Cyclist & Pedestrian Collision -

sulli

Hey all,

This morning on my cycle into work a cyclist and pedestrian collided on Kevin Street Lower. The situation was I was just just pulling off from the traffic lights outside Guards station (kevin street) and heard a loud roar, a woman had nearly walked off the footpath by the Dublin Bike station and straight into a cyclist, the cyclist was the person who left out the roar to get her to stop. No collision there!

Then the same woman literally 5 seconds later decided to then try and cross the road immediately having avoided being hit by that cyclist, but she never looked right and stepped straight into the path of a young fella cycling in front of me. Big collision. Thankfully both parties got up and bar being a bit shook, no major injuries.

Question is...the pedestrian was in the wrong stepping off...if lets say the bike got damaged or there were injuries to cyclist, bar an ambulance having to be called...what is best practice...is it just an exchange of details?

ED E

A driver shall not drive at a speed exceeding that which will enable him to halt the vehicle within the distance he can see to be clear.

No matter how moronic, and by golly that ped deserves a darwin award, the cyclist would be at fault.

jon1981

Yeah, sadly it's the cyclist. Same way if a ped stepped out in front of car, the car is at fault.

Despite all the furore over cyclist liability, Pedestrians have zero liability protection status.

retalivity

Thats on my commute. Every day, i see at least 1 person step into the bike lane without looking or on their phone. Ive hit 2 people already there in the last ~18 mths, now give everyone an extra wide berth for their potential stupidity.

That stretch between bride st and wexford st annoys me more than anywhere else in dublin. Idiots crossing the street while not looking, All the cyclists jumping the red lights outside the garda station, 2 lanes merging to 1 and cars blocking the cycle lane. Cars parked outside boojum forcing bikes into traffic, a nightmare

Political Wall Map

Yeah, but she pays road tax!!

punisher5112

One could bring a civil suit against say the pedestrian but you want a lot of money.

I've taken out 2 cycling on the footpaths in the city....
One into a wall and the other went flying after colliding with my shoulder.

I've been hit while crossing on a green Man or person or whatever they're called now....

Macy0161

ED E wrote: »

No matter how moronic, and by golly that ped deserves a darwin award, the cyclist would be at fault.

I'm not sure that's right. The rules about driving to a speed that you can see and safely brake is for corners, brows of hills etc.

The cyclist probably could stop in the distance they could see. We've no presumed liability, so.id see it as a civil case to determine liability. But cyclist had the right of way.

Breezer

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not sure that's right. The rules about driving to a speed that you can see and safely brake is for corners, brows of hills etc.

The cyclist probably could stop in the distance they could see. We've no presumed liability, so.id see it as a civil case to determine liability. But cyclist had the right of way.

There was a case in London recently where a cyclist hit a pedestrian crossing against a red man and focusing on her phone. They were found equally liable, and confusingly this meant the cyclist had to pay 50% of the pedestrian’s damages. The pedestrian didn’t appear to have to pay the cyclist anything even though he was injured too (I assume the cyclist didn’t counterclaim).

It’s described in detail here:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f2f2c78a-6ff7-4c08-88b8-2f9e32fec8df

That description makes it seem like the cyclist had plenty of time to stop and didn’t. I recall seeing a video in a thread on here though, where the pedestrian seemed to just step out in front of the cyclist suddenly. The general consensus was it was incredibly harsh on the cyclist. I’ll try dredge the thread up.

Edit: Here’s the thread. No video. I guess that must have been a different incident.

RacoonQueen

Assuming that is the case I'm thinking of, IIRC the pedestrian was on her phone or something and stepped out, countless witnesses to state she was at fault but she sued the cyclist and he had to pay out so much money it would bankrupt him. He wasn't an ass and was just going to get on with his life, despite being at fault and didn't counterclaim...so has to pay out. Probably would have been cleared if he counter claimed.

sulli

retalivity wrote: »

Thats on my commute. Every day, i see at least 1 person step into the bike lane without looking or on their phone. Ive hit 2 people already there in the last ~18 mths, now give everyone an extra wide berth for their potential stupidity.

That stretch between bride st and wexford st annoys me more than anywhere else in dublin. Idiots crossing the street while not looking, All the cyclists jumping the red lights outside the garda station, 2 lanes merging to 1 and cars blocking the cycle lane. Cars parked outside boojum forcing bikes into traffic, a nightmare

It is quite frustrating at the Kevin street garda station the amount of people that go when green man is on for all 4 traffic lights...outside the garda station...could easily bring a chair and a cup of coffee and sit outside...make the days fines in a few short mins!!! I kid!!

sulli

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not sure that's right. The rules about driving to a speed that you can see and safely brake is for corners, brows of hills etc.

The cyclist probably could stop in the distance they could see. We've no presumed liability, so.id see it as a civil case to determine liability. But cyclist had the right of way.

There was no time at all...she actually stepped into him rather he cycled into her...there was no way he could even swerve to avoid the pedestrian.

seamus

jon1981 wrote: »

Yeah, sadly it's the cyclist. Same way if a ped stepped out in front of car, the car is at fault.

This is not the case.

The law applies to pedestrians too, and there are laws about when and how to safely cross a road and the obligation to give ways to vehicles using the road.

Pedestrians cannot just step blindly out into traffic and be absolved of liability.

The confusion here arises because when it goes to court, a court will often award damages to the pedestrian purely on the basis that a motorist has insurance which will cover the damages, and not on any legislative basis.

In the case of cyclist -v- pedestrian, this doesn't apply. An adult pedestrian who steps out in front of traffic, is at fault on first glance.

The UK case would probably have similar outcomes here, and that's because it was a pedestrian crossing. Anyone using the road has a general obligation, as mentioned above, to travel at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear, and to make accomodation for all reasonable expectations.

When you approach any kind of junction, be that a pedestrian crossing, a T-junction, a crossroads, etc., then you should reasonably expect that someone or something may cross your path, even if you have the green light. You must slow down as you approach a junction. Likewise if you are approaching a pedestrian crossing and you can also see a pedestrian approaching it, it is to be reasonably expected that they may step out. And you should make accommodations for that, either by moving out or by slowing down.

People often assume that having the right of way is solid gold. If you have the right of way, you will never be at fault. This is not correct. In terms of priorities, doing your best to avoid collisions comes above having the right of way. That is, if you can see a collision is possible, then you are obliged to do what's necessary avoid it, regardless of who has right of way.

loyatemu

seamus wrote: »

This is not the case.

The law applies to pedestrians too, and there are laws about when and how to safely cross a road and the obligation to give ways to vehicles using the road.

Pedestrians cannot just step blindly out into traffic and be absolved of liability.

do you have a reference for this? Whilst it's obviously not advisable for peds to step out into traffic, I believe in the UK at least peds have priority in all circumstances, not sure what the law says here.

if there's a pedestrian crossing nearby, you're supposed to use it but is there a penalty if you don't? I don't think jaywalking is an offence here. What if you cross against the lights at a crossing?

Even at a zebra crossing the law is unclear, the ROTR says that a pedestrian only gets right of way when they step onto the road, but I would have expected that to be the case whether there's a crossing marked or not. Anyone know what the actual law says?

Macy0161

Haven't time to look up the specific legislation, but jaywalking is covered, within a certain distance of a crossing (I think 20 yards, as it may be as out of date as cycle light rules).

I think there's a lot in this thread which is all road user specific - driving at speed you can see is one of the things that must be 90% ignored by motorists, slowing approaching a junction even when on green, pedestrians on the main road having priority at junctions rather than the vehicle turning off the main road etc etc. All lost in our Car is King road culture.

loyatemu

Macy0161 wrote: »

Haven't time to look up the specific legislation, but jaywalking is covered, within a certain distance of a crossing (I think 20 yards, as it may be as out of date as cycle light rules).

I think there's a lot in this thread which is all road user specific - driving at speed you can see is one of the things that must be 90% ignored by motorists, slowing approaching a junction even when on green, pedestrians on the main road having priority at junctions rather than the vehicle turning off the main road etc etc. All lost in our Car is King road culture.

this is true, regardless of what the law says, liability is decided in court and a judge will probably say "well you shouldn't have been on the road", regardless of whether the motorist was paying attention, or sticking to the limit.

Areas with high levels of pedestrians and cyclists should all have a 30km/h limit IMO with roads engineered to keep cars to that speed.

cdaly_

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'm not sure that's right. The rules about driving to a speed that you can see and safely brake is for corners, brows of hills etc.

Pretty sure it's all the time. Otherwise you have a situation where you can drive on a straight road too fast to safely stop and not be at fault.

Macy0161

cdaly_ wrote: »

Pretty sure it's all the time. Otherwise you have a situation where you can drive on a straight road too fast to safely stop and not be at fault.

What I meant is that on a straight, in daylight, the safely stop speed (notwithstanding speed limits where applicable) is the distance you can see the road is clear.

If everyone (in whatever mode) had to go at the speed in case a random punter walked out/ jumped out of ditch, max speed would be pretty much walking pace, wouldn't it?

mrcheez

On a similar topic, who is at fault if a dog walker lets their dog off the lead and it careens into the path of a bike causing injury to both cyclist and animal?

See this (almost) happen several times in Fairview Park on the shared bike/pedestrian path.

Aren't dogs supposed to be on a lead at all times?

Macy0161

mrcheez wrote: »

Aren't dogs supposed to be on a lead at all times?

I think it's "under control" rather than on a lead, notwithstanding by laws.

How can they pretend to not see their dogs take a dump with they're on a lead?

cdaly_

Macy0161 wrote: »

What I meant is that on a straight, in daylight, the safely stop speed (notwithstanding speed limits where applicable) is the distance you can see the road is clear.

If everyone (in whatever mode) had to go at the speed in case a random punter walked out/ jumped out of ditch, max speed would be pretty much walking pace, wouldn't it?

Technically yes but in practice it means things like "don't drive past a footpath full of pedestrians at 100kph." Instead, slow down, observe, move out so that there is more of a buffer zone etc.

Mercian Pro

mrcheez wrote: »

On a similar topic, who is at fault if a dog walker lets their dog off the lead and it careens into the path of a bike causing injury to both cyclist and animal?

See this (almost) happen several times in Fairview Park on the shared bike/pedestrian path.

Aren't dogs supposed to be on a lead at all times?

Dublin City Control of Dogs Bye-Laws:

A person in charge of a dog in an area specified in the First Schedule to these Bye-Laws [ except (a) American Pitbull Terrier, (b) Bull Mastiff ,
(c) Doberman Pinscher, (d) English Bull Terrier, (e) German Shepherd
(Alsatian), (f) Japenese Akita, (g) Japenese Tosa, (h) Rhodesian Ridgeback, (i) Rottweiler, (J) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and to every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog) and to every other strain or cross of every breed of every type of dog described above] shall keep the dog on a sufficiently strong chain or leash, not exceeding two metres in length if a fixed leash, or ten metres if retractable, while in that area, except during the following times when the dog may be unleashed in such areas (but excluding the North Bull Island and any other such area for which a Special Amenity Area Order is made) provided that such dog must still be under the effectual control of the person-in-charge of the dog in accordance with the Control of Dogs Acts, 1986 and 1992:
January & December: 8.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m., 4.00 p.m. - 5.00 p.m.
February & November: 8.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m., 4.30 p.m. - 5.30 p.m.
March & October: 8.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m., 5.30 p.m. - 6.30 p.m. (Wintertime), 6.30 p.m. - 7.30 p.m. (Summertime)
April & September: 8.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m., 7.30 p.m. - 8.30 p.m.
May & June: 8.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m.
July & August: 8.30 p.m. - 9.30 p.m


Essentially, it means that in Dublin City Parks, dogs can be let off their lead up to 11.00am and for the last hour before closing. When off the lead, they must still be "under the effectual control" of their owner.

mrcheez

Right, so it would be assumed that the owner is at fault in the case of a collision caused by the animal suddenly running into your path while off lead, notwithstanding their complete lack of consideration to the animal's well being on a busy path.

Mercian Pro

mrcheez wrote: »

Right, so it would be assumed that the owner is at fault in the case of a collision caused by the animal suddenly running into your path while off lead, notwithstanding their complete lack of consideration to the animal's well being on a busy path.

They would certainly be in breach of the Bye-Laws but, if you ended up in court, I'd imagine a judge would factor in how fast you were going, what avoiding action you took etc, etc, etc.

ED E

In practice I suspect the chance of getting a "bloody cyclists" response from most of the judiciary is very very high.

Large bottle small glass

ED E wrote: »

In practice I suspect the chance of getting a "bloody cyclists" response from most of the judiciary is very very high.

No there is absolutel liability on dog owners under The 1986 Control of Dogs Act

eeeee

Had a woman walking a dog in the dark in the cycle land of the phoenix park on my way home this evening. I have good lights, but still. She was oblivious to those around her. Just after I went around her, a ninja bike salmon headed straight at me.
The joys.

seamus

In the case of dogs, "strict liability" applies specifically. The dog owner is always at fault for any damage caused by their dog.

There is no apportioning of blame. If a dog wanders into the road and collides with a vehicle, the resultant damage is the dog owner's fault even if the driver was bollock drunk.

seamus

loyatemu wrote: »

do you have a reference for this? Whilst it's obviously not advisable for peds to step out into traffic, I believe in the UK at least peds have priority in all circumstances, not sure what the law says here.

Here you go:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article46

There's the general obligation to exercise care, to use a footpath where provided, and it's illegal to cross within 15m of a pedestrian crossing.

Also a new one on me; if you're crossing at a junction, you're only allowed to cross when traffic going in the same direction as you has a green light.

check_six

Is it correct to say that if someone jumps out in front of you, and you collide with them, it is your fault, or at best 50/50 liability if they have given you no chance to stop or avoid them? Whereas if they are a bit hairier, have a couple more legs, and answer to "Rover" and the smell of sausages, it is their owner's fault 100%?

Can someone clarify for me here?

punisher5112

check_six wrote: »

Is it correct to say that if someone jumps out in front of you, and you collide with them, it is your fault, or at best 50/50 liability if they have given you no chance to stop or avoid them? Whereas if they are a bit hairier, have a couple more legs, and answer to "Rover" and the smell of sausages, it is their owner's fault 100%?

Can someone clarify for me here?

The insurance is usually what decides as vehicles have it pedestrians don't.

check_six

punisher5112 wrote: »

The insurance is usually what decides as vehicles have it pedestrians don't.

Imagine I'm on a bike with no third party insurance. (Can you get third party insurance for a dog?)