The family of a Reading cyclist who died after a pedestrian stepped out into the road in front of him, causing a crash, were told he may have faced prosecution had he survived, it has emerged.
Benjamin Pedley, aged 26, died from head injuries sustained following the collision in Earley, near Reading, with Nathan Kellsell in March this year. At an inquest earlier this month, witnesses described how the pedestrian had walked into the road without seeing him.
> Berkshire cyclist died after pedestrian stepped out in front of him, finds inquest
Mr Kellsell was also injured and has no memory of the incident, and Mr Pedley’s brother William has told Get Reading that police informed him that had the rider survived, he could have been prosecuted.
However, he and his family believe that pedestrians who step into the road causing a cyclist to crash should be held to account for their actions.
“It is an incredibly sad but avoidable death,” he said. “But I spoke to police officers who said if Ben had survived and was healthy there would be a chance that he would be prosecuted as a road user.
“And yet there is no comeuppance for a pedestrian,” he continued. “At the moment there is no law to say that if you step out into a road you are responsible for your actions.
“Potentially one could step out in front of somebody you have a vendetta against and nothing would happen about it.
“Surely the law needs to be changed so that when you step into a road, you are responsible for your actions,” he added.
The news comes in a week that London cyclist Charlie Alliston was sentenced to 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution in connection with the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs.
Last month, an Old Bailey jury cleared Alliston of manslaughter but convicted him of causing bodily harm by furious and wanton driving under the Offences Against The Person Act 1
Mrs Briggs had started to cross London’s Old Street as Alliston approached, with much of the prosecution’s case resting on the fact that his fixed wheel bike had no front brake, meaning it was not legal for use on the road.
That case, and the media furore surrounding it, prompted the government to announce last night an urgent review of the law regarding cyclists, including whether offences of causing death by dangerous or careless cycling should be introduced.
> Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case
88 thoughts on “Cyclist killed when pedestrian stepped out in front of him may have been prosecuted had he survived”
I don’t see much need for
I don’t see much need for changing the law. How often do pedestrians think “I really want to spoil that persons day by stepping in front of them”? Never mind that the pedestrian is just as likely to get hurt as the cyclist/road user.
Surely assault laws could cover any instances of stupid malicious pedestrians.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Probably not often or at all but they do step out in front of you whether on their phones or not. They step out on to the road in front of a cyclist where they wouldn’t do the same infront of a larger vehicle. How often, I see it almost every time I go commuting.
tugglesthegreat wrote:
Mainly because too many look with their ears not their eyes.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think we’d all agree that negligence rather than malice is the issue with innattentive pedestrians. It’s this negligence that should be prosecuted if it brings harm to someone else. Not malice.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s not just about malice though – the bigger issue is due care and attention. I’m not sure what criminal law would apply to pedestrians as they do to motorists and cyclists, although there might be the option of a civil case for compensation should a careless pedestrian cause injury or damage to another. Never heard of it happening though.
Duncann wrote:
Surely assault laws could cover any instances of stupid malicious pedestrians.— Duncann
It’s not just about malice though – the bigger issue is due care and attention. I’m not sure what criminal law would apply to pedestrians as they do to motorists and cyclists, although there might be the option of a civil case for compensation should a careless pedestrian cause injury or damage to another. Never heard of it happening though.— hawkinspeter
Which is why we need presumed liability.
The least vulnnerable road user is considered at fault unless proven otherwise. With that, not only will vehicle drivers exrcise more caution, but pedestrians will be forced to take responsibility and not just dumbly walk out into the road without looking up from their phones.
The divide and conquer technique being used from this unfortunate accident is just getting everyone to beat each other over the head with it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Fixed that for you.
STiG911 wrote:
Fixed that for me and you.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’ve never commuted in London then?!
sw1sst wrote:
I don’t see much need for changing the law. How often do pedestrians think “I really want to spoil that persons day by stepping in front of them”?
— sw1sst You’ve never commuted in London then?!— hawkinspeter
The mistake you make is presuming that the pedestrian is thinking let alone looking. They just step out.
I know from a few people I know that until they learnt to drive they didn’t realise their behaviour as both a pedestrian and a cyclist towards other road users and themselves was simply dangerous.
sw1sst wrote:
I don’t see much need for changing the law. How often do pedestrians think “I really want to spoil that persons day by stepping in front of them”?
— sw1sst You’ve never commuted in London then?!— hawkinspeter
Born in London (well, maybe the outskirts), but mainly cycled in Bristol.
Yes, I agree that a lot of pedestrians are muppets, but I just don’t see it as a big enough problem to warrant changing laws when there’s plenty more bigger low-hanging fish to fry in the sea.
I’d rather more attention was paid to enforcing the existing traffic laws even though it seems that motons get lighter comparable punishments than cyclists.
hawkinspeter wrote:
True but the amount of times this happens is a joke…..If I ever hit a pedestrian (and ive ‘near missed’ quite a few) then I’m not taking the blame………it’s about time motorists, pedestrians AND cyclists started thinking about the consequences of their actions (and the law applied evenly).
I’m bored of doing the thinking for incompetent/arrogant motorists and lazy pedestrians too bothered about checking facebook than watching where they are going.
I’m sure the government’s
I’m sure the government’s much delayed look at the road laws and punishments will be looking at this, not just making a new law for causing death by dangerous cycling.
Of course it will. Almost certainly. Well, possibly. OK, it’ll mention it once then go back to hassling cyclists.
After all, if such a law existed Charlie Alliston probably wouldn’t have been prosecuted and found guilty. Pedestrians should have just as much legal responsibility for collisions, and they certainly aren’t always the innocent party, and I’ve got the bruises to prove it: three sets of bruises to be precise.
The Police at their sensitive
The Police at their sensitive best.
Seriously, when did this institution become so bad at its core responsibility?
Charge pedestrians with
Charge pedestrians with ‘walking without due care and attention’ maybe….. Or have people forgotten the Green Cross Code?!? If the police did say they’d have probably prosecuted the cyclist had he survived surely that works both ways. What if the pedestrian had stepped out in front of a vehicle without looking and died, would the driver of said vehicle be prosecuted??
So a pedestrain walks out
So a pedestrain walks out into the road without looking, collides with a cyclist and as a result, dies. The cyclist is then prosecuted and sent down for 18 months.
So a pedestrian walks out into the road without looking, collides with a cyclist and as a result, the cyclists dies. No further action taken.
Is it just me, or is this inequality within this?
Another cyclist was killed after a collision with a pedestrian, again walking into the road without looking, a couple of weeks ago, posted in another one of my posts, but nothing is done about it.
Are cyclists seen as cannon fodder on the roads? Can be killed be pedestrians, without pedestrians facing any consequences and can be killed by drivers, without drivers facing any consequences.
Hell yes, pedestrians need to
Hell yes, pedestrians need to be responsible for their actions. The fuckwit who steps out in front of me while looking at their smart-phone is as much as a fuckwit as the Audi driving fuckwit who pulls out in front of me.
So you mean to tell me that Charlie Alliston would have been in the shit anyway, even if he had had a functioning front brake? Wasn’t Mrs Briggs distracted by her phone at the time?
Is it not blindingly obvious that you should not step out in front of traffic? And isn’t learning to cross the road safely one of the 1st things we learn as children?
In the case described by the article, Mr Kellsell directly caused the death of the cyclist and should be made responsible for his actions. This is obvious, and if the law doesn’t agree then the law needs chinging! We’re not talking about a parking ticket ffs, somebody died!
Christopher TR1 wrote:
I believe the defense tried to push that, but it was withdrawn, so there can’t be any evidence that she was using her phone. I think she was just generally distracted.
I’m not convinced that extra legislation would make much difference and we certainly don’t have the numbers of police to be able to enforce it.
I must say that I am often shocked by the incredibly poor situational awareness that most people seem to display.
Not so much just the odd
Not so much just the odd pedestrian, either – I’ve had whole families step into the road in front of me.
– dead straight road with good visibility, 40mph speed limit, no other vehicles around. Extended family on left pavement, some of whom crossed ahead of me – they had plenty of time to get across the road before I got there, so so far, so good.
Remaining family, including woman with small child in pushchair, wait at side of the road, looking at me, so I know they’ve seen me. By then, I’d moved out towards the centre of the road and it was just as well I had, as woman with pushchair waits until last possible second before pushing pushchair out into the road! Got past ok, but what sort of moron pushes a pushchair in the path of a road user?
– Another occasion, approaching a mini roundabout. Again, straight road, good visibility, no other vehicles around. Mother with 3 kids waiting on pedestrian island on the right of my lane just before the roundabout suddenly decides to walk off island practically on top of me. She was very apologetic, but what the hell was she thinking at the time?
The pedestrian should be
The pedestrian should be prosecuted for something. Manslaughter, causing danger to other road users, there must be something?
Whilst pedestrians are the most vulnerable of road users and attract a higher duty of care from other road users, an adult person of sound mind should not be unaccountable for their actions.
In these circumstances the pedestrian stepping out caused a person on a bicycle, riding presumably lawfully and properly on the road, to lose his life.
Yet the Police in their wisdom decide to tell the grieving family their lost one could have been prosecuted had he survived?
Assholes.
I would heartily suggest a private prosecution.
Critchio wrote:
Are pedestrians any more vulnerable than cyclists? I’d say cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, we haven’t got pavement to walk on and are expected to mix it up with the lorries, and in a crash between pedestrians and cyclists the cyclists comes off as badly if not worse in most cases I’ve seen. Perhaps we should introduce laws against jaywalking? That way if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclists then there’s clarity.
Critchio wrote:
I’d back a private prosecution in this case, another cyclist’s life needlessly lost due to non-cyclists using the road without due care and attention.
CDF maybe, is there a Just Giving page or something?
I would write to the local MP (John Redwood), but he’s a selfish Toad Working At Toadhall who isn’t interested unless it affects him. (He voted to leave the EU despite the vast majority of his consituency voting against leaving the EU in the referendum, and he told us so beforehand becuase that’s what he wanted to do).
Critchio wrote:
Scottish law has the common law offence of culpable and reckless conduct (blatantly copied from wikipedia):
Recklessness
For the purposes of criminal liability ⎯
(a) something is caused recklessly if the person causing the result is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk that acting will bring about the result but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so;
(b) a person is reckless as to a circumstance, or as to a possible result of an act, if the person is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk that the circumstance exists, or that the result will follow, but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so;
(c) a person acts recklessly if the person is, or ought to be, aware of an obvious and serious risk of dangers or of possible harmful results in so acting but nonetheless acts where no reasonable person would do so.
I am not a lawyer, but to me stepping out into the road with looking for cyclists sounds like it would meet that definition. Not that this incident occured in scotland though.
I was nearly taken out by two
I was nearly taken out by two squirrels the other day who stepped out into the road.
Where do I go for judicial retribution against this wildlife menace? They just wander around the countryside treating it as if it’s their home.
billymansell wrote:
little bastards keep running through my wheels, will get one one day!
KINGHORN wrote:
Where do I go for judicial retribution against this wildlife menace? They just wander around the countryside treating it as if it’s their home.— KINGHORN
little bastards keep running through my wheels, will get one one day!— billymansell
If you’re going to get between a squirrel and its crack, you’re just asking for it!
zanf wrote:
Ah, fuck, Morty, what did you do? All right, Morty, pack your shit! That’s only gonna keep ’em down for a little bit, Morty! You fucked with squirrels, Morty! We got a good five minutes before they’re backing up on our ass, Morty! We have to pack up and move to a new reality, Morty! You know I said we could only do that a couple of times! We’re fucked over here because of these damn squirrels, Morty!
Wondering if there are any
Wondering if there are any driver KSIs attributed to pedestrians (swerve, hit tree, etc). I would imagine there are some.
kil0ran wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32622465
kil0ran wrote:
No, they just run them over, put a bike next to them and then drive off without any prosecution.
Between this story and the
Between this story and the response to the Alliston/Briggs story, I’m really beginning to worry that something wicked this way comes…
I’ll get my (tinfoil) hat…
To get a wider perspective,
To get a wider perspective, does anyone know how the law in more cycling enlightened countries handle this?
Questions of road use, right of way, due care and attention and general responsibility supported by law.
In 2003 a pedestrian ran into
In 2003 a pedestrian ran into my lane whilst I was driving.
She was running across the road. She hadn’t seen me as she was looking behind her.
Despite approaching a red traffic light and only doing 10-15mph and swerving away from her,I couldn’t stop in time. She ran straight into the passenger side wing, fell across the bonnet, and smashed her head on the windscreen, then rolled down the side of the car. She suffered a fractured skull and had no memory of anything up until 3 weeks before the collision. The car required a new wing, wing mirror and windsceen.
The police investigated the collision and decided that had no case to answer. The pedestrian never pursued an insurance claim against me.
So no you are not automatically prosecuted for hitting a pedestrian.
We are now prosecuted (in
We are now prosecuted (in theory) for using a phone whilst driving but yet are able to wander around head down, phone out, in zombie mode, with no comeback when it causes an accident.
There needs to be a sea-change that as a pedestrian you don’t have blanket immunity for all responsibility because ‘pedestrians have right of way’. If you step out in front a lorry that swerves and then causes another accident and 10 people die then you need to be punished rather than just ‘oh well’.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Indeed, and the biggest problem now on shared use paths is pedestrians with head down looking at mobile phone, closely followed by the dog on a 5m lead. Would you be charged with causing death by dangerous driving if you collided with a phone-walker? Would a dog owner be charged with causing death by dangerous dog walking if a cyclist hit the lead, fell off and died?
Both probably about the same risk as a cyclist killing a pedestrian in a 14mph collision.
This review is going to be very interesting.
We don’t know any of the
We don’t know any of the circumstances in this case. I strongly believe for the Police to have made the statement above there must be something we do not know in the actions leading up to the collision.
Whilst a pedestrian might be negligent it is still up to the other road users to mitigate the consequences of that negligence.
Charlie Alliston was convicted as much for his attitude as the illegality of the bike. he gave the impression that he believed that it was not his obligation to slow as he had “right of way”. Whoever was to blame initially he should have tried as hard as he could to avoid the collision.
I benefited from this last week. I was going downhill at 25mph on a straight road when a car appeared on my left exiting a farmers field through a small gap in the hedge only visible from 10yds before you reached it.
It was too late to brake and to avoid collision I had to veer right into the oncoming lane. Two cars were coming towards me but they both saw what was happening and they stopped and made room for me to pass on their side of the road.
Had they hit me they could easily have claimed it was not their fault.
Mrs Briggs deserved the same consideration from Charlie Alliston and for all we know so did Nathan Kellsell.
Some defendents really ask for the verdicts they are given like Charle Alliston. If he had said that he did all he could to stop no one would have been able to argue and it would have put his case in an entirely different light.
It reminds me of the case of Tony Martin (from Norwich not Germany) who talked himself into a shooting conviction when there was an obvious defense which just required him to take it.
ooldbaker wrote:
The inquest actually found the pedestrian to be at fault, even after they tried to find a way to blame the cyclist, pointing at clothing, helmet, speed (26mph, which I don’t believe), couldn’t prove the traffic lights were green for the cyclist (innocent until proven guilty?!). Maybe you should read up on the case a little?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Isn’t this the case where the ped had been to the pub and was in a rush to get to the sweet shop?
– if so, the CPS would never throw money down the drain even considering bringing it to court
beezus fufoon wrote:
Yeah, WTF is pub then sweets? Is this a thing the yoof do these days?
Little shit better mean ‘drugs’.
There has been a lot of talk
There has been a lot of talk and posts on Road.cc in the past about presumed liability, if that were present who do you think would be presumed to be at fault by law? the pedestrain walking or the cyclist travelling at a higher speed?
STATO wrote:
In civil law the least vulnerable party would be liable unless they could prove blame on the vulnerable party.
It would have no effect whatever on criminal liability.
Cyclists would have to pay damages to the pedestrian even if the pedestrian was at fault but you could not prove it.
STATO wrote:
Who says pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists in cycle v ped collisions?
I don’t believe that to be true.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I wonder about that too. I’ve read of several cases in which cyclists have been killed or injured by pedestrians (walking or jogging).
The pedestrian crossing video
The pedestrian crossing video: @karlssberg “I broke my finger”. Tit. You could have killed someone.
I have to admit, the children running in to the road were lucky to survive and I don’t think you’d have been wholly at fault. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time they’d run in to the road, but it would be good to think it was the last.
And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBfkpKtbiv0 – you’re totally in the wrong to have overtaken the bus in the first place. Whatever you may claim the police told you.
Perhaps you could post some videos of finer examples of your own bike-craft to restore respect in your own riding.
simonmb wrote:
That bus overtake was rather stupid, but, and it’s a separate issue… that’s no excuse for the truck driver ploughing through as if he couldn’t harm the cyclist. Two wrongs obviously don’t make a right and it doesn’t excuse the reckless overtake.
Imagine you are driving and a cyclist suddenly veers into your lane coming towards you, would you carry on or exercise some caution and maybe slow to a speed relative to the proximity?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
In London traffic if you don’t plough through you don’t get anywhere. This scares people who aren’t use to it especially as the aggressiveness of the driving varies from borough to borough, and even within parts of the same borough. There are boroughs or parts of boroughs were people refuse to use any form of vehicle unless they are a passenger.
If you do stupid things like overtake a bus when there is no room so you are on the wrong side of the road and you are in one of the more aggressive parts, then don’t be surprised if other road users don’t stop until the last possible minute if they have to stop.
I didn’t like this article
I didn’t like this article when I saw it on Get Reading yesterday. Who exactly is ‘the Police’? Some random copper in the pub or a senior spokesperson – all we have is hearsay that someone who works for the Police said something. Besides, it is not down to the Police to say who gets prosecuted for what, surely that is the role of the Crown Prosecution Service?
Each year that passes sees
Each year that passes sees cyclists seemingly get worse at riding defensively but pedestrians have certainly tried to out do cyclists with such regular feats such as be crossing from behind or in front of buses, crossing while having headphones in and not looking, looking at their phone with headphones in or my personal favourite crossing inbetween two crossings which is often undertaken by the older generation. I guess while laws will help but natural selection is a stronger force at the moment.
Clearly the only way to avoid
Clearly the only way to avoid prosecution in these circumstances(if your not dead) to do nothing to and take no action to avoiding the collision. go with the Michael Mason defence. I didn’t see anything, it was ‘sky potatoes!’
cast iron get out of jail free card, you could perhaps suggest the sun was in the sky too, that one works every time too.
I’ve been in a number of
I’ve been in a number of collisions with pedestrians (and have also been guilty of being an ignorant pedestrian that wasn’t looking where I was going, but not with any serious consequences). Personally I think cyclists are the ones that need extra (legal) protection as they are more likely to be knocked flying into the path of an oncoming motor vehicle or something equally unpleasant.
Below are some of my collisions with pedestrians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4f32X3LtgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dM6K8Ps4rs
There seems to be some confusion about overtaking at crossing… Although Highway Code rule 191 states that vehicles must not overtake at a crossing, the wording is problematic. The actual law states that it only applies to motor vehicles. So cycles ARE permitted to overtake other vehicles at crossings.
At zebra crossings, you only need to give way to pedestrians that have stepped onto the crossing. You don’t have to wait for them to fully cross.
I am the first to admit that with hindsight there is something that could have been done to avoid these accidents. But hindsight is an exact science and no amount of holier-than-thou analysis will save you from your own fallibilities. That said, I sincerely hope you all have the good fortune to avoid situations such as these, it’s a pretty unpleasant experience.
Ride Safely everyone
karlssberg wrote:
Are you including these examples as how not to ride?
Milkfloat wrote:
I just watched both those videos . In the zebra crossing one, you are 100% in the wrong. You do not enter the zebra crossing until it’s clear (precisely because of this eventuality). Second video, you can see kids playing, you need to be aware. Move out to take the centre of the road.
If you think these examples show that you are a good responsible rider, please reconsider.
angriest wrote:
I agree with you 100%.
General rule if you see children or animals especially dogs on leads you slow down as they are unpredicatable.
Bluebug wrote:
I don’t think we’re supposed to keep children on leads these days.
angriest wrote:
Amen to that, I’d be ashamed to have these videos on my hard drive.
angriest wrote:
This. I watched the videos and was baffled that you’d post this as evidence that cyclists need legal protection from pedestrians. If you run into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, you’re in the wrong. You ran the crossing after seeing someone step onto it, and undertaking a car that was blocking your view of people crossing the other way. Even if the pedestrian hadn’t done something odd, you could easily have run over someone crossing from the right. In the second one, you had plenty of time to see the kids were running around in the road. You just assumed that they were not going to go round again despite seeing one go round towards the back of the car. An easy mistake to make if you’re not paying close attention (I could easily have made the same error if distracted) but ultimately you had a good chance to avoid it. If the kid had appeared from no-where in the same gap, I’d have had a lot more sympathy for your situation, and this does happen. Another good reason for riding primary position past parked cars – gives you a slightly better chance to brake before hitting such kids, so the chances of serious injury to either of you are lower. You may avoid them altogether.
DaveE128 wrote:
DaveE128 wrote:
To be fair, whislt the first video is an example of terrible cycling, the second one is OK in my opinion. The rider had slowed and moved to the centre of teh road in a pre-emptive manner.
The fact that the riders could all but stop in time shows that it was perfectly acceptible cycling.
Not so the first video… poor form.
What a f***ing tw*t
What a f***ing tw*t
Milkfloat wrote:
Deleted
Milkfloat wrote:
For the sake of cyclists everywhere please take these of Youtube ASAP! I had a few incidents like this when I was young and learned from them. Always be prepared to stop approaching zebra crossings and when you see children playing in the street.
Milkfloat wrote:
Neither of those are good cycling technique. But I still think they fall into the category of understandable errors (assuming the cyclist is inexperienced).
In the first one, the cyclist should have stopped or at least slowed to a crawl (legally I’m pretty sure you have to stop if a ped is on a zebra crossing, even if they’ve gone beyond the part where you are). But I think the behaviour of the motorist is worse, even inexplicable.
Poor ped, caught between a crap driver and a bad cyclist.
In the second one while the cyclist should have been aware that little kids tend to run around randomly without looking, it is still true that the child was lucky it wasn’t a car. That road is too narrow for two way traffic plus two lanes of parking anyway. Bar it to cars, ban parking, or make it one-way!
karlssberg wrote:
As others have said, these are examples of how NOT to ride well.
karlssberg wrote:
Have you passed your driving test ? You never cross a zebra until the person is clear – to avoid cases like this. Undertaking a car with a pedestrian so close was incredibly stupid.
With the kids – I’d have been expecting that. Expect the worst and you won’t be too far wrong.
If I were you I’d be deleting those videos. It doesn’t make you look good.
fenix wrote:
Lots of local authorities do traffic cycling sessions – perhaps the OP should take one of those? Would help the OP on their hazard perception. Depending where you live or work they are free or cost up to £30.
karlssberg wrote:
How the hell did you not see the impending hazards in both of these videos and why did you not slow down?
karlssberg wrote:
Presumably this is some sort of wind up, or trying to get someone else in trouble. If not, I’d definitely not have those videos on public view, if it was me.
karlssberg wrote:
If I were you, I’d take those videos down as they could be used as evidence against you (e.g. a future collision).
The zebra crossing was simply bizarre – why did the car driver try to go forwards? A pedestrian has priority when on a zebra crossing (although you don’t necessarily have to stop if someone is waiting to cross) and you should have been a perfectly good view of what was going on, so I’d say that collision was entirely preventable and your fault.
The children playing on the side of the road and then chasing into the road was careless on your part. Yes, they shouldn’t have run into the road, but you had clear sight of them as you turned into the road and you should have predicted that they could run into the road – running children are a well-known hazard. I would have moved further into the middle of the road after seeing children running on the pavement – more space for moving/braking and the possibility of avoiding without having to slow down.
A good tip with using helmet cameras is to review footage like that and try to impartially think what you could do to predict/avoid those situations in future. Learn from it rather than just blaming other people.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The car was queuing behind traffic turning right and I assume was not paying sufficient attention to notice the dog walker begin to cross the road. Silly, but explicable in that the walker may have been just outside of peripheral vision… the cyclist had no such excuse and displayed a shocking lack of awareness.
This
This kids were already running around the parked car and were an obvious hazard… they could only have been more obvious had they provided prior written notice of their intention to transgress into the path of the bicycle!
karlssberg wrote:
Those are simply apalling examples of roadcraft, or rather total lack of. You should hang your head in shame.
1. What sort of moron undertakes at a Zebra crossing? Period!
2. Kids playing in street. You could have protected those boys from harm.
The only redeeming aspect of your post is to illustrate what extremely poor hazard awareness looks like from a first person perspective, hopefully you learned from those situations and so can others, but I’m literally embarrassed for you.
Mungecrundle wrote:
@mungecrundle, it isn’t undertaking. Undertaking is what undertakers do. It is overtaking, regardless of whether you pass on the near side or the off side. But yes, overtaking at a crossing is prohibited:
191. You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
The kids playing in the street, even if you can’t see the kids, you can see that there is an obstacle that will obscure small children. The door zone isn’t the only reason to give parked vehicles a wide berth. In a situation like that, you should be in primary position, if only for your own protection. Keeping wide of parked vehicles will:
* prevent you from being door
* make you more visible
* allow you to see around obstacles better
* give you more time to react to anyting
* hopefully prevent other road users from trying to pass you (the last thing you want is to have truck over take you when a bunch of kids run out from behind a vehicle).
There are enough opportunities to get wiped out by inattentive pedestrians, you don’t need to create more.
karlssberg wrote:
ooops, if they’re the best examples of careless pedestrianism you have, I’m guessing you have some videos where you ride on the pavement, knocking them flying, Crazy Taxi-style, and then blame them for not looking.
Might have a trawl later.
karlssberg wrote:
Below are some of my collisions with pedestrians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4f32X3LtgY
…— karlssberg
that dog has the best road sense of anyone on the video
karlssberg wrote:
Really? I mean, are you being serious?
– Undertakes a single car at zebra crossing while pedestrian crosses with a dog, leaving absolutely fuck all margin with predictable results.
– Sees kids playing boisterously up ahead, continues at normal speed, doesn’t create any margin by moving to the centre or right of the street, again with predictable results. In fact I would argue that you did predict that result and just wanted to teach them a lesson; I mean, who genuinely shouts out like that when taken by surprise and performing an emergency stop?
– Overtakes a bus with absolutely no visibility of what’s on the other side of it, squeezes between the bus and a lorry that was already there. “I’m on my side of the road” – you do know that other vehicles are allowed to cross the white line, right? I don’t believe there’s a police officer in the land who would caution the lorry driver in that video. The driver had two, perhaps three seconds to do anything about your sudden appearance in his path. Could easily have been checking his nearside mirror or speedo.
If you’re going to take unnecessary risks, maybe don’t be so self-righteous when it all inevitably goes wrong.
karlssberg wrote:
To be honest having seen those videos you are a total dick head. If you carry on like that you are going to go the way of Charlie Alliston or have a story about you with a broken bike. You could of course try riding sensibly and avoid either outcome, the choice is yours.
karlssberg wrote:
Cyclists are permitted to go down a big hill with their eyes closed, would you do it?
What you believe you HAVE to do isn’t really the factor, when passing the inside of the car you were both going too fast and not giving yourself clear visibility. When vehicles are stopped at a zebra crossing you will often see people joining from each side, some often join from behind a car etc. to meet half way in the road, again not best practice but quite common.
If it was me you’d hit riding like that, I’d have helped you up just so I could put you on your derrier again!
It is obvious that the only
It is obvious that the only way cyclists can protect themselves is to demonize a more vulnerable group; Freakin Pedestritard Morons, Zombified Walkwankers. Seems to work for drivers.
A war between cyclists and
A war between cyclists and pedestrians seems really meaningless and diving to me. For me getting killed by absent-minded pedestrian seems equally possible with the death from a piano fall, donkey kick or a bathroom electrocution
cyclisto wrote:
That’s the point. The motoring lobby seeks to divide and conquer. If they can get the government and media to foment a phoney war between “pedestrians” and “cyclists” (because nobody’s both, right?), the most vulnerable groups of road users won’t have as loud a voice as they could do against the most dangerous.
Looks given: one. Cyclists
Looks given: one. Cyclists seen: one (me). Fucks given: zero.
I get it from pedestrians (and motorists) every day.
Before the prick deliberately walked out on me yesterday morning (laughing as I cursed and slammed on the brakes), I was near work, thinking what a nice ride it’d been and how most motorists/pedestrians/fellow cyclists are actually alright. And they are.
Got to keep remembering that.
Beecho wrote:
These twats are everywhere. Had one on Sunday that didn’t want to cross at the crossing 30ft away and started meandering across, shopping in hand. As I approached, eye contact was made and still they came, confident I would stop for them or something. I didn’t slow down as I was only doing about 15 with a front brake(not 18!) and they had to eventually stop for 2 seconds as I rode past.
As I passed them they then screamed “boo” at the top of the voice, I just looked round, shook my head and kept on riding. She thought it was hilarious. Small things.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
“Small things” – that would be many people’s (1) capacity for rational thought, and (2) empathy with their fellow humans, then?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Wish I had £1 for every time I’ve been passed by a car and the passenger has found it funny to scream something on the way past. Cracks me up every time – bastards!
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Substitute pedestrian for cyclist, “shopping” for “lycra clad”, “crossing” for “cycle lane” “meandering” for “2 abreast” and “I didn’t slow down” for “punishment pass”.
Pedestrians in the road? Tough. Slow down and yield priority or accept that drivers of larger vehicles have the same privileges as yourself when bullying their way past inconvenient slower, smaller, more vulnerable road users.
As to your pedestrian, you had no idea if they were drunk, suicidal, mentally disturbed, looking to cause you harm or just daft. Proceed with caution!
Mungecrundle wrote:
Substitute pedestrian for cyclist, “shopping” for “lycra clad”, “crossing” for “cycle lane” “meandering” for “2 abreast” and “I didn’t slow down” for “punishment pass”. Pedestrians in the road? Tough. Slow down and yield priority or accept that drivers of larger vehicles have the same privileges as yourself when bullying their way past inconvenient slower, smaller, more vulnerable road users. As to your pedestrian, you had no idea if they were drunk, suicidal, mentally disturbed, looking to cause you harm or just daft. Proceed with caution![/quote]
No. I was aware the person was there. They were aware I was there. They chose to try and cross 30ft from a proper crossing for which I would have legally stopped.
Stop all this pedestrian being the highest form of life thought. If they are choosing the enter the road literally feet away from proper crossing then sorry, imo they don’t have ‘right of way’. Nobody got punishment passed – pedestrian chose to keep walking towards a vehicle already in the road.
If it was an elderly person/child/disabled person my attitude and I’d happily yield. It was just a chancer that didn’t care. When pedestrians have accidents that don’t involve being at proper crossing points either the vehicle was somewhere it shouldn’t have been or the pedestrian was.
Mungecrundle wrote:
All very good points.
Unfortunately pedestrians don
Unfortunately pedestrians don’t give any consideration to cyclists because they cant hear them therefore the road must be clear.
So far I have been lucky and managed to avoid any accidents involving pedestrians, but going by the fact that pedestrians meandering out in front of me is pretty much a daily occurance there will come a point when an accident will happen.
But to be fair some pedestrians just dont give any fucks at all…. Sat in a queue of traffic in my car, a pedestrian, listening to music and texting on her phone, walks through the line of stationary traffic, and straight onto the live carriageway in front of a van. How the van managed to stop and avoid hitting her I don’t know…… but the best part is…. the pedestrian never even noticed the van, no reaction to the fact that the van must have stopped less than a couple of feet from them…. just kept texting and walking without a care in the world
Disagree in the first
Disagree in the first instance Fluffy. We don’t know what happened with the driver, effed up, foot slipped who knows? But they’d stopped and were presumably letting someone cross. The rider was travelling at a decent speed and had no intention of lessening it, looking for a gap, an opportunity. It’s hard to beg for 1.5m and then dive down the inside of a car like that. Ignorant, arrogant, shite cycling.
The second is 50:50 and not really representative of what was being discussed. Appears the parents a moron for letting them play like that and the cyclist should have been able to see it coming. In fairness had scrubbed some speed off. What a car would do isn’t really worth thinking about…