Discussion in 'transport' started by Bahnhof Strasse, Sep 10, 2019.
Surely, since the cyclist ran a red light, he could have stopped and thus avoided this situation?
I wasn't talking about the situation in the OP but rather teuchter's daft suggestion that cyclists should always be in a position to stop instantly if some steps into the road without looking.
In that case you fucked up 'involved'
I'm pretty sure teuchter was being facetious.
Well done you on stopping my shocking slander against a man who knocked someone onto the ground with his SUV and then continued to beat him.
I believe it's spelled 'tedious' but OK.
I've always admired your socialist attitude when sharing your sage advice. Imagine how minted you'd be if you charged.
Bastard autocorrect fucked my selling spelling
Not on that occasion. Absolutely a cyclist should not be cycling in a position or at a speed that does not allow them to avoid collision with someone stepping into the road unexpectedly. The same should apply to car drivers of course.
He'd need a watertight 'no refunds' policy.
Something that in many scenarios, such as the aforementioned situation of pedestrians idiotically materialising on the road between two parked buses on the northbound side of Brixton Road, is simply impossible. Unless all traffic was reduced to travelling at walking pace speed of 3 mph, because at the end of the day if you are cycling or driving along the road and someone just materialises a metre in front of you, anything faster than 3 mph would not leave enough time.
So the natural conclusion of such policy would be that all kind of traffic on all urban areas should travel at the same speed as a pedestrian, since any ped could be hiding behind a tree, or a parked vehicle, or standing by a internet phone box or other street furniture places close to the kerb; and if they decided to just sprint suddenly across the street, as apparently should be their right, and literally jump right in front of any traffic that happened to be travelling along the street, it is simply impossible for the other road users not to hit them unless going at 2-3 mph.
Or alternatively we could keep the current status where pedestrians are given priority within reason but not grant them immunity to do whatever the fuck they want regardless of how irresponsible their actions can get.
I don’t agree with strict jaywalking laws forbidding peds from crossing outside of designated crossing points, like they have in some European countries, but they should not expect to be absolved of all responsibility and given carte blanche to do as they please o matter how irresponsible and dangerous. either. In fact they should be made legally liable if their actions are deemed unquestionably irresponsible and result in an accident/ damage to third parties who were trying to avoid colliding into some zombie lemming who thinks the laws of physics do not govern over pedestrian movements.
If you're cycling along a bit of road with cars parked along the side, which is one of the situations in which a pedestrian can materialise from an unseen location (and let's not forget that such a pedestrian could be a child, rather than a 'zombie lemming') then you should be cycling fairly much in the middle of the lane, which you are doing anyway to protect yourself from car doors opening. That means that there will be a metre or so to the left of you, and that means that you first see the pedestrian when they've still got a metre to travel until they cross your path. You also have a little extra if you swerve, and the fact that you're further out gives them a better chance of seeing you too. Then you judge your speed so that if that situation should suddenly arise, you've got a reasonable chance of avoiding them. So in that scenario, you shouldn't be bombing along at 30mph, but if you are going at 10 or so it'll probably be ok. If it's a stretch of road without cars or other obstructions along the side, meaning you have a clear view of the pavement, then of course you can go faster.
As for cars, similar principles apply, except that the car has more momentum and is therefore fundamentally more dangerous. Yes I think cars should be going at a speed that gives a pedestrian (let's remember once again that it might be a child, rather than smartphone zombie) emerging between parked vehicles a good chance of survival. I think that means that on narrow streets with lots of cars parked along the sides, yes, drivers should be going at 5mph or so in many cases. Don't like that? Get rid of the parked cars, give everyone some more space and maybe you can go at 20mph.
And if there are parked buses, in a town centre area, why should it even be slightly controversial to suggest that drivers should be going pretty slow? If the road conditions are such that you are driving next to stopped buses, in the middle of Brixton, and you can't drive in a road position such that there is at least a metre or so between you and those buses, then yes, I think you should be going at 3mph.
On the speed awareness course I once had to do because I had been naughtily driving beyond the speed limit, the instructor made it plain that when driving in a town, it was considered the driver’s responsibility to go slowly enough to stop if a pedestrian emerged from between parked cars. Not that I needed telling of this, because it already seemed obvious enough to me. But the course had a whole section on it, including things like the stopping time at various speeds when passing a bus in a bus stop, allowing for the risk that a pedestrian suddenly emerges from in front of that bus. Collisions with a pedestrian are always considered partially the responsibility of the driver, regardless of whether that was negligent responsibility or not. If you don’t want to kill someone and live with that for the rest of your life, probably best to drive accordingly, really.
Pretty much, yes.
Teuchter is right. You should be travelling at a speed that enables you to avoid any potential hazards (including peds jumping out between buses on Brixton Rd.) If that speed is 2-3mph then that’s the max speed you should be doing.
Can you imagine the responses here if a driver said it’s impossible to drive slowly enough to avoid dickhead pedestrians?
The rules are exactly the same for cyclists.
These sum up exactly what I believe should be the case.
No, no you don't understand. That's fine for drives, but with cyclists it is everyone elses responsibility to accommodate them.
It occurred to me recently that I should leave my front door open in case a passing cyclist wanted to ride through by flat. If I don't the poor person would simply ride headlong into the door. After all a door wont move because you blow a horn, and what else is a poor cyclists to do if something or someone is in their path.
Oh yeah I like that cyclists insist that they are right to ride in the middle of the road and slow down traffic for their safety. But will not entertain the idea that they should slow down for the safety of pedestrians.
Hahhaa. You don't really like it. You're being sarcastic.
Separate names with a comma.