Where did I suggest banning pedestrians? Check back a page or two and you'll see that like most (all?) on here I'm not in favour of making "jaywalking" illegal. This is similar to suggesting that cyclists don't ride down the inside of lorries at junctions, which I also think is sensible advice.
Do you think that walking into the road in front of a bicycle is a sensible thing to do, or should we discourage people from doing it?
However if I decide to swerve into an outside lane without checking then whilst it would be nice if the driver managed to avoid me it still is my problem.
Yes, but paying attention, passing with plenty of room and moderating your speed mitigates against the effect of the cyclist doing something unexpected.
Sod all use when someone decides to step out directly in front of you though. Unless someone designs one easily used whilst braking.
Very true. I think bells are pretty pointless in fact because any place where they could be safely used I'm as well speaking or shouting. Also given the number of people who've got headphones then relying on any sound based warning isn't necessarily effective. Even in the car or motorbike in any kind of emergency situation I brake first and only think about tooting the horn afterwards - although it is sometimes useful as an early warning as a situation develops (although I'll already be slowing, just in case).
However if I decide to swerve into an outside lane without checking then whilst it would be nice if the driver managed to avoid me it still is my problem.
Very true although if he either chose not to try and avoid you (assuming there was time to do so) or couldn't due to a defect in his vehicle then I would expect him to be prosecuted if there was an accident.
Very true. I think bells are pretty pointless in fact because any place where they could be safely used I'm as well speaking or shouting.
I commute on a shared path, and the bell is very effective from considerable distance, giving pedestrians plenty of time to move to the side. I find it more effective than calling out.
[quote=poly ]i am not sure I agree on the word easily in that sentence, effectively perhaps?
I think though that either you or I will need to go and have a chat with him and explain he is fighting the wrong battle (after all the net effect of DBD cycling will be very similar to Injury by W&F), if drivers don't wake up expecting to kill people today, cyclists really won't.
Good point, and one we've neglected. As you say, changing the law regarding causing a death whilst cycling is very unlikely to have the effect he desires of preventing another family going what he did.
He does appear to also be campaigning to encourage people not to ride without front brakes, and to enforce that law. Though in reality this is presumably the first case ever where the lack of a front brake [b]may[/b] have contributed to a death, and the chances are it will be many years (if ever) before another case, whether or not the law is enforced. Meanwhile 1000s of pedestrians will be killed by drivers without attracting national headlines.
The problem being that it's the unusual cases which attract the headlines and those campaigning for changes of law on the back of them get publicity - in order to prevent pedestrian deaths it's the cases which receive little publicity because they're commonplace where there are more important issues to address.
I commute on a shared path, and the bell is very effective from considerable distance, giving pedestrians plenty of time to move to the side. I find it more effective than calling out.
I used to have one but even when using it on a shared path (the Water of Leith one in particular) I found it almost useless because either people didn't hear it (headphones, or talking amongst their group), ignored it or panicked and reacted unpredictably. I found slowing way down and and saying "excuse me" as I got close worked better. Quite a few people riding on that shared path and pinging away on their bells seemed to think it gave then a God given right to steam up behind anyone without slowing as well, which isn't very safe.
Very true although if he either chose not to try and avoid you (assuming there was time to do so) or couldn't due to a defect in his vehicle then I would expect him to be prosecuted if there was an accident.
Really? I wouldnt. A casual look through Beyond the Kerb gives plenty of examples where drivers have killed cyclists and got away with it. Several times using the excuse the cyclist moved into their way even when the support for that looks dubious eg the death of Daniel Squire.
I used to have one but even when using it on a shared path (the Water of Leith one in particular) I found it almost useless because either people didn't hear it (headphones, or talking amongst their group), ignored it or panicked and reacted unpredictably. I found slowing way down and and saying "excuse me" as I got close worked better. Quite a few people riding on that shared path and pinging away on their bells seemed to think it gave then a God given right to steam up behind anyone without slowing as well, which isn't very safe.
I find that most people hear it from distance, and for the ones that don't, I follow up by asking to pass when I'm closer. In both cases I reduce my speed. I can only think of one altercation with a pedestrian, when ringing my bell, calling out, slowing down and waiting for a safe gap to pass were apparently not good enough...
Having followed this method in over ten years of daily commuting on a shared path, I'd say I have a pretty good sample!
I used to have one but even when using it on a shared path (the Water of Leith one in particular) I found it almost useless
I find use of a bell mixed at best. Not absolutely useless on some shared paths but its only real advantage of just slowing and saying hello is for those people who mutter about having a bell.
Really? I wouldnt. A casual look through Beyond the Kerb gives plenty of examples where drivers have killed cyclists and got away with it. Several times using the excuse the cyclist moved into their way even when the support for that looks dubious eg the death of Daniel Squire.
The devil's in the detail in those cases. Certainly in the Daniel Squire one they guy admitted to having texted while driving (and therefore you'd think would be prosecuted for that) however it doesn't look like there was any evidence available (not in that article anyway) to effectively rebut his claim that the cyclist moved in front of him. Reading between the lines I expect it most likely was the drivers fault, but he got off because there wasn't enough evidence to prove it.
I find use of a bell mixed at best. Not absolutely useless on some shared paths but its only real advantage of just slowing and saying hello is for those people who mutter about having a bell.
And those grumpy gits would probably also complain even if you did use a bell.
I've always just said 'Excuse me', not loudly but firmly, and if the pedestrian has had to move to allow me through then I will say 'Thank you' as I pass.
I've never had a problem with grumpy gits muttering about having bell. I used to think that was maybe because I am not young, and possibly because of the way I project my voice to make sure they hear me (as I say - 'firmly').
However, I now suspect that the reason why I don't have any run ins with grumpy gits, is because in any interaction with a pedestrian the grumpy git is me. I am, as it were, an alpha grumpy git, and pedestrians somehow sense this.
So maybe some of you need to work harder on cultivating your own inner grumpy git. It may help you in your dealings with pedestrians and other cyclists. However, it may also make you a right miserable git.
IMHE Bells or horns are a planned response to a forseen situation which develops relatively slowly not a default reaction to an emergency. Any situation which requires immediate attention like braking or swerving it's the riding/driving that takes priority. I'd question anyone's riding/driving if their first defense mechanism was to go for the bell/hron.
There are very few circumstances where, to avoid an unexpected collision, you swerve but make no attempt to adjust your speed, or at the critical moment even having swerved you make no (or very limited) attempts to reduce speed further. I can accept that swerving and shouting might be good starting points, but even if it only becomes clear very shortly before impact that the shouting and swerving is having no effect, being able to apply the brakes you're legally required to have fitted will always make *some* (potentially small) difference.
That's a lot to fit within a very short space of time.As an aside, a pedestrian stepped out in front of me yesterday. My instinctive reaction was to swerve round her. My bike has disc brakes and the road was dry.
I disagree that its a lot. As a car driver, and equally so as a cyclist, i'm intent on being aware of what's going on around me. If I'm on an open country road with nothing obscuring my vision, I'll happily ride around without the brakes covered.
If I'm riding in an busy urban environment I'll be riding (and driving) being prepared to stop or change speed as soon as something unexpected happens. Once I've had time to shout "Oi!!" I'll have had time to apply some pressure to the brakes as an instinctive reaction and potentially change direction. None of this is rocket science in terms of what I have to process, most of it is instinctive reactions.
Consciously deciding not to brake, for me, would be a more complex decision than deciding to try to brake.
Consciously deciding not to brake, for me, would be a more complex decision than deciding to try to brake.
totally agree. I was riding through Bank a couple of years ago on a fixed wheel bike (with a front brake) and a pedestrian stepped out about 5-10m infront of me. I was standing up as I was accelerating and only had time to shout 'aaarrrggghhh' and slam the brake on. went over the bars as I was stood up and landed in a heap on the road but missed the idiot pedestrian who wasn't looking. no time to consider avoiding him, but then others are wired up to react differently.
Bells. They were relevant in the days of rod brakes working on wet chrome rims, ie long stopping distances.
If you're close enough for the pedestrian to be a problem, it's not the time for a bell, but for brakes or avoidance.
The problem with avoidance is it may put you in front of a car and you end up the victim.
So brakes it is.
Riding a brakeless fixed wheel bike is plain dumb.
[quote=brakes ]but then others are wired up to react differently.
That's the thing. I also instinctively swerve rather than brake - that's not theoretical conjecture, that's exactly what I have done when a pedestrian has stepped out in front of me.
What's the consensus here then (stolen from lfgss)? Swerve or brake (rider in video didn't appear to do either and assumed pedestrian would continue!)
Personally, i'd have slowed and used a bell. They are useful IMO. It makes both parties aware of each other, you can't keep slamming the brakes on (especially in London).
BTW.. this is the thread the news outlets have been selectively taking comments from in some follow up "cyclists are bad" news stories:
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/139552/?offset=48000
Consciously deciding not to brake, for me, would be a more complex decision than deciding to try to brake.
Depends on the circumstances of the impending collision.
The one time I hit a pedestrian I didn't have time to brake, shout, sweerve, ring a bell or do anything "concious". Even if I did have time to actually begin to apply the brakes there's still the calculation of "can I stop in time?" (which you may or may not be in a position to make.
Braking AND swerving can lead to a skid / loss of control / crash anyway but again, that's a concious decision and often in the heat of the moment it doesn't happen in that way, you simply don't have time to react appropriately.
Problem is here that he had time to shout what appears to have been a coherent sentence (as opposed to just an OOOIII-aarrrgh!) which means he had time to process things a bit more. In him swerving [u]and[/u] yelling though, she was alerted and seems to have then stepped into his altered path.
In that video there was plenty of time to take some action. I definitely wouldn't have steamed on like that guy did, and swerving wasn't a safe option either so I'd have slowed down until I was sure the ped would get clear and probably shouted as well.
Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible. I'd have been aiming for between the pedestrian and the curb and I'm not certain I'd have avoided that collision.
Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible. I'd have been aiming for between the pedestrian and the curb and I'm not certain I'd have avoided that collision.
I'd say that collision is about 90% pedestrian at fault. On the phone, not looking, unpredictable change of direction. I'm not sure I'd have avoided that either - aim to pass behind him, maybe slowed a fraction but basically that ped has seen a gap in the traffic and decided to cross. Fairly safe to assume he's goimng to carry on and the speed of the cyclist was hardly excessive for the road and conditions.
Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible. I'd have been aiming for between the pedestrian and the curb and I'm not certain I'd have avoided that collision.
The pedestrian steps into the road at around 49s-50s, and the cyclist was around maybe 8m from him. Maybe the video is deceptive, but it seems to me that at no point did the cyclist reduce speed as a precaution: they were expecting the pedestrian to have continued moving on just enough for them to pass by without colliding and without slowing down even slightly.
I am not suggesting that I have not made similarly poor decisions on occasion in the past, or that I will never do so again, but that was poor cycling.
Fairly safe to assume he's goimng to carry on
No it isn't, as the video demonstrated. The only thing you should assume is that every other road user, man, woman, child, animal is a potential hazard, and you should always try to ensure a sufficient margin of safety (speed and distance) to protect yourself from their sometimes unpredictable behaviour.
Frustrating seeing transport crashes seen through a frame of fault and punishment, rather than root cause analysis and prevention of reoccurrence. The fault and punishment is important - obviously - but its not clear to me that the analysis, learning and prevention of reoccurrence bit is adequately addressed in road traffic collisons
"The only thing you should assume is that every other road user, man, woman, child, animal is a potential hazard"
I don't like the word Hazard used in a loose way like this - though I note that it seems to be normalised as such during the Driving Test Theory exam with deer running into the road classed as "hazards".
In Risk management "Hazard" is usually the source of the potential damage/adverse outcome not the likely victim of it. using "Hazard" as a term for vulnerable road users is a partial responsibility shifting onto the victim.
In a Cyclist v Child the "hazard" would almost certainly be the faster moving heavier of the 2 cos ffisics.
I think my instinctive reaction would have been to swerve, though that would be dependent on being sure I wasn't swerving in front of a vehicle (there wasn't one there, but you'd need to know that). Very hard to double think it though, and I'm not sure there was any 100% perfect option for the cyclist - it feels like a good chance of the collision happening even if he'd braked.
Interesting, in that situation I'm not sure there was much time to react. The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible.
There was no time to react after the ped had turned back, but plenty of time from when he started to enter the road. Wonder what was in the cyclists mind - could have been a number of things:
1) Ped will be clear by the time I get there so no need to slow
2) Ped, what ped?
3) Look at that dimwit, I'm going to buzz him and see him jump so I can show the footage to all the world on youtube later
Gonna be harsh here. If you think it was ok to keep riding at speed to pass behind a guy stepping out clamped to a phone & not looking in your direction I think you need to have a good look at your riding technique.
EDIT: Without seeing the evidence obvs, it really wouldn't surprise me to find that that video is pretty much a carbon copy of what we are discussing. Look how that has fared for the boy on the bike.
[quote=epicsteve ]There was no time to react after the ped had turned back, but plenty of time from when he started to enter the road. Wonder what was in the cyclists mind - could have been a number of things:
Only about 2s from ped entering road to collision. That's barely more than the real world reaction times mentioned earlier in this thread. But we're not asking the cyclist to react, we're asking him to make a decision. Do you really think he had time to compose any of those thoughts and act on it? Doing nothing (or to be strictly accurate, making the choice to pass behing the pedestrian) probably wasn't a conscious decision at all.
As I wrote before, even if his reaction had been to brake, I doubt that would have avoided the collision (I don't believe you can even tell from the video that he wasn't in the process of braking).
In Risk management "Hazard" is usually the source of the potential damage/adverse outcome not the likely victim of it. using "Hazard" as a term for vulnerable road users is a partial responsibility shifting onto the victim.
This is silly. You are trying to shoehorn road safety into fitting the perspective of the work related safety industry and its precise definitions. To suggest that this is victim blaming is nonsense. The key point is that as a road user (or a pedestrian) you only have control over your own actions, and the best way you can protect yourself and others, is to view other road users and pedestrians as being potentially unpredictable and a hazard to you and themselves, and the best way to mitigate the risks to yourself and them is to give yourself a good margin of safety at all times wherever possible.
Interesting video. I got clipped by a car on a pedestrian crossing after I changed my mind half way across and stepped back into the path of a car driving behind me.
Only the wing mirror but shook me up a bit and taught me to look more carefully in future. Is this any different?
[quote=Flaperon ]Interesting video. I got clipped by a car on a pedestrian crossing after I changed my mind half way across and stepped back into the path of a car driving behind me.
Only the wing mirror but shook me up a bit and taught me to look more carefully in future. Is this any different?
It depends on the context of the car passing behind you (and what sort of ped crossing). Did you step out onto the crossing when the car was already coming down the road and needed to do an emergency stop to avoid you?
Though the existence of the pedestrian crossing changes the context somewhat anyway.
1) Ped will be clear by the time I get there so no need to slow
2) Ped, what ped?
3) Look at that dimwit, I'm going to buzz him and see him jump so I can show the footage to all the world on youtube later
I like to think of myself as a considerate cyclist, but I have a feeling I'd have stopped pedalling, covered the brakes (but not actually used them to slow down), and then swerved to go between the pedestrian and the pavement.
Although I do like to think I'd have left more room than that guy did.
slowster - MemberThe pedestrian steps into the road at around 49s-50s, and the cyclist was around maybe 8m from him. Maybe the video is deceptive, but it seems to me that at no point did the cyclist reduce speed as a precaution: they were expecting the pedestrian to have continued moving on just enough for them to pass by without colliding and without slowing down even slightly.
I am not suggesting that I have not made similarly poor decisions on occasion in the past, or that I will never do so again, but that was poor cycling.
The pedestrian almost clears the bus lane, then a second before the cyclist would have passed him, does a 180 and steps back infront of the cyclist.
I'm all for "assume everyone is an idiot and trying to kill you", but that only works upto a point, you can't assume that every road user is about to do a 180 and crash into you, you'd never be able to go anywhere.
It depends on the context of the car passing behind you (and what sort of ped crossing). Did you step out onto the crossing when the car was already coming down the road and needed to do an emergency stop to avoid you?
No, I was about 3/4 of the way across the road, realised I was going the wrong way, and did a beautiful u-turn into the path of the car in almost exactly the same way as the pedestrian in the video. The car in my case reduced speed so he'd pass behind me as I crossed.
What sort of ped crossing?
Zebra.
Flaperon that car shouldn't have been there. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian clears the road before entering the crossing.
I pick option 3, that vid looks like a close pass to me, maybe he planned to say something as he passed within a hairs breadth?
Personally would have made a shoulder check as soon as he stepped out, eased up and veered off towards the curb, ready to shout a loud "Oi" if he did something else stupid. He's already shown himself to be stupid for crossing without checking, why would you want to be near the idiot?
The pedestrian almost clears the bus lane, then a second before the cyclist would have passed him, does a 180 and steps back infront of the cyclist.I'm all for "assume everyone is an idiot and trying to kill you", but that only works upto a point, you can't assume that every road user is about to do a 180 and crash into you, you'd never be able to go anywhere.
We want car drivers to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance when they overtake, and preferably more, to allow for errors, wobbles and the unforeseen. This is no different: the cyclist should have shaved his speed (or if he did brake at all, then he needed to brake more), so that the pedestrian would be further away by the time he drew level, and so that he had a comfortable margin of safety to protect him if the pedestrian behaved unpredictably.
We want car drivers to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance when they overtake, and preferably more, to allow for errors, wobbles and the unforeseen.
Indeed, but it's hard for anyone to give the right amount of space when they do something unpredictable. If bikes give peds that could step of the pavement at anytime we never be able to cycle lanes, among other things.
Has it been established that the pedestrian in this case was looking what she was doing?
It seems to me that the accident itself was probably fifty-fifty with the major aggravating circumstance being the bike being solely reliant on its fixed gear for braking.
As the speed of impact is estimated at 18mph it is pretty damn unlucky that the woman was killed. I think the cyclist should face pretty harsh sanction, but resurrecting some arcane offence just to achieve this highlights the anti-cycling prejudice at work here. Had a pedestrian stepped in front of car doing 18mph I doubt very much the driver would have been pursued as vigorously.
I disagree. Where I go in summer just about the only bit of riding includes a stretch along the seafront, in a marked cycle lane painted onto a very broad pavement. If I get there early enough, it's empty, and I'll happily blat along at over 35 km/h. If I get there after 10am on a sunny day it's heaving - not with people on the cycle path bit, but with people in general. Guess what - I go much more slowly and cover the brakes. Why? because I know that people can be unpredictable. Not necessarily just adults, but kids too. I'd never ever forgive myself if I knocked into some young kid who dashed across, like mine sometimes do, without looking, just because I considered that it's as safe to ride at 35 km/h at 10 am as it is at 7:30. It's not.Indeed, but it's hard for anyone to give the right amount of space when they do something unpredictable. If bikes give peds that could step of the pavement at anytime we never be able to cycle lanes, among other things.
[quote=twistedpencil ]Flaperon that car shouldn't have been there. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian clears the road before entering the crossing.
Oi - you stole my punchline! That's exactly why I was asking what sort of crossing.
So yes, it is very different - in that case the driver was explicitly breaking the law:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/25/made
If the pedestrian in that video had been standing next to a zebra crossing, then I'd expect the cyclist to be slowing down and preparing to stop - if he had then collided with the pedestrian it would be 100% the fault of the cyclist, as it was 100% the fault of the driver in your case. But the pedestrian wasn't on a zebra crossing, so that changes everything (a zebra crossing effectively changes the priority on roads).
[quote=slowster ]We want car drivers to give cyclists at least 1.5m clearance when they overtake, and preferably more, to allow for errors, wobbles and the unforeseen. This is no different:
It's completely different. When drivers overtake cyclists they have lots of time to plan the manoeuvre - if they pass too close it's a deliberate decision. You lot are assessing the cyclists actions with the benefit of perfect hindsight - he had about 2s between the ped stepping off the kerb and the collision; in order to do anything effective he'd have had to be acting at least 1s before the collision which is before he'd have effectively processed the pedestrian stepping off the kerb. We're not talking about just reacting here, we're talking about decision making. I doubt very much he intended to pass that close, it's just he didn't manage to do anything else.
[quote=orangespyderman ]I disagree. Where I go in summer just about the only bit of riding includes a stretch along the seafront, in a marked cycle lane painted onto a very broad pavement.
Which is a completely different situation - you're talking about what is effectively a shared use cycle path. Of course you have to slow down on those when there are any pedestrians about, because it's pretty much inevitable that they will wander across it without looking (which is why shared use paths are shit!)
You lot are assessing the cyclists actions with the benefit of perfect hindsight - he had about 2s between the ped stepping off the kerb and the collision; in order to do anything effective he'd have had to be acting at least 1s before the collision which is before he'd have effectively processed the pedestrian stepping off the kerb. We're not talking about just reacting here, we're talking about decision making. I doubt very much he intended to pass that close, it's just he didn't manage to do anything else.
I accept that he might not have been able to slow sufficiently to prevent the collision, but it appears that his speed was constant right up to the moment of collision. Two and a bit seconds is not much, but if he had his hands on the hoods, then he should have moved to cover the brake levers and should have been able to start emergency braking before the collision, even if it would have made little difference to the outcome.
As far as I can see, he decided that he did not need to cover the brakes/slow because he assumed the pedestrian would be out of the way by the time he drew level with him.
As for hindsight, I can say with confidence that I have braked far more quickly than within 2s in an emergency. Moreover, the fact that there was a bus stop ahead at which a bus had stopped was something which he should have registered prior to even seeing the pedestrian, and prompted him to expect pedestrians who had alighted from the bus crossing the road.
[quote=slowster ]As far as I can see, he decided that he did not need to cover the brakes/slow because he assumed the pedestrian would be out of the way by the time he drew level with him.
Which isn't an unreasonable decision, particularly given the amount of time he had to process and make such a decision. I'm not entirely sure he reacted at all though, as what might have avoided the collision would have been to move further to the left, which seems the most obvious reaction.
^matey boy above is checking the woman walking to the bus stop and deciding whether he'd have her keep her glasses on or not. He doesn't notice bungy cord boy stepping into the road with his ever tightening 'lacky band.
Which isn't an unreasonable decision, particularly given the amount of time he had to process and make such a decision.
I strongly disagree. The moment he saw a pedestrian either in the road or stepping into the road should have rung alarm bells and triggered an immediate sequence of defensive precautionary responses, starting with covering brakes and slowing down, and escalating to harder braking when it was becoming clear that the pedestrian would still be only a step or two away when he drew level with him. As I have said, the bus stopping ahead of him should already have put him on the alert for pedestrians attempting to cross the road.
I'm not entirely sure he reacted at all though, as what might have avoided the collision would have been to move further to the left, which seems the most obvious reaction.
Agreed.
Not sure if this has been linked or not, but a good article:
https://roubaixcycling.cc/2017/08/24/crime-and-punishment-redux-that-fixie-case/
twistedpencil - Member
Flaperon that car shouldn't have been there. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian clears the road before entering the crossing.
I think you will find that is not what the rule says - give way not wait till off the road.
he had about 2s between the ped stepping off the kerb and the collision; in order to do anything effective he'd have had to be acting at least 1s before the collision which is before he'd have effectively processed the pedestrian stepping off the kerb.
Sometimes I can imagine a car drivers forum where people commiserate with each other about how tiny cyclists are and how impossible they are to see. If you compare the width of a car with that of a bike, well yes I know the video shows that the bike to be perfectly visible but you only get a tiny split second to decide wheter to pull out yadayadayada.
In that video there are some perfectly good clues that a ped might step into the road: bus pulling away, person just behind bus standing facing the road. I know I'm awesome, but if I'm riding a bike that scenario is preparing me for something and my reaction to that isn't to keep pedalling at speed towards them. An awful lot of 'accidents' are avoidable. I can see the video: you can see the video. That one is avoidable. The reason a lot of accidents happen is that people habitually ride/drive badly and then rationalise why the fault isn't theirs.
[quote=poly ]I think you will find that is not what the rule says - give way not wait till off the road.
Well if a driver hits somebody on a crossing, they didn't give way.
[quote=imnotverygood ]Sometimes I can imagine a car drivers forum where people commiserate with each other about how tiny cyclists are and how impossible they are to see. If you compare the width of a car with that of a bike, well yes I know the video shows that the bike to be perfectly visible but you only get a tiny split second to decide wheter to pull out yadayadayada.
Well they might, but it's a rubbish analogy, because the situations are completely non comparable - bikes don't step out into the road in front of cars. Unless you can come up with a comparable situation involving a car and a bike?
The moment he saw a pedestrian either in the road or stepping into the road should have rung alarm bells and triggered an immediate sequence of defensive precautionary responses
Indeed. Any other reaction, be it a bloody minded sense of entitlement or simply not having the mental capacity to appraise the situation correctly would immediately put you in the wrong.
The actions of a reasonable dilligent person would be to 'come off the gas' so to speak as soon as the anticipated a potential hazard. There's no right to 'carry on making progress regardless' when you've spotted a potential hazard, that's just belligerent and a failure to understand.
[quote=slowster ]
I'm not entirely sure he reacted at all though, as what might have avoided the collision would have been to move further to the left, which seems the most obvious reaction.
Agreed.
Thanks for your agreement - though I'm not sure if you realised what you are agreeing to. I note I didn't suggest that he chose not to move to the left.
Thanks for your agreement - though I'm not sure if you realised what you are agreeing to. I note I didn't suggest that he chose not to move to the left.
Moving to the left would not have been mutually exclusive with initially covering the brakes and then braking: they are all appropriate actions, and if he could not brake sufficiently, then moving to the left would have compensated for that.
On a more general note, when I used to commute on a bike, I did so in ordinary clothes on a heavy touring bike with a 5/6 speed wide(ish) ratio freewheel and rather slow Michelin World Tour 32c tyres (and it was not in a very densely populated city). Consequently, although it had drop bars, my progress was relatively sedate. Many people are commuting now in full lycra etc. on very lightweight road race bikes, or on sportif bikes which are very similar, and they take full advantage of the speed at which they can ride these bikes. I cannot help feeling that in many cases when I see videos posted on Youtube etc. of incidents and near misses, that many of these cyclists are riding too fast for the road conditions in many urban areas.
A comparison is often made of the cycling infrastructure in the UK vs. the likes of Holland, and how many cyclists in Holland do not wear helmets. However, when you look at photographs of them, they are typically riding heavy upright or touring/hybrid style bikes and are wearing ordinary clothes (as opposed to lycra etc.), and their speed will reflect that. So I think to some degree cycling in places like Holland is safer not just because of of the infrastructure for - and societal attitude to - cycling, but also because of the behaviour/lower speed of their commuting cyclists in general, which greatly reduces the risk to themselves, as well as to fellow cyclists and pedestrians.
^you get the cyclists you deserve. If the infrastructure excludes all but the fast and the fearless, they are the riders you will find on the roads.
Agreed, it does seem that every ride is a training ride for many. This problem is all about riding appropriate to the conditions, not improving your OA time for each commute. If more riders saw it as a sprint intervals ride than absolute speed, maybe they would improve fitness for the weekend ride/race and be less concerned about making progress.
BTW that video is quite like the sort of things you see in motoring hazard identification tests. The rider clearly failed.
[quote=slowster ]Many people are commuting now in full lycra etc. on very lightweight road race bikes, or on sportif bikes which are very similar, and they take full advantage of the speed at which they can ride these bikes. I cannot help feeling that in many cases when I see videos posted on Youtube etc. of incidents and near misses, that many of these cyclists are riding too fast for the road conditions in many urban areas.
What proportion of the vehicle speed limit do you think the bicycle speed limit should be set?
A comparison is often made of the cycling infrastructure in the UK vs. the likes of Holland, and how many cyclists in Holland do not wear helmets. However, when you look at photographs of them, they are typically riding heavy upright or touring/hybrid style bikes and are wearing ordinary clothes (as opposed to lycra etc.), and their speed will reflect that. So I think to some degree cycling in places like Holland is safer not just because of of the infrastructure for - and societal attitude to - cycling, but also because of the behaviour/lower speed of their commuting cyclists in general, which greatly reduces the risk to themselves, as well as to fellow cyclists and pedestrians.
That is quite a leap you're making there given the level of road casualties in this country for incidents not involving motor vehicles.
^you get the cyclists you deserve. If the infrastructure excludes all but the fast and the fearless, they are the riders you will find on the roads.
Exactly this.
We've had decades of car-centric planning, coupled with the marketing that says that owning a car is the adult thing to do, the freedom of the road blah blah.
Decades of urban planning that revolve around moving big tin boxes rather than "people".
If you build proper segregated infrastructure that removes the conflict, you get a situation where cycling is a normal everyday part of moving around needing no special clothing or kit, no special bike.
If you force people to compete with traffic then the safest thing to do is become part of that traffic flow which means moving fast enough to merge with it (most of the time...). That, by definition, excludes kids, the elderly, the infirm, the heavy shopping bikes, the cargo bikes and restricts "cyclists" to being the type that are capable of mixing it at speed - road bikes, lycra and a rather cavalier attitude which is essentially young white men.
Use the proper CSHs in London and you see a far wider demographic of people - where the infrastructure is well designed there's no need to jump lights and ride as though your life depends on it, you just bimble happily along at 10mph! That then opens up cycling to the young, the old, the scared-of-traffic, the "I-don't-want-to-be-all-sweaty", the heavy upright bikes and so on.
I use the Santander Cycles hire bikes regularly when I visit London and I ride those in a completely different manner to how I ride my normal SS road bike commuter.
A small but overlooked part of this whole tragic case is that if there was proper decent infrastructure in place, she probably wouldn't have stepped straight into it and he wouldn't have been flying along like a ****.
What proportion of the vehicle speed limit do you think the bicycle speed limit should be set?
What I think is that the vehicle speed limit, which is just that - a limit,- obviously applies to all vehicles, but equally obviously every road user must travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions.
For cyclists that means if there are pedestrians on the pavement, it is likely to mean that the appropriate speed is lower if the cyclist is in secondary position than if they are in primary position.
Similarly, if the road is so narrow that a car driver has to drive within, say, 50cm of the pavement and there are pedestrians close to the edge of the pavement, then their appropriate speed will be lower than where they can maintain a clear gap of, say, 1.5m between themselves and the pavement.
That is quite a leap you're making there given the level of road casualties in this country for incidents not involving motor vehicles.
Possibly, but in general lower speed does equal safer, by virtue of reduced stopping distances, more time to react, and lower collision speeds.
The pedestrian changes direction in a completely unpredictable way with very little reaction time possible
Appreciate I'm a little late to the party, but when you take in what else is going on - namely the car coming towards them which the cyclist can see but is hidden from the pedestrians view by the bus - his change in direction when he sees it is entirely predictable.
Appreciate I'm a little late to the party, but when you take in what else is going on - namely the car coming towards them which the cyclist can see but is hidden from the pedestrians view by the bus - his change in direction when he sees it is entirely predictable.
Indeed - my first thought on viewing the video was that he was (stupidly) going out from behind the bus to see if it was safe to cross the road - not necessarily to actually cross the road at that time. He clearly (and again stupidly) didn't anticipate there being anyone else in the bus lane.
Twitter is still the source of several interesting articles in the aftermath of this. I think he's due to be sentenced on 18th September...
https://medium.com/ @john.road.cc/involved-in-a-crash-dont-stick-around-f12d680d82be
Twitter is still the source of several interesting articles in the aftermath of this. I think he's due to be sentenced on 18th September...https://medium.com/ @john.road.cc/involved-in-a-crash-dont-stick-around-f12d680d82be
Another one who hasn't realised (or has ignored) that "wanton and furious" doesn't have to relate to riding style or speed. A pretty shit article really.
Except that if it wasn't the riding style or speed, then the prosecution would have to prove that the injury was a direct result of the lack of brakes - the only defence for the manslaughter charge appears to be the lack of that proof. I think the article write understands the law well, as he points out the only way in which the W&F charge stands if the manslaughter charge doesn't.
I am enjoying the irony of you being the first person on here to point out this connection of the defence cases for both charges 😉
I am enjoying the irony of you being the first person on here to point out this connection of the defence cases for both charges
No real irony although it would be interesting to see why a couple of the jurors thought manslaughter didn't apply but the wanton & furious did. It might be that they thought that death was so unlikely an outcome that the manslaughter charge was harsh, rather than any breaking of the connection between the lack of brakes and the death.
I very much doubt the jury decision was on the basis of correct legal interpretation of the charges. Unlikelihood of death certainly isn't a defence for manslaughter.
That is quite a leap you're making there given the level of road casualties in this country for incidents not involving motor vehicles.
About the same as the number killed by bee and wasp stings IIRC
Given the archaic language in the wanton and furious charge, and the fact that that law is very rarely used, I would expect that the legal meaning of those terms and that law were discussed in court and explained to the jury. I would also have expected the prosecution to have made it clear during the course of its examination of witnesses and evidence, in what respects it was asserting that the evidence given was evidence of the wanton and furious charge and/or the manslaughter charge.
Without the transcript of the trial, we do not know what evidence was cited as proof of the wanton and furious charge, nor of which aspect of that particular law, i.e. wanton and furious vs. other wilful misconduct vs. wilful neglect.
I suspect that the fact that Charlie Alliston twice shouted out 'Get the f@@@ out of my way' or similar may have been a very significant factor in the wanton and furious conviction, i.e. the fact he said it twice:
a) itself suggests he had enough time to react to prevent the collision, or possibly reduce the liklihood/severity of injury by reducing the collision speed, and
b) the actual words might be seen to suggest that he expected the woman to get out his way, and that he did not swerve or brake as quickly as he possibly could have done because of that expectation.
I kind of agree with the last poster, which is what I came to say. If he had time to yell get out of the way twice, then he could/should have stopped. We all have a duty of car to other road users, being in the wrong place on the road does not remove your rights.
I wish he had got more time, it wasn't a cycling issue it was a moral issue that eh thought he had the right to run someone over just because she "shouldn't" be in the road.
18 months inside.
That is very harsh indeed and completely out of line with other people who kill on the roads
I can't help but feel that he has been held to a higher standard than would be expected of a motorist.
This is a sad story where no one wins, and we have to remember that a family no longer has a mum, but is there a danger it could set a precedent for future accidents with cyclists whose bikes are not 100% legal, including, for example, no pedal reflectors, front/rear reflectors etc., perhaps even a bell? (I have a feeling it's not a legal requirement to have a bell fitted, but I'm not sure about reflectors)
I think we have to consider that the court has heard the story first hand and the nuance of how deserving this chap is of the sentence awarded is one they can judge far better than us. It does seem an unusually tough sentence, but I'd imagine the judge hasn't made that decision lightly.