View Single Post
  #38  
Old June 23rd 19, 04:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 23/06/2019 08:33, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote:
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.

Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'.


The words are synonyms. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we
run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt.


Even if you cannot actually stop before the collision, any reduction in
impact speed will improve the outcome for all parties involved.


That is true. We don't hear that mantra about vehicle/pedestrian
collision speeds much any more, but the laws of physics still apply.


Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home