Pedestrians & cyclists taking stupid risks

entropi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

“Nice to meet you sir” said the 5 year old child on his bicycle.

What a stupid post.

Fighting Tao

entropi wrote: »

What a stupid post.

Saucer of milk for one!

MadDog76

amcalester wrote: »

But if that guy shot you it would hardly be your fault for not being cautious enough.

True ......... but it would be foolish of me to taunt him.

Manic Moran

amcalester wrote: »

It was, but yours isn't much better.

Motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all share roughly the same space so the bigger duty of care is always with the motorist.

The traditional 'out of nowhere' is someone crossing a road from behind a truck or bus. Things like that. There is always a duty of care with the motorist, but there is also a duty of care with everyone else on the road as well. Right of way =/= duty of care.

Common sense indicates that taking measures to aid in your own protection is important. Having 'right of way' is not of great consolation if you are in pieces down the hospital, especially if the practical realities (such as wearing dark clothes at night) are such that there is no reasonable expectation that even a normal, cautious driver can see you. If you're invisible, Ayrton Senna himself may not be able to avoid you.

yesto24

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

The bigger the vehicle, the more responsibility you have to be careful, and the more blame you should take and more severely you should be punished for making a mistake.

That's great. I will take responsibility and you will be dead.
No problem.

maryishere

At least with so much wind forecast for tomorrow, that cyclist in the dark clothes with no light that I nearly killed while driving near the dart line on the way home last week will probably not be out tomorrow. One thing I hate is cyclists in dark clothing without lights and who come out of nowhere.

amcalester

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Stupid analogy. It would be like a path running along side the range on both sides and the pedestrian went across from one side to the other.

There are stupid people on all sides. But the motorist is usually found at fault . The pedestrian s and cyclists are often at fault too

It is a stupid analogy.

In the majority of cyclist/motorist collisions it is the motorist that is most often at fault. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-two-thirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html

MadDog76 wrote: »

True ......... but it would be foolish of me to taunt him.

Cyclists and pedestrians going about their business are hardly taunting motorists.

erica74

How about everyone be careful? Regardless of whether you're on 1 foot, 2 feet, 6 wheels, whatever. It's no use lying in a hospital bed saying to yourself "well at least I was in the right".

One example of how I'm extra vigilant - I automatically slow down when driving on a street with loads of parked cars and pedestrians on the footpath as you can be guaranteed someone is going to suddenly pop out between 2 cars. At a slower pace I can hit the brakes easily without any serious repercussions for me or the pedestrian if someone pops out in front of me.
Yes, the pedestrian needs to be vigilant too but their head is probably up their arse or in their phone.
What use is it to me saying "well he was the eejit who walked out in front of me" when my motorbike has gone for a slide up the road because I braked harshly as I wasn't being vigilant and riding at a slower pace.

amcalester

Manic Moran wrote: »

The traditional 'out of nowhere' is someone crossing a road from behind a truck or bus. Things like that. There is always a duty of care with the motorist, but there is also a duty of care with everyone else on the road as well. Right of way =/= duty of care.

Common sense indicates that taking measures to aid in your own protection is important. Having 'right of way' is not of great consolation if you are in pieces down the hospital, especially if the practical realities (such as wearing dark clothes at night) are such that there is no reasonable expectation that even a normal, cautious driver can see you. If you're invisible, Ayrton Senna himself may not be able to avoid you.

Not sure why you're quoting me, I made no mention of out of nowhere nor did I equate right of way with duty of care.

In fact, I said the bigger duty of care was with the motorist, the inference being that cyclists and pedestrians also have a duty of care, albeit a smaller one, to other road users.

Also reading the OP, it sounds like he was stopped in traffic and about to move off when the pedestrians walked in front of him. I wonder if the reason they appeared out of nowhere was because the OP's window was fogged up.

Windows steaming up affecting visibility etc. Then, out of nowhere a group of pedestrians wearing ordinary dark black/navy/grey clothes decided to jaywalk across the road as I was just about to move up in the traffic.

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

The gunman being careful is outside the non gunman`s control. If the guy without the gun is facing endless gunmen on a daily basis, many of them incompetent, he needs to do all he can to avoid being shot.

Bruthal

Rezident wrote: »

Vehicles are so dangerous that terrorists use them now instead of guns and bombs for killing lots of people.

Absolutely amazed that someone with your utterly and self-evidently wrong perspective is driving around in a machine that can kill people!

Well it looks like the pedestrian/cyclist has to be even more careful so.

the_pen_turner

amcalester wrote: »

It is a stupid analogy.

In the majority of cyclist/motorist collisions it is the motorist that is most often at fault. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-two-thirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html



Cyclists and pedestrians going about their business are hardly taunting motorists.

that link proves my point. in that case at least 33 % of incidents were not the motorists fault.

at the end of the day we all need to look out for each other but more importantly for ourselves.

Shenshen

I drive, walk, cycle and drive a motorbike.

And funnily enough, I never yet had to brake sharply for pedestrians or cyclists or motorcyclists while driving my car.
I have, however, on more than one occasion been forced off my bicycle by drivers, and I have had to make emergency brakes for drivers while on my motorbike.

You certainly get idiots on any form of transport, that absolutely goes without saying. But I do wonder if a car does create a certain "bubble" for some people, making them more oblivious than normal to their surroundings.

the_pen_turner

Shenshen wrote: »

I drive, walk, cycle and drive a motorbike.

And funnily enough, I never yet had to brake sharply for pedestrians or cyclists or motorcyclists while driving my car.
I have, however, on more than one occasion been forced off my bicycle by drivers, and I have had to make emergency brakes for drivers while on my motorbike.

You certainly get idiots on any form of transport, that absolutely goes without saying. But I do wonder if a car does create a certain "bubble" for some people, making them more oblivious than normal to their surroundings.

I find that very hard to believe.
the amount of times I see drivers(not just me) have to break when a cyclist or pedestrian shoots out from a side road or steps off a footpath without looking.

StinkyMunkey

Regardless of your mode of transport either vehicle, bicycle or walking, Ireland has more than it's fair share of retards.

I use all three, practice common sense and common courtesy, it saves on unnecessary stress and anxiety.

Shenshen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I find that very hard to believe.
the amount of times I see drivers(not just me) have to break when a cyclist or pedestrian shoots out from a side road or steps off a footpath without looking.

I suspect the key element is speed.
Pedestrians usually don't leisurely stroll along the pavement only to suddenly make and about turn and sprint in front of your car. So as long as you keep an eye on where they are and what their trajectory might be, they're not really a problem, neither on the bike nor in the car.
Cyclists would be similar - you see the same road they do. If you see an obstacle coming up that they might swing out to avoid, you'd know well in advance. They do occasionally shoot out of side streets, but I've never had a bad encounter yet. That said, I don't drive in Dublin city centre at rush hour, I can imagine things might well be different there.

However, any issue I've had with car drivers was them going too fast for the road conditions and not watching what was happening in front of their cars. I wouldn't expect them to notice me if I'm behind, but I would expect them to remember I'm there a split second after they've overtaken me. Which they often don't seem to be able to.

the_pen_turner

I see it several times a year where a pedestrian will walk out from behind a wall , van or between traffic where you didn't know they were there until they were in front of you
same goes for cyclists.


I take your point about anticipating their path but that is just luck and chance.

Shenshen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I see it several times a year where a pedestrian will walk out from behind a wall , van or between traffic where you didn't know they were there until they were in front of you
same goes for cyclists.


I take your point about anticipating their path but that is just luck and chance.

Yes, but in such conditions (presumably narrow roads, with cars parked either side), would you be usually driving at a speed where someone jumping out between parked cars would mean you'd have to slam the breaks on?
I'm not saying I never have to slow down for pedestrians or cyclists, but I never yet had to do an emergency stop to avoid a collision.

I have on more than one occasion had to jump off my bicycle to avoid being hit by a car, though.
Those drivers might be just as bad when on foot or on a bicycle, I just find that in a car they pose much more of a threat.

the_pen_turner

of course you have to drive to the conditions and road conditions.

I'm a fairly cautious driver and I have had to slam on the breaks several times.
if you see the risk building you can slow down

Danbo!

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I see it several times a year where a pedestrian will walk out from behind a wall , van or between traffic where you didn't know they were there until they were in front of you
same goes for cyclists.

I agree and I’ve seen the same plenty of times, but one thing I’ve always found funny is why some people end up hating every cyclist because of it.

I find your phrasing interesting, you’d get a lot of people saying “I see cyclists nearly being killed daily” or something along those lines, but several times per year does sound more accurate.

I see motorists/pedestrians/cyclists doing silly things frequently, but it’s generally cyclists that seem to get written off as entire group. Maybe the majority of people have experience walking/driving but not cycling.

kirving

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

The bigger the vehicle, the more responsibility you have to be careful, and the more blame you should take and more severely you should be punished for making a mistake.

That isn't the point though. Getting into a flight against the guy with a gun is a stupid idea, even he's the bad guy and he's in the wrongly.

You can tell drivers to be responsible for their actions all day long, you can fine them for making mistakes, ban them, lock them up, but noone actually intends to knock someone down.

Sure the driver might spend a year in prison, but so what? A family is left without a parent at the end of the day.

It is absolutely the pedestrian or cyclists responsibility to minimise risk at every opportunity.

You have a subset of the cycling forum who are vehemently anti hi-vis and helmets calling them builder's clothes, and who won't wear them as they're not a legal requirement. Sure that's fine, but there's no point being right if you're dead.

I'm a cyclist by the way.

worded

I concentrate as much as I can when driving. I've motor bike / bikes and car.

There are ediots everywhere and they are appearing with more regularity now.

Fellow checking his tyre like an embryo on the road side. Car in front goes around him to avoid hitting him with no indication and I just see him in time. He is curled up by the wheel checking pressure or what ever - WTF ?

Person walks behind my car as I reverse half way out of a peppery in an estate. My car was half way on the road when he decides to walk behind it. Mr Magoo

Cyclist wearing black tonight with no high viz, no reflectors and 0 lights skids though a junction on a dual carriage way. Suicide merchant

Person opens a door road side while outside the car and newly causes a head on collision as I just wasn't expecting someone to be that stupid.

You have to be so so alert for the Fcuk wits out there.

Arsemageddon

The whole cyclist v motorist debate is as irritating as it is boring. Like many others I do both, and think I have a fair understanding of the risks involved with both.

The OPs point may be imperfectly phrased but it is perfectly valid. This time of year the sun sits low in the sky at dawn and dusk and can blind motorists. At dusk it is much harder to see as our eyes can't adjust as quickly as the light fades.

Billy86

amcalester wrote: »

It was, but yours isn't much better.

Motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all share roughly the same space so the bigger duty of care is always with the motorist.

I walk to/from work and a few times a week I'll see a car move into the pedestrian crossing with a red light, blocking the way for those trying to get across. I wonder what those motorists' reactions would be if I and other pedestrians stood at their car window roaring abuse in at them, or decided to just wander into the middle of the street and stand there for them to have to swerve around when the lights were green for them and red for me?

MadDog76

amcalester wrote: »

It is a stupid analogy.

In the majority of cyclist/motorist collisions it is the motorist that is most often at fault. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-two-thirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html



Cyclists and pedestrians going about their business are hardly taunting motorists.

You've missed the point of the thread ........... it's not about who's "right" and "wrong" when a vehicle and cyclist/pedestrian collide, it's not about cyclists/pedestrians "going about their business" .......... it's about the effects of the physical impact when a vehicle and cyclist/pedestrian do collide regardless of "fault" .......... the cyclist/pedestrian will always come off physically worse than the motorist involved so any cyclist/pedestrian who compounds this fact by taking risks when interacting with a vehicle is, to put it politely, a complete moron.

MadDog76

amcalester wrote: »

.......... that cyclists and pedestrians also have a duty of care, albeit a smaller one, to other road users.

Again you're missing the point of the Op .............. cyclists and pedestrians have the biggest duty of care on the roads ........... to themselves!

Any cyclist/pedestrian relying heavily on motorists to watch out for them on the road is a fool at best ............ some motorists are stupid, some take shocking risks on the road ............ resulting in seriously hurt, or dead, cyclists/pedestrians who's families can at least take comfort in the fact that their loved one was "right" when he/she was killed on the road.

amcalester

MadDog76 wrote: »

You've missed the point of the thread ........... it's not about who's "right" and "wrong" when a vehicle and cyclist/pedestrian collide, it's not about cyclists/pedestrians "going about their business" .......... it's about the effects of the physical impact when a vehicle and cyclist/pedestrian do collide regardless of "fault" .......... the cyclist/pedestrian will always come off physically worse than the motorist involved so any cyclist/pedestrian who compounds this fact by taking risks when interacting with a vehicle is, to put it politely, a complete moron.

I agree, I just dislike OPs like this one that put the blame for collisions on the more vulnerable road user particularly when he uses fogged up windows and motorists being distracted by electronic devices as reasons for potential collisions.

Lights, hi-vis etc won't make any difference to a pedestrian/cyclist if the motorists can't see or isn't looking at the road in front.

Hans Bricks

Driving just under two years now and cyclists still unnerve me to no end. Cyclists appear so brittle to me when I'm watching them from the driving seat.

seagull

It's a fair point badly made.

My policy when cycling is basically - I'm the squishiest thing on the road, so I won't do anything stupid to increase the chances of my being hit.
There seem to be a number of people who take the opposite approach - If I get hit, it will be someone else's fault, so I can do as I please, and bugger the consequences.