So there I was...cycling home last night...minding my own business... when all of a sudden a dumb pedestrian wanders in from the left. If I hadn't beeped, he wouldn't have seen me AT ALL!!! Relied on his ears, didn't look! I suppose with the new Highway Code changes, I should have stopped if his foot actually touched the road? (It didn't) It's always the same at pub closing time: drivers and pedestrians wander about blind. I heard him say "What the f*ck?!??" after I beeped and passed by. I'm not in any way affiliated with the Hornit db140 manufacturer, by the way - I just think it's a very useful product, which every cyclist should have some version of, made by whomever, bought from wherever. Cyclists are safer horny!

 

 

Edited February 10, 20224 yr by I893469365902345609348566

No you shouldn’t have stopped if his foot hit the road. According to the new rules the hierarchy only applies where you are turning into a side road or approaching a junction from a side road. You were travelling straight along the road so the pedestrian has no priority over traffic on that road unless at a zebra crossing.

 

Unfortunately there are idiots on four wheels, two wheels and foot.

One would still have a responsibility to be aware of pedestrians on the footpath, if you had hit him part of the blame would have been at your door.

From the footage it is evident he was approaching the road at the angle of the track he was walking, so whether or not a crossing place is involved or not the hierarchy relationship still has some say. One can't ignore and lay blame at the door of the pedestrian even though his actions may be deemed at fault.

 

You could have slowed down but chose not too, instead relying on a beep.

Charlie Alston tried a similar tactic when a zombie woman walked out in front ahead him, he decide to shout a warning rather then brake /slow down. His problem is he couldn't brake as he had no legal fitted one.

Yes, of course, all road users should be aware of other road users and pedestrians. However, I disagree that part of the blame would be at the door of the cyclist. The new rules don't absolve pedestrians of any responsibility for their or anyone else's safety.

 

It could be argued that by stepping out in front of the cyclist without looking or stopping he actually put the cyclist in danger and would be held accountable should the cyclist suffer any harm.

Yes, although the pedestrian had the responsibility for his own safety in this instance, the vehicle user has the responsibility to take the necessary avoiding action. Sounding a horn or any other audible warning doesn't qualify as avoiding action, braking and/or swerving does.

 

In this case you were riding close to the kerb which made the situation potentially more dangerous. It's best to take greater command of the lane you are in by being further out. It's other vehicle users responsibility to move out far enough to overtake you, not yours to hug the kerb to make overtaking easy for them.

 

Some sources have suggested cycling 3/4 of a metre from the kerb, that's 2ft 3 inches, though in law the whole lane you are in is yours to use. You don't have to get out of the way for any other vehicle.

.

However, I disagree that part of the blame would be at the door of the cyclist.

 

Every vehicle user has the responsibility to take avoiding action, sounding an audible warning does not qualify, as a recent case showed when the cyclist received an 18 month custodial sentence for killing a foolish pedestrian who stepped th wrong way. The blame was his since he only shouted a warning, failing to brake or take other avoiding action.

.

Every vehicle user has the responsibility to take avoiding action, sounding an audible warning does not qualify, as a recent case showed when the cyclist received an 18 month custodial sentence for killing a foolish pedestrian who stepped th wrong way. The blame was his since he only shouted a warning, failing to brake or take other avoiding action.

.

I think the main factor in that case is that his brakes were not operational not that he just shouted a warning but I do agree, all road users, including pedestrian, have a responsibility to others.

 

I just worry that many people seem to think that the new rules absolve pedestrians of any responsibility whatsoever just because they are at the top of the hierarchy, which isn't the case. It should be remembered that the Highway Code is just that, a code, it isn't the law. The law may refer to it in order to make judgements but the new rules are guidance on how people should behave.

If an accident had occurred the op would have had some dejavu and gone down the line as he did with the badger.

Yes, of course, all road users should be aware of other road users and pedestrians. However, I disagree that part of the blame would be at the door of the cyclist. The new rules don't absolve pedestrians of any responsibility for their or anyone else's safety.

 

It could be argued that by stepping out in front of the cyclist without looking or stopping he actually put the cyclist in danger and would be held accountable should the cyclist suffer any harm.

In marine and air transport the opposite is true. The person in charge of a ship or aircraft is required by law to take action to avoid a collision regardless of who has right of way.

 

In my opinion that is the right mindset for road users too, even if the highway code does not explicitly say so.

 

After my first and only car accident, an older and wiser driver friend gave me this advice: 'right of way is not something you've got. It's something you're given'.

What if the bloke had been a child or a disabled person, one just can't ignore one's own duty of care ?

The op stated the following so should have taken a bit more care .

[ "It's always the same at pub closing time: drivers and pedestrians wander about blind"].

I think the main factor in that case is that his brakes were not operational not that he just shouted a warning but I do agree, all road users, including pedestrian, have a responsibility to others.

 

Absolutely not so, that seemed to be the media view but they don't try cases.

 

The judge made the point very clear that Charlie Alliston should have taken avoiding action, stressing that an audible warning was not a defence. There was no legal action taken on his not having adequate brakes, despite it being unlawful.

.

To paraphrase an expression from my aviation days: 'You may be in the right, but there's no point in being DEAD right'.

To paraphrase an expression from my aviation days: 'You may be in the right, but there's no point in being DEAD right'.

 

Summed up in the jingle about Jolly Jack Tar and the international collision regulations at sea:

 

"He was right, dead right, as he sailed along

 

But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

.

You didn't happen to notice if this one was wearing a black and white jumper ?

the guy came out the garage and walked around 2 dodgy ppl he had no intention of crossing the road from what i can see.

Here's a photo of him looking at me, after hearing my beep and slowing down, slightly altering his course. He would have continued onto the road; whether it was because he was about to do so briefly to go around those people in dark clothing who appeared in his way after he walked around the corner of the garage, or because he decided to cross over then, because he was planning to cross later on anyway, we'll never know. Was he about to step onto the kerb with his left foot, to swivel like a dancer around those people? Doubtful. If you look cartefully at the photo, there was enough room between him and those two people, to walk past without using the road. Whatever his original plan was before he heard my beep, it changed after he heard it. He was stepping toward the road. He might have stepped onto the road after I passed by, but I don't have a rear view camera.

 

 

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by I893469365902345609348566

No you shouldn’t have stopped if his foot hit the road. According to the new rules the hierarchy only applies where you are turning into a side road or approaching a junction from a side road. You were travelling straight along the road so the pedestrian has no priority over traffic on that road unless at a zebra crossing.

 

 

Thanks, that's good to know.

Yes, although the pedestrian had the responsibility for his own safety in this instance, the vehicle user has the responsibility to take the necessary avoiding action. Sounding a horn or any other audible warning doesn't qualify as avoiding action, braking and/or swerving does.

 

In this case you were riding close to the kerb which made the situation potentially more dangerous. It's best to take greater command of the lane you are in by being further out. It's other vehicle users responsibility to move out far enough to overtake you, not yours to hug the kerb to make overtaking easy for them.

 

Some sources have suggested cycling 3/4 of a metre from the kerb, that's 2ft 3 inches, though in law the whole lane you are in is yours to use. You don't have to get out of the way for any other vehicle.

.

 

I make a point of sticking to the side of the road, to avoid being a bother to drivers. I was about 1m out. That's usually a very busy road, but that time of night was quiet and I should have used the middle of the lane, but I will certainly change my habits! Seems a safer strategy, especially at night when pedetrians are even more unpredictable. Habitually clearing camera memory, I deleted a video shot about an hour before that happened, where a guy in a parka was standing at the edge of the pavement, looking like he was about to cross. He was stationary, fiddling about his phone for ages, I saw him when I was about 200 yards away. I slowed down and beeped - no response. I swerved just in case he made a move, but he just stood there. Last night was only my third night back on the bike after the badger incident, and my first long ride. My wrist hurt like hell for 14.2 miles, but ultimately that might accelerate healing. I noticed that my right wing mirror was askew, and I couldn't keep it adjusted correctly - badger collision must have knocked it out, so it was harder to see if the road behind me was clear of cars. Thank you for your comments, I will definitely adopt middle lane in future. As regards the horn, I keep forgetting to prioritise braking and swerving, over the sounding of the horn! I'm still getting used to being back on the bike.

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by I893469365902345609348566

If an accident had occurred the op would have had some dejavu and gone down the line as he did with the badger.

 

Yes that would have been marvellous, adding injury to my wrist injury, or a new injury elewhere. Unlike the badger, this big nosed guy in hiviz wouldn't have simply departed the scene of the accident, with whatever injuries he might have sustained. I would have been blamed for being too quiet on a bike, or something. It was slightly uphill, hence faster cadence. I had slowed down to about 11mph, so he couldn't have accused me of cycling too fast. I can't actually watch that badger collision video. It took a fair amount of psyching up to get myself back on the bike!

What if the bloke had been a child or a disabled person, one just can't ignore one's own duty of care ?

The op stated the following so should have taken a bit more care .

[ "It's always the same at pub closing time: drivers and pedestrians wander about blind"].

 

I would have immediately braked and slowed down to a crawl if it had been a child, but because he was a big nosed tall adult in hiviz, I didn't. I wrongly assumed he had more sense, than to just step onto the road without a visual check traffic. I'll use the middle of the lane at night wherever possible, in future. It's a good job he wasn't deaf.

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by I893469365902345609348566

Yes, although the pedestrian had the responsibility for his own safety in this instance, the vehicle user has the responsibility to take the necessary avoiding action. Sounding a horn or any other audible warning doesn't qualify as avoiding action, braking and/or swerving does...

About 3 years ago I crashed my car into a ditch and wrote it off when taking evasive action to avoid a collision ( I had right of way on a twisty county road, as I got to a junction a car failed to stop at the give-way line and came into my lane, I swerved and lost control - maybe mud on the road?).

The lesson was that as there was no contact between me and the other road user, legally I had lost contol of my own vehicle and any damage was my fault - they were not liable for the write-off ! Thankfully they took reponsibility.

 

In OP case above, I'd be concerned about doing something unpredictable to avoid them and causing an accident myself - while the pedestrian walks away ...

In OP case above, I'd be concerned about doing something unpredictable to avoid them and causing an accident myself - while the pedestrian walks away ...

 

That is a risk we have to take by law, hitting a pedestrian isn't a legal option, even if it means killing ourselves instead. This is similar to the rules for an aircraft pilot. Faced with a real risk to the innocent on the ground using an alternative which might just come off, the pilot has to sacrifice themselves and all on board instead. The certainty takes precedent over the risk to the innocent.

 

Fundamentally a pedestrian can do no wrong. Locomotion using their own means is their basic right. From a crawling baby to a running pedestrian, it is the norm.

 

Using any vehicle to travel is abnormal, so the full responsibility for any such usage is that of the person using the vehicle. That is why there are extensive laws for any kind of vehicle usage but no law against "Jay walking".

.

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by flecc

An interesting discussion - whether the high viz guy was just going to step in the kerb to pass the two pedestrians or something else, we'll never know.

 

If this were a 'spot the ball' sort of thing, I'd say the guy was just going to step into the kerb to pass behind the peds, and surely he'd have seen the very bright pool of light on the road surface to warn him of the approaching bike?

 

But as said, we'll never know but it does illustrate that a cyclist has to stay very alert to the possibility of events like this. Good anticipation is key and having an awareness of what is around you (as in you'd be in a pickle if you took avoiding action and there was a car right behind you etc etc.). I never quite get why some people cycle with headphones on and listening to music etc. but that's another whole debate for another time!

 

Anyway, I'm glad you and the ped were safe - that's what counts.

That is a risk we have to take by law, hitting a pedestrian isn't a legal option, even if it means killing ourselves instead. This is similar to the rules for an aircraft pilot. Faced with a real risk to the innocent on the ground using an alternative which might just come off, the pilot has to sacrifice themselves and all on board instead. The certainty takes precedent over the risk to the innocent.

 

Fundamentally a pedestrian can do no wrong. Locomotion using their own means is their basic right. From a crawling baby to a running pedestrian, it is the norm.

 

Using any vehicle to travel is abnormal, so the full responsibility for any such usage is that of the person using the vehicle. That is why there are extensive laws for any kind of vehicle usage but no law against "Jay walking".

.

 

For an injury prevention point of view, I'd prefer a softer landing! But as you say, cycling into big nose hihiz guy isn't a legal option. In future, I'll have to swerve out into the path of cars, in an act of self sacrifice for the sake of Mr.Bignose, and those of his ilk.

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by I893469365902345609348566

An interesting discussion - whether the high viz guy was just going to step in the kerb to pass the two pedestrians or something else, we'll never know.

 

If this were a 'spot the ball' sort of thing, I'd say the guy was just going to step into the kerb to pass behind the peds, and surely he'd have seen the very bright pool of light on the road surface to warn him of the approaching bike?

 

But as said, we'll never know but it does illustrate that a cyclist has to stay very alert to the possibility of events like this. Good anticipation is key and having an awareness of what is around you (as in you'd be in a pickle if you took avoiding action and there was a car right behind you etc etc.). I never quite get why some people cycle with headphones on and listening to music etc. but that's another whole debate for another time!

 

Anyway, I'm glad you and the ped were safe - that's what counts.

 

My habit is to delete videos, ready for my next ride, therefore the unbrightened version of that video has been deleted. I've extracted the final few frames containing his leading left foot. I'm unsure if his foot has disappeared because of speed and the limitations of my cheapo camera, or if it's suddenly been angled in line with the direction of the kerb, as a reaction to some combination of the beep an bright light (which isn't as bright as it looks on the brightened video). I'm certain Bignose hiviz would have blundered into me if I hadn't beeped and loudly, and that pen he's holding would have surely have caused a nasty puncture wound to my balls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm giddily happy about this "1800LM" light - it's greatly improved my visibility! People are not conditioned to see cyclists, but they are conditioned to be wary when they see a bright headlight. I can't emphasise enough, how much this light has improved matters, when cycling at night. It's such a relief finally having a bike light which both allows me to see the road and obstacles clearly, as well as helping me be seen. Here are two frames from unedited video, which do show more accurately this light's effectiveness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is from the original video, before brightening:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if my new "1800LM" light alerted him to the approaching majesticness of my bike, it does look bright. The smaller light area below the brightest area, is the output of the 1.5W light in the fork. I may install a second 20W "1800LM" bike light, but I'm running out of space on my handlebar for independent switches; I may need a waterproof switchboard of some kind. I've still got to install a 12V car/lorry ultrasonic wildlife deterrent. But will it drive dogs into a frenzy as I pass by, make them frothily mad enough to chase me down and maul me?

Edited February 11, 20224 yr by I893469365902345609348566