Hit a Pedestrian - No remorse

penexpers

PeadarofAodh wrote: »

I'd agree there - cyclists shouldn't be obliged to go below the legal speed limit...I'd just tend to in certain circumstances for my own safety rather than anyone else's.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic here....

Gavin

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Also, the comment about you going too fast was ridiculous, you were well inside the limit and if someone steps out right in front of you, after the initial shock subsides you have hardly anytime to react without endangering yourself further and skidding dangerously over the road.

Anyone on the road has a duty of care to drive/cycle safely depending on conditions. E.g. If it's wet/raining, one should drive/cycle at an appropriate speed reflective of the wet road and slower braking times.

This is the same situation. The canal paths are heavily used by pedestrians. I don't think it can really be disputed that people are aware that pedestrians cross the road when traffic is stationary.

We have no idea what speed he was travelling at. According to here, travelling at 32kph, stopping distance on a bicycle is 4m in ideal conditions. However, 1 second seems to be the standard reaction time, so stopping distance would be approx 4.8m. 4.8m is a lot, the almost the full length of a car.

I'd reckon such a speed to be the max, probably too fast in a location where you know there is a high probability of a pedestrian stepping out onto the road.

Would you cycle up the canal cyclepaths at 40km/h ? If you hit someone at that speed you could easily kill them.

Having said all that, again we don't know what speed he was going at. It was the fault of the pedestrian to step onto the road without looking. My point is that cyclist should know that pedestrians can do this and cycle accordingly. As much as is practical anyway.

But all this has just been stated, my response was too slow !

irishmotorist

From what I recall, the speed limit is not just the speed limit. That's the max speed you are legally allowed to go, depending on conditions. If there's thick fog, you should not be doing 120kmh in a car. If you're stuck in a traffic jam, you should not still be doing 50kmh in a car.

I would have no remorse for the individual that was hit. Everybody is responsible for their own safety, including the person who walks blindly around a vehicle with earphones in and volume up to the extent that prevents them hearing warnings. She herself completely to blame for making this stupid mistake.

IMO, the OP also has to shoulder some blame and was perhaps going to fast for the conditions (traffic conditions). However, I'd be of the opinion that a bad incident happened, learn from it, move on and make sure it doesn't happen again - from his own point of view. Don't forget that you are responsible for your own safety - that's not anybody elses responsibility.

Malari

penexpers wrote: »

I think it's both parties fault in this case. It's her fault for not checking to see if the cycle lane was clear, but equally it's your fault for not observing the traffic conditions around you and adjusting your speed accordingly. Whenever traffic is stopped beside me I always slow down because I know that pedistrians are stupid and will assume that once traffic is stopped it's safe to cross the road. I would say it's more your fault than her fault.

What would the point of calling the gards be?

It's the cyclist's responsibilty to be careful, not second guess every pedestrian. Even if she had stepped out then looked, but she never noticed the cyclist at all.

PeadarofAodh

penexpers wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic here....

Why should they be obliged to? If someone wants to cross the road, they should be responsible for ensuring it is safe to do so. If they're too lazy to be 100%, they should use a pedestrian crossing.

When I cycle through busy areas with cars stopped, I slow down. Why? Because I don't want to damage myself or my bike when some idiot walks out without looking. I wouldn't hold myself accountable if I did hit someone though.

Hungrycol

Kinetic^ wrote: »

The vehicle on the road has the right of way unless they is traffic/pedestrian lights that say other wise.

Unless the pedestrian is already on the road then they have the right of way.

Yes you should feel sorry for her. You caused her injury regardless of your injurys. You should be in complete control of your bike in order to avoid unforseen circumstances. Like the ad says, you were travelling at speed you could not control. Remember you hit her not the other way around.

PeadarofAodh

Hungrycol wrote: »

You should be in complete control of your bike in order to avoid unforseen circumstances. Like the ad says, you were travelling at speed you could not control. Remember you hit her not the other way around.

But he was in control of his bike. If someone steps out 2 metres from a car, noone says "He wasn't in control of his vehicle".

penexpers

PeadarofAodh wrote: »

But he was in control of his bike. If someone steps out 2 metres from a car, noone says "He wasn't in control of his vehicle".

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

Malari

Hungrycol wrote: »

Unless the pedestrian is already on the road then they have the right of way.

What do you mean "already"? Yes, pedestrians have more rights if there is no footpath and they are on the road, but surely for someone stepping out in front of a bike who is obeying the speed limits, etc, tried to stop, tried to give warning, they are mostly to blame? That's not a right of way issue.

DirkVoodoo

penexpers wrote: »

Yes everyone would be blaming the driver (including me). If you drive or cycle you have a duty of care towards other road users (including pedestrians). If you travel at a speed that is unsuited to the conditions then you are not exercising that duty of care.

In the case of the driver, the law would see the driver as being at fault. I really don't see why it should be different for cyclists.

Surely someone who steps out In the middle of traffic is not exercising a duty of care either?

You seem to be missing my main gripe which is that, according to the initial account, she did not cross at a suitable location. I think there is a clear distinction between a cyclist who tears through a set of pedestrian lights even if they are green and one who is cycling down a clear cycle path. It is reasonable to assume that one should be more careful at a location where there is a higher chance you will have pedestrians crossing, rather than braking as he approaches every car to his right in traffic. What speed would be reasonable then? 20, 15, 10 kmh. I think you reach a point where you say "feck it!" and get off and walk then.

Kinetic^

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

The pedestrian wasn't in control of themselves, not the cyclist.

penexpers

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Surely someone who steps out In the middle of traffic is not exercising a duty of care either?

You seem to be missing my main gripe which is that, according to the initial account, she did not cross at a suitable location. I think there is a clear distinction between a cyclist who tears through a set of pedestrian lights even if they are green and one who is cycling down a clear cycle path. It is reasonable to assume that one should be more careful at a location where there is a higher chance you will have pedestrians crossing, rather than braking as he approaches every car to his right in traffic. What speed would be reasonable then? 20, 15, 10 kmh. I think you reach a point where you say "feck it!" and get off and walk then.

I don't think pedestrians have a duty of care towards other road users. The law is a bit skewed in that repsect.

The fact that she didn't cross at a suitable location isn't really the issue here. You can't put an exact figure on the speed either because there are many variables at work there - road conditions, braking power etc...

DirkVoodoo

Surely it is relevant, you cant absolve her of blame in this scenario? So could I plug in my headphones now and go for a stroll down the N11?

"Hey, that taxi nearly hit me, he should be anticipating my actions and travelling at an appropriate speed"

"Eh, no. You are walking in the middle of the road without any awareness of the traffic around you. Now go cross at the lights up there!"

I hope I don't sound rude, I do respect your opinion here and it is nice to have a good ole' debate in the morning

Malari

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

That's ridiculous, if someone walking 2 feet in front of you stops dead and you bump into them, are you not in control of your body? Please. You would want to be going at walking speed, as another poster said, in order to be able to avoid hitting anyone.

dub_skav

Every road user has a duty of care to others. This includes pedestrians crossing a road. By stepping out without looking, the pedestrain in this case placed herself and a cyclist in dnager - in fact injuring them both.

If he had been travelling slower, but she had stepped out when he was closer, there would still have been a collision.
How slow is reasonable? Assuming the facts are as presented, she did not look, the OPs speed was not the problem

niceonetom

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

by that rationale if you are in any accident you are, by definition, not in control of your vehicle, and are therefore at fault. you seem to be saying that there is no circumstance in which a collision can _not_ be the driver/cyclist's fault. that's obviously nonsense. sorry. if this kind of thinking held any water the only logical recourse would be to impose a citywide speed-limit of walking-pace on all vehicles and bikes.

if someone walks out in front of you it's their own fault, and though it is prudent to suit your speed to the riskiness of the environment that does not equate to transfer of blame should someone else endanger themselves.

Gavin

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Surely someone who steps out In the middle of traffic is not exercising a duty of care either?

Absolutely, the majority of the responsibility is this persons. But there is still a responsibility on the part of the cyclist. Courts do allocate responsibility in percentages.

It is reasonable to assume that one should be more careful at a location where there is a higher chance you will have pedestrians crossing, rather than braking as he approaches every car to his right in traffic. What speed would be reasonable then? 20, 15, 10 kmh. I think you reach a point where you say "feck it!" and get off and walk then.

20kph, stopping distance is around 2m. When cycling through town (in stopped traffic), particularly Sth Gt. Georges St. where people step onto the road regularly, I'd go at around that speed. 2m is enough to scrub your speed and momentum and avoid someone, or at least not cause any damage to either of you, if you hit them.

Cycling up the sandyford road, in a cycle lane with very few pedestrians around, I'd cycle around 35kph or so. It's simple, I don't particularly want to hit someone or get in an accident, so I take account of my surroundings/location and cycle accordingly.

penexpers

niceonetom wrote: »

by that rationale if you are in any accident you are, by definition, not in control of your vehicle, and are therefore at fault. you seem to be saying that there is no circumstance in which a collision can _not_ be the driver/cyclist's fault. that's obviously nonsense. sorry. if this kind of thinking held any water the only logical recourse would be to impose a citywide speed-limit of walking-pace on all vehicles and bikes.

if someone walks out in front of you it's their own fault, and though it is prudent to suit your speed to the riskiness of the environment that does not equate to transfer of blame should someone else endanger themselves.

Sorry but the law doesn't see it this way. If a driver hits the pedestrian (no matter what the cirsumstances) the law will say the driver is 100% at fault. Circumstances may bring this down in a court of law but a driver will always be found to be more at fault than a pedestrian. That's the law.

seamus

Hungrycol wrote: »

Unless the pedestrian is already on the road then they have the right of way.

This only applies when a vehicle enters a roadway. It doesn't apply for pedestrians just stepping onto the road.

That is, if I'm waiting at a T junction to turn onto road B, and I can see that a pedestrian has already started crossing road B, then I am obliged to yield to that pedstrian.

On the other hand if I'm driving/cycling on a straight road and a pedestrian wishes to cross, they must wait for me to pass because I have right of way.

Simply stepping into the road in front of a vehicle does not give a pedestrian right of way.

Sorry but the law doesn't see it this way. If a driver hits the pedestrian (no matter what the cirsumstances) the law will say the driver is 100% at fault. Circumstances may bring this down in a court of law but a driver will always be found to be more at fault than a pedestrian. That's the law.

Actually, it's just the practice, not the law. There is nothing in law which provides for motorists to be instantly assigned blame when they hit a pedestrian.

The judge sees that the motorist has insurance and has suffered no more than a dent in their vehicle. Then he sees a pedestrian with broken bones and permanent scars, and makes the decision to cover the pedestrian on the motorist's insurance. It's always possible to say that, "You weren't driving with due care, that's why you hit them".

Motorists can, and have in the past, walked out of court with their expenses paid for by an errant pedestrian. Judges just don't do it that often because they feel it's in the common good for the pedestrian's injuries to be covered by the motorist's insurance. They fail to realise that the motorist will be out of pocket by a few €k due to increased insurance costs.

HJ Simpson

Sorry to hear about your crash. I cycle that route everyday and the pedestrians just dont watch. I have had a near miss once where someone not sure if it was male or female stepped out from behind a van and quickly out of the way again. (THANKFULLY) I would have have definately put both of us in hospital. I do go quick along the canal but slow down at intersections and large vans.
You cant account for someone stepping out in front of you at the last minute.

HJS

Limestone1

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

By this logic , train drivers are responsible for the deaths of 'jumpers' ?

PeadarofAodh

Limestone1 wrote: »

By this logic , train drivers are responsible for the deaths of 'jumpers' ?

Um...I don't agree with penexpers either, but stopping a train is a slightly more difficult matter...

Bambaata

she obviously didn't mean it but was extremely careless so if i had been you i'd have either called the gardaí or gotten credible witnesses. even the ones who blamed you through detailing what happened would eventually cover your side eventhough they might not realise it. I'd then be perusing her for all costs (any medical and bikes repair). this happened to me a few weeks back and i am now contacting the guy responsible for medical expenses (casualty + physio). i have already informed him and he is fine with that but if he gets cold feet i'll pursue him legally which will be much worse for him. luckily i had no bike damage.

penexpers

Bambaata wrote: »

she obviously didn't mean it but was extremely careless so if i had been you i'd have either called the gardaí or gotten credible witnesses. even the ones who blamed you through detailing what happened would eventually cover your side eventhough they might not realise it. I'd then be perusing her for all costs (any medical and bikes repair). this happened to me a few weeks back and i am now contacting the guy responsible for medical expenses (casualty + physio). i have already informed him and he is fine with that but if he gets cold feet i'll pursue him legally which will be much worse for him. luckily i had no bike damage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your case the only injured party was you? This makes it a bit different to this case.

Rob_l

To penexpers
I do take due care I mean i didn't walk from this incident unscathed so its not as if I go looking for these.
I was injured due to anothers error of judgement.
I was travelling at between 25 and 30 km, the cycle lane in front of me was clear as I approached the side of this jeep, the person proceeded to walk in front of me without taking her own due care and looking to see if there was oncoming traffic i was in a designated cycle area continuous white line with the inside marked in red, not only did she not look but her hearing was also impared by having earphones in, she came from a blind spot which i thought we instructed children as young as four against doing with school programs.

In other areas where suicidal pedestrians are known to me i take more care but in this area it is a very heavily used cycle lane at this time in the morning so i expect other to also take care for their own safety and to ensure they cross in a safe place.

I broke, I let out a roar, I could do no more there were cars to my right and a path full of people to my left there was nowhere for me to swerve to avoid this incident.

I cannot be personally responsible for others failing to act in a safe manner!

blorg

Rob, I'd say there were two of you in it and it was mainly her fault but TBH cycling on the inside of stopped traffic you have to expect this sort of thing to happen and make sure you can swerve/stop as appropriate. As you say there were no swerving options I'd say 25/30km/h does look inappropriate in this circumstance, maybe combined with the condition of your brakes, I don't know. As certainly at 20km/h I would imagine I could stop in that circumstances, at worst colliding with the ped relatively harmlessly at a walking pace. (Note I am a fast cyclist myself, I have no problem doing 50km/h+ when I can see what is going on ahead of me.)

Like obviously you tried to stop, and injured yourself in the accident, it's in no-one's interest to run down a pedestrian. I don't think you were being malicious in any way. But I'd take a lesson from it, check your brakes and try to cycle in a manner that you would stop in time if it happened to you again.

Your attitude in the thread title doesn't do you any favours either; if similar happened to me (and I have had my share of accidents ) I would certainly be firm in that the ped should have looked but I would take a more constructive lesson from the incident. Even the ones where it wasn't my fault.

Bambaata

penexpers wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your case the only injured party was you? This makes it a bit different to this case.

to me the guilty party should cover costs and from what it appears he gave a shout, braked and did anything he really could do so on that it seems she was at fault.

How'd she react anyway?

c0rk3r

I got smashed by a car yesterday. Hes fault cutting infront of me with last second indication. Still felt sorry for the dude even though im the one that suffered. I get the feeling your mostly angry because of the abuse you got from the other pedrestrians. Should of rang the guards, let them sort it out.

Someone want to add a wiki entry on "what to do in case of an accident". The do's and donts

Funny thing was i bought a new focus that morning.heh

TinyExplosions

c0rk3r wrote: »

Funny thing was i bought a new focus that morning.heh

Which one'd you go for, the Cayo?

Bloody common as muck now them Focusses (Foci?) -I'm off to get a BH or Canyon

Gavin

c0rk3r wrote: »

Someone want to add a wiki entry on "what to do in case of an accident". The do's and donts

Funny thing was i bought a new focus that morning.heh

http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Accidents

'Someone' could be you ! Most of the info on the wiki is just a stub, waiting to be expanded on by eager boards.ie cycling forum users.

also
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055278646&highlight=bicycle