London cyclist mows down an MP

On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
..

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:51:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/new...list-1-6683046

From the report, it sounds as if the MP was jaywalking and was hit by
a cyclist filtering past stationary motor vehicles.

On 19/06/2014 19:43, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
.

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?

Failing to give way to a pedestrian, particularly since it was at a
point where any sensible road user would be expecting to encounter
pedestrians, and would take the appropriate action, such as slowing,
sounding their means of warning and being able and prepared to stop if
necessary or take avoiding action.

IPSGA would have prevented the collision.
Information: such as :crossing place, stationary traffic, mode of
approach, time of day, other traffic and their position, sight lines.

Position: by making an extra lane amongst stationary traffic extra
caution needs to be taken, and can you be seen by others?, including
pedestrians. Is this the best position for the hazard?

Speed: slow down as needed even to a crawl or stop.

Gear: correct gear needed to accelerate after the hazard.

Accelerate: appropriate level for the conditions.

On 19/06/2014 19:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:43, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
.

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?

Failing to give way to a pedestrian, particularly since it was at a
point where any sensible road user would be expecting to encounter
pedestrians, and would take the appropriate action, such as slowing,
sounding their means of warning and being able and prepared to stop if
necessary or take avoiding action.

IPSGA would have prevented the collision.
Information: such as :crossing place, stationary traffic, mode of
approach, time of day, other traffic and their position, sight lines.

Position: by making an extra lane amongst stationary traffic extra
caution needs to be taken, and can you be seen by others?, including
pedestrians. Is this the best position for the hazard?

Speed: slow down as needed even to a crawl or stop.

Gear: correct gear needed to accelerate after the hazard.

Accelerate: appropriate level for the conditions.

I'm not sure this is case of failure to give way as I suspect the
pedestrian was not visible. Whilst this is actually very good advice
that I support, it goes way beyond the duty of care that we see commonly
exercised by motorists.

Anyway I'm happy to support your suggestions as to appropriate road
behaviour. I had thought that since Doug had left the group I was alone
in supporting such caution.

On 19/06/2014 20:17, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:43, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
.

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?

Failing to give way to a pedestrian, particularly since it was at a
point where any sensible road user would be expecting to encounter
pedestrians, and would take the appropriate action, such as slowing,
sounding their means of warning and being able and prepared to stop if
necessary or take avoiding action.

IPSGA would have prevented the collision.
Information: such as :crossing place, stationary traffic, mode of
approach, time of day, other traffic and their position, sight lines.

Position: by making an extra lane amongst stationary traffic extra
caution needs to be taken, and can you be seen by others?, including
pedestrians. Is this the best position for the hazard?

Speed: slow down as needed even to a crawl or stop.

Gear: correct gear needed to accelerate after the hazard.

Accelerate: appropriate level for the conditions.

I'm not sure this is case of failure to give way as I suspect the
pedestrian was not visible. Whilst this is actually very good advice
that I support, it goes way beyond the duty of care that we see commonly
exercised by motorists.

Anyway I'm happy to support your suggestions as to appropriate road
behaviour. I had thought that since Doug had left the group I was alone
in supporting such caution.


So the cyclist was travelling too fast for the conditions, no-one
justmaterialises in your way.

On 19/06/2014 20:48, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 20:17, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:43, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
.

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under
the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?

Failing to give way to a pedestrian, particularly since it was at a
point where any sensible road user would be expecting to encounter
pedestrians, and would take the appropriate action, such as slowing,
sounding their means of warning and being able and prepared to stop if
necessary or take avoiding action.

IPSGA would have prevented the collision.
Information: such as :crossing place, stationary traffic, mode of
approach, time of day, other traffic and their position, sight lines.

Position: by making an extra lane amongst stationary traffic extra
caution needs to be taken, and can you be seen by others?, including
pedestrians. Is this the best position for the hazard?

Speed: slow down as needed even to a crawl or stop.

Gear: correct gear needed to accelerate after the hazard.

Accelerate: appropriate level for the conditions.

I'm not sure this is case of failure to give way as I suspect the
pedestrian was not visible. Whilst this is actually very good advice
that I support, it goes way beyond the duty of care that we see commonly
exercised by motorists.

Anyway I'm happy to support your suggestions as to appropriate road
behaviour. I had thought that since Doug had left the group I was alone
in supporting such caution.


So the cyclist was travelling too fast for the conditions, no-one
justmaterialises in your way.

That would be Doug's view. However I'm a little more realistic and
realize that the proximity of road traffic and pedestrians means that
absolute avoidance of collisions is impossible when a pedestrian steps
out from behind a stationary vehicles. When such collisions are possible
I believe road traffic should slow so that if such collisions do occur
it is not at speeds which are likely to cause severe damage. One of the
reasons I support a 20mph speed limit in built up areas.

This slow speed appears to have been the case in this instance, judging
by the minor injuries, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Are
you saying that cars and bikes should always slow to such a speed that
they will not collide with a pedestrian stepping unexpectedly into the
carriageway?

On 19/06/2014 21:30, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 20:48, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 20:17, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:43, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
.

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under
the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of
vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?

Failing to give way to a pedestrian, particularly since it was at a
point where any sensible road user would be expecting to encounter
pedestrians, and would take the appropriate action, such as slowing,
sounding their means of warning and being able and prepared to stop if
necessary or take avoiding action.

IPSGA would have prevented the collision.
Information: such as :crossing place, stationary traffic, mode of
approach, time of day, other traffic and their position, sight lines.

Position: by making an extra lane amongst stationary traffic extra
caution needs to be taken, and can you be seen by others?, including
pedestrians. Is this the best position for the hazard?

Speed: slow down as needed even to a crawl or stop.

Gear: correct gear needed to accelerate after the hazard.

Accelerate: appropriate level for the conditions.

I'm not sure this is case of failure to give way as I suspect the
pedestrian was not visible. Whilst this is actually very good advice
that I support, it goes way beyond the duty of care that we see commonly
exercised by motorists.

Anyway I'm happy to support your suggestions as to appropriate road
behaviour. I had thought that since Doug had left the group I was alone
in supporting such caution.


So the cyclist was travelling too fast for the conditions, no-one
justmaterialises in your way.

That would be Doug's view. However I'm a little more realistic and
realize that the proximity of road traffic and pedestrians means that
absolute avoidance of collisions is impossible when a pedestrian steps
out from behind a stationary vehicles. When such collisions are possible
I believe road traffic should slow so that if such collisions do occur
it is not at speeds which are likely to cause severe damage. One of the
reasons I support a 20mph speed limit in built up areas.

This slow speed appears to have been the case in this instance, judging
by the minor injuries, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Are
you saying that cars and bikes should always slow to such a speed that
they will not collide with a pedestrian stepping unexpectedly into the
carriageway?


Pedestrians do not step out unexpectedly, any road user should know that
they may step into the road and therefore be expecting them to do so,
particularly at the place described.

Yes, if 1 mph will allow you to avoid a crash with the pedestrian that
comes from behind a van, then yes, travel at 1 mph. If you cannot see
because a van is obstructing you then slow right down if needed. Be
appropriate for the conditions.

Happily the person run into was quite fit, the same collision with a
child or an infirm person could have killed them. The cyclist was
travelling too fast for the conditions.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:27:30 +0100, Nick wrote:

On 19/06/2014 18:53, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 19/06/2014 18:03, Nick wrote:
On 19/06/2014 17:51, Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/new...list-1-6683046




Its not clear from this report why the MP was indignant.


Because vehicles, including bicycles need to take care to avoid running
down people or crashing into things. It is a basic tenet of road use.

Yes this is true and that duty of care should be scaled on the speed and
amount of damage the vehicle will cause if it does crash into something.

However it sounds very much like our MP stepped out into traffic from
behind a car without looking. So whilst our cyclist may bear some
culpability. I suspect our MP was crossing the road, close to but not at
a traffic light


Bugger - I had not realised that pedestrians can only cross a road at a traffic
light.

Perhaps M'Lud the Barista could clarify this fine legal point?

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:41:47 +0100, Nick wrote:

On 19/06/2014 19:34, Mrcheerful wrote:

Yes this is true and that duty of care should be scaled on the speed and
amount of damage the vehicle will cause if it does crash into something.

However it sounds very much like our MP stepped out into traffic from
behind a car without looking. So whilst our cyclist may bear some
culpability. I suspect our MP was crossing the road, close to but not at
a traffic light, very much in the spirit of "doing anything to prevent
having to stop". So one wonders if we are dealing with a hypocrite.

Have you tried to walk around in London recently? It is completely
ridiculous, there is a very high likelihood that on any normal bit of
pedestrian action you will encounter an out of control cyclist, no
matter whether you are on a pavement, a one way street or a pedestrian
crossing or a light controlled junction.

I do work in London. I don't recognize your description. There is some
mingling but it doesn't seem to be that problematic.

I can't see any indication that the cyclist was breaking any rules in
this instance.


Oh - is there a rule or law that says you can run in to pedestrians as you
wish?

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:43:52 +0100, Nick wrote:

On 19/06/2014 19:36, Mrcheerful wrote:
.

Bicycles can and do kill and maim people, they should operate under the
same set of laws as all other road vehicles.


Vehicles operate under different laws suitable for the type of vehicle.
Suggesting one set of rules is silly.

What rules do you think the cyclist broke in this case?


Rule 67 of the Highway Code:

Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being
opened or pedestrians stepping into your path