Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
That echoes a lot of my
That echoes a lot of my thoughts about bikes and cars sharing the roads. It sounds worse down under than in the UK and it’s a shame that the author thinks that presumed liability would be impossible in Australia due to the political climate. I think presumed liability would be a great tool to highlight the difference in responsibility on the road for bigger vehicles.
alansmurphy wrote:
So you’ve ridden the road hundreds of times and passed through the pedestrian crossing, at which you must stop if the light is red, hundreds of times. And this is comparable how? If you’d been riding that road and a piano fell from the sky 30 metres after the crossing you’d have half a case. Then I’d dismiss it for comparing disc brakes and a non calibrated camera as parts of your ‘evidence’. What software did you use to determine the 3 metres, I’ve a crash to investigate that I’d like some hard, fast numbers on…@BehindTheBikesheds – I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn’t expecting to be used (it’s not a busy one – I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn’t an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that’s including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike’s got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn’t need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I’ve got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).
It took me longer than 3m to stop and you’re right it’s crappy evidence. I just thought I’d give my experience that 3.8 seconds should be plenty of time to significantly slow from 18mph.
@BehindTheBikesheds – I just
@BehindTheBikesheds – I just had an opportunity to time my approximate stopping time from my Fly12. I was going around 18mph and a pedestrian light turned red that I wasn’t expecting to be used (it’s not a busy one – I go along that road hundreds of times and have only had to stop maybe 10 times). I spotted it late (the pedestrian was on the right of the road) and so braked quickly though it wasn’t an emergency stop and the road was a little bit wet. It took me just over 3 seconds to slow to a walking pace/track stand after the light turned amber and that’s including the time taken for me to notice the light changing (I only spotted it when it was red). My bike’s got disc brakes so that definitely helped, but I didn’t need to brake hard enough to lose any traction and I’ve got 25mm tyres. I reckon I used about 60% rear and 40% front brake (as far as I can estimate).
@alansmurphy – you’re right about the poor quality of evidence. Unfortunately, this cyclist is going to be used as a scapegoat/made an example of. Whether or not he could have stopped is probably going to end up being irrelevant due to the fact that he had no right to be on that road (whereas the pedestrian had every right to cross in the wrong place at the wrong time without even looking).Which is fine, so long as every driver who has no right to be on the road while texting, tired, distracted, unable to see because of sun on a dirty windscreen, or in a vehicle as clearly unfit as most HGVs is also tried and convictef of manslaughter when they succeed in killing someone. Want to bet?
I’d agree with that and it’s a shame that motons aren’t hold more to account. In general I believe in presumed liability – the bigger/faster vehicle should be presumed liable and in this case the cctv footage doesn’t prove the cyclist to be blameless.
I’d quite happily support a law that makes actively using a mobile phone illegal on the roads, whether you’re walking, cycling or driving (passengers would be exempt). Although in this case, that would confuse the issue even more.
The nature of the reporting and the general anti-cyclist feeling are not going to help this poor bloke.
@alansmurphy – you’re right
@alansmurphy – you’re right about the poor quality of evidence. Unfortunately, this cyclist is going to be used as a scapegoat/made an example of. Whether or not he could have stopped is probably going to end up being irrelevant due to the fact that he had no right to be on that road (whereas the pedestrian had every right to cross in the wrong place at the wrong time without even looking).
Car stopping distances, according to the HC:20mph thinking 6 metres, braking 6 metres = 12 metres
30mph thinking 9 metres, braking 14 metres = 23 metres
40mph thinking 12 metres, braking 24 metres = 36 metresCorrect me if I’m wrong, but that means a car would have definitely hit a pedestrian stepping out in front, ten metres away…
I’m not convinced about the “thinking time” on a bike as it’s quite possible to “instinctively” react without needing to consciously think about what you’re going to do. I’m sure I can stop from 20mph in a lot less than 12 metres on my bike. By the power of maths, that 6m at 20mph works out to be about two-thirds of a second which is quite a slow reaction – the typical reaction to visual stimulii is about a 0.25 seconds. If you’re practised at riding a bike and watching for hazards, you’d be anticipating peds stepping out and be swerving and stopping within that 6 metres of thinking time.
Sorry but you’re guessing about ‘instinct’ and thinking times is just nonsense.
human beings are human beings, you cannot predict X outcome, thinking time is about 1.5 seconds for these types of incident (accepted by crash investigators as a good in clear conditions/alert person), then you would have mechanical action time (braking/pressing accelerator etc), then you have actual braking time.
Also when does any road user fully slam on to the maximum potential braking to come to a full stop when an object/pedestrian crosses in front, hardly ever, you scrub a bit of speed off, as is clear the defendant did and you normally think/anticipate that the object/pedestrian carries on across. In this case the pedestrian (apparently) took 3.8 seconds to the time of impact from stepping off the pavement/footway, that is in no way normal. This would require the defendant to rethink again his actions (another second or so) he tried to swerve to avoid the pedestrian who was clearly still dithering in the middle of the road instead of simply walking across and they then collided.
it’s all so easy to just use absolute numbers in a stress environ/situation but that’s not how real life works all too often.
You may or may not be right about thinking times – testing it is the only practical way to figure it out. In lieu of setting up a decent test site, try your hand at this simple little reaction tester:
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
I haven’t got any figures to back up actual times for “thinking”, but when I’m riding a bike and approaching a hazardous area (e.g. a school at pick-up/drop-off time; takeaway shops; junctions) I keep my fingers on my brakes and if I anything unexpected happens, I scrub off speed whilst I think about what to do (generally involves lots of swearing).
In general, it’s quite easy to improve specific reaction times by practising the skill and if you perform an action often enough, then you can “react” to it without having to be conscious of it (e.g. boxers don’t need thinking time to avoid a punch).
The cyclist in question has stated that a front brake wouldn’t have made any difference to his ability to stop/avoid the pedestrian, but I don’t agree with that. The stupid thing is that if he had a front brake, he almost certainly wouldn’t be in court even if the pedestrian had still died.
Feels to me that we are already hobbled trying to understand the objective specifics as they are filtered through this guaridan journalist – the words used to describe the cyclist are not objective or neutral – the really sobering thing is the way his social media posts are being used to characterise him…I have been in a similar colision – a woman walked out – I had no time – hit her and ended up all over the road – by the time I had picked myself up she was gone… I was left bleeding and with my spaners out getting everything back in allignement… these things happen in a flash – other incidents I have had with my fixie while leaving Richmond Park at night at speed due to a car driver holding the gates open and waving me through then finding a pedestrian step out in front of me – I was doing maybe 25mph – hit the brakes and piledrove myself into the tarmac – the ped and the car driver simple made off – left me there on the street – with my then tribars if I had hit the ped’ likely he would have taken all the force been impaled and I may have done better – still have shoulder problems akin to rugby shoulder
I guess its pointless for us as distant observers to judge this bloke – in the end she stepped out into the road without being fully aware – in my personal opinion knowing the limited stuff I do via the papers if I was on the jury I would find him not guilty of the crimes he is being tried for – he is not even all that stupid – simply human – if you are a cyclist reading this then you will have sworn at someone who got in your way or cut you up or put you at risk – every single one of you – he acted after the way he is reported to have because he had been put on the floor – there is no good answer to this but putting him in prison is not one of them.
I disagree. Even though I can totally understand and relate to the cyclist, he was riding a bike that is not allowed on public roads and he was riding it sufficiently quickly so that he couldn’t perform an emergency stop. Now, I can see that if the pedestrian had stepped out in front of someone else, then maybe they wouldn’t have been able to stop either, but that’s not entirely relevant as this particular cyclist had already made a regrettable decision to use that specific bike on the roads.
It’s extremely unfortunate, but I do think the cyclist should be found guilty and sentenced appropriately (I don’t think putting him in prison is necessary, though) if only to send a message that vehicles on a public road have to be road legal.
And yes, I feel dismayed that I’m agreeing with the pitchfork wielding mobs on this one.
brooksby wrote:
Car stopping distances, according to the HC:20mph thinking 6 metres, braking 6 metres = 12 metres
30mph thinking 9 metres, braking 14 metres = 23 metres
40mph thinking 12 metres, braking 24 metres = 36 metresCorrect me if I’m wrong, but that means a car would have definitely hit a pedestrian stepping out in front, ten metres away…
I’m not convinced about the “thinking time” on a bike as it’s quite possible to “instinctively” react without needing to consciously think about what you’re going to do. I’m sure I can stop from 20mph in a lot less than 12 metres on my bike. By the power of maths, that 6m at 20mph works out to be about two-thirds of a second which is quite a slow reaction – the typical reaction to visual stimulii is about a 0.25 seconds. If you’re practised at riding a bike and watching for hazards, you’d be anticipating peds stepping out and be swerving and stopping within that 6 metres of thinking time.
I tried counting the stupid
I tried counting the stupid in that article and ran out of fingers.
I think the take-home message is that if you like to crash often, then you’d be better off choosing a more upright bike as your head is slightly less likely to hit the floor (although they’ve provided zero figures or references to statistics).
Personally, I prefer to just avoid crashing, but maybe that’s just me.
FWIW… I get why he shouted at her straight after. I commute in London and have been taken out by pedestrians stepping out in front of me 5 times, always coming off far worse. The adrenaline surges through you. Last fella ran off after I shouted at him and not a soul checked if I was alright. OK, I was livid, but bleeding and could have easily been seriously (SERIOUSLY) injured by a vehicle, but got lucky.I’m surprised more pedestrians mindlessly wandering into the road aren’t run over by electric cars and definitely that more cyclists aren’t hurt by them. In only two, nice and clear sections of my 10 mile commute do I ride at anything approaching 15mph and do despair at risks many a fellow rider takes, but they’re not braking the law. It’s such bullshit about the occasional 75kg, 2 foot wide, cyclist “whizzing” about at 15mph being a menace when one tonne metal monsters breaking the speed limit, especially when accelerating through changing red lights*, dominate the roads and make them dangerous.
This is a horrible, unfortunate incident, but it should not be in court. If the cyclist loses, I worry we’ll become like NSW.
*this is acceptable apparently.
Yeah, I can sympathise with shouting at pedestrians. The ones crossing roads without checking for traffic annoy me so I try to time a sharp, loud “Oi” so that it makes them jump and almost drop their phone whilst going past them.
I feel sorry for this poor bloke who’s going to be fed to the wolves (probably not literally) for his poor choices. I reckon he’ll have the book thrown at him (again not literally) to show that even lawless cyclists have to keep to the rules. I think he made 2 mistakes – removing his front brake (which would have been a fashion statement) and not managing to miss the pedestrian.
Ultimately, pedestrians always have priority even when they’re clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time and this is why road-going contraptions have to be able to stop quickly. If you’re going to remove a brake, then you have to take extra care to not be out of control. This cyclist was unlucky to be caught out going too quickly, but not nearly as unlucky as the poor pedestrian.
I’m sorry, but he should be in court for this and should be found guilty. Just because there’s lots of examples of motons getting off with bad driving does not excuse the fact that this cyclist’s poor choices led to the death of an innocent person.
alansmurphy wrote:
You’re a better man than me. I mean I was doing 40 as the last accident began and the brakes were the wrong way round (stupid French piece of shit) but I was a good 30m from the barrier and seemed to knock little speed off.As an experienced rider, would you say from noticing something to reacting and stopping, that you stop in 3 metres? And surely it should have been compared to the original bike with the original brakes?I reckon that’s reasonable. With disc brakes, if I’m paying attention, I reckon I can stop from 18mph in about 2 metres though I’d probably be lifting my rear wheel a bit.
Nope, I was just making it up. I have however found this link with a stopping distance calculator and it gives 3.74m for stopping from 18mph and 18.5m for stopping from 40mph:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
Sounds like your brakes weren’t working or maybe the road was slippery.
ClubSmed wrote:
Don’t even try to start trying to use the excuse of “It’s OK for me to do it but not them because they will cause more damage”, it makes you look like a dick!Think of how you would react if a car driver made the same statement about not equating themselves with vans or lorries.
Anything that goes through a red light is breaking the law and puting people at risk, it does not matter what size your mode of transport is or how it is powered, it can still seriously hurt or kill people!Cycling through a red light is breaking the law, but doesn’t always involve putting people at risk. A cyclist going 5mph through a red light is hardly going to seriously hurt or kill people. Another point to bear in mind is that cyclists have a certain amount of skin in the game, so experienced cyclists are unlikely to put themselves at risk. (With inexperienced cyclists, all bets are off).
alansmurphy wrote:
As an experienced rider, would you say from noticing something to reacting and stopping, that you stop in 3 metres? And surely it should have been compared to the original bike with the original brakes?I reckon that’s reasonable. With disc brakes, if I’m paying attention, I reckon I can stop from 18mph in about 2 metres though I’d probably be lifting my rear wheel a bit.
Billj wrote:
However, in general, if cyclists are in an area with pedestrians, who may step out, then they have a duty of care towards vulnerable road users just as motor vehicle users should towards cyclists & pedestrians.And you should take special care if you’ve just removed your most effective brake.
It’s fine to criticise other
It’s fine to criticise other people’s behaviour, if you want to be disliked as a busy-body, but if you’re going to do it then be consistent. Make sure you inform all the car drivers that are speeding and leave messages on every wrongly parked vehicle as well. And don’t forget every pedestrian that drops litter or is listening to music that they haven’t paid for.
Or, is it only cyclists that you want to harass/complain about?