Speeding Cyclists

Johno100

Nebulous2 wrote: »

This is a very good example of the 'tribal mentality' referred to in the BBC news article linked in one of the posts above.

Nothing about how the accident happened. Maybe the pedestrian stepped off the pavement in front of the cyclist who didn't have time to stop?

Yet it is used to show that cyclists are going too fast.

The parish council warned the police?

Well if the cyclist couldn't stop in time then they were going too quick, or does that only apply when the vehicle involved is motorised?

Nebulous2 wrote: »

So why are you quoting it if you don't know?

I find it quite offensive that you are prepared to use somebody's death to promote your own prejudices when it may well have no connection whatsoever.

And its not as if cycling advocates ever use the deaths of cyclists to advance their agenda and prejudices before the full story comes out.

Marco_Panettone

Whenever there is any sort of collision (cyclist vs pedestrian, car driver vs cyclist, driver vs driver) it is because someone is not behaving as the conditions dictate. This might be going too fast, or overtaking in the wrong place, or pulling out inappropriately at a junction.


Much of the damage caused can be averted by environmental changes to protect more vulnerable people from the greater danger by building protected lanes for cycling so people can ride without fear of motor vehicles without mixing with pedestrians on pavements and improving junctions to separate by time what cannot be separated by space. Introducing strict liability would also help as the person bringing the greater danger would legally have the greater responsibility to ensure more vulnerable people are kept safe.

Johno100

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Much of the damage caused can be averted by environmental changes to protect more vulnerable people from the greater danger by building protected lanes for cycling so people can ride without fear of motor vehicles without mixing with pedestrians on pavements and improving junctions to separate by time what cannot be separated by space. Introducing strict liability would also help as the person bringing the greater danger would legally have the greater responsibility to ensure more vulnerable people are kept safe.

So you would support strict/presumed civil liability if a fast moving cyclist struck a more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian?

Rotor

Johno100 wrote: »

So you would support strict/presumed civil liability if a fast moving cyclist struck a more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian?

Why do you consider a pedestrian more vulnerable than a cyclist?
Cyclists have more velocity both before and after a collision and usually fall from a greater height. Both parties will impact with parts of the cycle.

Marco_Panettone

Johno100 wrote: »

So you would support strict/presumed civil liability if a fast moving cyclist struck a more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian?

Absolutely. Strict liability should be used to help ensure people look after those in a more vulnerable position. It also puts the default mode of transport (walking) at the top, followed by cycling, followed by any form of powered travel.


It's about physics - F=MA. The bigger something is and the faster something is travelling, the more 'dangerous' it is to other people - the more force it is capable of transferring in a collision with anything else.

Marco_Panettone

Rotor wrote: »

Why do you consider a pedestrian more vulnerable than a cyclist?
Cyclists have more velocity both before and after a collision and usually fall from a greater height. Both parties will impact with parts of the cycle.

Because they are.

DCodd

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Because they are.

I suppose it depends on how you define "vunerable". Without doubt a pedestrian is more vunerable to injury in an collision with any faster moving vehicle but they are in a better position to avoid a collision. Meaning that they are less vunerable to being involved in a collision in the first place.

Rotor

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Because they are.

Well that's busted me wide open!

Marco_Panettone

Pedestrians bring less mass and less speed to a collision than someone on a bike. This means the force they bring is lower. This means the danger they add is lower.


It is absolutely about causing injury to other people.


If a cyclist hits a pedestrian and falls, any injury to the cyclist is caused by the subsequent fall, not the initial collision. The pedestrian will be injured by the collision AND the fall.


I'm not really sure what is meant by being "in a better position to avoid a collision". How? Why?

aleph_0

Johno100 wrote: »

Well if the cyclist couldn't stop in time then they were going too quick, or does that only apply when the vehicle involved is motorised?

I think this speculation is unhealthy, but it's nothing to do with whether the vehicle is motorised. The scenario suggested was if a pedestrian stepped out into the road without warning, then no vehicle could stop in time. Of course, it would depend on visual clues. The junction in question treats pedestrians as a low priority and hides the potential hazards.

The point is, we don't know what happened. Speculating about the cause either way is silly. In any case, I can't see anything cycling-specific about the collision (as in, if the cyclist involved was in a car, could the same accident have occurred?).

Strict liability for cyclist vs pedestrian is an interesting one. In principle, I support it. But the vulnerability of cyclists isn't that much different from pedestrians sometimes, especially using inadequate off-road infrastructure. But maybe that just means we need to redesigning inadequate infrastructure before we implement such a law.