Cyclist 50% to blame for hitting pedestrian

[John Holiday]

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]

"Was he covering the brakes?"

A question notable for its absence in the judgement notes.

[kwackers]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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?

[PH]

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?

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]

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]

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."

[mattheus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 '