I Hit My First Pedestrian Today!

Kintarō Hattori

I was coming down Prussia Street just by the Green Chilli when a middle aged chap was crossing over the road from the Green Chilli side. It's a busy street and the fupper didn't look left or right, I don't know what he was thinking. Thankfully I could see it was going to happen before it did and managed to slow down so that the impact wasn't enough to knock him or me to the ground.

The sun was shining in my yes as it's over the liffey yet he claimed he couldn't see me because of the sun. Eh I was perfectly illuminated by it!

Coming up Brunswick Street just before you turn onto Church Street Upper I almost had a second collision with someone who decided to cross at the lights even though they were against him. I missed him by a whisker thankfully.

So what is it about the winter, the bad weather, the frost on the roads? Does it turn people into eejits?!

Icyseanfitz

i guess they think a bike isnt going to hurt

mockler007

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I was coming down Prussia Street just by the Green Chilli when a middle aged chap was crossing over the road from the Green Chilli side. It's a busy street and the fupper didn't look left or right, I don't know what he was thinking. Thankfully I could see it was going to happen before it did and managed to slow down so that the impact wasn't enough to knock him or me to the ground.

The sun was shining in my yes as it's over the liffey yet he claimed he couldn't see me because of the sun. Eh I was perfectly illuminated by it!

Coming up Brunswick Street just before you turn onto Church Street Upper I almost had a second collision with someone who decided to cross at the lights even though they were against him. I missed him by a whisker thankfully.

you should have closelined the cnut

tomasrojo

Was there traffic following behind you at the time? If not, maybe move further out into the road when approaching pedestrians. If there's no traffic behind me, I usually move into practically the middle of the lane. The road surface is much better, and you're much less likely to hit a pedestrian. Got to keep a very keen eye behind though and move back when traffic approaches.

seamus

Ah pedestrian crossings, great craic. There's a cantankerous aul pisshead around the Rathmines/Camden Street area who's known for trying to tackle cyclists at ped. crossings. I think a boardsie here had a very bad run-in with him once.

During the summer I was coming up through Rathmines and as I approached the ped. lights at the Swan centre, this alco pops out onto the road in front of me. So, I move out to go around (behind) him, and the old bastard stops dead and sticks his arm out very deliberately to clothesline me. I leaned into him to avoid getting knocked off and he only managed to knock his arm off mine.

I just kept going. Wasn't even going to waste my breath on a drunk.

Beasty

mockler007 wrote: »

you should have closelined the cnut

Not funny, and not clever

Another post like that Mockler and you will get an infraction

Beasty

Kintarō Hattori

The chap I hit wasn't at a pedestrian crossing, he just crossed in the middle of the road. I think my positioning on the road wouldn't have made any difference as he simply walked straight out between cars and never looked to his left to see what was coming down Prussia Street. The footpath was to my left and he was coming from the opposite side of the road on my right.

tomasrojo

I didn't really mean move out at pedestrian crossings; I really meant that when pedestrians are nearby (which is most times) and there is no motorised traffic behind you, you can move out and it makes cycling nicer. Pedestrians who wander out wihtout looking usually (but by no means always) do so when there is no motorised traffic approaching.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Ah pedestrian crossings, great craic. There's a cantankerous aul pisshead around the Rathmines/Camden Street area who's known for trying to tackle cyclists at ped. crossings. I think a boardsie here had a very bad run-in with him once.

Might be a Fine Gael city councillor.

Kintarō Hattori

tomasrojo wrote: »

I didn't really mean move out at pedestrian crossings; I really meant that when pedestrians are nearby (which is most times) and there is no motorised traffic behind you, you can move out and it makes cycling nicer. Pedestrians who wander out wihtout looking usually (but by no means always) do so when there is no motorised traffic approaching.

Ah yeah I know what you're saying but no there was plenty of traffic behind and in front of me so had no chance to be there but being in the middle of the road or on the left by the footpath wouldn't have made any difference as this fellow came from my right. He had crossed one lane of traffic and was crossing the lane of traffic I was in when we hit each other.

cojomo2

tomasrojo wrote: »

Might be a Fine Gael city councillor.

I nearly creamed Enda Kenny about 2 weeks ago on upper leeson street...

PCPhoto

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The chap I hit wasn't at a pedestrian crossing, he just crossed in the middle of the road. I think my positioning on the road wouldn't have made any difference as he simply walked straight out between cars and never looked to his left to see what was coming down Prussia Street. The footpath was to my left and he was coming from the opposite side of the road on my right.

thats funny - its the same thing car users say when they collide with a cyclist.

to be fair I've never seen anyone actively walk to a "pedestrian crossing" in order to cross the road (the exception being college green...even at that they still walk at will)

I'm not a cyclist - but people walking, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, bus and truck drivers .... ALL have fairly low road awareness - its crazy the amount of people walking out in front of cars just as the lights change to green (for the traffic).... similarly with the "new" Dublin bikes cyclists and general commuter/courier cyclists ignoring RED lights.

I would love to actually love to be able to report them but unfortunately the Gardai dont want to know until someone is injured/hurt.

Hopefully you or the idiot walking into your path was not hurt

Kintarō Hattori

PCPhoto wrote: »

I'm not a cyclist - but people walking, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, bus and truck drivers .... ALL have fairly low road awareness...

Hopefully you or the idiot walking into your path was not hurt

I agree, I'm sure it's been discussed here many times that there are many terrible motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

I was taking it easy this morning and paying particular attention to the road to make sure I didn't hit a patch of ice so I had 'seen it coming' so was able to slow down sufficiently that neither of us was hurt and he only took a slight knock.

Thanks for the concern.

Victor

cojomo2 wrote: »

I nearly creamed Enda Kenny about 2 weeks ago on upper leeson street...

I nearly took out Dick Spring and Peter Barry in one go on Baggot Street.

The Big Red Button

seamus wrote: »

Ah pedestrian crossings, great craic. There's a cantankerous aul pisshead around the Rathmines/Camden Street area who's known for trying to tackle cyclists at ped. crossings. I think a boardsie here had a very bad run-in with him once.

Don't pedestrians have the right of way at pedestrian crossings ... Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post!

mockler007

Beasty wrote: »

Not funny, and not clever

Another post like that Mockler and you will get an infraction

Beasty

what didn't you like Beasty??, having full use of a clothesline on your steed??
or the cnut part ?

mockler007

cojomo2 wrote: »

I nearly creamed Enda Kenny about 2 weeks ago on upper leeson street...

if you did i would put a poster of you on my wall hahaha
with Legend written on it
i wonder if there is a point scoring system out there ??

mockler007

Victor wrote: »

I nearly took out Dick Spring and Peter Barry in one go on Baggot Street.

that would be a chain score there !!
racking up the points on that one:D

Victor

A motorcyclist got Cowen a few years back. http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/brian-cowen-hit-by-motorbike-11787.html

Doctor Bob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_KmivFbTTM

Zillah

Beasty wrote: »

Not funny, and not clever

Another post like that Mockler and you will get an infraction

Beasty

JOKE TIME IS OVER. NO HUMOUR IN CYCLING FORUM.

kona

Beasty wrote: »

Not funny, and not clever

Another post like that Mockler and you will get an infraction

Beasty

He was taking the piss mate, harsh modding will turn this place into a godforsaken borefest.


************rabble rabble backseat modding, ill take a 2 weeks ban for it ************

Beasty

kona wrote: »

He was taking the piss mate, harsh modding will turn this place into a godforsaken borefest.


************rabble rabble backseat modding, ill take a 2 weeks ban for it ************

That's why he did not get an infraction this time - however not everyone reads these things the same way as you, or Zillah.

Regardless, do not challenge mod actions in-thread - use the PM facility.

Thanks

Beasty

seamus

chatterpillar wrote: »

Don't pedestrians have the right of way at pedestrian crossings ... Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post!

I'm talking about light-controlled crossings. Pedestrians only have right-of-way when they have a little green man. Zebra crossings of course pedestrians always have right-of-way.

Leela0311

Actually, if you had injured this pedestrian there is a very real chance he could have taken an personal injury claim against you.

Rules of the road states
"You should look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path "

I am not telling you this to be pedantic, I am telling you this incase you encounter someone who wants to make a nice juicy PI claim against you. Trust me, they are out there unfortunately.

captain P

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

So what is it about the winter, the bad weather, the frost on the roads? Does it turn people into eejits?!

I had a few more than usual near misses this week too :eek:!

The worst part on my journey is on Westland row when a DART has just let a load of people off at Pearse st station. They step into the cycle path to get around slower walkers and often don't look. I generally cycle a little further out than usual along there, but I've seen a fair few near misses.

seamus

Leela0311 wrote: »

Actually, if you had injured this pedestrian there is a very real chance he could have taken an personal injury claim against you.

Rules of the road states
"You should look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path "

I am not telling you this to be pedantic, I am telling you this incase you encounter someone who wants to make a nice juicy PI claim against you. Trust me, they are out there unfortunately.

Thankfully the rules of the road are a guideline and not the law.
The above paragraph is best practice and not a legal interpretation of any statute. Yes, you should watch out for people stepping into your path, but that doesn't mean that you must give way to them

In general, in a collision between a bike and a ped, both will be told to go and look after their own injuries, provided that neither were doing anything inherently stupid (such as cycling on the path or playing chicken on the road).
It's only where a car hits a ped, that the car usually loses because they have insurance to cover the ped's injuries.

I personally would prefer if people were made to pay for their stupidity even if it landed them in hospital with crushed bones, but the Irish law system thinks otherwise.

Doctor Bob

Leela0311 wrote: »

Actually, if you had injured this pedestrian there is a very real chance he could have taken an personal injury claim against you.

Rules of the road states
"You should look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path "

I am not telling you this to be pedantic, I am telling you this incase you encounter someone who wants to make a nice juicy PI claim against you. Trust me, they are out there unfortunately.

Telling cyclists to watch out for errant pedestrians does not mean that they are liable in the event of a collision. If we had 'strict liability' legislation, then perhaps, but we don't. (Also, the RotR are not the law, only guidance.)

Chance of PI claim? Who knows.
Chance of success? Very slim.

Though I'll reiterate the point I was trying to make with the video above- get a bell and use it. It's the law, however much it is not enforced. Some day a judge might just turn around and say 'And where did you think you were going with no bell on your bicycle?'

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Though I'll reiterate the point I was trying to make with the video above- get a bell and use it. It's the law, however much it is not enforced. Some day a judge might just turn around and say 'And where did you think you were going with no bell on your bicycle?'

Which law?

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Which law?

The same one that says that you do not need a bell if the bicycle has been constructed or adapted for racing.

Doctor Bob

Lumen wrote: »

Which law?

I think it's this one: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/si/0138.html

"28. (1) Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device complying with the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.
(2) The device referred to in sub-article (1) of this article shall not consist of —
(a) a gong, siren or other strident-toned device except in the case of a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance, police or Irish Marine Emergency Service purposes, or for the purposes of delivering or collecting human blood or human blood products, or
(b) a bell, except in the case of —
(i) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or
(ii) a bicycle —
I. the engine of which does not exceed 50 cubic centimetres in cylinder capacity as calculated in accordance with article 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations, 1992 ( S.I. No. 385 of 1992 ) and
II. which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions.

Until pretty recently, I was under the impression that a bike had to be sold with a bell, but that there was no law requiring a bike to have a bell thereafter. But I was corrected by someone I know who works in the Dept of Transport and it seems he was right.

(I think that's the same law that effectively outlaws bike-mounted air horns.)

Blowfish

seamus wrote: »

The same one that says that you do not need a bell if the bicycle has been constructed or adapted for racing.

I've found another law in relation to this, that unless I've read it wrong is pretty strange:

28. (1) Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device complying with the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.


(2) The device referred to in sub-article (1) of this article shall not consist of—


(a) a gong, siren or other strident-toned device except in the case of a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or


(b) a bell, except in the case of—


(i) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or


(ii) a bicycle—


I. the engine of which does not exceed 50 cubic centimetres in cylinder capacity as calculated in accordance with article 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1958 ( S.I. No. 13 of 1958 ) and


II. which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions.

24mph is ~38kph. Bizarely it seems that if you can get over that on a dry road in 'normal atmospheric conditions' you aren't allowed have a bell but must have a different 'audible warning device'.

[edit] beaten to posting it, but it's pretty strange either way.

Doctor Bob

Blowfish wrote: »

Bizarely it seems that if you can get over that on a dry road in 'normal atmospheric conditions' you aren't allowed have a bell but must have a different 'audible warning device'.

I wondered about that too.

@seamus- do you have a link to the other one? I've seen that line before and tried finding the source with no success. Thanks.

Leela0311

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Telling cyclists to watch out for errant pedestrians does not mean that they are liable in the event of a collision. If we had 'strict liability' legislation, then perhaps, but we don't. (Also, the RotR are not the law, only guidance.)

Chance of PI claim? Who knows.
Chance of success? Very slim.

Well if a car hits a pedestrian who walks out into its path then chances of success for a PI claim are extremely high with potentially only a small portion of liability falling to the pedestrian. Is is similar with cyclists (not the same, but similar).

And I raised this issue to try to be helpful. But if you wish to focus on trying to disprove me as opposed to confirming that its in a cyclists interest to be vigilant (which I believe most of them are) for pedestrians stepping into their path in the event someone makes a claim against them, by all means continue.....

Haleakala

Yup it's a legal requirement according to SI 190/1963, Section 93 (1). It also states that no other audible warning device be used in a public place (!!!!).


(Off topic but... A red rear reflector is also a must though not all bikes/bike shops fit these. Apparently, it is also not legally correct to position your front light anywhere to the left of the centre line of your bike)

Lumen

Blowfish wrote: »

I've found another law in relation to this, that unless I've read it wrong is pretty strange:24mph is ~38kph. Bizarely it seems that if you can get over that on a dry road in 'normal atmospheric conditions' you aren't allowed have a bell but must have a different 'audible warning device'.

Only if you have an engine.

seamus

Doctor Bob wrote: »

@seamus- do you have a link to the other one? I've seen that line before and tried finding the source with no success. Thanks.

Section 28 above only refers to mechanically-propelled vehicles and not bicycles. The word "bicycles" in that context actually refers to motorcycles.

The S.I you're looking for dates all the way back to 1963:

93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.

Doctor Bob

Leela0311 wrote: »

And I raised this issue to try to be helpful. But if you wish to focus on trying to disprove me as opposed to confirming that its in a cyclists interest to be vigilant (which I believe most of them are) for pedestrians stepping into their path in the event someone makes a claim against them, by all means continue.....

I'm not trying to disprove you; I'm trying to establish the facts. If, as a consequence, I 'disprove' you, c'est la vie. But it's honestly not the point of the exercise.

Lumen

Haleakala wrote: »

Yup it's a legal requirement according to SI 190/1963, Section 93 (1). It also states that no other audible warning device be used in a public place (!!!!).

Ah, right. Here.

"93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place."

The other quoted sections are in the parts which apply to mechanically propelled vehicles.

edit: wot seamus said. In any case, all my bicycles are adapted for racing.

Jawgap

28. (1) Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device complying with the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.
(2) The device referred to in sub-article (1) of this article shall not consist of —
(a) a gong........




...........damn!

HivemindXX

Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle)

What the hell does that mean? I'm guessing that cars/trucks/buses are controlled by motorists and bikes (both motor and pedal) are controlled by cyclists.

So what does that leave? Scooters (as in you put your foot on the ground and push along)? Motorised wheelchairs? Segway type devices?

Lumen

HivemindXX wrote: »

Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle)

What the hell does that mean? I'm guessing that cars/trucks/buses are controlled by motorists and bikes (both motor and pedal) are controlled by cyclists.

So what does that leave? Scooters (as in you put your foot on the ground and push along)? Motorised wheelchairs? Segway type devices?

It's in the definitions at the top.

""pedestrian-controlled vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not exceeding 8 cwt. in weight unladen, which is controlled by a pedestrian and which is not constructed or adapted to carry a driver or a passenger;"

Kintarō Hattori

For €1.45 let's not argue about the legalities!

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.26273



Sorry for the large image size, there was none smaller.

Lumen

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

For €1.45 let's not argue about the legalities!

Dignity has no price.

poochiem

The last week every ride home has seemed littered with idiots. Just last night I had one chap open a door into the bike lane coming down Clanbrassil st, just missed him, another fella ran in front of me and a car and yelled 'F*ck YOU!' at me?! And to complete the 200 metres of madness a Chinese girl in one of those ET hooded winter coats stepped off the path at Kevin st lights on a red about 3 yards in front of me, never knew how close she came to being human paté.

It's the low sun and the dark nights I guess, people just don't account for their loss in visibility. I've a 400 lumen cateye that makes signposts jump from half a mile off but I'm really conscious at the moment of the idiocy that abounds. An oul wan cut across me from left lane today, I was slowing in the traffic island to turn right and she missed my front by about 2 feet with no indicator as she made for a gateway across the street. Quite scary given the conditions but I was on spideysense for crazy oul wans so avoided it.

Be careful out there!

cdaly_

Lumen wrote: »

It's in the definitions at the top.

""pedestrian-controlled vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not exceeding 8 cwt. in weight unladen, which is controlled by a pedestrian and which is not constructed or adapted to carry a driver or a passenger;"

Like the electric bin 'trucks' you used to see around Moore St. Can't find an image anywhere but something like these things

daragh_

I've had two encounters with Pedestrians this year.

In January a school kid jumped out of a car in stationary traffic, ran across the bus lane without looking. I swerved to avoid him and went head over heels into the kerb. Bike was fine, I took some damage to my ribs, had to sleep on one side for a few month and had an epic bruise.

Last week I was cycling between two lanes of stationary traffic when a guy stepped right into my path without looking. I braked hard and managed to stay on the bike but he got knocked to the side and bounced of the side of a van. Picked him up, got him off the road, dusted him down and stayed with him until I was sure he was OK. His first words after admitting he was in the wrong were 'is your bike ok?".

Why can't they all be like that?

fenris

cojomo2 wrote: »

I nearly creamed Enda Kenny about 2 weeks ago on upper leeson street...

So that's why nobody could find him for the last week or so, he is just scared of "malicious cyclists"!

furiousox

cojomo2 wrote: »

I nearly creamed Enda Kenny about 2 weeks ago on upper leeson street...

Well he is very attractive.......:pac:

ED E

seamus wrote: »

Ah pedestrian crossings, great craic. There's a cantankerous aul pisshead around the Rathmines/Camden Street area who's known for trying to tackle cyclists at ped. crossings. I think a boardsie here had a very bad run-in with him once.

During the summer I was coming up through Rathmines and as I approached the ped. lights at the Swan centre, this alco pops out onto the road in front of me. So, I move out to go around (behind) him, and the old bastard stops dead and sticks his arm out very deliberately to clothesline me. I leaned into him to avoid getting knocked off and he only managed to knock his arm off mine.

I just kept going. Wasn't even going to waste my breath on a drunk.

I come in that way five days a week. Got any idea what this chap looks like as the place is a minefield of peds as it is? I dont need to meet him, especially not now with -4 nights.

CramCycle

seamus wrote: »

Ah pedestrian crossings, great craic. There's a cantankerous aul pisshead around the Rathmines/Camden Street area who's known for trying to tackle cyclists at ped. crossings. I think a boardsie here had a very bad run-in with him once.

he was in Rathmines itself today at around 6:30/7, couldn't get to me so he started making loud noises and waving his fist at me, that is if it's the same aul' fella I see up there sometimes.