I hope this was none of ye!!!!!

Captain Havoc

Mean while over in after hours

tunney

she stepped out into the path of a cyclist. rather than hit her with his bike he pushed her out of the way. How bad?

Rob_l

Im on the fence on this one, pedestrians are bad and so are some cyclists.

Me Im nice, now! :cool:

concussion

Whatever the reason for the physical contact, he shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place. Yes, the peds should not have been on the road but it obviously wasn't safe to proceed.

Jawgap

Got my coffee

Got my cake.

Going to get comfy for this one:)

Nice timing OP - should make the lunchtime whizz by........

Captain Havoc

Just finished reading the whole thing. Here's my two cents: Ped broke red light = wrong but violence is rarely an acceptable solution. Rider should have slowed down and gave out to her. Generally on a bike if you endanger someone else you're endangering yourself.

morninwood

totally unacceptable behavior by the cyclist. he might have had the right of way but laying hands on someone else causing them harm simply isn't on. i don't believe you knock someone to the ground in order to protect yourself and the ped from a collision and then just ride on. a rider this considerate would most likely stop and check that the lady is OK. i certainly would.

Chips Lovell

Someone breaking a light does not give you license to assault them.

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

Someone breaking a light does not give you license to assault them.

The allegation of assault is questionable.
Was it a punch or more likely a shove?

Canis Lupus

Not me. I use a baseball bat, makes a satisfying thunk sound and my knuckles don't get hurt.

Chips Lovell

tunney wrote: »

The allegation of assault is questionable.
Was it a punch or more likely a shove?

The OP said he punched her with a closed fist. Did you witness it too?

Jawgap

tunney wrote: »

The allegation of assault is questionable.
Was it a punch or more likely a shove?

If he put his hands on her - it was assault:-

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—
[GA]( a ) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or
[GA]( b ) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
[GA]without the consent of the other.

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

The OP said he punched her with a closed fist. Did you witness it too?

No, but I am questioning the validity of the claims by the OP and I believe there is an agenda being pursued.

Hungrycol

What about verbal assault? Heard they're taking that seriously in the UK. Intimidation and all that...

tunney

Jawgap wrote: »

If he put his hands on her - it was assault:-

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—
[GA]( a ) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or
[GA]( b ) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
[GA]without the consent of the other.

So what you're saying is that by pushing the lady out of his way he stopped her from assulting him? As her "recklessly" action would have "indirectly applied force to" his body when he hit the deck?

Chips Lovell

tunney wrote: »

No, but I am questioning the validity of the claims by the OP and I believe there is an agenda being pursued.

What agenda?

Jawgap

tunney wrote: »

So what you're saying is that by pushing the lady out of his way he stopped her from assulting him? As her "recklessly" action would have "indirectly applied force to" his body when he hit the deck?

If what happened, happened then he would be guilty of assault.

If he was to claim that her action was reckless, he'd fail as her act would not have created an obvious risk to anyone.

If he was claim "necessity" - needing to break the law to prevent a harm - he'd definitely fail as there's no overwhelming urgency.

If he's identified / caught he's going down........and not in a good way!

donal_mcg

So, the facts are: the lady in question crossed the road without looking, guy on bike got a fright started shouting and then lashed out at her, causing quite a bit of damage to her, maybe more so than if he had hit her. He, meanwhile cycles away unharmed other than mental scarring.

You guys here who have condoned what he did really need to step back for a f*cking second and think. The lady made a mistake, probably following like a sheep the others across the road without thinking. from her reaction afterward seems a decent sort, not screaming for compo or ambulance just embarrassed and wants to get the f*ck outta there. So this is your girlfriend / mother / friend who has been smacked, for a loss of concentration for a couple of seconds, who no doubt will be pretty traumatised as any girl OR bloke I know who gets their face smashed open would be.

The guy who did this needs to get a right good hiding in my book. Usually if this happens to me I stop start shouting a try and make a show of the person, embarrassment is something most people are not immune to. Although from the comments of some of you above, it seems that the cycling boards are obviously full of some who are. Yeah sure, we get the raw deal versus pedestrians / cars / buses / trucks, but doing this? The dude is nothing other than a coward

lukester

There are two issues here- protecting yourself as a cyclist from pedestrians who lurch suddenly into your path, and dealing with the annoyance of Dublin's jaywalking culture.

With the first issue, if a pedestrian jumps out in front of you suddenly, you do whatever you can to protect yourself. Putting out your hand could be reasonable in this instance.

With the second issue, jaywalking pedestrians, it's a pain in the ass, but either we all go round roaring at them or we live with it. I do the latter, as frustrating as it is sometimes.

brianthebard

el tonto wrote: »

What agenda?

Cyclist hate.

DirkVoodoo

Unfortunately you can't get rid of jaywalking, at least not in this country anyway. Streets like O'Connell street need to be treated with caution by cyclists. Yes, the woman was wrong for walking out without looking, but hitting someone is pretty extreme and arseholes like this suited cyclist give the rest of us a bad name.

The level of hostility shown on after hours toward cyclists in general is pretty poor, but guys like this don't help.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

The level of hostility shown on after hours toward cyclists in general is pretty poor

It's AH. You're not supposed to post sober.

niceonetom

donal_mcg wrote: »

So, the facts are: the lady in question crossed the road without looking, guy on bike got a fright started shouting and then lashed out at her, causing quite a bit of damage to her, maybe more so than if he had hit her. He, meanwhile cycles away unharmed other than mental scarring.

...

While I agree with the general thrust of your post I have to point out that it is comically naive to think that you, or anyone else on these boards, know anything about "the facts" of this incident. This is the internet.

It's interesting to read how various posters interpret the account though. You take it as fact. Others, mostly the ones you think "condone" the cyclists actions, are generally reading the account as unreliable, agenda driven, confused or untrustworthy. None of us know what actually happened.

Rorschach stuff all over the place here.

buffalo

lukester wrote: »

There are two issues here- protecting yourself as a cyclist from pedestrians who lurch suddenly into your path, and dealing with the annoyance of Dublin's jaywalking culture.

With the first issue, if a pedestrian jumps out in front of you suddenly, you do whatever you can to protect yourself. Putting out your hand could be reasonable in this instance.

With the second issue, jaywalking pedestrians, it's a pain in the ass, but either we all go round roaring at them or we live with it. I do the latter, as frustrating as it is sometimes.

From the sounds of it, she didn't suddenly appear, considering he had time to shout, and give her a push.

For the jaywalking pedestrians:

A green light means you may go on if the way is clear. ... A green light is not a right of way, it is a licence to proceed with caution.

This is one to remember when heading for a crowd of pedestrians milling across the street. If you plough through them, you're breaking the law.

And for my personal stance, what happened was a horrific assault, plain and simple. If you've no empathy, imagine a cyclist broke a red light, and some motorist driving by decided to open their door into them as a punishment. Simply unacceptable, and the guy should've be made to stand trial if he was found.

DirkVoodoo

buffalo wrote: »

If you've no empathy, imagine a cyclist broke a red light, and some motorist driving by decided to open their door into them as a punishment. Simply unacceptable, and the guy should've be made to stand trial if he was found.

I don't like this kind of insinuation. You assume that cyclists here are generally insensitive to anyone being injured unless they were riding a bike at the time? Yeah, I have no sympathy for someone being mugged, unless they were in full Liquigas kit, in which case I think it's awful and will start a "cyclists against muggings group".

NeilMcEoigheann

Quazzie wrote: »

So the lady was breaking a red pedestrian light, and the guy on the bicycle went through as he is entitled to do and protected himself from a pedestrian by clearing his path.

i had a person step out infront of me but there was no time to shout, i just put my fore arm up to protect my head, and it hit the guy.
am i supposed to be charged with assault cos some ejit can't learn to cross when its green.
although if i realised i knocked someone over i would have stopped to pick them up but not appoligise.
and as the op in the other thread pointed out the knocked down woman said it was her fault, so it sounds like the cyclist was defending themselves..

donal_mcg

niceonetom wrote: »

While I agree with the general thrust of your post I have to point out that it is comically naive to think that you, or anyone else on these boards, know anything about "the facts" of this incident. This is the internet.

It's interesting to read how various posters interpret the account though. You take it as fact. Others, mostly the ones you think "condone" the cyclists actions, are generally reading the account as unreliable, agenda driven, confused or untrustworthy. None of us know what actually happened.

Rorschach stuff all over the place here.

Agreed, both sides of the argument will view the incident as they please and fill in the gaps as they want, guilty as charged. But this is more like what I wanted to say:

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

i had a person step out infront of me but there was no time to shout, i just put my fore arm up to protect my head, and it hit the guy.
am i supposed to be charged with assault cos some ejit can't learn to cross when its green.
although if i realised i knocked someone over i would have stopped to pick them up but not appoligise.
and as the op in the other thread pointed out the knocked down woman said it was her fault, so it sounds like the cyclist was defending themselves..

Sure it was the woman's fault, that is not in question as far as I'm concerned. What concerns me is that some posters agree with the fact that it was her fault so therefore she gets what she deserves. If you hit someone un-avoidably, the law will be on your side. The guy hit/pushed her and flew off without a care, he's a cock.

beans

I tend to be on the brakes approaching that crossing, there's always peds stepping out on the red. I remember a very close call where some idiot pushed a buggy out between parked busses - if I hadn't been anticipating something, that kid would have been hit. Point is, you have to be aware of these things and think ahead, just as a pedestrian should think about what could be coming through a stationary line of cars. It's give-and-take here.

On a lighter note, you can scare the bejesus out of red-man peds if you brake just right. Might give them cause to check before crossing the road in future - a good lesson.

If the incident is as described there can really be no argument to condone the cyclist's actions, can there?

blorg

niceonetom wrote: »

While I agree with the general thrust of your post I have to point out that it is comically naive to think that you, or anyone else on these boards, know anything about "the facts" of this incident. This is the internet.

It's interesting to read how various posters interpret the account though. You take it as fact. Others, mostly the ones you think "condone" the cyclists actions, are generally reading the account as unreliable, agenda driven, confused or untrustworthy. None of us know what actually happened.

I've seen cyclists do pretty much exactly as the OP described tearing at pedestrians at high speed because "they have right of way"; as such I have no problem believing it happened. The cyclist is a dick and should be done for assault.

tunney

blorg wrote: »

I've seen cyclists do pretty much exactly as the OP described tearing at pedestrians at high speed because "they have right of way"; as such I have no problem believing it happened. The cyclist is a dick and should be done for assault.

Devils advocate here, I've seen pedestrian just step out in front of bikes without warning. Usually there are two options - cyclist hits the deck, or cyclist hits the pedestrian.
Now if the cyclist in this case pushed the pedestrian after the collision was avoided then that is quite clearly wrong. However if they pushed them to avoid a collision then thats a different matter and a third valid option.

Lumen

I still can't get over the idea that the cyclist was going at speed and capable of throwing punches whilst wearing a suit.

Maybe Rapha got a customer. Since they're based in London I assume they include the "punching people" use case in their requirements specification.

(reads further)

Ah, yes. Here we go:

Rapha wrote:

The jacket also has an ‘action back’, a shoulder pleat similar to those found in shooting jackets, and which allows for extra reach on the bike. In cooler conditions the cuffs can be turned to down to provide better protection for the hands

Mystery solved. Phone up Rapha and ask who they sold it to.

blorg

tunney wrote: »

Devils advocate here, I've seen pedestrian just step out in front of bikes without warning. Usually there are two options - cyclist hits the deck, or cyclist hits the pedestrian.
Now if the cyclist in this case pushed the pedestrian after the collision was avoided then that is quite clearly wrong. However if they pushed them to avoid a collision then thats a different matter and a third valid option.

I posted regarding that scenario on the other thread. I know the crossing well and there is straight road either side of it. The poster said there were a stream of pedestrians crossing and the cyclist clearly saw this as he had time to ring his bell and yell at them.

Of course if a ped just jumps out they are in the wrong (and this is recognised by the courts) but that is not what was described by a long shot.

ROK ON

Here we go again, on our high horse.

From what I can see, some person was an idiot, another person was a bigger and violent idiot.

. . . and this is worth three pages on the interweb.

Get over yourselves people. It should be none of your business what idiots do.

buffalo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I don't like this kind of insinuation. You assume that cyclists here are generally insensitive to anyone being injured unless they were riding a bike at the time? Yeah, I have no sympathy for someone being mugged, unless they were in full Liquigas kit, in which case I think it's awful and will start a "cyclists against muggings group".

I don't assume that at all. Please take note of the use of the word 'if' in my post.

blorg

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I don't like this kind of insinuation. You assume that cyclists here are generally insensitive to anyone being injured unless they were riding a bike at the time? Yeah, I have no sympathy for someone being mugged, unless they were in full Liquigas kit, in which case I think it's awful and will start a "cyclists against muggings group".

In fairness I could half understand someone being mugged in full Liquigas kit.

Captain Havoc

blorg wrote: »

In fairness I could half understand someone being mugged in full Liquigas kit.

I own a full liquigas kit, bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Me doing a bit of weight training :rolleyes:

lukester

blorg wrote: »

In fairness I could half understand someone being mugged in full Liquigas kit.

I heart Liquigas kit.

Raam

lukester wrote: »

I heart Liquigas kit.

I think I'm going Kaiku on tomorrows commute.

fergalr

Read the AH post.
As a cyclist, I've a few thoughts on this.

Firstly, the account doesn't make total sense to me. Not saying it wasn't just as described, just saying it seems very unusual to me.

The cyclist is wearing a suit and carrying a laptop bag. That doesn't gel with the usual militant cyclist stereotype in my head. Next, he rings his bell at pedestrians. So he has a bell on his bike - now, maybe its just me, but, like business suits, I generally associate bike bells, and the use thereof, not with militant road warrior types.
Bells also aren't generally very loud, and don't carry a long way, so for the bell to be rang and heard by the observer, makes me wonder how fast the cyclist was going. It also sounds strange to hit someone on the shoulder, and the result being bleeding knees and nose. Did the poor lady fall flat on her face and knees somehow? Either way, it doesnt sound like it was the cyclists contact with her that did the damage so much as her falling on the ground. So it could have been more of a shove than a punch...

Maybe I'm naive, but I really wonder at someone punching a pedestrian as they cycle quickly through a crowd of jaywalking people - surely they'd be more worried about staying upright? I'd hate to say the OP was wrong in what they say happened, but I wonder if what happened, from the cyclists perspective, was more like post 111 on the thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62634016&postcount=111

Really just is just idle speculation on my part, but I do know that perspectives can vary a lot on something like this - itd be interesting to hear the cyclists take on this.

I guess I'd at least like to believe a lesser-of-two-evils defensive shove, or an accidental glancing contact in passing, was less likely than the passing cyclist deciding to throw a punch. Hey, I don't know though, I wasn't there, but it seems like a strange incident form the details.



On the topic in general, while I agree its fair to say cyclists should stop when people are jaywalking in front of them, the practice in day to day situations has some subtleties that don't seem to be addressed in the AH debate.

One such is that if you slow to near a stop at the first sign that pedestrians waiting to cross the road might indeed cross, then they will cross, and you'll have to stop. Its certainly not reasonable to ask cyclists to slow to a speed to anticipate every potential pedestrian jaywalking across the road. Any pedestrian on any footpath could spontaneously step onto the road (and - albeit rarely - they do!) but you can't be expected to allow for that every time.

There's a certain extent to which you have to hold your course unless you are pretty sure the pedestrians will actually get in your way. I would certainly agree that it's still important to be able to stop in case they walk out anyway - and I've never hit anyone when cycling.

But if it gets to the stage where a pedestrian is aware that you are coming, and that you have right of way, and where you have slowed down to be careful, and the pedestrian wilfully continues on their path, as if in a game of chicken, expecting you to stop, then I do think, personally, from a common sense point of view (not a legal opinion) that the pedestrian is at fault for a collision.

In the same way that if I was a jaywalking pedestrian and a car was passing by, and I stepped out on the road, and the car slowed, but continued, reasonably expecting me to stop there - and I continued on, having seen the car, and the car perhaps hit me, I wouldn't hold the driver responsible.

As far as I'm concerned, they had the right of way, because I had a red light and they had a green, and while that doesn't mean they can be reckless, if it doesn't mean that its more my fault than theirs for getting hit in that situation, well then, what does right of way mean? (again, in terms of common sense, not so much the legalities).

Cyclists are very vulnerable in a situation where a pedestrian walks out in front of them. A glancing contact, in general, I would guess, is more likely to cause a cyclist serious trouble than a pedestrian, because of all the different ways to get hurt coming off a bike at speed.

Pedestrians are not sufficiently aware of bikes in the city center. And a lot of the time just don't care whether they hold up cyclists. The lights are there to show right of way to allow there be times when one road user has the right to proceed over the other. The way I think of it, by all means ignore the signals when it is more efficient to do so (empty road etc), but if you do ignore the signals and cause an accident, then in general, the burden of proof should rest with you if you claim that you were hit by the recklessness of someone else who was obeying the signals. I don't know how exactly the law sees it, but thats what makes a lot of sense to me.

And just to be clear - none of this gives anyone the right to hit another road user as some sort of retribution for breaking the rules - as alleged in the OP - of course not, thats crazy stuff. But I do think the polarised views on the situation as in AH were a bit too polarised. Surprisingly. For AH.

Lumen

fergalr wrote: »

But if it gets to the stage where a pedestrian is aware that you are coming, and that you have right of way, and where you have slowed down to be careful, and the pedestrian wilfully continues on their path, as if in a game of chicken, expecting you to stop, then I do think, personally, from a common sense point of view (not a legal opinion) that the pedestrian is at fault for a collision.

The usual rule of the road is that if you're entering a situation where there is likely to be conflict with other road users, you should proceed with caution.

I suspect that in the event of it reaching court, you'd need to demonstrate that you'd exercised some caution. Moderating your speed and covering the brakes is reasonable in a situation where you have right of way and the peds are adults (a toddler in the road would be a different story).

However, slowing down arguably shows weakness and could be read as a signal to step out. So perhaps what's needed is to slow down whilst glaring forcefully, or something.

The detail is a bit irrelevant anyway. The OP says the cyclist punched the ped. I think you have to take these things at face value, or else it all becomes an unprovable nonsense.

Accidents are best avoided. Punching people is not acceptable. The End.

petethedrummer

ROK ON wrote: »

Here we go again, on our high horse.

From what I can see, some person was an idiot, another person was a bigger and violent idiot.

. . . and this is worth three pages on the interweb.

Get over yourselves people. It should be none of your business what idiots do.

You just made the thread longer.

blorg

I think we can only argue on the case as presented by the OP on the other thread. If it was as he describes it, then the cyclist is an asshole and guilty of an assault.

I have seen this refusal to stop attitude to jaywalking peds often enough that it rings true for me. I have the green light, I'm not stopping, get the fúck out of my way. There was a well publicised case in the UK where a cyclist killed someone with exactly that attitude and yet still there were people trying to explain/justify it over on bikeradar and here too IIRC. Nuts.

It did not sound AT ALL like the ped just jumped out in front of him. Completely different and irrelevant situation.

Maybe there was no cyclist at all, maybe the woman who was pushed was not a woman at all but a Scots Terrier smoking a cigar. What then? Honestly we can only go on the alleged facts as they are presented by the person who was there or says there were there.

If the OP is lying about the whole thing then naturally any arguments stemming from this are out the window.

To be honest as cyclists all we can do in my opinion is condem **** like that, trying to justify his behaviour with "what if he was XYZ" only makes us all look like a pile of militant crazies frankly.

Chips Lovell

Almost hit a pedestrian just there on the way home from work. Had his umbrella up and wasn't looking where he was going so just ran out in front of me. Cue shouting and emergency braking.

fergalr

blorg wrote: »

I think we can only argue on the case as presented by the OP on the other thread. If it was as he describes it, then the cyclist is an asshole and guilty of an assault.

I couldn't say whether the cyclist is guilty of assault, but definitely an asshole, crazy etc if it happened as described - I agree with you here.

blorg wrote: »

I have seen this refusal to stop attitude to jaywalking peds often enough that it rings true for me. I have the green light, I'm not stopping, get the fúck out of my way.

Yet if you stopped every time pedestrians looked like they might step out, even when you have a green light, that wouldn't be reasonable either. Thats the main point I was making. There were very black and white opinions in the other thread, not just related to the original incident. I don't think the general case of exactly how to yield is such a black and white issue. You don't want to ever hit someone, but if you stopped every time peds looked like they might jaywalk in the city center that wouldn't be reasonable either.

blorg wrote: »

There was a well publicised case in the UK where a cyclist killed someone with exactly that attitude and yet still there were people trying to explain/justify it over on bikeradar and here too IIRC. Nuts.

No idea what that was about.

blorg wrote: »

It did not sound AT ALL like the ped just jumped out in front of him. Completely different and irrelevant situation.

I mentioned that because people tend to make blanket statements stating that the cyclist is always automatically in the wrong, because the ped is somehow a more vulnerable road user, and because the cyclist must always be able to stop; even if the ped somehow jumps out from around a corner, pops out of a manhole, etc. I'm just saying sometimes its not reasonable to expect the cyclist to be able to stop. It depends on the situation.

blorg wrote: »

Maybe there was no cyclist at all, maybe the woman who was pushed was not a woman at all but a Scots Terrier smoking a cigar. What then? Honestly we can only go on the alleged facts as they are presented by the person who was there or says there were there.

While I see what you are saying, I do think its reasonable to consider whether all the 'alleged facts' as you put it hang together and make sense

If the OP said that the cyclist was an old man riding a penny farthing and inflicted the injuries by spitting, we'd all say 'woah, that doesnt sound plausible'. We don't have to suspend our critical faculties just because we have only one account of the event. I think I was pretty careful about making clear that I'm only speculating, and that I obviously don't know as I wasn't there, in my initial post.

blorg wrote: »

If the OP is lying about the whole thing then naturally any arguments stemming from this are out the window.

To be honest as cyclists all we can do in my opinion is condem **** like that, trying to justify his behaviour with "what if he was XYZ" only makes us all look like a pile of militant crazies frankly.

I don't think saying 'are you sure the behaviour wasn't X and not Y' is an argument justifying behaviour Y.

These sort of things can happen very fast, and can look very different to the parties involved. An important part of not coming across as militant and crazy is realising that different people can have different perspectives on the same event.

I think a lot of the conflict on the road is a question of a lack of shared perspectives and mutual understanding - particularly between cyclists and other road users. All I was wondering was whether there were other perspectives there - I was always clear that the described behaviour wasn't on, and that I wasn't there so I don't really know.

Lumen

fergalr wrote: »

I mentioned that because people tend to make blanket statements stating that the driver is always automatically in the wrong, because the cyclist is somehow a more vulnerable road user, and because the driver must always be able to stop; even if the cyclist somehow jumps out from around a corner, pops out of a manhole, etc. I'm just saying sometimes its not reasonable to expect the driver to be able to stop. It depends on the situation.

For fun, I've substituted cyclist -> driver, ped -> cyclist.

There are plenty of people on this forum who support the "driver liable by default" model from those other European cities where cyclists are respected.

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

Almost hit a pedestrian just there on the way home from work. Had his umbrella up and wasn't looking where he was going so just ran out in front of me. Cue shouting and emergency braking.

You should have thumped him.

blorg

I think it comes across as making excuses for the cyclist, sticking up for "one of our own" sort of thing. The responses defending him are really grasping at straws and make little sense. I don't think it helps how others see cyclists.

Yet if you stopped every time pedestrians looked like they might step out, even when you have a green light, that wouldn't be reasonable either. Thats the main point I was making. There were very black and white opinions in the other thread, not just related to the original incident. I don't think the general case of exactly how to yield is such a black and white issue. You don't want to ever hit someone, but if you stopped every time peds looked like they might jaywalk in the city center that wouldn't be reasonable either.

This is UTTERLY irrelevant, they guy cycled straight into a stream of pedestrians crossing the road, not a ped on the footpath "looking like they might step out." FFS.

I mentioned that because people tend to make blanket statements stating that the cyclist is always automatically in the wrong ... even if the ped somehow jumps out from around a corner

I don't think anyone made that argument. Others defending him including yourself brought it up and argued against it as a straw man. I mentioned a case where a motorcyclist KILLED a ped who stepped out suddenly and was able to claim compensation for his own injuries as the pedestrian was judged to have caused the accident.

I'm just saying sometimes its not reasonable to expect the cyclist to be able to stop. It depends on the situation.

And in THIS situation as reported the cyclist cycled straight into a stream of crossing pedestrians ringing his bell and yelling but making no attempt to stop his bicycle. It IS reasonable to expect the cyclist to stop in this situation. The ped did NOT just jump out.

Quick thought experiment- replace cyclist with motorist. If a motorist was reported to have plowed through a stream of peds crossing would you be over there arguing "maybe the ped jumped out without warning?" (Even though it was reported that they did not?) If it would be appropriate for a car to stop it is appropriate for a bike. FFS honestly.

kincsem

I see my post on the other forum was referred to in a post above (I almost knocked down a pedestrian.)

I'm not blindly defending cyclists in cyclist / pedestrian collisions, or supporting the cyclist in the recent accident.

My point is that a description by one person of an accident is often not enough. People are almost always the hero in their own stories. The same with one witness - they colour the story with their own agenda.

If we split 100% of the blame for the accident how much do we attribute to each side, to weather, traffic, other factors?

fergalr

blorg wrote: »

I think it comes across as making excuses for the cyclist, sticking up for "one of our own" sort of thing.

Sure, and a lot of that sort of thing goes on. I'm trying not to do that.
Equally, it wouldn't be good to attack him just to try and show some impartiality.

blorg wrote: »

The responses defending him are really grasping at straws and make little sense. I don't think it helps how others see cyclists.

blorg wrote: »

I have seen this refusal to stop attitude to jaywalking peds often enough that it rings true for me. I have the green light, I'm not stopping, get the fúck out of my way.

Yet if you stopped every time pedestrians looked like they might step out, even when you have a green light, that wouldn't be reasonable either. Thats the main point I was making. There were very black and white opinions in the other thread, not just related to the original incident. I don't think the general case of exactly how to yield is such a black and white issue. You don't want to ever hit someone, but if you stopped every time peds looked like they might jaywalk in the city center that wouldn't be reasonable either.

This is UTTERLY irrelevant, they guy cycled straight into a stream of pedestrians crossing the road, not a ped on the footpath "looking like they might step out." FFS.

I was talking generally about the general 'refusal to stop attitude' which you mentioned, not about the specifics of that incident. I hope thats clear enough from the full context?

blorg wrote: »

I mentioned that because people tend to make blanket statements stating that the cyclist is always automatically in the wrong ... even if the ped somehow jumps out from around a corner

I don't think anyone made that argument. Others defending him including yourself brought it up and argued against it as a straw man.

There are a few posts that mention pecking orders, and the like, under the assumption that any time a cyclist hits a ped, the cyclist is wrong.

Even your exchange with Jumpy:

blorg wrote: »

Originally Posted by Jumpy:
If you are doing the speed limit and they all mill across? I have to disagree with you there.
I dont know what brakes you have on your bike but mine take a good distance to stop without flipping me over the handlebars.

If you can't stop your bike effectively in city traffic you shouldn't be riding it there. You also need to be riding it at a safe speed, the limit is not a target. You should know how to make an emergency stop effectively modulating your front brake so as not to go over the bars.

I'm with Jumpy on this one - I've been in situations where pedestrians did just mill across with little to no warning, because they did not check to see whether a cyclist was coming, and where it has been hard to stop in time to avoid hitting them. I keep my brakes pretty well mantained; if I didn't, or it was a wet day, it could be dangerous. Again, its not black and white, or as simple as 'if you can't stop in time, its your fault'. Its not reasonable to be expected to predict some hazards. Its a grey area.

blorg wrote: »

Others defending him including yourself brought it up and argued against it as a straw man.

I'm not defending the actions of the cyclist, if they are as described in the initial post. I've been pretty emphatic about that, and I think to represent otherwise is doing a bit of 'straw man' yourself.
All I'm saying is that:
* Aspects of the original story, as told, seem unlikely to me (which isn't to say they didn't happen)
* The cyclist in the original story may have a different perspective to that of the witness which may explain the otherwise crazy seeming actions - specifically, there may not have been any attempt to hit anyone, from the cyclists perspective (equally, the cyclist could just have been a nutter or evil or whatever - just saying that the cyclist may not be as evil as it seems to the bystander - which isn't a defence of the supposed actions, just a statement that different people see these things differently.)

NOW SPEAKING GENERALLY, NOT ABOUT THE SPECIFIC INCIDENT:
* I dont think its always the fault of the cyclist if they cant stop on time. Sometimes pedestrians do genuinely unpredictable things that its not reasonable to expect to allow for
* I think that when all other things are equal, and considering that it can be hard to get these things right, from a common sense point of view if a pedestrian is going to break the lights, I think the onus is on the pedestrian to try and check whether the way is clear, and if they fail to make any effort to do so, then they do take an element of responsibility for anything further that happens. This isn't saying its ok to mow them down - I've never said that.

blorg wrote: »

I mentioned a case where a motorcyclist KILLED a ped who stepped out suddenly and was able to claim compensation for his own injuries as the pedestrian was judged to have caused the accident.

And in THIS situation as reported the cyclist cycled straight into a stream of crossing pedestrians ringing his bell and yelling but making no attempt to stop his bicycle. It IS reasonable to expect the cyclist to stop in this situation. The ped did NOT just jump out.

I did try to make it obvious that I was speaking generally on the topic of stopping at lights. I did so in the context of very black and white statements in AH.

For example, I said:

On the topic in general, while I agree its fair to say cyclists should stop when people are jaywalking in front of them, the practice in day to day situations has some subtleties that don't seem to be addressed in the AH debate. [...SNIP...]

blorg wrote: »

Quick thought experiment- replace cyclist with motorist. If a motorist was reported to have plowed through a stream of peds crossing would you be over there arguing "maybe the ped jumped out without warning?" (Even though it was reported that they did not?) If it would be appropriate for a car to stop it is appropriate for a bike. FFS honestly.

I don't particularly appreciate your use of 'FFS' - I'm making an effort to take your points seriously here.

From what I can see, your thought experiment has several obvious problems.
It's not reasonable to do a straight replace of cyclist with motorist here. A situation where a stream of peds crosses in front of a motorist would be very rare, and qualitatively different to one involving a cyclist. There are several factors that change the situation described, and would influence who we think is most likely to be at fault, in the absence of further information.

* Pedestrians tend to hear cars coming for a start, so even if they do not look, they tend not to step out in front of fast moving cars in large groups.
* Pedestrians tend to not step out in groups in front of fast moving cars, because they do not automatically expect cars to be able to either yield or weave around them in the way they expect cyclists to do.
As such, if I had heard a group of peds had gotten mown over by a car, I would probably conclude the car driver was in the wrong, because its highly improbable they just all walked out in front of the speeding car.
But they regularly do this with bikes in a way they don't do with cars.
So I believe your thought experiment is thus flawed.

However, if the situation was that for some unknown reason a group of pedestrians all spontaneously stepped out in front of a fast moving car in the same way that they do for bicycles in the city center, without warning and without giving sufficient time to stop, then I would think the pedestrians were in the wrong.


We avoid accidents on the road by being reasonable.
Its certainly reasonable to try and stop and avoid hitting people. But its also reasonable to not stop out in front of fast moving traffic when you have a red light.
In the event that a pedestrian does step out against their red light, and that whether due to a split second distraction, or bad braking conditions, or a simple lack of time, they get hit, then I have a lot more sympathy for the person trying their best to be reasonable and obey the rules than for the person who is breaking them.

Lumen

So after this discussion I had a bit of a word with myself and decided to avoid putting myself in situations where I have to shout at people.

And today I almost hit a ped.

I turning off Nassau St on to Kildare St, and there were a bunch of peds milling across the road with a red man.

I wasn't going fast, and braked a bit to give them a time to wake up and decide what to do.

There was a parting of the seas moment, so I continued, then a woman near the kerb starting dithering back and forth.

A bit more hard braking gave her the time to get out of the way and I missed her (at quite low speed) by inches.

The problem (as others have said) is that if you don't brake they may ignore you and get seriously injured, and if you do brake they may take that as a sign that you are giving way, and you'll be forever stopping for them, which seems unreasonable.

I don't remember this happening much when I'm driving. I'm not sure to what degree that's because I'm more patient in the car (because I can get back up to speed with a twitch of the right foot) or because the peds are more scared of a car and behave better.

Maybe I need to look scarier.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

So after this discussion I had a bit of a word with myself and decided to avoid putting myself in situations where I have to shout at people.

And today I almost hit a ped.

I turning off Nassau St on to Kildare St, and there were a bunch of peds milling across the road with a red man.

I wasn't going fast, and braked a bit to give them a time to wake up and decide what to do.

There was a parting of the seas moment, so I continued, then a woman near the kerb starting dithering back and forth.

A bit more hard braking gave her the time to get out of the way and I missed her (at quite low speed) by inches.

The problem (as others have said) is that if you don't brake they may ignore you and get seriously injured, and if you do brake they may take that as a sign that you are giving way, and you'll be forever stopping for them, which seems unreasonable.

I don't remember this happening much when I'm driving. I'm not sure to what degree that's because I'm more patient in the car (because I can get back up to speed with a twitch of the right foot) or because the peds are more scared of a car and behave better.

Maybe I need to look scarier.

I have noticed that, when I have the right of way and the red man is doing his thing for the pedestrians: if I slow down, people take this as a cue to cross. Because there are people crossing, I slow down some more. More pedestrians see me slow down and start to join the crossing. Soon, I have stopped completely at a green light, waiting for a car to come and part the waters. This has happened to me at least once at the bottom of grafton street.