Pedestrian dies after collision with cyclist on London's Oxford Street

nadsta wrote:

if you must cycle through such a dysfunctional road such as Oxford St, which experience has taught me to avoid while the shops are open, at least hold a primary position to give yourself as much chance as possible to avoid trouble. Many cyclists on that street hog the kerb giving themselves no where to go once someone steps out. 

Was it Oxford Street where Michael Mason was killed by Gail Purcell? Even whilst riding in primary? I see your point, though.

nadsta wrote:

if you must cycle through such a dysfunctional road such as Oxford St, which experience has taught me to avoid while the shops are open, at least hold a primary position to give yourself as much chance as possible to avoid trouble. Many cyclists on that street hog the kerb giving themselves no where to go once someone steps out. 

As I recall from cycling down oxford street 27 years ago. Close to the kerb is the only way to make progress, as the rest if the road is full of stationary buses.

Ate there fewer buses than there used to be or have the found some magic way to keep them moving?

Grumpy17 wrote:

Just to be clear there is no absolute right of way for pedestrians over all other road users. As pointed out already this is a fallacy sadly put about even by some people on this 'site. Pedestrians cannot expect to step out into a road and have all traffic yield to them. Where would we all be if that was the case? Probably all in jail.

 

Peds have right of way only in certain circumstances: https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/enjoying/the-rights-you-di...

You mean priority, as opposed to right of way, just for accuracy as it makes a massive difference, particularly in law.

fenix wrote:

Very sad story. 

I wonder how often this happens in places like Amsterdam where you have a lot of cyclists and pedestrians in close proximity ?

Never been to Amsterdam, but I have been to other Dutch cities, plus Brugge and Hanover

In Brugge cyclist of all types were wizzing about, only the stupid tourists walked out without looking, same in. Hanover, where cyclists use the footpaths. It's allowed, but the cyclists are a bit more respectful of pedestrians.

In all of these cities, the awareness of pedestrians with other road traffic but especially cyclists is much better because it's cultural, loads more people have been brought up to ride their bikes to school rather than jump in mum's taxi. But then that's due to the dangerous nature of our roads.

In Germany there's a culture where people don't ignore the pedestrian crossing signals. I can't remember the German phrase, but it's something like only cross when the man is green. From what I saw people do this.

maviczap wrote:

fenix wrote:

Very sad story. 

I wonder how often this happens in places like Amsterdam where you have a lot of cyclists and pedestrians in close proximity ?

 

Never been to Amsterdam, but I have been to other Dutch cities, plus Brugge and Hanover

In Brugge cyclist of all types were wizzing about, only the stupid tourists walked out without looking, same in. Hanover, where cyclists use the footpaths. It's allowed, but the cyclists are a bit more respectful of pedestrians.

In all of these cities, the awareness of pedestrians with other road traffic but especially cyclists is much better because it's cultural, loads more people have been brought up to ride their bikes to school rather than jump in mum's taxi. But then that's due to the dangerous nature of our roads.

In Germany there's a culture where people don't ignore the pedestrian crossing signals. I can't remember the German phrase, but it's something like only cross when the man is green. From what I saw people do this.

also, the sheer number of cyclists using the facilities encourages awareness from pedestrians

on the point of using crossings, a friend came back from Austria and told a story of how he was waiting at the lights and there wasn't a car around for miles, so he went to cross and was promptly tackled to the ground by a policeman who exclaimed "we are doing this for your own good, you must wait for the green man before crossing"

craigstitt wrote:

Again another tragic accident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist.

Going by the fact that the cyclist has not been charged with anything in connection with this incident it is likely that the cyclist was minding their own business as the pedestrian stepped out onto the road in front of them.

I have at least 1 incident a day of peds walking out onto the road in front of me without looking , and thankfully to date I've always managed to avoid any collisions.  But the irony is I'm the one that needs to "look where I'm going" in about 90% of cases 

And this to me is the very dangerous precedent this coverage is generating... that its always the cyclists job to look out.

Look out for cars, trucks and bigger things that might kill them... look out for small vulnerable things that may kill them, or be killed... big or small, the responsbility is seemingly being placed solely upon the humble cyclist. 

And now we are seeing it... I am seeing it. Pedestrians (we are still talking a minority here) are increasingly not looking (as they don't perceive it to be their responsibility to do so), or are looking and stepping out anyway (as they believe it is the cyclists responsibility to move / yield). 

That viewpoint is driven by the media. 

And... for some reason to many cycling enthuisiast are afraid to call this out for the bullshit it is. Instead we have comments saying that pedestrians do have right of way... and yes, we should be able to stop in time of any danger presented to us. As well as those apologists saying its what we all deserve because one teenage scrote once buzzed an old granny on a pavement.

Come on people, lets stop being complicit in the crap. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

Again another tragic accident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist.

Going by the fact that the cyclist has not been charged with anything in connection with this incident it is likely that the cyclist was minding their own business as the pedestrian stepped out onto the road in front of them.

I have at least 1 incident a day of peds walking out onto the road in front of me without looking , and thankfully to date I've always managed to avoid any collisions.  But the irony is I'm the one that needs to "look where I'm going" in about 90% of cases 

 

And this to me is the very dangerous precedent this coverage is generating... that its always the cyclists job to look out.

Look out for cars, trucks and bigger things that might kill them... look out for small vulnerable things that may kill them, or be killed... big or small, the responsbility is seemingly being placed solely upon the humble cyclist. 

And now we are seeing it... I am seeing it. Pedestrians (we are still talking a minority here) are increasingly not looking (as they don't perceive it to be their responsibility to do so), or are looking and stepping out anyway (as they believe it is the cyclists responsibility to move / yield). 

That viewpoint is driven by the media. 

And... for some reason to many cycling enthuisiast are afraid to call this out for the bullshit it is. Instead we have comments saying that pedestrians do have right of way... and yes, we should be able to stop in time of any danger presented to us. As well as those apologists saying its what we all deserve because one teenage scrote once buzzed an old granny on a pavement.

Come on people, lets stop being complicit in the crap. 

 

Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles.

"Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin's turn to do the looking"

And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users.

I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

Again another tragic accident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist.

Going by the fact that the cyclist has not been charged with anything in connection with this incident it is likely that the cyclist was minding their own business as the pedestrian stepped out onto the road in front of them.

I have at least 1 incident a day of peds walking out onto the road in front of me without looking , and thankfully to date I've always managed to avoid any collisions.  But the irony is I'm the one that needs to "look where I'm going" in about 90% of cases 

 

And this to me is the very dangerous precedent this coverage is generating... that its always the cyclists job to look out.

Look out for cars, trucks and bigger things that might kill them... look out for small vulnerable things that may kill them, or be killed... big or small, the responsbility is seemingly being placed solely upon the humble cyclist. 

And now we are seeing it... I am seeing it. Pedestrians (we are still talking a minority here) are increasingly not looking (as they don't perceive it to be their responsibility to do so), or are looking and stepping out anyway (as they believe it is the cyclists responsibility to move / yield). 

That viewpoint is driven by the media. 

And... for some reason to many cycling enthuisiast are afraid to call this out for the bullshit it is. Instead we have comments saying that pedestrians do have right of way... and yes, we should be able to stop in time of any danger presented to us. As well as those apologists saying its what we all deserve because one teenage scrote once buzzed an old granny on a pavement.

Come on people, lets stop being complicit in the crap. 

 

Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles. "Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin's turn to do the looking" And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users. I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.

I rest my case.

Of course it is... Absolutely. 

But... thats not the message that is hitting home... the message is this... 'cyclists need to look out for cars... cyclists need to look out for pedestrians. 

if cyclists can't stop when a pedestrian jumps in their path its the cyclists fault. If a car pulls out in front of a cyclist, the cyclist was going too fast to stop. 

We are being forced into an unoffical strict liability environment where the cyclist is ALWAYS at fault unless they can prove otherwise. 

Your comments above completely swerves the issue of the inequality being publicised... this is inadvertently condoning and supporting the media's viewpoint. 

In summary... of course as with all road users we have a responsbility to look out for other road users... but it is NOT OK to promote, condone, or tolerate the premise that its is the sole responsibility of cyclists to manage road safety.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles. "Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin's turn to do the looking" And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users. I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.

Undoubtedly cyclists should look where they are going, as should all road users.  Ask yourself if a driver would be held responsible if a pedestrian walked out in front of them?  Probably not, so why are cyclists treated differently?

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Of course it is the cyclists responsibility to always look out for other road users. Every road user has the responsibility to always look out for other road users. There is no division of the labour. We are not meerkats, taking it in turns to look out for meerkat eating eagles. "Sorry I crashed into you, but it was Buggin's turn to do the looking" And to be clear, pedestrians as road users have a responsibility to look out for other road users. I suggest that regardless of mode of transport, if you are the person responsible for a vehicle (including your own shoes) then start with the assumption that everything is your responsibility and work up from there.

Undoubtedly cyclists should look where they are going, as should all road users.  Ask yourself if a driver would be held responsible if a pedestrian walked out in front of them?  Probably not, so why are cyclists treated differently?

Absolutely, the car driver has every responsibility to pay attention and drive not just within the speed limit but to the conditions. If the conditions involve pedestrians in the road or potentially in the road then slow the fuck down.

As for prosecution, you can be prosecuted for a standard of cycling or driving that falls well below the standard. Prosecuting negligent pedestrians, probably harder but they are just as accountable as anyone else if they cause an incident resulting in damage or injury.

What is so hard about understanding that regardless of how: stupid, negligent, young, old, inebriated or incompetent other people may be, as a rider, driver, operator of a vehicle you have a basic responsibility to them and duty of care when operating your vehicle near them.

Mungecrundle][quote=burtthebike wrote:

What is so hard about understanding that regardless of how: stupid, negligent, young, old, inebriated or incompetent other people may be, as a rider, driver, operator of a vehicle you have a basic responsibility to them and duty of care when operating your vehicle near them.

Nothing hard about that at all.  The problem I have is that cyclists are held to a much higher standard of responsibility than other road users who have a much higher potential for causing death and injury.

Mungecrundle wrote:

What is so hard about understanding that regardless of how: stupid, negligent, young, old, inebriated or incompetent other people may be, as a rider, driver, operator of a vehicle you have a basic responsibility to them and duty of care when operating your vehicle near them.

I think the point is there is a narrative fed by the media and growing acceptance that the onus for everyones safety on the road is resting solely on the cyclist, so its the cyclists fault for being there if they get crushed by the cars and lorries, and pedestrians dont have to bother looking or listening anymore, theyll just walk into the road and the cyclist be damned if they collide even if theres nothing the cyclist could have done to avoid hitting them.

its something Im noticing more in recent weeks, even if pedestrians do look and spot you alot of them are going well tough you are only a cyclist, and theyll rationalise it to themselves they arent doing something stupid because you must be going too fast as a cyclist, or you are wearing lycra, or some other ridiculous whataboutery, they are taking the view you hit & crash into me its your fault, therefore Im free to wander across roads at will and not take care for my own safety. And not one of those pedestrians would ever react the same way with a ton of metal approaching them.

Awavey wrote:

. its something Im noticing more in recent weeks, even if pedestrians do look and spot you alot of them are going well tough you are only a cyclist, and theyll rationalise it to themselves they arent doing something stupid because you must be going too fast as a cyclist, or you are wearing lycra, or some other ridiculous whataboutery, they are taking the view you hit & crash into me its your fault, therefore Im free to wander across roads at will and not take care for my own safety. And not one of those pedestrians would ever react the same way with a ton of metal approaching them.

This. Very much this. I've had women with pushchairs look up, see I'm on a bike and just carry on out into the road: pretty bl**dy sure they wouldn't do that if I was driving a car And then they look at me like I'm the bad guy if I go around them or if I stop for them (basically, anything other than ceasing to exist right there and then).

This one never made it into the main headline bit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41264639?intlink_from_url=http://ww...

Beheamoth used to plough into group of pedestrians and kills 2 of them

 

So the massive 4x4 vehicle was driving itself?

The Gavalier]</p>

<p>[quote=ktache wrote:

This one never made it into the main headline bit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41264639?intlink_from_url=http://ww...

Beheamoth used to plough into group of pedestrians and kills 2 of them

 

So the massive 4x4 vehicle was driving itself?

"Beheamoth used to..." not beheamoth hits.

I was careful in my choice of words though I accept I may have incorectly spelled beheamoth.

ktache]</p>

<p>[quote=The Gavalier wrote:

ktache wrote:

This one never made it into the main headline bit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41264639?intlink_from_url=http://ww...

Beheamoth used to plough into group of pedestrians and kills 2 of them

 

So the massive 4x4 vehicle was driving itself?

"Beheamoth used to..." not beheamoth hits.

I was careful in my choice of words though I accept I may have incorectly spelled beheamoth.

My point was that according to the report it was the Nissan Pathfinder which hit the pedestrians and not the motorist, whereas it's always the cyclist and not the bicycle. 

The Gavalier wrote:

Fair play to The Guardian for including the following in their online report:

Pedestrians are much more likely to be killed by motor vehicles than cyclists. Figures from the Office for National Statistics for 2006 to 2010 show the annual number of pedestrians who died as a result of collisions with cyclists varied from zero in 2009 to six in 2007. The equivalent figure from collisions with a car, truck or pickup truck ranged from 123 in 2010 to 267 in 2007.

Unfortunately they still make the mistake of comparing inanimate objects (car, truck, pickup) with human beings (cyclists). 

 

Crikey!  Don't tell yorkshirewallet, he'll have to revise his opinion of left wing "SJW" websites....