What do I do if a pedestrian steps out in front of me and I'm in one of these new cycle lanes?

[Deleted User]

tacpot12 said:

You need a loud horn on your bike, like this one: https://www.evanscycles.com/brand/hornit/cycle-horn-930750#colcode=93075001

At 140 dB, you should be able to sound it a good way ahead of the pedestrian and still have them hear it even if they are wearing earphones. 

If you read the reviews, these seem to break regularly, perhaps they improved it - I have heard one on a bike and they are loud but it's more like a buzzing than a bell ring and I suspect people are more likely to stop and look around to see what it is vs just shouting at them. Not convinced car drivers can hear it either

Nebulous2

If you really need to make a loud noise this is a possible option. https://www.airzound.co.uk/

I’d agree with others however, you need to avoid hitting them if you can, and make sure you have insurance. I get mine with a British Cycling membership.

ToxicWomble

Go and spend a week observing /cycling around Amsterdam/Dam Square area, you will be amazed at the lack of accidents and incidents there - no idea how 

jon81uk

Pedestrians will always be unpredictable, just be cautious and aware no matter if you are driving a car or a cycle, on a road or a cycle lane.

Chomeur

Johnmcl7 said:

Personally I wouldn't cycle at a speed I couldn't avoid a crash particularly when a cyclist is at risk of injury as well in a collision with a pedestrian.  Even if the bollards weren't there I wouldn't assume I could swerve out wide onto the road without checking since that risks getting hit by a car where you're definitely going to come off worse.  I go at a pace I can slow down or stop the bike as needed if a pedestrian steps out and managed it fine on narrow cycle lanes up until now.

It takes an instant to check whether there is space to swerve out if need be. If there's a bollard there then you can't swerve, simple as that.
If these bike lanes are to require me to slow down then they are pretty stupid as I thought the idea was to encourage cycling.

Chomeur

Chomeur said:

 But I don't think I can swerve any more because presumably those bollards are quite solid and I can't risk hitting one. And I don't want to go into the pavement either. So if a pedestrian steps out right in front of me they are going to get hit, and potentially badly hurt. 

Do you think you would be significantly less hurt hitting a pedestrian than a bollard? I would have thought what will be most damaging is you hitting the ground, and that would be the same in either case.

Yes I do. I would land on top of a pedestrian. A bollard would send me flying.

Chomeur

Sounds like a lot of them are being removed now anyway. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8874337/Cycle-lanes-installed-ripped-paralysing-cities-fuelling-local-uprising.html

fred246

I never really understand all the legalities. "Pedestrians are walking about playing with their phones, not looking where they are going". "OK so the cyclists should get insurance". How about the pedestrians getting insurance? Are pedestrians legally protected so they can do anything and are never liable? They could cause millions of pounds worth of damage causing serious motor vehicle accidents.

Nebulous2

I'm not sure it really is legalities. I'm not an expert but - I think it goes like this:-

Something happens (pedestrian gets hit with a bike) Pedestrian gets a no-win no-fee lawyer and sues for loss of earnings / distress / injury. Judge decides, did it happen? Who was at fault? That is where it gets difficult. Pedestrian is largely at fault (distracted / looking at phone / didn't hear bike) However does any fault lie with cyclist? ( In a busy area / lots of people going about / riding too fast for conditions) Bang - 20% liable. £1m claim - cant work because of serious injuries, cyclist is in the hole for £200k. 

Cyclists are campaigning for presumed liability which happens in a lot of other countries, which would have a hierarchy of vulnerability Lorry -> Car -> Motorbike -> Cyclist -> Pedestrian -> Child for example. 

That would mean if a car hits a cyclist the car is automatically presumed to be at fault and the onus would be on the driver to prove he wasn't. Presumed liability would also continue down the chain though. If a bike hit a pedestrian under that system, the cyclist would be presumed to be at fault and would be liable unless they could prove they weren't. 

I think insurance is a no-brainer for a cyclist. I'm about £40 a year for a British Cycling silver membership, which includes third party liability. The only time I needed it a car hit me and they appointed a solicitor to fight my corner. A wobble in traffic, putting a scratch on a fancy car, could cost a low four figure sum, before you even factor in injuries. Its one of those things you hope you never need, but you're glad you have if you do. 

fred246

A lot of home insurance policies have 'public liability' insurance. This always has a clause 'except for motor vehicle accidents' so you have to buy car insurance. That's supposed to cover cycling incidents. I suppose that would cover pedestrian liability too. Just never heard of a pedestrian being held liable.