So I hit my first pedestrian today...

Ste.phen

dubman25 wrote: »

Im sure you deserve it because you should obey the speed limit and keep observing the road!Hope the other chap was ok!

The guy who stepped into moving traffic without looking? Frankly he can go F*ck himself.

blorg

Mairt wrote: »

Driving a car I've never noticed the amount of pedestrians who are choosing to walk in the cycle lanes against the flow of traffic until the last few weeks.

Do you mean cycle tracks on the footpath? I think this is inevitable, it's one of the reasons I think cyclists have to be prepared to not use these tracks. Just because you paint some lines on a footpath is not going to keep peds off it, it is still essentially a footpath.

The ones I _do_ use are big enough and the pedestrian volume low enough that there is not a major problem avoiding/going around pedestrians.

If you mean on the road, I don't see this a lot (only the occasional jogger.)

Peds stepping into the road without looking is another good reason to cycle well out from the kerb, so you have time to take evasive action if necessary.

Morgan

Igy wrote:

wasn't going too quickly (20KPH, tops)

dubman25 wrote: »

Im sure you deserve it because you should obey the speed limit

Huh?

LegacyUser

Igy wrote: »

The guy who stepped into moving traffic without looking? Frankly he can go F*ck himself.

If it was your bike that landed on my bonnet, you would be paying for my bonnet.

Gavin

cheesedude wrote: »

If it was your bike that landed on my bonnet, you would be paying for my bonnet.

Sure nice new Bonnets aren't that expensive

LegacyUser

oh christ.

LostinBlanch

IanCurtis wrote: »

About time somebody got some sense here. You lot are making it almost sound heroic to hit a pedestrian.

:eek:

No one is the enemy, try and remember that it's not a war out there, just a commute - safer for everyone.

That's exactly it. The attitude of some of the posts here is similar to the mindset that lead to this. No one wins with this kind of thinking.

Raam

blorg wrote: »

If you mean on the road, I don't see this a lot (only the occasional jogger.)

Westland Row is a prime spot for this. Be very careful around there.

PeadarofAodh

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That's exactly it. The attitude of some of the posts here is similar to the mindset that lead to this. No one wins with this kind of thinking.

Except for the bonnet venders. Their hats are selling like hot cakes...

seamus

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That's exactly it. The attitude of some of the posts here is similar to the mindset that lead to this. No one wins with this kind of thinking.

Without getting too much into it - let's be fair. If he had been car which had beeped, and the girl had still failed to get out of the way, then I would say that Darwin would be proud.
That the cyclist "should have swerved" is a bit moronic, and there doesn't seem to have been any evidence that he was on the path. Indeed it seems far more likely that she was on the road, saw him coming, but decided to continue anyway. I see this behaviour every single day - pedestrians look at you, look again, then go anyway.
I still make sure that I've set myself into a position where I can stop safely if they decide to do something stupid, but I certainly don't make it look like I'm going to stop for them.

I have very few near misses to be fair, usually because I give paths and pedestrians crossing wide berths.

Ste.phen

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That's exactly it. The attitude of some of the posts here is similar to the mindset that lead to this. No one wins with this kind of thinking.

FTA: "He was on the footpath, where she should have been safe."

[edit] actually, that doesn't seem to be stated as fact, but rather was something the mother said? [/edit[

Well that guy was clearly an ass, i don't think anyone would dare stand up in support of cycling on the path like that

blorg

There is another thread about that incident. He was on the road but that is no license to run down a ped. It does sound very much to me like the cyclist was being an a$$hole (like people who bomb through pedestrian crossings just because they are green) but there were also suggestions that the kids had been drinking and were playing "chicken" with him, and that the girl who died moved into the way at the wrong moment. I'm still leaning on the "cyclist was an a$$hole" interpretation though.

Back to the original topic- note that public policy in the form of cycle lanes encourages the sort of road position that increases the likelihood of cyclist-pedestrian collisions. You should be cycling far enough away from the kerb that you will be able to evade a ped that drifts onto the road (this is of course illegal however if there is a cycle lane.)

Ste.phen

Well in the incident that started the thread i was as far into the cycle lane as i could be without hitting the cars, but wasn't able to stop in time, he literally stepped straight out into the road.
I suppose it'd be akin to driving in the right hand lane, and someone at your 2-O-Clock position suddenly swerving right, there's pretty much nothing that can be done...

blorg

Igy wrote: »

Well in the incident that started the thread i was as far into the cycle lane as i could be without hitting the cars, but wasn't able to stop in time, he literally stepped straight out into the road.
I suppose it'd be akin to driving in the right hand lane, and someone at your 2-O-Clock position suddenly swerving right, there's pretty much nothing that can be done...

Well this sort of supports my view that cycle tracks in this country are inherently defective, if you were further out you probably wouldn't have hit him. You may be surprised to learn that the preffered cycle track widths are defined in the DTO's own literature as 1.75m - 3.5m depending on traffic volumes. Narrower and you start to have accidents like your one. Don't think I have ever seen this sort of width in practice though!