Pedestrian cyclist accident

elbyrneo

A very minor accident last night. I was walking on a path and crossed road without looking behind me and took out an oncoming cyclist. Minimal contact but he came off the bike.

In my defence it was a one way street and the cyclist was going wrong way. Normally I would look both ways though (and in partic on this street as it's one of those roads where you know the odd car or bike will scoot down for a short cut) but was a nice evening and was in my own world.

Anyway the cyclist was a bit irate and though I did point out it was one way he said I should still have looked. He wasn't hurt it seemed, just miffed, so i just went on my way and ignored his mutterings. He might have been embarrassed as much as mad I guess.

So I guess strictly speaking I was in the right
? But guess that wouldn't have meant much If it was a car or a cyclist and i was hurt I guess. Will look from now on !!

TheBlaaMan

Others may disagree, but its 60:40 perhaps with the majority of the responsibility on you to watch what you are doing (as you accept). Think what would have resulted if it was a car you collided with - there's not much value in being 40% in the right (ie they should have been there...) but seriously injured, or dead. This is going to be a bigger issue as near-silent electric cars become the norm on our streets.

Hope there is no long term issues on either side. I would suspect the cyclists reaction was adrenaline fueled and he was just as embarassed.

Stay safe....

plodder

The cyclist had no cause for complaint there imo. Cycling the wrong way up a one way street is illegal. You crossing the road is perfectly legal. Cyclists have to look out for pedestrians, exactly the same as cars have to for cyclists.

Weepsie

For your own safety, of course look both ways. But I wouldn't feel too guilty about them as they shouldn't have been going down the one way street in the wrong direction.

Mr.H

Weepsie wrote:

For your own safety, of course look both ways. But I wouldn't feel too guilty about them as they shouldn't have been going down the one way street in the wrong direction.

This 100 times

Cyclist totally wrong, but as was well said above no use being in the right and injured.

Kaisr Sose

Glad you are ok. As others have said. Cyclist totally wrong. You are ahead of them. They are breaking the law by cycling the wrong direction.

OleRodrigo

What street was it? The cyclist could well have been following best practice. There are plenty of cities worldwide that advise cycling against traffic for personal safety - Rio and Sao Paolo are two examples ( plenty of their citizens living and cycling around Dublin city centre )

DirkVoodoo

You were of course correct and cyclist, if cycling against flow of traffic should either have dismounted and walked or gone the longer way around. No excuse really.

At the same time, what if it had been an emergency vehicle rushing down a one-way street (hopefully with sirens on) or someone reversing into a parking space, etc etc. The list of "what ifs" could go on forever. Always good practice to look in both directions even on one-way streets...you just never know!

Mr.H

OleRodrigo wrote:

What street was it? The cyclist could well have been following best practice. There are plenty of cities worldwide that advise cycling against traffic for personal safety - Rio and Sao Paolo are two examples ( plenty of their citizens living and cycling around Dublin city centre )

Don't make excuses for illegal activity

ballyharpat

If I am riding the wrong way down a street, or a lane that is rarely used by cars or other vehicles, I always give pedestrians or kids on bicycles the right of way, it's courtesy, and in this case, he was breaking the law.

OleRodrigo

Mr.H wrote: »

Don't make excuses for illegal activity

Ok then. And thanks for fixing my moral compass

Alek

Don't make excuses for illegal activity

How about here?

https://goo.gl/maps/3hCoAYWJjD32

The cycle lane is counterflow, yet perhaps 60% of motorists and 5% of walkers are aware of it. I had a nearly similar scenario in this place multiple times - people watching the car flow, stepping directly in front of me onto the cycle path.

Tenzor07

Having been struck by a guy on a bicycle going down a one way street, yes of course anyone should have looked both ways, however the guy on the bicycle had no right to be there so would be liable if you decided to sue for any injuries...with a slight reduction in award for not looking...

Lemming

One way streets are not always one-way; which is why you should always look both directions before turn on to or crossing, regardless of your mode of traffic. Can you be absolutely certain that there isn't contra-flow in operation, either permanent road-design or temporary due to works, etc.

Personally I think both parties are culpable here. Cyclist should not have been there, but that still doesn't excuse the OP blindly stepping out without looking.

Ray Bloody Purchase

Talbot Street in Dublin is very dodgy for that kind of thing. There's a Dublin Bike rack up around Supervalu, I always look both ways just in case. I've had a few close calls with people flying up and down.

Tenzor07

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Talbot Street in Dublin is very dodgy for that kind of thing..

That's where I was hit whilst crossing the road, though further up, and you can be guaranteed that the sorts who cycle bicycles around that general area couldn't give a flying fig roll about the ROTR...

Fian

You have nothing to feel guilty about and tbh the cyclist was a plonker for being "irate" after he collided with a pedestrian when going the wrong way up a one way street. Apologetic would have been the correct response.

Glad no serious injury caused.

rollingscone

The benefit of the doubt is always going to go to the pedestrian in these cases as the cyclist would be seen as having a greater burden of responsibility to ensure it was safe to proceed.

If the OP was claiming against the cyclist there would be some question of contributory negligence but in the vice versa a pedestrian once established on the road has right of way* which means it's more likely for the cyclist to have been in the wrong even on a two way street.

We have a responsibility as road users to always proceed with due caution and adjust our speed, road position and lookout to account for our immediate environment.












*one of the most grievous failings of the RSA is their selfish failure to advertise key points of law like this.

elbyrneo

OP here. Just to clarify it was 100% single lane one way. It's coming out of leixlip Louisa bridge station, a narrow stretch of road on accommodation lane about 50 meters or so before green lane junction. Clearly marked and well known.

So legally I guess if I was injured (or cyclist was) I would probably be in the right. Morally, I do feel a little guilty as I always tell my kids sure to look both ways no matter what, normally do myself, and for whatever reason just stepped out.

Agree with all the posters that being in the "right" would matter little if it was more serious.

Mr.H

OleRodrigo wrote:

Ok then. And thanks for fixing my moral compass

Your welcome. Now please excuse me I think someone in another forum has posted in all caps.

MR.H away.........

Sam Quentin

Lemming wrote: »

One way streets are not always one-way; which is why you should always look both directions before turn on to or crossing, regardless of your mode of traffic. Can you be absolutely certain that there isn't contra-flow in operation, either permanent road-design or temporary due to works, etc.

Personally I think both parties are culpable here. Cyclist should not have been there, but that still doesn't excuse the OP blindly stepping out without looking.

Cyclist shouldn't have been there....
Yet both parties are culpable!?

the boss of me

There is such a thing as a contra flow cycle lane where cycle traffic on a one way street is entitled to travel against the flow of motorised vehicles. The only example I can think of is Andrew St.. So I would say its possible you were totally wrong but more probable that you were only half right.. Lesson learnt and no harm done.

TychoCaine

OleRodrigo wrote: »

What street was it? The cyclist could well have been following best practice. There are plenty of cities worldwide that advise cycling against traffic for personal safety - Rio and Sao Paolo are two examples ( plenty of their citizens living and cycling around Dublin city centre )

"Best practice"? lol In Ireland you follow the law, and in this case the cyclist was 100% wrong because he was travelling the wrong way down a one-way street. End of discussion.

TychoCaine

Alek wrote: »

How about here?

https://goo.gl/maps/3hCoAYWJjD32

The cycle lane is counterflow, yet perhaps 60% of motorists and 5% of walkers are aware of it. I had a nearly similar scenario in this place multiple times - people watching the car flow, stepping directly in front of me onto the cycle path.

Why are you trying to defend the cyclist by citing an exactly opposite scenario? In the OP's case it wasn't a contraflow and they knew this before crossing the road. That's why they didn't look in that direction.

ted1

elbyrneo wrote: »

A very minor accident last night. I was walking on a path and crossed road without looking behind me and took out an oncoming cyclist. Minimal contact but he came off the bike.

In my defence it was a one way street and the cyclist was going wrong way. Normally I would look both ways though (and in partic on this street as it's one of those roads where you know the odd car or bike will scoot down for a short cut) but was a nice evening and was in my own world.

Anyway the cyclist was a bit irate and though I did point out it was one way he said I should still have looked. He wasn't hurt it seemed, just miffed, so i just went on my way and ignored his mutterings. He might have been embarrassed as much as mad I guess.

So I guess strictly speaking I was in the right
? But guess that wouldn't have meant much If it was a car or a cyclist and i was hurt I guess. Will look from now on !!

No you weren’t in the right.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ted1

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He was 100% in the right. Shouldn't be bit by something that shouldn't be there.[/quote]
No he wasn’t , he stepped onto a road without looking left and right. My three year old knows always to do it.

I’d split the responsibility.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ted1

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Doesn't matter. The cyclist was going the wrong way down a one way street. I know they think they're entitled but it's not allowed. There's a big step between some bad judgement and that.[/quote]
It does matter. If it went to court the judge would say that there’s a requirement to ensure it’s clear before you cross.

Would you cross at a green man without checking if the cars are actually stopping?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.