Near Miss of the Day 190: Pedestrian steps out in front of cyclist

45 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 190: Pedestrian steps out in front of cyclist”

1. I wonder if a local head

   I wonder if a local head teacher will insist all pupils wear number plates on their backs to identify them in the case of such incidents.

    

   …..hmmm…..thought not.

   Log In or Register to post comments

2. She didn’t even glance to her

   She didn’t even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

    

   BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • EK Spinner wrote:

     BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

     — EK Spinner

      

     I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Mungecrundle wrote:

       BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

       — Mungecrundle

        

       I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

       — EK Spinner

        

       I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • John Smith wrote:

         BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

         — John Smith

          

         I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

         — Mungecrundle

          

         I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

         — EK Spinner

         Again, define ‘going some’, he clearly was not ‘going some’ at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

         How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

           BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

           — BehindTheBikesheds

            

           I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

           — John Smith

            

           I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

           — Mungecrundle

           Again, define ‘going some’, he clearly was not ‘going some’ at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

           How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

           — EK Spinner

            

           By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

            

           Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

            

           How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

         • John Smith wrote:

           BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

           — John Smith

            

           I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

           — BehindTheBikesheds

            

           I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

           — John Smith

           Again, define ‘going some’, he clearly was not ‘going some’ at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

           How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

           — Mungecrundle

            

           By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

            

           Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

            

           How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

           — EK Spinner

            

           I’m not sure where you got the figure for a filtering speed of 20mph on a motorcycle. My ex police biker mate tells me the filtering speed is 10-15mph as advised by the Cops. When I’m filtering on my motorbike, I do it at a max of 10mph higher than the speed of the vehilces i’m passing. 

           The cyclist in this instance looks to have been going too fast.

         • OldRidgeback wrote:

           BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

           — OldRidgeback

            

           I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

           — John Smith

            

           I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

           — BehindTheBikesheds

           Again, define ‘going some’, he clearly was not ‘going some’ at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

           How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

           — John Smith

            

           By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

            

           Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

            

           How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

           — Mungecrundle

            

           I’m not sure where you got the figure for a filtering speed of 20mph on a motorcycle. My ex police biker mate tells me the filtering speed is 10-15mph as advised by the Cops. When I’m filtering on my motorbike, I do it at a max of 10mph higher than the speed of the vehilces i’m passing. 

           The cyclist in this instance looks to have been going too fast.

           — EK Spinner

           20+20 (20mph faster than the traffic, up to traffic moving at 20mph) was what I was taught, but I also recognise that this is more of a nice round number that is easy to pass on than a strict rule. The point is a cyclist that seems to be doing somewhere close to what a motorbike should be doing as a maximum in ideal conditions, on a bicycle between lorry’s and vans in a built up area.

         • John Smith wrote:

           BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

           — John Smith

            

           I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

           — OldRidgeback

            

           I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

           — John Smith

           Again, define ‘going some’, he clearly was not ‘going some’ at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

           How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

           — BehindTheBikesheds

            

           By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

            

           Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

            

           How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

           — John Smith

            

           I’m not sure where you got the figure for a filtering speed of 20mph on a motorcycle. My ex police biker mate tells me the filtering speed is 10-15mph as advised by the Cops. When I’m filtering on my motorbike, I do it at a max of 10mph higher than the speed of the vehilces i’m passing. 

           The cyclist in this instance looks to have been going too fast.

           — Mungecrundle

           20+20 (20mph faster than the traffic, up to traffic moving at 20mph) was what I was taught, but I also recognise that this is more of a nice round number that is easy to pass on than a strict rule. The point is a cyclist that seems to be doing somewhere close to what a motorbike should be doing as a maximum in ideal conditions, on a bicycle between lorry’s and vans in a built up area.

           — EK Spinner

            

           Well we’ll have to agree not to agree on the filtering speed then. I had a  copy of the police roadcraft publication somewhere but I haven’t seen it in a while so I can’t check it to be sure.

           My feeling about the cyclist in this instance is that he/she was pushing it to the limit and was very lucky to be able to stop in time. 

           Riding on 2 wheels (where with an engine or not) you have to suppose that you’re surrounded by idiots who don’t give a stuff about their own safety or yours either for that matter. The closer to the limit you ride, the less chance you’ve got of saving a situation when something goes wrong.

         • BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

            

            

           Again, define ‘going some’, he clearly was not ‘going some’ at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

           How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

           — BehindTheBikesheds

            

           You want someone to define ‘going some’ as a definitive yet talk absolute shit about ‘most definitely’ have been struck if it was a motorcycle.

            

           You are aware that some tossers ride bikes badly and some good people ride motorcycles; just like there’s some shit posts on here (naming no names)…

       • John Smith wrote:

         BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

         — John Smith

          

         I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

         — Mungecrundle

          

         I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

         — EK Spinner

         Aren’t those all civil liability cases? (involving filtering bike / crossing car collisions and split on liability)….no ideas if either motorcyclist or driver prosecuted in any of those cases ? 

         Cyclist saw the ped’ and stopped. 

         My opinion not the best example that Road CC could have chosen – looks like a young person who probably should know better but doesn’t and a cyclist who used their road ninja skills – near misses I experience with peds (sorry no video)usually fall in the I’m an adult and know better:- “its a red light for me but its only a cyclist so I’ll cross”…”I don’t bother looking when I step out to go to the drivers door because the vehicles are all in the other lane”….”the cycle lane is a space for me to walk along whilst I wait for a gap in the traffic to cross” etc 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • antigee wrote:

           ..”the cycle lane is a space for me to walk along whilst I wait for a gap in the traffic to cross” etc 

           — antigee

           Actually, cycle lanes are advanced stop lines for pedestrians.

   • EK Spinner wrote:

     She didn’t even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

      

     BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

     — EK Spinner

     How quick?

     12mph max, any quicker and he’d never be able to stop like he did and it was obviously a controlled stop at that without histrionics/wheel lock etc..

     He was obviously looking out and able to stop to avoid a collision, yet the ped simply ran into his path without any consideration whatsoever.

     Ever wonder why despite bias/discrimination against people on bikes by police and the justice system, pedestrians are 50% more at fault for their own demise in collisions with cyclists?

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • EK Spinner wrote:

     She didn’t even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

      

     BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

     — EK Spinner

      

     I couldn’t agree more – yep the pedestrian didn’t look first but that filtering speed is way too high.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • OldRidgeback wrote:

       She didn’t even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

        

       BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

       — OldRidgeback

        

       I couldn’t agree more – yep the pedestrian didn’t look first but that filtering speed is way too high.

       — EK Spinner

       It may have been too fast for your liking, but the cyclist was paying attention, was in control and was able to safely stop for a hidden pedestrian. If only motorists held themselves to those same standards.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • hawkinspeter wrote:

         She didn’t even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

          

         BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

         — hawkinspeter

          

         I couldn’t agree more – yep the pedestrian didn’t look first but that filtering speed is way too high.

         — OldRidgeback

         It may have been too fast for your liking, but the cyclist was paying attention, was in control and was able to safely stop for a hidden pedestrian. If only motorists held themselves to those same standards.

         — EK Spinner

         No, he was able to stop for a pedestrian he had already seen on the pavement. If she had been obscured by the van for the entire time of his approach, then he probably wouldn’t have slowed down in time and would have hit her.

         Log In or Register to post comments

3. Having reason to drive

   Having reason to drive through Manchester the last few weeks, I’d say this was pretty normal behaviour for peds there.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. To me that looked lucky

   To me that looked lucky rather than cyclist taking care not to go faster than the sight distance. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Really no bike or ped

   Really no bike or ped infrastructure. Thousands of busy people left to muddle thru the dangers daily.

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. Looks like good riding skills

   Looks like good riding skills to me – he was obviously looking for a possible hazard after the lorry.

   I hope the pedestrian learns to not cross by high sided vehicles in future as she could just as easily have crossed between the cars just a few feet further along and had a much better view of traffic.

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. I was going down a shallow

   I was going down a shallow hill a few weeks ago, doing maybe 40kph. Jogger on the left pavement. As I was about to pass him he swerved into the road to cross from left to right. He did not look behind before moving into the road. I missed him by a couple of metres. I was shaken, I’m not sure he even noticed that anything happened. 

   Presumably he did that ped thing of I can’t hear anything so nothing is coming and I don’t need to look. Did I mention he was wearing headphones?

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Miller wrote:

     I was going down a shallow hill a few weeks ago, doing maybe 40kph. Jogger on the left pavement. As I was about to pass him he swerved into the road to cross from left to right. He did not look behind before moving into the road. I missed him by a couple of metres. I was shaken, I’m not sure he even noticed that anything happened. 

     Presumably he did that ped thing of I can’t hear anything so nothing is coming and I don’t need to look. Did I mention he was wearing headphones?

     — Miller

      

     Had the same happen to me but I was going about 20 mph and the guy only stepped out in to the road and ran parallel to the pavement to pass a couple of people blocking his way, but he made absolutely no attempt to look behind him to see if it was a safe move to make.

     Of course I was the one in the wrong when I told him he need to look behind him.  Some people are just waiting to be RTA statistics

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. Definitely unwise to be
   Definitely unwise to be filtering at that speed, esp between high sided vehicles on a bike which has no engine to alert idiot pedestrians to their presence. Not to mention the risk o from idiot passengers with dooring.

   As it was, he just got away with it. Was the ped in the wrong? Of course, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t come a cropper if one of the above scenarios happens.

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Speed wasn’t an issue here,

   Speed wasn’t an issue here, cyclist had plenty of good clear sight of where he was going.

   The reason for slowing when filtering is so that YOU don’t get hurt by idiots not seeing you, not so that you don’t hurt people that randomly run out in front of you without looking properly. Jeez, if we all travelled at such a low speed in case someone did something random we’d all be faster walking rather than driving, etc.

   Do drivers slow to walking pace when passing a row of parked cars?

   You can extend the logic to trains, max of 1mph, just in case someone jumps/falls off the platform directly in front of the train, it happens nearly every day!

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. He didn’t slow down just

    He didn’t slow down just because he was passing the van and anticipated a hazard. He slowed down going past the white van because he had already seen her and had good reason to believe she was going to walk out in front of him. Watch again between 3s and 4s – as he clears the blue van you can see her on the pavement running towards the road. He anticipates her running on into the road – stupid on her part – so he slows down. I didn’t notice her the first time because I was looking ahead, but he saw her on the pavement. Well done.

    However… if he’d not seen her at that point, like if she was coming at it from a different angle, then I’ll bet he wouldn’t have slowed down (given he didn’t slow down passing the blue van a second before) and so would have hit her.

    So high marks for observation and anticipation, low marks for going that speed while filtering in the first place.

    As an aside, my driving instructor used to play tricks on me along these lines. I’d be driving towards a roundabout like 50 yards ahead and he’d say “At the roundabout, wait for the yellow car to pass and then take the second exit”, and I’d be wondering how he knew there would be a yellow car on the roundabout when I got there. He told me he looked down the side roads to the other roads that met the roundabout we were coming to, and could make a reasonable guess at what cars would be there when we arrived.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. Having been knocked off three

    Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians, all three their fault, I can heartily support the notion that it isn’t always the cyclists’ fault.  Two were schoolchildren who just ran across the road to see their mates, and the third was an ambulaceman outside a hospital on a pedestrian crossing, with the lights green for me.  I was going uphill so only doing 10mph, and he looked straight at me and then walked into my front wheel.  All were in broad daylight.

    I’m so grateful that the government is doing this investigation into cyclist/pedestrian collisions, because if it is impartial, it will find that the main problem is the pedestrians, and that cyclists are more often the victim so they will bring in a law about dangerous walking.  Of course they will.  Definitely.  Absolutely certainly.  Unless the whole thing is a stitch up.  And those nice politicians, so respected for their honesty and impartiality, wouldn’t do that would they?

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • burtthebike wrote:

      Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians, all three their fault, I can heartily support the notion that it isn’t always the cyclists’ fault.  Two were schoolchildren who just ran across the road to see their mates, and the third was an ambulaceman outside a hospital on a pedestrian crossing, with the lights green for me.  I was going uphill so only doing 10mph, and he looked straight at me and then walked into my front wheel.  All were in broad daylight.

      I’m so grateful that the government is doing this investigation into cyclist/pedestrian collisions, because if it is impartial, it will find that the main problem is the pedestrians, and that cyclists are more often the victim so they will bring in a law about dangerous walking.  Of course they will.  Definitely.  Absolutely certainly.  Unless the whole thing is a stitch up.  And those nice politicians, so respected for their honesty and impartiality, wouldn’t do that would they?

      — burtthebike

      Stop being so cynical. 

      It’s not as if the DfT kicked off the investigation by commissioning a report from Laura Thomas, a lawyer who used to be on the Freight Transport Association’s board. You remember the FTA, the well-known champions of all things cycling, which counts such transport luminaries as EX-MP [that still makes me happy] Rob Flello among their members, paid to blog evidence-free drivel like blame cycle lanes for congestion. 

      And that report attempted to rebut the criticisms of the need for a separate consultation by referring to cyclist-ped collisions, but then tried to hide the good stuff that undermined their rebuttal (like peds being responsible for most of those collisions) in the noise at the back.

      Oh it is exactly like that? 

      Yeah, cynic away… 

      Log In or Register to post comments

12. I would of filtered, but for

    I would of filtered, but for me at a much slower speed, less than 10mph

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. that idiot nearly got the kim

    that idiot nearly got the kim brigg award.

     

    they never learn.

     

    * then again slow down if your vision is obstructed.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • jlebrech wrote:

      that idiot nearly got the kim brigg award.

       

      they never learn.

       

      * then again slow down if your vision is obstructed.

      — jlebrech

      *Who* never learn?  Cyclists filtering on a main road, or schoolchildren running across a main road without stopping or looking?  (Or motorists sitting in a traffic jam complaining about all the traffic?).

      Log In or Register to post comments

14. I have mixed feelings.

    I have mixed feelings.

     

    Yes it illustrates the absurdity of the stupid ‘stop the killer cyclists’ moral panic, that assumes it’s always the cyclist’s fault (while never taking the same view on the vastly higher bodycount due to motorists).

     

    But it was just a kid and I don’t blame her for not thinking of the possibility of filtering cyclists in places she couldn’t see between vehicles.  It’s not common enough a thing for people to necessarily think about it.

     

    Peds often have to try and scurry across at whatever time and place they can find, becuase road- and town- planners treat them with almost as much contempt as they do cyclists.

     

    I’m not sure how much to blame either party.  Would rather wonder why the child felt they had to cross there and whether that is down to a failure to provide enough pedestrian routes.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

      I have mixed feelings.

       

      Yes it illustrates the absurdity of the stupid ‘stop the killer cyclists’ moral panic, that assumes it’s always the cyclist’s fault (while never taking the same view on the vastly higher bodycount due to motorists).

       

      But it was just a kid and I don’t blame her for not thinking of the possibility of filtering cyclists in places she couldn’t see between vehicles.  It’s not common enough a thing for people to necessarily think about it.

       

      Peds often have to try and scurry across at whatever time and place they can find, becuase road- and town- planners treat them with almost as much contempt as they do cyclists.

       

      I’m not sure how much to blame either party.  Would rather wonder why the child felt they had to cross there and whether that is down to a failure to provide enough pedestrian routes.

      — FluffyKittenofTindalos

      The child didn’t have to cross there at all – she could have crossed between two cars and avoided the whole high-sided lorry issue.

      What we should have is a national campaign teaching kids (and anyone using a phone) how to cross the road safely. It could be made appealing and interesting to kids by featuring some kind of woodland creature, maybe. Possibly even have some kind of club membership to go with it.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690166.stm

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • hawkinspeter wrote:

        Peds often have to try and scurry across at whatever time and place they can find, becuase road- and town- planners treat them with almost as much contempt as they do cyclists.

        I’m not sure how much to blame either party.  Would rather wonder why the child felt they had to cross there and whether that is down to a failure to provide enough pedestrian routes.

        — hawkinspeter

        The child didn’t have to cross there at all – she could have crossed between two cars and avoided the whole high-sided lorry issue.

         

        — FluffyKittenofTindalos

        She didn’t have to cross there at all – there is a pedestrian crossing just yards to the south of where she crossed

        https://goo.gl/maps/1VeFTCirbct

        and another at the junction with the Mancunian Way a few more yards north :

        https://goo.gl/maps/3esdDFvMhny

        Edit: to fix links and to add, the reason she didn’t use them is probably similar as to why the cyclist isn’t using the segregated bike lane  that runs alongside the  southbound carriageway – i.e (in)convenience / speed / directness. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

15. Don’t want to end up like

    Don’t want to end up like Willy Weasel

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

16. Alan S Murphy’s Law – the

    Alan S Murphy’s Law – the likelyhood that a discussion on road.cc will result in squirrels increases exponentially with the number of posts

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • CygnusX1 wrote:

      Alan S Murphy’s Law

      — CygnusX1

       

      Infamy, they’ve all got it infamy!

       

      Interestingly, the Murphy’s once had huntingdons disease in the family and one of the signs of madness was seeing squirrells – it’s all making sense now!

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • alansmurphy wrote:

        Alan S Murphy’s Law

        — alansmurphy

        Infamy, they’ve all got it infamy!

         

        Interestingly, the Murphy’s once had huntingdons disease in the family and one of the signs of madness was seeing squirrells – it’s all making sense now!

        — CygnusX1

        Oh shit!

         

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • hawkinspeter wrote:

          Alan S Murphy’s Law

          — hawkinspeter

          Infamy, they’ve all got it infamy!

           

          Interestingly, the Murphy’s once had huntingdons disease in the family and one of the signs of madness was seeing squirrells – it’s all making sense now!

          — alansmurphy

          Oh shit!

           

          — CygnusX1

          You know, I can’t see the squirrel in that picture… Is it in one of the trees?

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • brooksby wrote:

            Alan S Murphy’s Law

            — brooksby

            Infamy, they’ve all got it infamy!

             

            Interestingly, the Murphy’s once had huntingdons disease in the family and one of the signs of madness was seeing squirrells – it’s all making sense now!

            — hawkinspeter

            Oh shit!

             

            — alansmurphy

            You know, I can’t see the squirrel in that picture… Is it in one of the trees?

            — CygnusX1

             

17. Used to have a Tufty Club

    Used to have a Tufty Club badge pinned to my coat (a blue one not unlike Tufty’s own, but mine also had mittens on a length of string down the arms so they couldn’t get lost at play-school). Also had a cereal bowl and a hanky IIRC.

    Ah, those were the days – when all coppers were badgers and actually did foot patrols.    

    Log In or Register to post comments

18. Sunday I’m waiting for a big

    Sunday I’m waiting for a big enough gap to get to the right filter lane on my local roads toward the retail park, stupidly it’s a 40mph single carriageway leading up to it, widens into a dual for no logical reason (and back to single through the lights) so it it causes all sorts of issues. It’s Sunday afty so very light traffic, I wait for a car to pass, observe a car about 100m back so move into the right lane before doing another shoulder check before moving into the filter lane, as I do so the driver of the car that was 100m behind is right there, he’d covered the distance in less than the circa 3 seconds it’d taken me to move across one lane. He slammed on thinking I was going to move right in front of him and skidded, even his ABS couldn’t stop his wheels locking up he was going that fast and that point was  c.25m to the actual turn.

    i wouldn’t have moved into the right filter lane straight from the far left without an additional shoulder check anyway but it was the fact he was absolutely pegging it well over 50% in excess of the 40mph limit* that he put me in danger. *100m at 74mph takes 3 seconds, even 80m is 60mph

    IF there had of being a collision and I had been killed it would have been placed right on me for not checking the lane was clear despite the fact someone else was breaking the law. Cyclists that are left hooked by motorists particularly in HGVs who don’t check that the lane is clear are found basically to be at fault for their own deaths (by defintion of the killer getting off), a pedestrian doesn’t check that the lane is clear but walks/runs out and collects a cyclist is absolved of blame all too often, the massive disparity is there in spades, the application of the rules/laws is so bent it’s criminal.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

      Sunday I’m waiting for a big enough gap to get to the right filter lane on my local roads toward the retail park, stupidly it’s a 40mph single carriageway leading up to it, widens into a dual for no logical reason (and back to single through the lights) so it it causes all sorts of issues. It’s Sunday afty so very light traffic, I wait for a car to pass, observe a car about 100m back so move into the right lane before doing another shoulder check before moving into the filter lane, as I do so the driver of the car that was 100m behind is right there, he’d covered the distance in less than the circa 3 seconds it’d taken me to move across one lane. He slammed on thinking I was going to move right in front of him and skidded, even his ABS couldn’t stop his wheels locking up he was going that fast and that point was  c.25m to the actual turn.

      i wouldn’t have moved into the right filter lane straight from the far left without an additional shoulder check anyway but it was the fact he was absolutely pegging it well over 50% in excess of the 40mph limit* that he put me in danger. *100m at 74mph takes 3 seconds, even 80m is 60mph

      IF there had of being a collision and I had been killed it would have been placed right on me for not checking the lane was clear despite the fact someone else was breaking the law. Cyclists that are left hooked by motorists particularly in HGVs who don’t check that the lane is clear are found basically to be at fault for their own deaths (by defintion of the killer getting off), a pedestrian doesn’t check that the lane is clear but walks/runs out and collects a cyclist is absolved of blame all too often, the massive disparity is there in spades, the application of the rules/laws is so bent it’s criminal.

      — BehindTheBikesheds

      That’s why I think we should have some kind of presumed liability laws to balance things up a bit.

      Log In or Register to post comments

19. @John Smith

    @John Smith

     

    I also don’t know why you think a motorcyle would stop quicker than a bike. I’d imagine the full face helmet means processing of the pedestrian would be slightly longer, and for all you say about contact patch etc. would be negated by the weight of the bike…

     

    Pretty sure an emergency stop for a cycle and motorcycle from 20mph wouldn’t have much margin of difference…

    Log In or Register to post comments

20. Not sure why we’re debating

    Not sure why we’re debating the cyclist’s speed here.  He was able to stop when a ped crossed the road from behind a large vehicle without looking.  The fact that he was able to stop (just) means his speed was appropriate (just).  We could pointlessly argue about how much margin people personally like to leave all day; the guy in the video left enough, however slim.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • srchar wrote:

      Not sure why we’re debating the cyclist’s speed here.  He was able to stop when a ped crossed the road from behind a large vehicle without looking.  The fact that he was able to stop (just) means his speed was appropriate (just).  We could pointlessly argue about how much margin people personally like to leave all day; the guy in the video left enough, however slim.

      — srchar

      …and if the pedestrian runs out in front of him, it’s still the pedestrians fault. It seems some people find it easy/convenient to blame a cyclist.

      Log In or Register to post comments