Witnesses sought to cyclist/pedestrian collision on London Cycle Superhighway

OldRidgeback wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a fan of presumed liability, I'd say that cyclists are the bigger/quicker vehicle than pedestrians, so cyclists should be considered initially "at fault" for collisions unless there's other evidence (e.g. witnesses reporting the pedestrian staring at a phone and walking into a cyclist). That's how I'd like it to work, and obviously carried onto the roads, that would mean that cars would automatically be assumed to be at fault for collisions with bikes (again assuming that there's no other evidence).

Put it this way, if a pedestrian steps into the roadway without looking and is mown down by a car travelling at the speed limit, it will be a nasty incident that's the fault of the pedestrian. 

We have yet to find out what happened in this incident. Yet it appears that the rider was using a designated cycle lane. That being the case, the pedestrian would likely be at fault.

Again, witness reports are required.

In the case of pedestrians and cyclists, there should be no presumed liabilty.

I agree that pedestrians can cause incidents and be at fault, whether on the pavement, cycle path or road, but I think it'd be better if motorists did drive more carefully (not necessarily at the maximum speed limit) around heavily populated areas with lots of cyclists and pedestrians. When I cycle, I try to keep an eye out for peds that look clueless as there's always the chance that they could start crossing the road at just the wrong time and end up trashing my bike (it's self interest really).

With presumed liability, the vast majority of cases would be incidents between motorists and cyclists, so the case of pedestrians and cyclists is more of a side effect of the philosophy behind it.

With this particular case, there's not really anything to go on apart from maybe it occurring in a designated cycle lane. However, it's worth remembering that pedestrians do have priority even on cycle lanes (which isn't usually an issue).

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a fan of presumed liability, I'd say that cyclists are the bigger/quicker vehicle than pedestrians, so cyclists should be considered initially "at fault" for collisions unless there's other evidence (e.g. witnesses reporting the pedestrian staring at a phone and walking into a cyclist). That's how I'd like it to work, and obviously carried onto the roads, that would mean that cars would automatically be assumed to be at fault for collisions with bikes (again assuming that there's no other evidence).

The second part, I understand that is how it works in France - car v cycle, car is assumed to be at fault. I have found car drivers in France very tolerant towards cyclists.

I think the thing with pedestrians is that they can move very unpredictably. I recall in my younger years taking a corner through a zebra crossing on my bike, everything aligned to pass well behind a crossing pedestrian - or so I thought. The pedestrian suddenly changed his mind, like he'd just remembered he'd left his wallet in a shop, and did an about turn. I was already commited to the arc of my trajectory. It was a near thing! Of course, I would have been bang to rights.

Sriracha wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a fan of presumed liability, I'd say that cyclists are the bigger/quicker vehicle than pedestrians, so cyclists should be considered initially "at fault" for collisions unless there's other evidence (e.g. witnesses reporting the pedestrian staring at a phone and walking into a cyclist). That's how I'd like it to work, and obviously carried onto the roads, that would mean that cars would automatically be assumed to be at fault for collisions with bikes (again assuming that there's no other evidence).

The second part, I understand that is how it works in France - car v cycle, car is assumed to be at fault. I have found car drivers in France very tolerant towards cyclists. I think the thing with pedestrians is that they can move very unpredictably. I recall in my younger years taking a corner through a zebra crossing on my bike, everything aligned to pass well behind a crossing pedestrian - or so I thought. The pedestrian suddenly changed his mind, like he'd just remembered he'd left his wallet in a shop, and did an about turn. I was already commited to the arc of my trajectory. It was a near thing! Of course, I would have been bang to rights.

I don't think so. Pedestrians have priority on zebra crossings and the Highway Code is clear about it:

Rule 195 wrote:

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing
 

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
• do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
• be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings

Sriracha wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a fan of presumed liability, I'd say that cyclists are the bigger/quicker vehicle than pedestrians, so cyclists should be considered initially "at fault" for collisions unless there's other evidence (e.g. witnesses reporting the pedestrian staring at a phone and walking into a cyclist). That's how I'd like it to work, and obviously carried onto the roads, that would mean that cars would automatically be assumed to be at fault for collisions with bikes (again assuming that there's no other evidence).

The second part, I understand that is how it works in France - car v cycle, car is assumed to be at fault. I have found car drivers in France very tolerant towards cyclists. I think the thing with pedestrians is that they can move very unpredictably. I recall in my younger years taking a corner through a zebra crossing on my bike, everything aligned to pass well behind a crossing pedestrian - or so I thought. The pedestrian suddenly changed his mind, like he'd just remembered he'd left his wallet in a shop, and did an about turn. I was already commited to the arc of my trajectory. It was a near thing! Of course, I would have been bang to rights.

A smart driver drives to the conditions, not the limit. That said, there's no accounting for how stupid/careless some people can be. I was driving my eldest to his football training (a fair way away and no option but to take the car) and he asked me why I'd bought a dashcam. I was about to explain when a very drunk bloke staggered off the pavement in front of us. We were moving slowly as the road was congested so the drunk thought he was fine to cross. But he hadn't seen the car coming in the other direction and its driver couldn't see him becaue of the large van in front of me. (I'd seen the car because I was further over). The drunk stepped out in front of the car and luckily its driver was on the ball and also moving slow enough to stop in time. I pointed to the drunk and said, "That's why we have a dashcam. If that car hadn't been able to stop, I'd have shown the footage to the cops."

Yep, French drivers are more tolerant to cyclists, but France still has a far worse record for road fatalities than the UK. 

As a cyclist I've had numerous encounters with dumbass pedestrians who haven't looked (or in the case of the Danish couple - looked the wrong way) before stepping out.

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a fan of presumed liability, I'd say that cyclists are the bigger/quicker vehicle than pedestrians, so cyclists should be considered initially "at fault" for collisions...

People on bicycles aren't particularly bigger than people on foot.  As for quicker... an in attentive person on foot can very quickly move into the path of someone on a bicycle.  IMO, all other things being equal, a person on foot is not more vulnerable than a person on a bicycle - if anything, I would argue it is the other way around.

hawkinspeter wrote:

... unless there's other evidence (e.g. witnesses reporting the pedestrian staring at a phone and walking into a cyclist)

 

A pedestrian doesn't need to be staring a phone to walk into cyclist.  I have encountered pedestrians whilst cycling on a shared path, looking right at me, who would have walked into me if I hadn't come to a complete stop.