On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote:
To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london


QUOTE:
Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was
“reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a
statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the
outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other
cyclists.
ENDQUOTE

But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the
need for caution and restraint is good for society in general?

Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800
pedestrians a year.

Who is "they"?

OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over
this one cyclist.

I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are
extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level.

This was a civil case, not a criminal one.

Full marks.

But had anyone said different?

It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement,
lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every
cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed.

The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an
air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely or less dangerous.
Braking hard does.

I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's
workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only
usefulness of noise to alert someone is when it is done with enough
separation in time and distance for them to look, realise the situation
and calmly make a course alteration.

Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top
of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again.
Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the
"lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone
else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view.

I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without
looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst
thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them
unpredictable.

As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns,
bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service
two-tones an obvious exception).

They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a
considerable source of noise nuisance.

Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst
indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver
behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too
close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to
fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the
need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive
by then).

Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward)

He did slow down.

I didn't see the report of that.

is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction
of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would
not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not
attempting to avoid her by simply stopping.

Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in
front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of
impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of
travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and
getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than
to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not
possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy.

Braking is always a part of the best strategy.