Can cyclists answer me why??

custardy

Twiggy_34 wrote: »

I'm post migraine here so the brain is a little fuzzy, but I think the voluntary and pre-meditated act of shooting someone with a tool designed to maim/kill (regardless of bullet-proof vests) is a slightly different argument to accidentally knocking someone off their bike when they weren't as visible as they might have been. As would be choosing to intentionally collide with a cyclist, regardless of their choice of protective and/or visibility gear.

Well where does that end?
If the cyclist has small lights?
large lights?
towing a lighthouse?

You miss the other part. its not about intention,its about the manner of driving too
Many 'accidents' are simply down to poor driving.

Altarf

Avoriaz wrote: »

The laws on the use of shared paths are vague but this source suggests that "a pedestrian does have a legal duty to take care on a shared path".

Walking along in a large gang fooling around and blocking the entire path is not "taking care."

Nor is suddenly switching from one side to the other without looking.

A shared pavement is still a pavement that wholly belongs to the pedestrian. Given that in a cyclist / pedestrian encounter it is going to be the pedestrian that comes of worse, it is the cyclists that owes a duty of care to ensure that they do not injure a pedestrian, no matter whether the pedestrian has looked around or not.

If you don't like it, push the bike or use the road.

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

A shared pavement is still a pavement that wholly belongs to the pedestrian. Given that in a cyclist / pedestrian encounter it is going to be the pedestrian that comes of worse, it is the cyclists that owes a duty of care to ensure that they do not injure a pedestrian, no matter whether the pedestrian has looked around or not.

If you don't like it, push the bike or use the road.

'Duty of Care' currently does not exist as you suggest. If Strict Liability were to be introduced there would certainly be a legally-enforced duty of care to ensure more vulnerable road-users are protected. This would cover pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

brat

Twiggy_34 wrote: »

I do understand what you're saying, in this scenario the cycle path runs alongside a bypass road on the outskirts of the town and is, usually, clear from other users, certainly at the times when I'm on my way to and from work. Therefore, IMO, it's not really a question of safety. Most likely it's a question of convenience as there are a few side roads that come down to meet the bypass that cyclists would have to negotiate (it probably would have been more sense to have put a seamless cycle path on the opposite side of the road), but again, they would rarely encounter traffic coming from these side roads to hinder their journey significantly.

Convenience is significant. If a cycle path is on the other side of the road, if it's poor quality, if it stops and starts, it's not what a road cyclist wants to use.

You talk of 'frustration' in this context. Why do the entirely legal actions of another road user cause you frustration?

Altarf

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

'Duty of Care' currently does not exist as you suggest. If Strict Liability were to be introduced there would certainly be a legally-enforced duty of care to ensure more vulnerable road-users are protected. This would cover pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

You honestly don't think that if a cyclist on a pavement is approaching a pedestrian from behind at some speed, they owe the pedestrian a duty of care.

No wonder that people have such a low opinion of cyclists.

Marco_Panettone

Altarf wrote: »

You honestly don't think that if a cyclist on a pavement is approaching a pedestrian from behind at some speed, they owe the pedestrian a duty of care.

No wonder that people have such a low opinion of cyclists.

Of course I believe they do, just like motorists owe cyclists the very same duty of care.

All I said is that it currently has very little legal standing. This is wrong, and strict liability should be introduced to protect the more vulnerable road-user.

Altarf

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Of course I believe they do, just like motorists owe cyclists the very same duty of care.

All I said is that it currently has very little legal standing. This is wrong, and strict liability should be introduced to protect the more vulnerable road-user.

What on earth do you mean "has very little legal standing"?

- Cyclist coming fast up behind a pedestrian on a footpath
- Cyclist does nothing to recognise the pedestrian's presence, such as slow down until they are sure the pedestrian is aware of them
- Pedestrian steps in front of the cyclists without looking around
- Cyclist flattens pedestrian

Clearly in such a situation the cyclist owed the pedestrian a duty of care, but didn't give it.

Do you honestly think the courts would just shrug their shoulders and go "very little legal standing", rather than chuck the book at the cyclist?

esuhl

Out of interest, what is the "duty of care" that a cyclist has when using a dedicated cycle lane and a pedestrian steps into it without looking? I've nearly hit several people doing this (whilst still cycling at a low speed, wary that they may do so).

If a pedestrian stepped into a road, right in front of a car, without looking, no one would blame the driver if they couldn't stop in time. We don't ask drivers to slow down to 5mph or less when they see pedestrians walking along the footpath next to the road...

trollopscarletwoman

esuhl wrote: »

Out of interest, what is the "duty of care" that a cyclist has when using a dedicated cycle lane and a pedestrian steps into it without looking? I've nearly hit several people doing this (whilst still cycling at a low speed, wary that they may do so).

If a pedestrian stepped into a road, right in front of a car, without looking, no one would blame the driver if they couldn't stop in time. We don't ask drivers to slow down to 5mph or less when they see pedestrians walking along the footpath next to the road...

I agree with you on the dedicated cycle lane thing. You can only do your best on that one.

Where I am we haven't got any. On a training ride road only for me. Leisurely ride on the mountain bike then sometimes on the promenade pavement.

In that situation I see it as my duty to look after the pedestrian. Its inexcusable to ram somebody from behind. Strictly speaking cyclists (from those who seem never to have ridden a bike) dont allow pedalling anyway. Commonsense to ride on the promenade for those who don't do much road cycling.

You do develop a sixth sense of self preservation on the roads. Won't always save you mind.

[Deleted User]

Out there in the real world Altorf, the general public have taken to riding on the pavements just as our Prime Minister promised he would allow. so far nothings been done to repeal a stupid minor law which was enacted when the penny farthing was about. In the days of monster 4 by 4 cars and traffic from hell, we are riding in the safety zone and sharing it with what few pedestrians are about. In any case with a minor collision with a pedestrian, who s going to come off worst? the cyclist going at 7 or 8 mph and higher up will be more likely to come a cropper and take a nasty fall, so its in his interests to take more care, ring the bell etc.
The only people I see who moan about cycling on pavements are ancient old O.A.Ps, all the younger people are not bothered in the slightest. what about the postman Altoft ? do you vent your anger upon him/her. I know the Police do an obligatory visit every couple of years to Royal Mail and warn them, no postman takes a blind bit of notice and neither do the Police if they see a postman riding on the pavement