Witnesses sought to cyclist/pedestrian collision on London Cycle Superhighway

Rick_Rude wrote:

Stop putting idiot peds on a pedestal like sacred cows. I hope these people don't drive like they walk!

Talk of 'pedestrians were here before cars' is as daft as the 'horses were here before cars' one. Modern roads are not adapted footpaths of old they are roads that were purpose built for cars. Go for a walk down the A1 if you believe in your right to wander the roads that strongly.

The reality is everyone is plugged in and zoned out these days but we never get Skoda telling pedestrians to turn off, stop, look and listen (with Chris Tarrant if you're old enough to know what I'm on about).

There, there.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Talk of 'pedestrians were here before cars' is as daft as the 'horses were here before cars' one. Modern roads are not adapted footpaths of old they are roads that were purpose built for cars.

Oh dear, you seem to be rather misinformed.

According to Carlton Reid, just 2% of UK roads were designed for cars.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Stop putting idiot peds on a pedestal like sacred cows. I hope these people don't drive like they walk!

Talk of 'pedestrians were here before cars' is as daft as the 'horses were here before cars' one. Modern roads are not adapted footpaths of old they are roads that were purpose built for cars. Go for a walk down the A1 if you believe in your right to wander the roads that strongly.

The reality is everyone is plugged in and zoned out these days but we never get Skoda telling pedestrians to turn off, stop, look and listen (with Chris Tarrant if you're old enough to know what I'm on about).

Bless.

How representative is the A1 of the UK shared space road network I wonder?

Rick_Rude wrote:

... roads that were purpose built for cars. ...

I think you'll find that the only roads that were purpose-built for cars are motorways.  Those would be the roads that cyclists pay for (through general taxation) but aren't allowed to ride their bikes on.

brooksby wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

... roads that were purpose built for cars. ...

I think you'll find that the only roads that were purpose-built for cars are motorways.  Those would be the roads that cyclists pay for (through general taxation) but aren't allowed to ride their bikes on.

Plus a couple of duals in Scotland

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

Yes, what better way to demonstrate our support for the automobile industry.

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

workhard wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

Yes, we do.  But where the whole tidy lot falls down is when it is assumed that 'responsibility' is not and should not be proportional to the potential for harm.     

The laws should not be the same for cyclists and for car drivers, because morally, we are not equal.  Those who willingly choose a lifestyle which is harmful to others, should be penalised more heavily.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

workhard wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

Yes, we do.  But where the whole tidy lot falls down is when it is assumed that 'responsibility' is not and should not be proportional to the potential for harm.     

The laws should not be the same for cyclists and for car drivers, because morally, we are not equal.  Those who willingly choose a lifestyle which is harmful to others, should be penalised more heavily.  

Moral equivalance or otherwise is irrelevant.

The only Laws that count in this context are those of Physics. Kinetic energy transfer is what kills and maims other road users not drivers' and cyclists' lifestyle choices, however much we might decry them.

workhard wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

workhard wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

Yes, we do.  But where the whole tidy lot falls down is when it is assumed that 'responsibility' is not and should not be proportional to the potential for harm.     

The laws should not be the same for cyclists and for car drivers, because morally, we are not equal.  Those who willingly choose a lifestyle which is harmful to others, should be penalised more heavily.  

Moral equivalance or otherwise is irrelevant.

workhard wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

Seconded.  Sort of.

Pedestrians need to understand that they have to look where they're going - there's no legal requirement to use a formal crossing point (no jaywalking laws), but remember to use the f-ing Green Cross Code, people!

But conversely, motorists and cyclists need to remember that - especially in crowded urban areas - there is the possibility that a pedestrian (or a motorist, or another cyclist, for that matter) will do something stupid.

(Dear road.cc - can we have a follow up on this story as and when further information comes to light?  Did the cyclist or pedestrian get admitted to hospital?) 

brooksby wrote:

workhard wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

Seconded.  Sort of.

Pedestrians need to understand that they have to look where they're going - there's no legal requirement to use a formal crossing point (no jaywalking laws), but remember to use the f-ing Green Cross Code, people!

Humans have been pedestrians for fuck knows how long.  We who use wheeled means of transport are the usurpers.    Pedestrians are the most fragile road users, and we are all pedestrians at some point (unless we're so seriously ill or of reduced mobility that our legs do not function).  All others should defer to pedestrians at all times.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

brooksby wrote:

workhard wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

I don't have much sympathy for peds that get run over when they've not been using proper crossing points. Even less so for the hordes of zombie walkers we now have.

Maybe we need jaywalking laws in these days of inattention?

No legal requirement to use the completely non-compulsory crossing points, nor any need to play right into the hands of the motor lobby by suggesting jaywalking laws may be needed in the UK.

We all share a crowded space; we all need to behave appropriately, and cyclists owe others a duty of care.

Seconded.  Sort of.

Pedestrians need to understand that they have to look where they're going - there's no legal requirement to use a formal crossing point (no jaywalking laws), but remember to use the f-ing Green Cross Code, people!

Humans have been pedestrians for fuck knows how long.  We who use wheeled means of transport are the usurpers.    Pedestrians are the most fragile road users, and we are all pedestrians at some point (unless we're so seriously ill or of reduced mobility that our legs do not function).  All others should defer to pedestrians at all times.  

I agree.  To me, Green Cross Code is "common sense" for crossing a road (or, increasingly moving around any pedestrian area where nobody f-ing else seems to be looking where they're going).

I certainly wasn't trying to defend the road users who think that shouting or honking their horn at people to 'get outta the way!' is acceptable.  If you can see someone crossing the road ahead of you, its usually simplest to slow down just a little so they finish crossing and you don't get into conflict with them, IMO.

CyclingInGawler wrote:

Hawkinspeter, I don't think you've correctly interpreted Sriracha's use of "bang to rights" here; my reading is that he's admitting he would clearly have been at fault had a collision occurred (for context, refer to any number of 1970's cops-and-robbers programmes e.g. The Sweeney )

Actually yes, that would make more sense.

Sorry @Sriracha for misreading your post.

hawkinspeter wrote:

CyclingInGawler wrote:

Hawkinspeter, I don't think you've correctly interpreted Sriracha's use of "bang to rights" here; my reading is that he's admitting he would clearly have been at fault had a collision occurred (for context, refer to any number of 1970's cops-and-robbers programmes e.g. The Sweeney )

Actually yes, that would make more sense.

Sorry @Sriracha for misreading your post.

Get your trousers on, son.  You're nicked.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Speed is not related to fault as pedestrians generally shouldn't be being overtaken, they usually have their own infrastructure, marginally segregated by a kerb. You can't assume there will always be witnesses to pedestrians running out in front of you without looking, so we'd need some mechanism to ensure pedestrians look after their own and cyclist's safety, a law would probably do that.

I didn't mean to imply that speed is related to fault, but more as an example of cyclists being bigger/faster than pedestrians (well, maybe not bigger than some pedestrians). With overtaking, I was thinking of shared infrastructure - towpaths and similar. Unfortunately, I don't think laws will prevent peds using phones and being generally clueless.

ktache wrote:

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't there already a form of presumed liability on the roads anyway.  If you drive up another vehicles arse (not a cyclists of course, that would be silly) aren't you at fault unless there is compelling evidence against.  You know, presumed liability, insurance wise.  One of the reasons crash for cash is so popular and have led to more dashcams.  Never driven and quite happy to be corrected.

I don't think we have anything like that in the UK. If there's no other evidence, then I believe the blame is split 50/50 (unless the cyclist isn't wearing a helmet, hi-viz etc).

What I like about presumed liability is the presumption that bigger vehicles should take more care and/or have a dashcam to protect themselves from spurious claims.

@ChrisB200SX - cyclists can go faster than pedestrians, so I believe that it is up to cyclists to take more care around pedestrians which usually means reducing speed when passing etc. I'd agree that pedestrians are more likely to cause a collision, but they're not usually going faster than a bike. I don't see why it would necessitate jay-walking laws (which I definitely don't like) as the number of pedestrian/cyclist collisions are insignificant compared to collisions involving motorists and most of the time, there'll be witnesses around which would make presumed liability irrelevant.

It's also worth considering that pedestrians often don't have any situational awareness and they can be extremely vulnerable (e.g. kids, disabled, using a phone etc). I'd like to think that cyclists tend to pay a lot more attention to their surroundings.

ktache wrote:

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't there already a form of presumed liability on the roads anyway.  If you drive up another vehicles arse (not a cyclists of course, that would be silly) aren't you at fault unless there is compelling evidence against.  You know, presumed liability, insurance wise.  One of the reasons crash for cash is so popular and have led to more dashcams.  Never driven and quite happy to be corrected.

That was an agreement between insurance companies, but it pretty much stopped with the crackdown on crash for cash in recent years. They now tend to attribute blame 50-50 unless it's proven one way or the other, which obviously suits insurers very nicely indeed.

ktache wrote:

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't there already a form of presumed liability on the roads anyway.  If you drive up another vehicles arse (not a cyclists of course, that would be silly) aren't you at fault unless there is compelling evidence against.  You know, presumed liability, insurance wise.  One of the reasons crash for cash is so popular and have led to more dashcams.  Never driven and quite happy to be corrected.

You may be referring to the doctrine of 'duty of care', which for the purposes of the tort of 'negligence' was first defined in 1932 in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, and developed by later cases.   This established the 'neighbour principle', and the requirement that one take care not to cause harm or injury to those who could reasonably be affected by one's actions.   This principle was reinforced by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568, and the 'rules' are: 

• harm to the claimant must be reasonably foreseeable; 
• there must be a relationship of ‘proximity’ between the claimant and defendant;
• it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on the defendant.

Once the duty of care is established, then the 'reasonable man' test applies, whereby the duty is breached when the defendant does something that a reasonable man would not do, or omits to do something that a reasonable would do (Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks (1856) Exch 781).  

The 'duty of care' of a driver to another road user is established, and therefore in cases involving road traffic collisions, the claimant does not have to prove to the court that such a duty existed.  All he needs to do is demonstrate that harm occurred as a result of the defendant's negligence.  

But to the best of my knowledge, there is no 'presumed liability' in English law.  

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).

I don't agree. Cyclists are, on average, about the same mass as pedestrians and, on the road at least, less likely to be at fault in a collision. I'd also go as far to say that pedestrians present a greater danger to cyclists that vice versa. Collide with a ped and you probably just knock them on their arse, but come off a bike at ~20mph and it's quite likely to do you some damage.
I think if we're going to introduce presumed liability for ped v cyclist, we have to introduce jaywalking laws and no-one really wants that, well, except maybe a certain portion of motorists.
I don't think it's clear-cut enough for ped-cyclist collisions to have presumed liability, it's clearly nothing like motor vehicle v person on bike (or not).
Drivers (not cars) presumed liable works fairly well, drivers have to be licenced and insured, for good reason. I see that as a quick fix for bad driver attitudes, let's face it, the testing, licencing and justice system doesn't seem to be moving road safety in the right direction.

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.