recent shopping or indeed riding a pedal cycle); do others simply ride/drive past these people blithely assuming they will maintain their current course? :shock:

Are people not capable of ringing a bell, braking and steering a bike at the same time?
I'm all for the idea of cyclists slowing down and being aware of pedestrians, I'm often one and infuriated by the lack of consideration, many don't even consider other cyclists other than with the desire to "beat" them. But slow down to what speed? I've had a bump with a pedestrian on a phone when I was at walking speed, I know that because I was walking!
I'm sure I've said this earlier in the thread - If you were to ride through central London in the rush hour and give way to every pedestrian that wanted it, you'd never reach your destination. Accidents will happen: there's a difference between imagining you can ride in such a way as they won't and riding in the way this cyclist's behaviour was described by the judge as "Falling below the standard expected"

rfryer
Posts: 675
Joined: 7 Feb 2013, 3:58pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby rfryer » 28 Jun 2019, 3:11pm

AlaninWales wrote:
John Holiday wrote:Just had a similar incident on local estate roads.
<Snip>

I'm glad you didn't ride into her: Well done.
But can you tell me why you bothered to use one hand to ring a ("Dutch 'ding dong'") bell?

<snip>

Surely someone walking towards you talking on their mobile 'phone is potential hazard ...

I think you've answered your own question here - the bell has a good chance of converting a potential hazard into minimal risk.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 1950
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Oldjohnw » 28 Jun 2019, 3:45pm

If someone is on their phone it is reasonable to assume they are pretty well distracted. Any reaction to a sudden sound will be irrational. I tend to slow down and use words such as "I am in your right."
John

Cycling and recycling

mattheus
Posts: 809
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby mattheus » 28 Jun 2019, 4:11pm

Oldjohnw wrote:If someone is on their phone it is reasonable to assume they are pretty well distracted. Any reaction to a sudden sound will be irrational. I tend to slow down and use words such as "I am in your right."


In your right what?

Ear? Armpit??

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6864
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 28 Jun 2019, 4:47pm

aaronaardvark wrote:
kwackers wrote:
aaronaardvark wrote:The Standard says cover your brakes. Either the defendant was covering them or he wasn't. The witnesses weren't asked in this case. In future they may be. This concerns me.

You're never going to get a witness who can confidently say whether or not you were covering your brakes.
Certainly wouldn't concern me.



The more riders and drivers get trained, the riskier that assumption becomes.

I think there are riskier things tbh.

kwackers
Posts: 13726
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby kwackers » 28 Jun 2019, 4:55pm

Bonefishblues wrote:
aaronaardvark wrote:
kwackers wrote:You're never going to get a witness who can confidently say whether or not you were covering your brakes.
Certainly wouldn't concern me.



The more riders and drivers get trained, the riskier that assumption becomes.

I think there are riskier things tbh.

My point really was that people make poor witnesses. Most have trouble remembering positioning, how fast or even what someone was wearing.
I don't find that someone would actually check to see if you were covering your brakes even remotely likely - and bear in mind they'd need to do this before anything had actually happened and then in the chaos that followed hold it in their mind.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 6864
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby Bonefishblues » 28 Jun 2019, 5:16pm

kwackers wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
aaronaardvark wrote:

The more riders and drivers get trained, the riskier that assumption becomes.

I think there are riskier things tbh.

My point really was that people make poor witnesses. Most have trouble remembering positioning, how fast or even what someone was wearing.
I don't find that someone would actually check to see if you were covering your brakes even remotely likely - and bear in mind they'd need to do this before anything had actually happened and then in the chaos that followed hold it in their mind.

Agree completely, they can't remember the big stuff, never mind the nuances of a hand position, whether trained or not.

John Holiday
Posts: 425
Joined: 2 Nov 2007, 2:01pm

Re: Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

Postby John Holiday » 28 Jun 2019, 6:32pm

All my bikes are fitted with Dutch 'ding dong ' bells & over the years have found them very useful in providing a distinct audible warning at up to 30m away. It frequently elicits a 'that's a nice bell' comment & is not aggressive, as a shouted warning might be interpreted.
As a Sustrans Ranger, we are often ridden down by 'roadies' who don't even have a pinger & seem reluctant to slow down & 'Share with Care '