Danish pro breaks leg on dancefloor; Great hack to check bike path smoothness; Xmas goodwill suggestion; Deliveroo cyclist filmed colliding with pedestrian; 5-year-olds verbally abused for cycling in park; Muc-Off tubeless launch + more on the live blog

andyp363 wrote:

Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: "Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

 

This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

exactly, the HC rule doesn't pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police's view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

andyp363 wrote:

Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: "Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

 

This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

exactly, the HC rule doesn't pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police's view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

50-50 would be my first take on it. The pedestrian was careless and oblivious, but the greater burden of moral responsibility always has to be on the vehicle-user.

Such a very low-speed collision though. I could imagine being on the ped side of it and just getting up and us both agreeing 'no harm done' and apologising to each other, and going on our way giving it no further thought. I find it alarming how with pedestrians, outcomes can vary so drastically depending on exactly how someone falls.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

andyp363 wrote:

Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: "Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

 

This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

exactly, the HC rule doesn't pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police's view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

50-50 would be my first take on it. The pedestrian was careless and oblivious, but the greater burden of moral responsibility always has to be on the vehicle-user. Such a very low-speed collision though. I could imagine being on the ped side of it and just getting up and us both agreeing 'no harm done' and apologising to each other, and going on our way giving it no further thought. I find it alarming how with pedestrians, outcomes can vary so drastically depending on exactly how someone falls.

And it was, the cyclist stopped with such force having to react to anothers reckless action that gave them not enough time to react that they came off their bike. They came round the bend at a low speed taking the burden of responsibility and still they had no chance to come to a stop, how much more burden do we place on another vulnerable road user?

Also how fast do you think that a human brain can respond to unexpected situations, how long does it take for the brakes to come on after you start pulling them or for your action of steering to become effective, it's not instantaneous!

If we push all the responsibility onto one road user type which currently happens to people on bikes both not to harm or get harmed, then we create a massively inequitable situation. This is played out every day in the media and bby the words of the police, judges, social media and so on, even down to outcomes in criminal cases! Cyclists are demonised and blamed at every avenue, there's one rule for everyone else and a totally different set of rules/set of responsibilities for people on bikes.

When we know that even through the bent discriminatory police forces investigations that the majority of deaths of pedestrians are actually at fault peds and not people on bikes then we can safely say that it's the pedestrians who need to take more responsibility for their actions. 

The way things are we might as well give up cycling completely to avoid being blamed for incidents that even a computer controlled machine would not be able to avoid.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

andyp363 wrote:

Rule 170 of The Highway Code says: "Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

 

This is pretty much just at major/minor road give way road markings   doesnt relate to single roads with bends or traffic light contolled junctions

exactly, the HC rule doesn't pertain to this piece of road, one thing that immediately crossed my mind is if the woman had died just imagine the fallout from this!

The cyclist was probably going at similar speed to Alliston at point of impact (10mph) the outcome is vastly different, however Alliston swerved to avoid the pedestrian, so this case would by MET police's view/stand point be deemed to be dangerous cycling, yet same for motorists would not be charged with anything.

50-50 would be my first take on it. The pedestrian was careless and oblivious, but the greater burden of moral responsibility always has to be on the vehicle-user. Such a very low-speed collision though. I could imagine being on the ped side of it and just getting up and us both agreeing 'no harm done' and apologising to each other, and going on our way giving it no further thought. I find it alarming how with pedestrians, outcomes can vary so drastically depending on exactly how someone falls.

And it was, the cyclist stopped with such force having to react to anothers reckless action that gave them not enough time to react that they came off their bike. They came round the bend at a low speed taking the burden of responsibility and still they had no chance to come to a stop, how much more burden do we place on another vulnerable road user?

Also how fast do you think that a human brain can respond to unexpected situations, how long does it take for the brakes to come on after you start pulling them or for your action of steering to become effective, it's not instantaneous!

If we push all the responsibility onto one road user type which currently happens to people on bikes both not to harm or get harmed, then we create a massively inequitable situation. This is played out every day in the media and bby the words of the police, judges, social media and so on, even down to outcomes in criminal cases! Cyclists are demonised and blamed at every avenue, there's one rule for everyone else and a totally different set of rules/set of responsibilities for people on bikes.

When we know that even through the bent discriminatory police forces investigations that the majority of deaths of pedestrians are actually at fault peds and not people on bikes then we can safely say that it's the pedestrians who need to take more responsibility for their actions. 

The way things are we might as well give up cycling completely to avoid being blamed for incidents that even a computer controlled machine would not be able to avoid.

Maybe not such a great idea to be carrying such an unwieldy and heavy payload in a demonstrably dangerous fashion?

harragan wrote:

That pedestrian was wearing black and didn't have any lights on.  No wonder the cyclist hit her!

Agreed. I'd say she's extremely lucky to have survived, since she also wasn't wearing a helmet.

Re Deliveroo Rider: -

It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). But then so did the car and Bus on the opposite  side so she was lucky she wasn't crossing there. She was also about 2 yards the other side of the crossing area and probably had already gambled on the change or was crossing as traffic was at a standstill and lights coincidentally changed. 

He actually stopped the bike in time but trying to recover his balance (top heavy bag(?) means he seems to hit her with his shoulder. One of those that will be interpreted either way depending on beliefs and agenda but something that was avoidable from both parties and luckily in this case, probably led to nothing more then some dirty clothes. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Re Deliveroo Rider: -

It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). 
 

That's a completely different set of lights that you can see. The cyclist is coming up Piccadilly and turning up Regent Street. The crossing that you can see is to cross the top of Lower Regent Street. The fact that they had green almost certainly means that the Piccadilly lights were in favour of the traffic. (I've ridden through this junction daily for 8 years and frequently walk through it at lunchtime)

mpdouglas wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Re Deliveroo Rider: -

It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). 
 

That's a completely different set of lights that you can see. The cyclist is coming up Piccadilly and turning up Regent Street. The crossing that you can see is to cross the top of Lower Regent Street. The fact that they had green almost certainly means that the Piccadilly lights were in favour of the traffic. (I've ridden through this junction daily for 8 years and frequently walk through it at lunchtime)

It's a particully lethal junction for people stepping out without looking too. Everyone has it wrong, its the motors fault for blocking the junction, obscuring visability for everyone and in violation of the highway code.

mpdouglas wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Re Deliveroo Rider: -

It looks like he came across on Red (or gambled on Amber) (it was green for peds on the far light but then the countdown starts almost straightaway). 
 

That's a completely different set of lights that you can see. The cyclist is coming up Piccadilly and turning up Regent Street. The crossing that you can see is to cross the top of Lower Regent Street. The fact that they had green almost certainly means that the Piccadilly lights were in favour of the traffic. (I've ridden through this junction daily for 8 years and frequently walk through it at lunchtime)

It looks like this is the area where the filming occurred. The crossing lights showing green on the far side do cross diagonally so should be this same one unless it has all changed in the year since google view last went through. However I'm aware in some busy junctions in London that the green man appears and is also replaced straight away with a countdown so the cyclist and far vehicles might have been Amber gambling rather the RLJ. Not saying either is in the right though. 

kt26 wrote:

"The judge ruled that bike riders “must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.”​"

This was was an unbelievably stupid thing to say, by definition you can't expect the unexpected - I'd have been serverly tempted to say "In that case, I change my story I deliberately ran them down because they may have been about to pull out a gun and open fire." I mean if we are to expect the unexpected.

Also where do you draw a line on dooring incidents, if you hit the car door is it the car occupants fault, but if you hit the person stepping out is it now the cyclists?

It's dangerous to say that any person can do no wrong, just because they happen to be the more vulnerable party in the incident.

This isn't a comment on this particular incident - I haven't seen the vid yet - but more in general.

Hmm, it also isn't a principle that seems to be invoked against drivers, at least not consistently. It's apparently OK for drivers to be surprised by such things as 'the sun being in the sky' and 'a cyclist being in the road ahead of them'.

(Also, does that principle apply to the story on here a while back with the cyclist riding over a zebra crossing at speed?)

burtthebike wrote:

So everyone opposes the new Silvertown tunnel, it goes against the mayor's declaration of a climate emergency, it won't actually solve the problem it is supposed to and will actually make things worse, it is incredibly bad value for money and the billion quid would be better spent on literally anything else, but the mayor wants to go ahead anyway.  Is he deliberately trying not to get elected again, or what is the real reason behind this absurd, illogical, insane decision?

MOAR CARZ

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

As someone commented on the twitter feed, that the kids are forced to wear hi-vis and helmets just shows you the mentality towards cycling/safety. My grandson (6) cycles to school, only a few hundred yards mind on the pavement with his dad but all but one of the kids that do cycle (5-10 year olds) don't wear hi-vis or helmets from what I've seen.

However increasingly head teachers are forcing kids to wear otherwise they are banned from cycling to school, discrimination at its ugliest, and we wonder why cycling to schools has dropped off a cliff even since the early 2000s.

Many more of the kids at my daughter's junior school scooter there than cycle - 99% in helmets. Only a couple of the cyclists wear hi-viz, largely because they are on tandems/tagalongs on the road with a parent, rather than on the pavement. I'm not aware the school has any policy on what you wear to ride in - only that you walk once on the premises.

Of the kids around here at the older schools, cycle clothing seems to consist of navy blazers and black jackets for the lads and helmets are generally an ornament for the handlebars - presumably worn only in sight of the parents/schools. The few girls I see cycling tend to wear brighter jackets, so a bit more visible, and have helmets on. I'd like to see more lights on the bikes in these dark mornings/evenings, as that seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, but, frankly, anyone travelling around during the school run times can reasonably be expected to be extra vigilant for children heading to/from school, regardless of what they're wearing. Fortunately, the main road here has quite wide shared use pavements for much of it and they tend to use them, although there is a painted cycle lane on the road, too.

I did stop one lad last week, but only to tell him his forks were on backwards!. He didn't believe me, as it's apparently how the bike came in the box, so I told him to have a look at his mate's bikes and online.

mikepridmorewood wrote:

Cycle Route 52 is at either side of Abbey Fields Park so in a land of joined up thinking you'd expect to be able to ride through the park!

(map)

Oh that is just absolutely ridiculous!