Mobiles are a menace

[meic]

To the op, did you see the pedestrian near the edge of the road as you approached? Did you slow down in case they stepped out? No then your at fault.

At fault for what exactly?

so I just managed to stop

[pete75]

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.

I agree but it's not UK society that coined and uses the phrases jaywalking and sidewalk is it? They're expressions rarely used here.

[Vorpal]

Mobiles are not a menace. They are merely distractions. It could as easily be two teenagers chatting with each other. Or a small child who doesn't know any better. Or someone who is looking for hazards in the road, and trips over one on the pavement.

We need to not blame victims, but engender a culture where vulnerable road users are given priority; where the operators of vehicles slow down when a pedestrian is near, or could fall into the carriageway; where speed limits are always low where pedestrian traffic is heavy; where cyclists expect distracted pedestrians to do step out without looking, and car drivers expect cyclists to hit a pot hole or swerve to avoid an opening car door, and give them plenty of space.

[pete75]

Do I detect a nuance of anti-car rhetoric, in some of the answers here?

No but there's certainly anti pedestrian rhetoric.

[meic]

We need to not blame victims

Who is the victim? In this particular case Kenn was the victim, he was going about his lawful business in a safe manner and some inconsiderate git stepped into his path causing him to have to stop. I think the highway code may have a few things to say about this. It had a few things to say about Kenn's progress and I think he met them by riding at a speed where he could stop and doing so when required.

There may be no criminal repercussions for a pedestrian acting in a dangerous manner like this but that doesnt make them a victim. We have to allow for their bad behaviour because we bring the "killing machine" into the environment but that doesnt excuse the bad behaviour and make the perpetrator a victim.

[Tangled Metal]

To the op, did you see the pedestrian near the edge of the road as you approached? Did you slow down in case they stepped out? No then your at fault.

At fault for what exactly?

so I just managed to stop

Ah! I took his post as having performed an emergency stop from his normal speed, which having to do that annoyed him. He never actually did that because he said he slowed down before the incident. A classic case of me skimming through a post because it initially came across as a "a guy caused a delay in my progress thread so I'm annoyed and venting on a cycling forum among friends who will agree with me about how wrong they were" sort of thread. Sorry!


IMHO usually interactions between ppl traveling by different modes with differing levels of vulnerability there is a duty of more care with the less vulnerable traveling mode. I don't hold with the very of my way type of attitude from cyclists just as I don't from motorists. Whilst this op was not completely going down that road it initially seemed that way to me.

I do have one question though, would the op be going slower still if it had been wet? The op makes the probably valid point that if it had been wet he'd have hit b the pedestrian. So the question about his speed in the wet would clarify if he's a careful and considerate cyclist who takes into account all hazards around him such as the pedestrian, weather conditions, surface conditions, etc.

[meic]

Ah! I took his post as having performed an emergency stop from his normal speed, which having to do that annoyed him. He never actually did that because he said he slowed down before the incident. A classic case of me skimming through a post because it initially came across as a "a guy caused a delay in my progress thread so I'm annoyed and venting on a cycling forum among friends who will agree with me about how wrong they were" sort of thread. Sorry!

I read it the same way as you did, that he was indeed doing his normal speed when the pedestrian wandered out. However his normal speed was alright for the situation because he managed to stop without even hitting the pedestrian let alone hurting them.

I think it is OK to complain about inconsiderate people, even pedestrians and cyclists, who cause others to have to act to avoid a collision or merely even yield their priority because they are ignoring the rules of the "road" or being severely negligent like this pedestrian or your average unrestrained dog owner.
It is only a problem when the "right to be annoyed and angry" slips into being a "right to mow down" as it has become for motorists.

[Tangled Metal]

I understand your views on this, and to some degree I agree, but I am developing a low threshold for complaining threads. By this I mean X did something that I didn't like, so I'm going online to rant about how bad X was. I just don't feel it gets very far. Isn't it obvious that someone with a phone walking straight out into the road without looking around is negligent to at least some degree? Does it need a thread?

BTW it's the person who's at fault not the inanimate object that is the mobile phone. Such ppl are the menace not the phone. Correct and safe use of a mobile phone is definitely possible so it is how the operator uses it that is at fault.

[meic]

BTW it's the person who's at fault not the inanimate object that is the mobile phone. Such ppl are the menace not the phone. Correct and safe use of a mobile phone is definitely possible so it is how the operator uses it that is at fault.

I would agree. The ground has already been somewhat covered by discussing the pedestrians who wear headphones.
I have had pedestrians walk out in front of me while they were playing with their mobile phones, I have had (possibly though I dont actually remember any) pedestrians who walk out in front of me with headphones on.
However the vast majority of pedestrians who walk out in front of me , just walk out in front of me with nothing to distract them from the business of checking for cycles which they are not expecting to be there.

[Tangled Metal]

I've also had cyclists ride out in front of me when on my bike and on foot. It's the person that's at fault every time. Operator error!

[Kenn]

Reading through comments I think a bit of clarification would be useful. The road where this happened is downhill and mostly single track due to parked cars on the right. There is not even room for a car and bike to pass on some bits. The road carries light traffic. Most cars/vans do up to maybe 20mph with the occasional one going faster (not a good idea). The pavement is on the left and is part level with the road and part raised up behind railings.

I was moving at less than 10mph. The phone user was walking away from me on an empty pavement. He suddenly took a couple of steps into the road with no glance back or any warning at all when I was very close indeed. I was continually braking to reduce speed on the downslope, so was able to jam the brakes on fast and stop about a foot away from him.

If we had collided I doubt there would have been more than the odd bruise or scrape to either of us. The drivers I regularly see weaving about while using the phone are much more of a threat. Children and dogs sometimes run into the road. These are everyday hazards that you can anticipate. I wrote the post because I was shocked that the bloke on the phone was not just distracted, he was totally oblivious to his surroundings. He showed no reaction at all until I yelled at his back at point blank range, which really made him jump. He looked up, said “sorry”put the phone back to his ear and continued down the pavement. I don’t think he intended to cross the road or even realised he was stepping off the pavement. It is this level of detachment which I find dangerous. As I mentioned, a faster car would have injured or maybe killed him.

[Flinders]

At least if you see someone with earphones in you can make the judgement that they might not be able to hear you and adjust your behaviour and expectations accordingly if necessary, but deaf people don't wear labels.
.[/i]

You can't see most modern earphones, unless you are very close.
The thing about earphones as opposed to deafness is that (short of serious tinnitus) deafness is not as actively distracting as listening to music/speech or worse, being on the phone.

[amediasatex]

The thing about earphones as opposed to deafness is that (short of serious tinnitus) deafness is not as actively distracting as listening to music/speech or worse, being on the phone.

As you'll see that's exactly my point.

It's distraction that is the issue, not lack of hearing. But many people either deliberately or inadvertently make comments about people with earphones being dangerous due to not being able to hear*.

It's subtle but important, like the language used when describing collisions, car hit cyclist, car lost control' car did this, car did that, no the driver did. It's a similar thing, the language we use is very important to how the comment is perceived.

It's also often used as another thing to cast aspersions over cyclist behaviour, you know comments about all cyclists jumping red lights, wearing earphones, and riding on pavements etc. Just another diversion tactic.

*Likewise, wind noise can often exceed sensible earphone volumes anyway, when I tried explaining this to someone once they had the cheek to suggest people should be cycling slower so as to be better able to hear when cars are approaching so they could get out of the way!

[Tangled Metal]

Ask a foreigner at a restaurant table if he can pass the salt. A non-native who has a very good grasp of English may, out of a form of linguistic devilment answer yes the fail to deliver the salt. Technically he's right in that he has the ability to pass the salt but you did not ask him to pass it so he didn't.

It's the vagaries of our language, what you're saying might not mean what you want it to. It's part of the English language that's amusing in think. Just like the car did this not the driver. We can be technically wrong in what we say but the meaning is understood. We all know the driver did this not the car.

[amediasatex]

We all know the driver did this not the car.

The subtleties of language and repetition over time can instill an idea and a bias that isn't obvious until questioned.

You and I know the driver did it, but the fact that in the media it is repeatedly referred to as 'the car' has instilled a subconscious bias that diverts blame away from the driver. It's a fairly well studied and recognised phenomenon.

I don't for one second think that you or anyone on this forum would think like that, but as a general population such nuances of language can have a profound effect on attitudes. It is important to be aware of that, and mindful of the language used, not to do so is how we end up with meanings twisted and mis-represented.