Hit a Pedestrian - No remorse

Rob_l

Another one.

This morning while coming into work down along the canal from harolds cross to portabello I hit a pedestrian, she stepped out from in front of a jeep right into the cycle path i was only about two maybe three metres from her by the time i saw her and travelling at quite a speed, I shouted and broke hard but she was wearing earphones and didnt look in the direction the cycle traffic was coming from so i hit her quite hard.

My front wheel is buckled my front light is smashed, the hood on my brake rear de-railer lever is smashed i have cuts and bruises down my leg.

Despite me coming over the top of the bike the other pedestrians cared not a jot for my well being in fact two of them began to give me abuse as if it was my fault, which only served to further rally my anger.

So i have two points really, firstly we hear talk a lot about cycle safety and obeying the rules of the road but in any of the accidents i have been involved in it is others who should obey the rules not me, clearly this pedestrian doesn't know the safe cross code (i thought we all learned it in school), i have previously narrowly escaped accidents when other pedestrians have done the same and also motorbikes pulling into cycle lanes in front of me not even caring if i was coming along on the line they swerved into.

And secondly as the title says I feel absolutely no remorse she did get hit quite hard as I was travelling at quite a speed but it was her fault and I got hurt plus damaged my bike, should I feel sorry for her?

Gavin

As a human being, I'd imagine you'd feel at least slightly sorry for her. She got walloped at speed by a bike, probably scared the **** out of her and you.

It does sound like it was her fault, although frankly, you should be aware that this can happen and not be travelling at such a speed that you can't stop if needs be.

Anyway, were you able to talk to her and sort out contact details ? Was she injured, ambo called ?

Caroline_ie

Rob_l wrote: »

I feel absolutely no remorse she did get hit quite hard as I was travelling at quite a speed but it was her fault and I got hurt plus damaged my bike, should I feel sorry for her?

I hope you are ok yourself... and the bike. I wouldn't be happy to have hurt someone like that, but I can see where you are coming from. I hope she learnt something from it.

Take it easy

dub_skav

I don't believe you should feel any guilt as it was her fault, but I do think you can feel sorry for her if she has been hurt. I f she just hopped up and was none the worse for it then I wouldn't give her another thought.

Were there (impartial) witnesses, were details exchanged, is she going ot pay for bike repairs?

dr.bollocko

And if you hit her in a car she'd be dead. If you were going too fast to slow down that's not good. I can see your troubles as stupid pedestrians do stupid things all of the time when I am driving, but its live and let live, not live and let die!

Rob_l

Verb wrote: »

As a human being, I'd imagine you'd feel at least slightly sorry for her. She got walloped at speed by a bike, probably scared the **** out of her and you.

It does sound like it was her fault, although frankly, you should be aware that this can happen and not be travelling at such a speed that you can't stop if needs be.

Anyway, were you able to talk to her and sort out contact details ? Was she injured, ambo called ?

As another human no I wasn't, other people stopped to look after her then proceeded to give out to me claiming it was my fault one gent quietly to me agreed it wasn't my fault but everyone else wanted to blame me. its not that I couldn't stop it was that it was so sudden she stepped out from in front of a vehicle, there was no possible way to stop the bike had i been travelling slower i would have still hit her just not as bad

Rob_l

dub_skav wrote: »

I don't believe you should feel any guilt as it was her fault, but I do think you can feel sorry for her if she has been hurt. I f she just hopped up and was none the worse for it then I wouldn't give her another thought.

Were there (impartial) witnesses, were details exchanged, is she going ot pay for bike repairs?

I wanted to call the garda but seeing as no one wanted to do this but instead give me abuse I left after five minutes

Malari

I think you can feel regret that an accident happened without aportioning blame. Saying you don't have remorse sounds very harsh, clearly you would have avoided her if it was possible to do so.

Yes, it was clearly her fault, and I would have felt the same, especially if passers-by were blaming me! Were you hurt? Was she? I would try to get something out of her to cover damage to your bike.

Kinetic^

Rob_l wrote: »

should I feel sorry for her?

I wouldn't. She should count herself lucky it wasn't a motorbike/bus/truck/car that hit her.


We seem to have this very relaxed attitude in this country towards pedestrians walking on roads when there's traffic about. I see it every day on the way to and from work. Just yesterday evening on the way home I seen a woman nearly get killed by running out from behind a van. She was just too lazy to use the pedestrian lights. I'm sure she got a shock but come on for fùck sake, have some god damn common sense. The vehicle on the road has the right of way unless they is traffic/pedestrian lights that say other wise.

As for the argument of speed and not stopping fast enough, if it was a motorised vehicle, there was probably no chance of them stopping either.

PeadarofAodh

Sorry to hear about that, hope you got her details.

I've had some near misses myself similar to your situation - it really doesn't matter what speed you're going at if a pedestrian steps out, they give you no chance whatsoever to brake in time. The only thing you can do is reduce speed when going through high-risk pedestri-lemming areas (Ranelagh for me) and pray you see them in time.

niceonetom

remorse? no, that's for someone who was in the wrong (which you say you weren't and i'm happy enough to take your word for it - i see lemmings everyday).

human compassion? yes, though it might take have to wait for the anger to pass before it can surface. we cyclists a re a simple breed and really only capable of one strong emotion at a time.

did you exchange details?

Malari

Kinetic^ wrote: »

We seem to have this very relaxed attitude in this country towards pedestrians walking on roads when there's traffic about. I see it every day on the way to and from work.

Yes, people also don't tend to judge speed of cyclists very well. They think you are only pottering along, when you might be going over 30kph.

bobtjustice

Rob_l wrote: »

I wanted to call the garda but seeing as no one wanted to do this but instead give me abuse I left after five minutes

Perhaps your not feeling sorry for her as it seems everyone ganged up on you after the crash, people walking in cycle paths seems to be an epidimic in this city.
I'd be gratefull that neither of you wound up in hostiptal.
Though I do take the stand point that she was at fault. And i most probably would be enraged if everyone else started blaming me for a crash that was plainly not my fault.
Stay safe.

Bob

Chips Lovell

Sounds like she was entirely at fault. Too many pedestrians only look out for cars. I wouldn't be crowing about having 'no remorse' though. If she had been killed or seriously injured, even it she was at fault, would you still be saying the same?

kmick

As a cyclist you see people crossing in front of buses and vans all the time. I tend to slow if I cant see and the traffic is stopped. Hopefully this girl learns a lesson and you have too. If the traffic is stopped be more careful - idiots abound. I mean at the end of the day you were hurt too and will have to pay for the damage to the bike yourself. Im sure if you could have avoided the accident you woud have.

Rob_l

PeadarofAodh wrote: »

Sorry to hear about that, hope you got her details.

I've had some near misses myself similar to your situation - it really doesn't matter what speed you're going at if a pedestrian steps out, they give you no chance whatsoever to brake in time. The only thing you can do is reduce speed when going through high-risk pedestri-lemming areas (Ranelagh for me) and pray you see them in time.

I was travelling down along the canal which is a very busy designated cycle lane so it is not as if she shouldn't be aware cyclists use this route, and as i have said she stepped straight into my line and did not even glance to see if anything was coming she was happy that as the motor traffic was stopped she could continue walking were she liked( i dont think she will make this mistake again) she also couldn't hear my desperate last second shouts as i seen her as she was wearing earphones.

I didn't get details as its not like she was insured and other pedestrians were shouting at me, I was hurt and getting increasingly angry so i left. ( On a side note what is the legal view on me trying to claim for damages done to the bike i wont be this time but am wondering what view the law would take of the incident)

jeffontour

Sorry to hear it. Very similar thing happened me along the same stretch a few years back. My initial reaction was to go apesh!t but after a minute I ensured the girl in question was ok and carried on. I was lucky I didn't damage my bike or myself other than some bumps and scrapes.

A bus very nearly evacuated some passengers into my (cycle)path this morning, stuck some new brake blocks on last night and was glad of them!

Unfortunately it's gonna happen, peds and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users but also the least accountable when they break the rules of the road, this can sometimes lead to them doing stupid things. All you can do as a cyclist is be observant and responsible and hope the idiots eventually fall foul of evolution!

DirkVoodoo

"Everyone makes mistakes, thats why they put erasers on pencils"

I would feel bad if she were hurt, as others have mentioned. And to single out one mindless pedestrian is wrong, it is a problem with the city in general. She should have crossed at a pedestrian crossing, not between traffic, but this is probably something she and millions others do every day without incident.

Hope your cuts heal ok and no permanent damage to your person was done.

Also, the comment about you going too fast was ridiculous, you were well inside the limit and if someone steps out right in front of you, after the initial shock subsides you have hardly anytime to react without endangering yourself further and skidding dangerously over the road. And he is not a car, such comparisons are inane. If he was a bus, a plane, a train or even superman, then she would be dead, so it makes no sense to draw such comparisons.

TinyExplosions

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If he was a bus, a plane, a train or even superman, then she would be dead, so it makes no sense to draw such comparisons.

Ah now come one, Superman wouldn't have killed her, he's Superman!

In all seriousness, I think that it's possibly the adrenelin and shock is talking when you say you have no remorse, coupled with the (very bad IMO) reaction from the other onlookers, but I think you'd feel differently if the lady was hurt badly -it's only human after all.

Again, with anyone that brings up the speed thing, I think it's fair to say that there was nothing you could do -you shouldn't go creeping along at walking pace just because some idiot could come out in front of you.

I'm sorry to hear you're banged up, but glad you're not seriously hurt. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything you can do at this stage about getting repairs paid for as you didn't get the womans details and it sounds like there were no witnesses that would back you up (a sad state of affairs I feel)

DirkVoodoo

Ok, but the evil superman who drank hard and flicked peanuts at bars would have!

dr.bollocko

Its pretty crappy to have a bunch of people ganging up on someone who has just been in a nasty accident regardless of who they perceived is at fault.

egan007

Lucky for her, you were on a bike not car
Lucky for you, you were on a bike not car

Someone mentioned human somewhere on the thread...yup they do stupid things but we are all in it together.

PeadarofAodh

Rob_l wrote: »

I was travelling down along the canal which is a very busy designated cycle lane so it is not as if she shouldn't be aware cyclists use this route, and as i have said she stepped straight into my line and did not even glance to see if anything was coming she was happy that as the motor traffic was stopped she could continue walking were she liked( i dont think she will make this mistake again) she also couldn't hear my desperate last second shouts as i seen her as she was wearing earphones.

I didn't get details as its not like she was insured and other pedestrians were shouting at me, I was hurt and getting increasingly angry so i left. ( On a side note what is the legal view on me trying to claim for damages done to the bike i wont be this time but am wondering what view the law would take of the incident)

I didn't mean what I said as a criticism at all, if that's how you read it. Trust me, I've had plenty of experience with pedestrians looking for cars and seeing right through me! I've been going along the same road every day for the past 8 months and usually bomb along it myself so can understand your situation completely.

72hundred

What were the injuries that she had after it?

penexpers

I think it's both parties fault in this case. It's her fault for not checking to see if the cycle lane was clear, but equally it's your fault for not observing the traffic conditions around you and adjusting your speed accordingly. Whenever traffic is stopped beside me I always slow down because I know that pedistrians are stupid and will assume that once traffic is stopped it's safe to cross the road. I would say it's more your fault than her fault.

What would the point of calling the gards be?

penexpers

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Again, with anyone that brings up the speed thing, I think it's fair to say that there was nothing you could do -you shouldn't go creeping along at walking pace just because some idiot could come out in front of you.

Yes you should.

PeadarofAodh

penexpers wrote: »

What would the point of calling the gards be?

Getting the accident officially noted and witnesses information taken in case of a claim?

DirkVoodoo

But he was cycling on a road, he is entitled to travel within the speed limit. It is her responsibility to cross at a suitable location, i.e. the lights and not between cars. If a car was travelling at 30 kph and someone ran out onto the road would everyone be blaming the driver (ok, here goes the car thing again, but im using it to highlight the fact it is a road and not whether she would have survived or not).

I don't think he is obliged to crawl around town, this again is just demoting cyclists. Surely you should apply this to cars as well. If pedestrians are unable to make rational decisions, we should change the speed limits to 10 kph?

penexpers

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

But he was cycling on a road, he is entitled to travel within the speed limit. It is her responsibility to cross at a suitable location, i.e. the lights and not between cars. If a car was travelling at 30 kph and someone ran out onto the road would everyone be blaming the driver (ok, here goes the car thing again, but im using it to highlight the fact it is a road and not whether she would have survived or not).

I don't think he is obliged to crawl around town, this again is just demoting cyclists. Surely you should apply this to cars as well. If pedestrians are unable to make rational decisions, we should change the speed limits to 10 kph?

Yes everyone would be blaming the driver (including me). If you drive or cycle you have a duty of care towards other road users (including pedestrians). If you travel at a speed that is unsuited to the conditions then you are not exercising that duty of care.

In the case of the driver, the law would see the driver as being at fault. I really don't see why it should be different for cyclists.

Mr. Presentable

penexpers wrote: »

I think it's both parties fault in this case. It's her fault for not checking to see if the cycle lane was clear, but equally it's your fault for not observing the traffic conditions around you and adjusting your speed accordingly.

This is correct. You are supposed to anticipate potential hazards - you should see the jeep and think "what if someone steps out from behind it?"

I'd say if it went to court you'd get 70% of the blame.

PeadarofAodh

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

But he was cycling on a road, he is entitled to travel within the speed limit. It is her responsibility to cross at a suitable location, i.e. the lights and not between cars. If a car was travelling at 30 kph and someone ran out onto the road would everyone be blaming the driver (ok, here goes the car thing again, but im using it to highlight the fact it is a road and not whether she would have survived or not).

I don't think he is obliged to crawl around town, this again is just demoting cyclists. Surely you should apply this to cars as well. If pedestrians are unable to make rational decisions, we should change the speed limits to 10 kph?

I'd agree there - cyclists shouldn't be obliged to go below the legal speed limit...I'd just tend to in certain circumstances for my own safety rather than anyone else's.

penexpers

PeadarofAodh wrote: »

I'd agree there - cyclists shouldn't be obliged to go below the legal speed limit...I'd just tend to in certain circumstances for my own safety rather than anyone else's.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic here....

Gavin

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Also, the comment about you going too fast was ridiculous, you were well inside the limit and if someone steps out right in front of you, after the initial shock subsides you have hardly anytime to react without endangering yourself further and skidding dangerously over the road.

Anyone on the road has a duty of care to drive/cycle safely depending on conditions. E.g. If it's wet/raining, one should drive/cycle at an appropriate speed reflective of the wet road and slower braking times.

This is the same situation. The canal paths are heavily used by pedestrians. I don't think it can really be disputed that people are aware that pedestrians cross the road when traffic is stationary.

We have no idea what speed he was travelling at. According to here, travelling at 32kph, stopping distance on a bicycle is 4m in ideal conditions. However, 1 second seems to be the standard reaction time, so stopping distance would be approx 4.8m. 4.8m is a lot, the almost the full length of a car.

I'd reckon such a speed to be the max, probably too fast in a location where you know there is a high probability of a pedestrian stepping out onto the road.

Would you cycle up the canal cyclepaths at 40km/h ? If you hit someone at that speed you could easily kill them.

Having said all that, again we don't know what speed he was going at. It was the fault of the pedestrian to step onto the road without looking. My point is that cyclist should know that pedestrians can do this and cycle accordingly. As much as is practical anyway.

But all this has just been stated, my response was too slow !

irishmotorist

From what I recall, the speed limit is not just the speed limit. That's the max speed you are legally allowed to go, depending on conditions. If there's thick fog, you should not be doing 120kmh in a car. If you're stuck in a traffic jam, you should not still be doing 50kmh in a car.

I would have no remorse for the individual that was hit. Everybody is responsible for their own safety, including the person who walks blindly around a vehicle with earphones in and volume up to the extent that prevents them hearing warnings. She herself completely to blame for making this stupid mistake.

IMO, the OP also has to shoulder some blame and was perhaps going to fast for the conditions (traffic conditions). However, I'd be of the opinion that a bad incident happened, learn from it, move on and make sure it doesn't happen again - from his own point of view. Don't forget that you are responsible for your own safety - that's not anybody elses responsibility.

Malari

penexpers wrote: »

I think it's both parties fault in this case. It's her fault for not checking to see if the cycle lane was clear, but equally it's your fault for not observing the traffic conditions around you and adjusting your speed accordingly. Whenever traffic is stopped beside me I always slow down because I know that pedistrians are stupid and will assume that once traffic is stopped it's safe to cross the road. I would say it's more your fault than her fault.

What would the point of calling the gards be?

It's the cyclist's responsibilty to be careful, not second guess every pedestrian. Even if she had stepped out then looked, but she never noticed the cyclist at all.

PeadarofAodh

penexpers wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic here....

Why should they be obliged to? If someone wants to cross the road, they should be responsible for ensuring it is safe to do so. If they're too lazy to be 100%, they should use a pedestrian crossing.

When I cycle through busy areas with cars stopped, I slow down. Why? Because I don't want to damage myself or my bike when some idiot walks out without looking. I wouldn't hold myself accountable if I did hit someone though.

Hungrycol

Kinetic^ wrote: »

The vehicle on the road has the right of way unless they is traffic/pedestrian lights that say other wise.

Unless the pedestrian is already on the road then they have the right of way.

Yes you should feel sorry for her. You caused her injury regardless of your injurys. You should be in complete control of your bike in order to avoid unforseen circumstances. Like the ad says, you were travelling at speed you could not control. Remember you hit her not the other way around.

PeadarofAodh

Hungrycol wrote: »

You should be in complete control of your bike in order to avoid unforseen circumstances. Like the ad says, you were travelling at speed you could not control. Remember you hit her not the other way around.

But he was in control of his bike. If someone steps out 2 metres from a car, noone says "He wasn't in control of his vehicle".

penexpers

PeadarofAodh wrote: »

But he was in control of his bike. If someone steps out 2 metres from a car, noone says "He wasn't in control of his vehicle".

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

Malari

Hungrycol wrote: »

Unless the pedestrian is already on the road then they have the right of way.

What do you mean "already"? Yes, pedestrians have more rights if there is no footpath and they are on the road, but surely for someone stepping out in front of a bike who is obeying the speed limits, etc, tried to stop, tried to give warning, they are mostly to blame? That's not a right of way issue.

DirkVoodoo

penexpers wrote: »

Yes everyone would be blaming the driver (including me). If you drive or cycle you have a duty of care towards other road users (including pedestrians). If you travel at a speed that is unsuited to the conditions then you are not exercising that duty of care.

In the case of the driver, the law would see the driver as being at fault. I really don't see why it should be different for cyclists.

Surely someone who steps out In the middle of traffic is not exercising a duty of care either?

You seem to be missing my main gripe which is that, according to the initial account, she did not cross at a suitable location. I think there is a clear distinction between a cyclist who tears through a set of pedestrian lights even if they are green and one who is cycling down a clear cycle path. It is reasonable to assume that one should be more careful at a location where there is a higher chance you will have pedestrians crossing, rather than braking as he approaches every car to his right in traffic. What speed would be reasonable then? 20, 15, 10 kmh. I think you reach a point where you say "feck it!" and get off and walk then.

Kinetic^

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

The pedestrian wasn't in control of themselves, not the cyclist.

penexpers

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Surely someone who steps out In the middle of traffic is not exercising a duty of care either?

You seem to be missing my main gripe which is that, according to the initial account, she did not cross at a suitable location. I think there is a clear distinction between a cyclist who tears through a set of pedestrian lights even if they are green and one who is cycling down a clear cycle path. It is reasonable to assume that one should be more careful at a location where there is a higher chance you will have pedestrians crossing, rather than braking as he approaches every car to his right in traffic. What speed would be reasonable then? 20, 15, 10 kmh. I think you reach a point where you say "feck it!" and get off and walk then.

I don't think pedestrians have a duty of care towards other road users. The law is a bit skewed in that repsect.

The fact that she didn't cross at a suitable location isn't really the issue here. You can't put an exact figure on the speed either because there are many variables at work there - road conditions, braking power etc...

DirkVoodoo

Surely it is relevant, you cant absolve her of blame in this scenario? So could I plug in my headphones now and go for a stroll down the N11?

"Hey, that taxi nearly hit me, he should be anticipating my actions and travelling at an appropriate speed"

"Eh, no. You are walking in the middle of the road without any awareness of the traffic around you. Now go cross at the lights up there!"

I hope I don't sound rude, I do respect your opinion here and it is nice to have a good ole' debate in the morning

Malari

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

That's ridiculous, if someone walking 2 feet in front of you stops dead and you bump into them, are you not in control of your body? Please. You would want to be going at walking speed, as another poster said, in order to be able to avoid hitting anyone.

dub_skav

Every road user has a duty of care to others. This includes pedestrians crossing a road. By stepping out without looking, the pedestrain in this case placed herself and a cyclist in dnager - in fact injuring them both.

If he had been travelling slower, but she had stepped out when he was closer, there would still have been a collision.
How slow is reasonable? Assuming the facts are as presented, she did not look, the OPs speed was not the problem

niceonetom

penexpers wrote: »

But if he didn't stop in time, then he wasn't in control of his bike.

by that rationale if you are in any accident you are, by definition, not in control of your vehicle, and are therefore at fault. you seem to be saying that there is no circumstance in which a collision can _not_ be the driver/cyclist's fault. that's obviously nonsense. sorry. if this kind of thinking held any water the only logical recourse would be to impose a citywide speed-limit of walking-pace on all vehicles and bikes.

if someone walks out in front of you it's their own fault, and though it is prudent to suit your speed to the riskiness of the environment that does not equate to transfer of blame should someone else endanger themselves.

Gavin

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Surely someone who steps out In the middle of traffic is not exercising a duty of care either?

Absolutely, the majority of the responsibility is this persons. But there is still a responsibility on the part of the cyclist. Courts do allocate responsibility in percentages.

It is reasonable to assume that one should be more careful at a location where there is a higher chance you will have pedestrians crossing, rather than braking as he approaches every car to his right in traffic. What speed would be reasonable then? 20, 15, 10 kmh. I think you reach a point where you say "feck it!" and get off and walk then.

20kph, stopping distance is around 2m. When cycling through town (in stopped traffic), particularly Sth Gt. Georges St. where people step onto the road regularly, I'd go at around that speed. 2m is enough to scrub your speed and momentum and avoid someone, or at least not cause any damage to either of you, if you hit them.

Cycling up the sandyford road, in a cycle lane with very few pedestrians around, I'd cycle around 35kph or so. It's simple, I don't particularly want to hit someone or get in an accident, so I take account of my surroundings/location and cycle accordingly.

penexpers

niceonetom wrote: »

by that rationale if you are in any accident you are, by definition, not in control of your vehicle, and are therefore at fault. you seem to be saying that there is no circumstance in which a collision can _not_ be the driver/cyclist's fault. that's obviously nonsense. sorry. if this kind of thinking held any water the only logical recourse would be to impose a citywide speed-limit of walking-pace on all vehicles and bikes.

if someone walks out in front of you it's their own fault, and though it is prudent to suit your speed to the riskiness of the environment that does not equate to transfer of blame should someone else endanger themselves.

Sorry but the law doesn't see it this way. If a driver hits the pedestrian (no matter what the cirsumstances) the law will say the driver is 100% at fault. Circumstances may bring this down in a court of law but a driver will always be found to be more at fault than a pedestrian. That's the law.

seamus

Hungrycol wrote: »

Unless the pedestrian is already on the road then they have the right of way.

This only applies when a vehicle enters a roadway. It doesn't apply for pedestrians just stepping onto the road.

That is, if I'm waiting at a T junction to turn onto road B, and I can see that a pedestrian has already started crossing road B, then I am obliged to yield to that pedstrian.

On the other hand if I'm driving/cycling on a straight road and a pedestrian wishes to cross, they must wait for me to pass because I have right of way.

Simply stepping into the road in front of a vehicle does not give a pedestrian right of way.

Sorry but the law doesn't see it this way. If a driver hits the pedestrian (no matter what the cirsumstances) the law will say the driver is 100% at fault. Circumstances may bring this down in a court of law but a driver will always be found to be more at fault than a pedestrian. That's the law.

Actually, it's just the practice, not the law. There is nothing in law which provides for motorists to be instantly assigned blame when they hit a pedestrian.

The judge sees that the motorist has insurance and has suffered no more than a dent in their vehicle. Then he sees a pedestrian with broken bones and permanent scars, and makes the decision to cover the pedestrian on the motorist's insurance. It's always possible to say that, "You weren't driving with due care, that's why you hit them".

Motorists can, and have in the past, walked out of court with their expenses paid for by an errant pedestrian. Judges just don't do it that often because they feel it's in the common good for the pedestrian's injuries to be covered by the motorist's insurance. They fail to realise that the motorist will be out of pocket by a few €k due to increased insurance costs.

HJ Simpson

Sorry to hear about your crash. I cycle that route everyday and the pedestrians just dont watch. I have had a near miss once where someone not sure if it was male or female stepped out from behind a van and quickly out of the way again. (THANKFULLY) I would have have definately put both of us in hospital. I do go quick along the canal but slow down at intersections and large vans.
You cant account for someone stepping out in front of you at the last minute.

HJS