Mobiles are a menace

[GarethF]

It strikes me that many folk seem to have abandoned any sense of self preservation, or as others might call it road sense, or others again common sense. Is it the all pervading compensation culture which lends the impression that any misfortune visited upon an individual is naturally somebody else's fault (and that that lucky so and so will pay handsomely)?

I personally wouldn't leave the security of the pavement without having a jolly good look around and I encourage my children to do the same. I'm the one who you'll see looking both ways along a one way street and checking for delivery trucks in pedestrian zones. A bit of preparation goes a long way to avoiding adverse outcomes. I cannot see any plausible excuse for stepping into the road without looking (and listening) first.

I agree that neither cyclist nor driver should feel any entitlement to unimpeded progress along the highway. However, I do think it reasonable NOT to be required to slam on the brakes or perform other sudden evasive manoeuvers by the actions of any other road users, be they on foot, cycling or driving.

G

[kwackers]

I agree that neither cyclist nor driver should feel any entitlement to unimpeded progress along the highway. However, I do think it reasonable NOT to be required to slam on the brakes or perform other sudden evasive manoeuvers by the actions of any other road users, be they on foot, cycling or driving.

G

Isn't that the whole point? I'm pretty sure few people think it's ok if someone does step out without looking.

But these things do happen and folk absentmindedly stepping into the road without looking predates mobile phones by some considerable amount.
With that in mind we should ride (or drive) in a way that gives those that do a fighting chance. At a speed we can stop from (with brakes that work), use the brake first and shout later and not ride in the gutter.
If you do all that but still end up in a collision then it's unfortunate but imo you have nothing to berate yourself about.

We all make mistakes and I think it's reasonable to believe that in the hierarchy of might that those further up the food chain should make allowances for those below.
Death is a fairly harsh punishment for being absentminded.

[Flinders]

Death is also a fairly harsh punishment for cycling prudently and having some stupid idiot on the phone walk out right in front of you so close that there is no time to stop. Unless you habitually go at 8mph or less whenever there are humans in view, this can happen to you.

[kwackers]

Death is also a fairly harsh punishment for cycling prudently and having some stupid idiot on the phone walk out right in front of you so close that there is no time to stop. Unless you habitually go at 8mph or less whenever there are humans in view, this can happen to you.

It's never happened to me.

I've had idiots step out, but I've been far enough away from the kerb, aware of them in the first instance, travelling at an appropriate speed, never pass behind them and generally brake unless I can put 10 feet between me and them.
(Plus I have working brakes).

Whilst I can't mitigate all the risk I can mitigate most of it to the point where I have no worries about someone stepping out into my path.

(But I've watched enough cyclists to know why they might have issues...)

[Kenn]

Thanks for all the very interesting replies and views on my original post. Maybe I could have been clearer in my wording so a couple of points.

I was not complaining about having to slow or stop. I often stop anywhere in the village just to chat to friends - one of the key benefits of a bike. I was not having a rant about pedestrians - lots of children/dogs/OAPs step out and are anticipated.

My concern is that the use of of mobile phones brings a potential for distraction and random behaviour amongst all road users that simply did not exist before. This, admittedly trivial, incident really brought this home to me, and I wondered what others thought about this. I don’t have an answer, but I do believe that mobiles make road travel more dangerous for everyone.

Cheers, Ken

[Username]

Even when I was young, pedestrians would be distracted by 'something' and step out into the road in front of passing traffic. What has changed is simply the expectation that they should be confined to the sidewalk, which expectation comes largely from the society which uses that expression for footways, the same society which spawned the expression "jaywalking" to describe stepping into the road with little regard to vehicular traffic. Expecting pedestrians to keep out of your way to allow your faster progress is as arrogant now (whether you are motorised or not) as it was when the only people with that expectation were the aristocracy.

Arrogance? I think its more common courtesy to let others pass if they wish. Why hold people up if its reasonably practical to let them by? and yes, I hate dawdlers.

[AlaninWales]

Even when I was young, pedestrians would be distracted by 'something' and step out into the road in front of passing traffic. What has changed is simply the expectation that they should be confined to the sidewalk, which expectation comes largely from the society which uses that expression for footways, the same society which spawned the expression "jaywalking" to describe stepping into the road with little regard to vehicular traffic. Expecting pedestrians to keep out of your way to allow your faster progress is as arrogant now (whether you are motorised or not) as it was when the only people with that expectation were the aristocracy.

Arrogance? I think its more common courtesy to let others pass if they wish. Why hold people up if its reasonably practical to let them by? and yes, I hate dawdlers.

But you expect to hold up the pedestrian's desire to cross the road. It seems that your vehicular journey along the road more important than their crossing? That is why I choose the description "arrogance".

[Username]

Even when I was young, pedestrians would be distracted by 'something' and step out into the road in front of passing traffic. What has changed is simply the expectation that they should be confined to the sidewalk, which expectation comes largely from the society which uses that expression for footways, the same society which spawned the expression "jaywalking" to describe stepping into the road with little regard to vehicular traffic. Expecting pedestrians to keep out of your way to allow your faster progress is as arrogant now (whether you are motorised or not) as it was when the only people with that expectation were the aristocracy.

Arrogance? I think its more common courtesy to let others pass if they wish. Why hold people up if its reasonably practical to let them by? and yes, I hate dawdlers.

But you expect to hold up the pedestrian's desire to cross the road. It seems that your vehicular journey along the road more important than their crossing? That is why I choose the description "arrogance".

I was actually referring to other people or traffic travelling along in the same direction as you. They want to pass, but are unable to do so. What you pointed out never even occurred to me, probably because its a very pedantic thought. Bottom line is a little give and take goes a long way.

[AlaninWales]

Arrogance? I think its more common courtesy to let others pass if they wish. Why hold people up if its reasonably practical to let them by? and yes, I hate dawdlers.

But you expect to hold up the pedestrian's desire to cross the road. It seems that your vehicular journey along the road more important than their crossing? That is why I choose the description "arrogance".

I was actually referring to other people or traffic travelling along in the same direction as you. They want to pass, but are unable to do so. What you pointed out never even occurred to me, probably because its a very pedantic thought. Bottom line is a little give and take goes a long way.

Of course! I understand now thank you: Thinking that pedestrians wanting to cross the road is "a very pedantic thought"; which is true of course because 'pedant' shares the same root as 'pedestrian' and thinking about the needs of pedestrians is naturally 'pedantic' .

[Username]

But you expect to hold up the pedestrian's desire to cross the road. It seems that your vehicular journey along the road more important than their crossing? That is why I choose the description "arrogance".

I was actually referring to other people or traffic travelling along in the same direction as you. They want to pass, but are unable to do so. What you pointed out never even occurred to me, probably because its a very pedantic thought. Bottom line is a little give and take goes a long way.

Of course! I understand now thank you: Thinking that pedestrians wanting to cross the road is "a very pedantic thought"; which is true of course because 'pedant' shares the same root as 'pedestrian' and thinking about the needs of pedestrians is naturally 'pedantic' .

I saw a black sheep once