Hit a Pedestrian - No remorse

72hundred

nipplenuts wrote: »

I'd say if it went to court you'd get 70% of the blame.

What's this estimate based upon? (Out of curosity)

Mr. Presentable

Normally the road user gets the full whack, 100%, but you could get some "lack of due care" for the pedestrian for wearing headphones.

72hundred

nipplenuts wrote: »

Normally the road user gets the full whack, 100%, but you could get some "lack of due care" for the pedestrian for wearing headphones.

I see, but I don't understand where these numbers/percentages are coming from...
... are you using a reference/own training/web?

Again, just out of curosity! Thanks.

72oo

Mr. Presentable

Pure conjecture! Thus the "I'd say.."

Based on generally reported assignations for incidents between people. I don't actually know what would happen - I'm surmising.

72hundred

nipplenuts wrote: »

Pure conjecture! Thus the "I'd say.."

Based on generally reported assignations for incidents between people. I don't actually know what would happen - I'm surmising.

Ah ok, nevermind.

I asked, because I'd like to know if there is a definite on-line resource I could see the resposibilites of parties in a crash. Of course, all incidents are different, so it couldn't be absolute, but a guideline would be nice.


72oo

ilovelamp2000

72hundred wrote: »

Ah ok, nevermind.

I asked, because I'd like to know if there is a definite on-line resource I could see the resposibilites of parties in a crash. Of course, all incidents are different, so it couldn't be absolute, but a guideline would be nice.


72oo

There are no guidelines, it's up to the judge (or PIAB) on the day to assign blame proportionately.

There was a previous thread on hitting pedestrians in which I stayed out of because I thought some of the attitudes in it were a bit off the wall but I feel like I should comment here.

While I have some sympathy for Rob_I, in this case the law wouldn't.

Legally this type of incident is a case of simple negligence, so if you're found to have a duty of care to somebody and you breach that duty, you'll be responsible for any injury that was caused by the breach of duty.

In this case, Rob_I you owe a duty of care to everything in front of you on the road, regardless of whether they should be there or not. So you owed a duty to the pedestrian not to hit her, you did. You breached the duty and caused her an injury. In theory she could be entitled to compensation from you rather than the other way around. The amount of compensation would be reduced by her contributory negligence , at a percentage decided by the judge.


Penexpers, Nipplenuts, Verb and Blorg all seem to understand the situation and I think the rest of you could do with re-reading the comments because you could save yourself a lot of hassle in future.

Sorry for being a bit of a ****, but that's the way things are and it doesn't help you if you're labouring under incorrect assumptions while on the road.

barrabus

nipplenuts wrote: »

Normally the road user gets the full whack, 100%, but you could get some "lack of due care" for the pedestrian for wearing headphones.

I'd say more like a fifty - fifty depending on what the judges take on
• the speed of cyclist (who can be negligent within the speed limit)
• head phones
• whether pedestrian lights near bye
• the volume of pedestrians using the road
• the volume of traffic.

I would be very surprised if a judge found someone going at speed on a bike down the canal at rush hour and hitting a pedestrian was exercising the proper standard of care with respect to other users of the road.

I hope your pedestrian is okay and isn’t a boards user as if I were her I would be incensed by the no remorse comment.

Diarmuid

penexpers wrote: »

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.

Please quote the passage in Irish law which automatically assigns the guilt to the driver/cyclist.

You're arguments and logic through this whole thread are crazy. I take it you are not a lawyer or judge.

ilovelamp2000

Diarmuid wrote: »

Please quote the passage in Irish law which automatically assigns the guilt to the driver/cyclist.

You're arguments and logic through this whole thread are crazy. I take it you are not a lawyer or judge.

Here is the very first quote relating to the neighbourhood principle which underpins Tort law.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question.

Penexpers is pretty much spot on with everything he has said throughout this thread.

niceonetom

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Here is the very first quote relating to the neighbourhood principle which underpins Tort law.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question.

i don't see how this applies to the cyclist and not the pedestrian.

couldn't blindly (and deafly) stepping into traffic be considered an "act(s) or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour"?

seamus

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Here is the very first quote relating to the neighbourhood principle which underpins Tort law.

Clear as mud. My interpretation of that puts the pedestrian wholly at fault because it was their act which caused injury to their "neighbour", i.e. the cyclist.

Diarmuid

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Penexpers is pretty much spot on with everything he has said throughout this thread.

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."

I think most judges would absolve the original poster of any blame, based on the "reasonably forsee" clause.

Penexpers claimed that the driver will be found guilty 100% of the time, clearly this is wildly inaccurate if a "reasonably forsee" means anything!

Howitzer

wow - what a storm of a thread. My 2 cents on the initial incident:

Both people should be watching out for each other. You're both out there on the playing field. In obvious sittuations where a van is blocking your view you should ring a decent bell (not that ping ping free crap they put on halfords bikes etc) to let people know you're coming. Especially during rush hour when people are scurrying to work etc.

Now in this case the bell would have done naff all. The pedestrian would have got splattered because she had her 'dead-phones' lodged in her lug-holes.

For me, the ring of a bell in anticipation would have been the last piece of duty of care required on the cyclists behalf. As for speed - in this kind of traffic a medium-high pace should be ok. You have to think of passenger doors opening also so should be able to halt for that. To go at race speed would be lacking in terms of duty of care to yourself and others.

Tough sittuation. Sucks that the crowd ganged up on you and glad to hear you're alright. Top marks for posting the incident here -- it all helps to make us aware of what can happen out there.

"There but for the grace of God go I"

ilovelamp2000

Diarmuid no judge would absolve the original poster of blame. They would see it as him cycling too fast in the prevailing conditions. Given he admitted to being well aware that pedestrians cross the roads at the wrong times in this particular spot he is on notice that it is likely to happen and has to slow his cycling (or driving for that matter) to enable him to react to situations that he can reasonably foresee.

Rob_I could try to sue the pedestrian for stepping out, there's nothing stopping that but, IMO, he wouldn't be successful. There simply isn't any situation where you can hit something directly in front of you and not be at fault. Harsh ? Definitely. But that's the way the courts have traditionally operated, probably to encourage people to take all necessary precautions.

BostonB

I would have assumed its common sense that you can't cycle fast though/along stationary traffic as pedestrians can suddenly step out. That said you can't cycle at a snails pace, ringing a bell continuously if long stretches of your route are bumper to bumper.

tomc

You are entitled to pursue her for damages/expenses, after all the emotion has died down and everyone is alright, you are out of pocket. Jaywalking became an offence in Ireland about 2 years ago. (Crossing the road at unauthorised crossing).

My 2 cents.

kenmc

People walk into other people on grafton street every single day - at about 4km/h - ergo no matter how slowly you are going you cannot forsee every eventuality. Clearly the solution is to ban bikes and cars, and instead have lanes for people to walk in, with no contra flow allowed. Indicators will be mandatory, with motorway style flyovers and entry/exit ramps. Slow walkers (less than 3km/h) will not be allowed.

Gavin

tomc wrote: »

You are entitled to pursue her for damages/expenses, after all the emotion has died down and everyone is alright, you are out of pocket. Jaywalking became an offence in Ireland about 2 years ago. (Crossing the road at unauthorised crossing).

My 2 cents.

I believe it's only an offence if you cross within 15 metres of a pedestrian crossing ?

rp

tomc wrote: »

You are entitled to pursue her for damages/expenses, after all the emotion has died down and everyone is alright, you are out of pocket. Jaywalking became an offence in Ireland about 2 years ago. (Crossing the road at unauthorised crossing).

Have you got a link to the relevant legislation? Last I heard, it's only jaywalking when there is a crossing in the vicinity.
As for the original incident, motorcyclists seem to have developed a better approach than us cyclists: don't outdrive your sight-line. This means don't put yourself in a position where you can't brake or swerve when something gets in your way - I guess it's because new plastic parts for m/bikes is more expensive than skin.
Expect someone to pop-out from behind every car (especially the pram-first tactic)

seamus

Verb wrote: »

I believe it's only an offence if you cross within 15 metres of a pedestrian crossing ?

I thought it was 100m, I could be wrong though. Chances are it's a bye-law or an S.I. and not part of any of the Road Traffic Acts.

blorg

Verb wrote: »

I believe it's only an offence if you cross within 15 metres of a pedestrian crossing ?

This is correct.

blorg

S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997 wrote:

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

Used to be fifty feet. Now 15m unless it has been amended since 1997.

penexpers

Bambaata wrote: »

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.

But she wasn't at fault because he was travelling at a speed that was unsuited to the conditions. I had the exact same thing happen me this morning - traffic was stopped completely so I dipped the speed and went down the road. About halfway along a ped stepped from behind a bus and I was able to brake in plenty of time to avoid the ped and we both carried on with our day. That's all that was required to avoid the OP's incident.

kenmc

Penexpers there's no way of knowing for sure that you were given the same stoping distance as the OP, so you can't say that you avoided the OPs incident. Equally the OP would have avoided his incident by leaving the house 20 seconds earlier.

irishmotorist

penexpers wrote: »

About halfway along a ped stepped from behind a bus and I was able to brake in plenty of time to avoid the ped and we both carried on with our day. That's all that was required to avoid the OP's incident.

I often think that it's not speed that kills, it just makes things more difficult. If the ped had done the same thing with 1m distance to you rather than what might have been 3/4/5m or more, then you would have probably bumped them. Travelling faster would obviously have made the impact greater and more likely.

I always approach busses and trucks with caution when they're stuck in traffic, but I found myself being extra careful this morning, with this thread in mind.

PeadarofAodh

penexpers wrote: »

But she wasn't at fault because he was travelling at a speed that was unsuited to the conditions. I had the exact same thing happen me this morning - traffic was stopped completely so I dipped the speed and went down the road. About halfway along a ped stepped from behind a bus and I was able to brake in plenty of time to avoid the ped and we both carried on with our day. That's all that was required to avoid the OP's incident.

But if someone is travelling at 20kms and somebody steps out a metre in front of them he's going to hit them as well...it has nothing to do with conditions etc

penexpers

kenmc wrote: »

Penexpers there's no way of knowing for sure that you were given the same stoping distance as the OP, so you can't say that you avoided the OPs incident. Equally the OP would have avoided his incident by leaving the house 20 seconds earlier.

There's not, but from his description I think I had less. He jumped out just as I was passing the middle of the bus so about 2-3m.

seamus

penexpers wrote: »

But she wasn't at fault because he was travelling at a speed that was unsuited to the conditions.

Which is at best a secondary fault.
The primary fault is on the part of the pedestrian, because it was their action which initiated the incident.
That is, even if he was travelling slower, the pedestrian's actions would still require preventative action on his part, and it would still be an "incident". If you remove the pedestrian's action from the equation, then no incident occurs.

It's identical to me travelling along the road, and a car pulls out in front of me from a side road, resulting in a collision. I had right of way, I may not have been travelling at a speed suiting the conditions and technically I "hit" the other vehicle, but the primary fault was the other driver's.

But if someone is travelling at 20kms and somebody steps out a metre in front of them he's going to hit them as well...it has nothing to do with conditions etc

It's kind of causal. There's no way to say that if he had been travelling slower, the same collision would have occured.

To use an example - imagine your normal reaction time is 100ms and someone steps out 1m in front of you.

At 40km/h, you will travel just over 1m before you can react. So you'll hit the person, you've no chance.
At 20km/h you will travel 56cm before you can react. The additional 44cm may or may not be enough time to take preventative action - even changing your heading by 5 degrees or leaning your handlebars away could take place within this space and could be enough to turn a head-on collision into a light grazing.

Glowing

A pedestrian stepped out onto the road (a cycle track may not be a 'road' but it's not an extension of the footpath either) without looking where she was going - to me, it's as clear as day that she was at fault.

monument

penexpers wrote: »

I don't think pedestrians have a duty of care towards other road users....

According to the judgements of court cases I've seen - yes they do.

I've seen cases where the judge blamed the pedestrian for the majority percentage of being at fault.

And by the OP's description it sounds like the pedestrian was mostly, if not fully, at fault.

penexpers wrote: »

But she wasn't at fault because he was travelling at a speed that was unsuited to the conditions.

Again, both parties can be judged to be party at fault. And I don't think "unsuited to the conditions" should include people randomly jumping out on to the road without looking. "Conditions" normally refers to stuff like weather affecting stopping speed or visibility, something obscuring visibility (so, it might feature in your example) etc,

penexpers wrote: »

I had the exact same thing happen me this morning - traffic was stopped completely so I dipped the speed and went down the road. About halfway along a ped stepped from behind a bus and I was able to brake in plenty of time to avoid the ped and we both carried on with our day. That's all that was required to avoid the OP's incident.

Firstly the ped would have been mostly at fault. Secondly, traffic was not stopped. You and your bicycle are view as traffic.