Cyclist pedestrian accident, HELP

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Getlin_ab 31 Jan 2020

I was riding home on a cycling lane in London when a pedestrian stepped into the lane right in front of me. I received numerous damages (cut, concussion, hematoma, sore shoulder, damaged bike…) as well as a pedestrian (knocked unconscious, facial damages, big cuts, taken by the ambulance…), who was in late 50s, which makes their injuries more threatening, unlikely but possibly even fatal.

Police has arrived at the scene, took down my details and my version of what had happened and said they will be in touch. Around 2 weeks later, I received a Collision Report, where I am requested to respond to a questionnaire regarding the incident. "It would assist us ... if you would complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it... within seven days..." it says.

I am wary of legal issues surrounding such incidents. I have no insurance and am worried that there could be a claim made against me, or worse I could face sentence. I feel there is nothing I could have done to prevent the accident and hope pedestrian makes full recovery, but can anybody advise me how to approach this…

Do I have to respond to this report from Metropolitan Police? Does it mean a pedestrian made a claim and they are trying to get more information? Am I being prosecuted? Could this form be issued because the incident was fatal? Do I need to a solicitor to respond to this report properly, or I can do it myself? Is it safe to call 101 to ask about the incident, or it can be used against me if I say something wrong? Should I try get in contact with a pedestrian?

In general, if you have any info regarding similar situations, that would be very helpful.

 MonkeyPuzzle 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

I don't know the answers to your questions, but if as you say the pedestrian stepped right out in front of you and into a designated cycle lane, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. If there's no evidence of you doing anything wrong then they cannot charge, less convict you, of anything. You're not legally required to have insurance but check whether if you have home insurance whether it covers you for personal liability. If anything though it sounds like you have more grounds to sue them than the other way round.

Do not, whatever you do, try to contact the pedestrian or their family in case it is misconstrued.

Sorry this happened to you, it sounds like an awful experience from top to bottom.

1
 Padraig 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

So you never inquired about the injured pedestrian after the accident?

54
 Siward 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

Read the form and covering letter. Does it not mention anywhere the reason it's been sent, what (if any) legislation applies , to what use it can be put etc? It must say something? 

In any event if you do return it then treat it as a truthful and formal statement of your account upon which, should it ever come to it,you could be cross examined.

cp123 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

It doesn't sound like you are being prosecuted, if they were they would be cautioning you first. However,  I would be very cautious about speaking to the police, any information that you volunteer may implicate you and used against you and as such not volunteering information is normally the best thing to do.

It does however, sound like the pedestrian was at fault, and so if you were considering pursuing them for a claim it may be worth speaking to a solicitor.

1
 Yanis Nayu 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

There was a case recently where a pedestrian was struck by a cyclist, both injured  I think, it was deemed a 50/50. The pedestrian sued the cyclist, the cyclist should have counter-sued but didn’t and it cost him a fortune in legal fees. So if you get sued, take legal advice and counter-sue (if that’s the right legal terminology). 
 

Carefully read the form; I would imagine that if they were seriously thinking of prosecution they would have interviewed you under caution rather than sending a questionnaire. Unless someone legally qualified or a plod responds I’d consider getting legal advice.

Was your bike safe - brakes functioning, if it was dark did you have a working front light? Were you going particularly fast? Can a bike computer show what speed you were going if that ends up being contentious? 

 balmybaldwin 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

Get in touch with british cycling... they have good advice on these sorts of things, will support you if it goes further.... even if you aren't a member (you may need to join to get full support)

Getlin_ab 31 Jan 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Thanks! 

Yeah, if anything I was endangered, but I understand accidents happen. And I know they can twist facts and make up nonsense excuses when it comes to money, hence trying to be cautious. Like this case with a guy paying out 100k, even though he was going on green lights.  

Why would you advise against contacting them? 

Getlin_ab 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Padraig:

I haven't no... Didn't know if that's legally safe. 

Getlin_ab 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Siward:

Hey! Thanks for a reply. 

It just says:

"I am writing to advise you that a report relating to the above collision has been received in this office [Traffic Criminal Justice Unit of MET]. .... An investigation into this incident has now commenced and once all enquiries are complete and a decision has been reached, you will be advised of the outcome by letter...

*Next page*

I am writing regarding the above incident which is subject of police enquiries. It would assist us in the investigation of this matter if you would complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the enclosed pre-paid envelope, if possible within seven days of the receipt of this letter...

*Next page*

...It would greatly assist us if you would kindly complete this questionnaire in full..."

Like the rhetoric sounds too polite for a must reply document...
 

Getlin_ab 31 Jan 2020
In reply to cp123:

I think you're right... I just want me and the person to recover, don't need to claim anything from anyone. Thanks for you response!

Getlin_ab 31 Jan 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yeah, read that one. That's why I got super worried. I would certainly counter-sue to not get into similar situation, but is now the time...? 

Agreed, sounds too polite for prosecution. And yeah bike was safe, maybe 15-20 kph, nothing unusual. 

 LastBoyScout 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

Not that it helps you now, but this is why I bought a handlebar camera and joined British Cycling 

 David55 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

For the future, all cyclists should have  3rd party insurance. You can get this through membership of  various cycling organisations: British Cycling,  Cycling UK, National Clarion Cycling Club,  and in London,  the London Cycling Campaign. 

Various  insurance  companies also provide  it. Commuting cyclists should most certainly  be insured. It is  a whole lot cheaper than car insurance .

11
 Rip van Winkle 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

It might be worth asking at your local Citizens' Advice centre. If they don't know the answer they should know where you can go for help.

 DancingOnRock 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

The police have already taken your statement at the time of the accident. Was it taken under caution? I’d be wary of adding anything else. Usually the police or even CPS make a decision whether or not there is any criminal actions that need to be prosecuted. 
 

If the pedestrian sues then that’s a different matter entirely and the police wouldn’t be involved. 

 Trangia 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

Have you checked your household insurance? Some policies include Third Party claims.

Don't want to alarm you, but IIRC there was a case last year where a cyclist killed a woman who walked in front of him. It was found that the cyclist had defective brakes. I can't remember all the details, but the judge was very critical of the cyclist for riding too fast in an area where there were pedestrians milling about next to the road, and even crossing it. IIRC she was on her phone and not paying attention but the cyclist still went down for manslaughter because of what the judge deemed the cyclist's "reckless" speed for the conditions. The general consensus was that where there is a mixture of cyclists and pedestrians, even with dedicated lanes, the onus is on the cyclist to slow down and take care.

BTW I'm not suggesting that you acted recklessly - just giving you the facts of another case which may be under totally different circumstances.

Post edited at 14:09
1
 Si Witcher 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Trangia:

Agreed. The consensus re liability in a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist or car is that the cyclist/car has a duty of care to anticipate stupid actions by pedestrians and to slow down pre-emptively. I would proceed on the basis that the injured pedestrian may seek damages from you and that the default allocation of liability will be more on you than them. Questions to consider will be did you see the pedestrian before the collision? Did you see them near the cycle lane, did you slow down in case they hadn't seen you etc. This sounds unfair to you but appears to be how these cases can run.

 Yanis Nayu 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Trangia:

Not entirely accurate but I agree with your general point. Link to a report on the Alliston case: 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18...

 daWalt 01 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

what dancingonrock said.

the police will look into an incident, as their letter says they are, with the aim of determining if a crime has occurred. that is all.

if the other party wants to bring action against you, that's a completely different matter. although I think they may then be able to gain access to what statements you have or haven't given.

But, the general advice that is always valid: if in doubt, say nowt.

Post edited at 18:51
 Neil Williams 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

If you don't have a dedicated cycling third party policy, check your home buildings and/or contents policy wording carefully.  It is not at all unusual for these to contain, often only for the policyholder but sometimes for all residents, a general third party liability clause which generally does specifically exclude liabilities relating to motor vehicles but generally does not exclude liabilities relating to cycling.  The main purpose of this clause is if liability arises through your property (e.g. a roof tile falls off your house and goes through your neighbour's windscreen or lands on their head) but very often it is much wider than that.  I did specifically ask this question of Direct Line a few years ago (though don't take it as read that this is still the case as policies change) and they confirmed that if I had a cycling accident that was my fault it would indeed provide third party cover.

You may also find that any general legal protection add-on you have, if you have one, will provide assistance too.

Not a lot of people know this (hence a lot of shouting about "uninsured cyclists" when in fact a good many of them *are* insured but possibly don't even know it themselves), so there are few claims, which is probably why you tend to get it for free.

Post edited at 13:29
 Neil Williams 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Si Witcher:

> Agreed. The consensus re liability in a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist or car is that the cyclist/car has a duty of care to anticipate stupid actions by pedestrians and to slow down pre-emptively. I would proceed on the basis that the injured pedestrian may seek damages from you and that the default allocation of liability will be more on you than them. Questions to consider will be did you see the pedestrian before the collision? Did you see them near the cycle lane, did you slow down in case they hadn't seen you etc. This sounds unfair to you but appears to be how these cases can run.

I see the mention of a cycle lane - was this the kind where there is just a line down the middle of the pavement or was it more segregated?  Given the severity of the accident, if it was only the type with a line down the pavement I think you may just possibly have been going a bit quick for the circumstances (that that kind of cycle lane is suitable for less than about 10mph is why many cyclists choose the road instead)?

If it was an on-road one or one obviously segregated from a pavement with a kerb a higher speed *might* be appropriate, but equally might not depending on other traffic etc.

If that's true professional legal advice may be advisable.

 Neil Williams 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Padraig:

> So you never inquired about the injured pedestrian after the accident?

Usually you will not be given any information in such a case.

 Neil Williams 02 Feb 2020
In reply to David55:

> Various  insurance  companies also provide  it. Commuting cyclists should most certainly  be insured. It is  a whole lot cheaper than car insurance

It's actually totally free with many home insurance policies, and more people have it than know that they do.  Read your policy to see if yours does, there will certainly be a third party liability clause (to deal with things like falling roof tiles causing damage/injury leading to liability) but it may or may not have an exclusion for cycling, it varies.

 smollett 02 Feb 2020

From my past experience I would not tell the police anything unless you are required to do so by law. In the past I had a statement the police took whilst I was in shock used against me in court. This used factually incorrect information which I clearly remember trying to correct at the time following the accident. I did not sign the statement at the time as I had enough sense still to see what he wrote was wrong but this was still used against me.

 JohnBson 02 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

If you do not reply you could possibly be interviewed under caution if they think you're being deliberately obstructive to the investigation. Up to you but generally in my experience it's best to cooperate as to fail to do so early on usually means a trivial investigation is progressed to the next level. People will tell you otherwise based on some worry about self incrimination. If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about, if you've broken the law take the punishment like an adult. 

12
 wilkinscl 02 Feb 2020

Don't fill out the questionnaire! If the police decide that they want to progress the investigation further you will be under caution and you will have legal representation. They already have the information you offered at the scene. If you offer any more information it can only be used against you and not against the pedestrian. Walking in-front of a cyclist is not a crime, cycling into a pedestrian can be construed as one.

1
 TheGeneralist 02 Feb 2020

> For the future, all cyclists should have  3rd party insurance. You can get this through membership of  various cycling organisations: British Cycling,  Cycling UK, National Clarion Cycling Club,  and in London,  the London Cycling Campaign. 

> Various  insurance  companies also provide  it. Commuting cyclists should most certainly  be insured. It is  a whole lot cheaper than car insurance .

In reply to David55:

That's just such utter bilge.  People in the UK are getting fatter and unhealthier, the planet is getting warmer and more polluted.

I know, let's insist that cyclists have to get mandatory insurance. That's a great way of increasing fear and worry, pushing everyone back into their cars and building a base of precedent so that anyone not stupid enough to follow your witless advice is perceived as being to blame for going about their business in a simple sensible way.

If you don't mind me saying so.

4
 ClimberEd 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Trangia:

Whole thing was a cluster f*ck.

But it hinged on the fact he was riding a fixie with no front brake which is technically illegal. 

 JohnBson 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TheGeneralist:

As a generalist you should know that insurance does not increase fear or worry, many people drive cars and only think about insurance once a year when it comes up for renewal. It's inconvenient but it is responsible to have insurance if you are in control of any machine that could kill someone else or even injure yourself.

I take out BMC insurance but that doesn't increase my fear or worry. In fact knowing that I can get lifted off a mountain in the Alps without a hefty bill makes the whole thing possible as there's no way I could afford it otherwise. Get a sense of perspective if you're a responsible, regular commuter you should be insured to protect yourself. 

8
 Rog Wilko 03 Feb 2020
In reply to David55:

> For the future, all cyclists should have  3rd party insurance. You can get this through membership of  various cycling organisations: British Cycling,  Cycling UK, National Clarion Cycling Club,  and in London,  the London Cycling Campaign. 

I've been a member of the CTC, now Cycling UK for years. I don't know about the other organisations you mention, but as well as insurance they will pay for your defence in court should it come to that, and you also get quite a good magazine through the post every two (I think) months.

 gravy 03 Feb 2020
In reply to JohnBson:

The barrier to riding bikes should be as absolutely low as possible and introducing faff and regulation severely hampers that.  The planet and you as an individual would most certainly benefit from more bikes and anything that gets in the way of that is bad for you and the planet.

"Shall I ride, bollocks, I forgot my compulsory £5 public liability insurance and face a big fine, I'll take the car".  The chilling effect is not necessarily fear induced.

The overwhelming evidence is that (a) car kill cyclists (b) cyclists hardly ever seriously injure anyone except themselves (c) bikes are way better for individuals and society than cars (d) bikes+peds is definitely safer than bikes+cars.  The cost benefit equation is simply clearly in favour of unregulated bike use.

Having cycled all over the world (as well as driven) the key to really good facilities for bikes and massive bike use is to do whatever it takes to get middle aged women riding bikes rather than using cars.  Once this happens all bike unfriendly nonsense is not tolerated and you get +ve feedback in favour of bikes for the benefit of everyone.

The introduction of rules and regulations that add faff to the brilliant act of getting on a bike screw everyone.

Post edited at 10:12
2
 dread-i 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

I'd make the assumption that the pedestrian is going to go for a no win no fee claim. It seems to be the standard these days, to try one's luck, regardless of who is at fault. Equally, you could do the same as you were injured and your bike damaged.

I don't know if you making a claim would stand in your favor or not. You would be making an assertion that the pedestrian is in the wrong. If you don't do anything, it may be seen as you are accepting that you are in the wrong, even if you're not. Having criminal and civil closure on the case might be a relief. Companies can pursue claims years after the incident.

Many solicitors will give an initial consultation for free. It would be worth seeking advice from a number of local solicitors. You should consider retaining the best one, as this has the potential to get out of hand quickly.

 mondite 03 Feb 2020
In reply to TheGeneralist:

> If you don't mind me saying so.

Its a tricky one. I am opposed to mandatory insurance but for anyone who cycles a lot I think it is probably a good idea considering the low cost.

My personal approach is being a member of the CTC. They do a pretty good job of representing cyclists generally and so I consider the insurance a side benefit of helping fund their work.

For OP. I would contact some of the specialist cycling lawyers. Get an initial review and take if from there and, as others have said, check all your existing household etc insurance in case you can borrow the legal advice from those.

 TheGeneralist 03 Feb 2020
In reply to gravy:

Splendid, well though out, informed reply.

You are in fact Chris Boardman aren't you😃

 DancingOnRock 03 Feb 2020
In reply to gravy:

I can’t see kids worrying about insurance. They’ll just get in their mates bikes and wheelie down the middle of the road as usual. And good luck to them. The more kids on the roads the better and maybe car drivers will start to realise they don’t own the roads and as the kids grow up and drive cars they’ll have more road sense and more compassion towards cyclists.

I can’t imagine the police diverting their scarce resources to stopping otherwise law abiding children to check they're who they say they are and whether they’re riding insured or not. 
 

It’s just a nonsensical idea. Next someone will be insisting pedestrians have insurance and void it if they are using a phone. 

Post edited at 14:04
1
 DancingOnRock 03 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

Reading your post again, it seems they said they’d be in touch for more information. Just fill in the form with the same information that you gave after the accident and send it back. It would be the same as when you make an insurance claim. 

 TheGeneralist 04 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> Whole thing was a cluster f*ck.

> But it hinged on the fact he was riding a fixie with no front brake which is technically illegal. 

And that he didn't come across as a charming pleasant individual.

1
Rigid Raider 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

From the little of the enquiry form that you've reproduced it sounds to be worded as an enquiry and nothing more sinister. The Police may simply be wanting to collect statistics; if they planned to use it as evidence they should tell you. Why don't you just 'phone them and ask the reason for the form? Then fill it in but take care what you write so as to leave no doubt that the pedestrian walked out in front of you as you rode along at a reasonable speed. 

 Neil Williams 04 Feb 2020
In reply to TheGeneralist:

I don't think he's suggesting a legal requirement but rather that it's prudent, which if you do a lot of cycling particularly if using a fast road bike it probably is (the amount of damage you can cause while bimbling along at about 8mph on a Raleigh Shopper is rather limited).  It isn't a legal requirement for climbers to have third party insurance (a very few landowners require it e.g. Cheddar) nor would this necessarily be sensible to require but a lot of them do via the BMC and many do consider it prudent.

Post edited at 08:48
1
 Neil Williams 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Rigid Raider:

It definitely reads to me as evidence, not statistics, potentially with regard to pursuing a "furious cycling" or dangerous cycling (whatever that's called) charge (or if the pedestrian was killed, then potentially more).  If it was for statistics it would be stated.

The difficulty with this situation is that, if you have enough notice to be able to avoid hitting them and if not going too fast[1], you need to not hit pedestrians using a road vehicle (powered or not) even if they walk out in front of you, as pedestrians have absolute priority.  So they will be presumably looking to establish that (a) you weren't going too fast, and (b) that they did indeed walk out too close for you to have any possibility of avoiding them.

[1] This is somewhat relative with bicycles as outside certain parks with Byelaws the speed limit does not apply - it's more about levels of control at that speed - one cyclist might be "cycling furiously" at say 30mph but another might not.

Post edited at 08:53
 Dogwatch 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Trangia:

> I can't remember all the details, but the judge was very critical of the cyclist for riding too fast in an area where there were pedestrians milling about next to the road, and even crossing it. IIRC she was on her phone and not paying attention but the cyclist still went down for manslaughter because of what the judge deemed the cyclist's "reckless" speed for the conditions.

Actually they were found guilty of "wanton and furious driving" but not guilty of manslaughter. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/23/cyclist-convicted-wanton-furiou...

 Dogwatch 04 Feb 2020
In reply to smollett:

> From my past experience I would not tell the police anything unless you are required to do so by law. 

I know a barrister who would vehemently agree with that and I imagine he knows what he's talking about. 

 ClimberEd 04 Feb 2020
In reply to TheGeneralist:

> And that he didn't come across as a charming pleasant individual.

Yes indeed - that wouldn't have helped his final sentence. 

But as I understand it (caveat, not a lawyer, blah blah) the pedestrian stepped out whilst looking at her phone. Normally that would clearly be her fault, but because his bike was 'illegal' he got the blame. 

 ChrisJD 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

> ... if you would kindly complete this questionnaire in full..."

 ... as it would greatly assist us if you could incriminate yourself

gezebo 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

Tbh I think you’re reading far more into this than required. Whilst it’s a frightening and concerning experience lots of people get taken to hospital after Rtc’s with what looks to be serious injuries ( I understand that we all have differing understandings of ‘serious’) and then they leave pretty soon after with a bandage and some painkillers. Maybe this is a bit blunt but I’m speaking as someone who’s attended numerous serious and fatal rtcs so maybe I’m a bit hardened. 
 

Anyway as youve had a bump with someone and there have been injuries- yours and the other persons then it is normal and right that it’s investigated. However.... given that in all reality it’s basically the other person who’s walked into you and in all likelihood suffered from not much more than some bumps and bruises it could be seen that it’s basically their fault, or largely their fault, and their injuries are basically their just deserts for their own stupidity. 
 

Given the above and in the days of budget cuts the Met won’t be throwing the yard at your collision investigation and the case will have landed on some back office dept who will be sending these forms out by the dozen (well lots anyway). 
 

Send it back if you want but if it was serious you’d be getting a knock on the door not a white envelope sent 2nd class. 
 

As for the damages that’s a civil case not criminal and the police won’t be interested in that. If you want to raise a claim against the other chap then ask for his details if you didn’t get them.

In the meantime hopefully you’re back on your bike and riding again. 

Post edited at 11:46
 TheGeneralist 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think he's suggesting a legal requirement but rather that it's prudent, which if you do a lot of cycling particularly if using a fast..,.

Possibly true. My concern would be that it inexorably moves from individually prudent to common to expected to mandatory. 

 jkarran 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Siward:

> In any event if you do return it then treat it as a truthful and formal statement of your account upon which, should it ever come to it,you could be cross examined.

And keep a copy so you can give a consistent account in a years time if necessary.

jk

 LastBoyScout 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I've got BMC, BCU and British Cycling membership.

A large part of the reason for those is the attached liability insurance.

Removed User 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

You knocked the guy unconscious?

Wow.

Have the police estimated the speed you were going at?

 Neil Williams 04 Feb 2020
In reply to TheGeneralist:

> Possibly true. My concern would be that it inexorably moves from individually prudent to common to expected to mandatory. 

True, though to be honest I could see benefits not in cycle-specific cover (which notably the Swiss used to have and abolished because it was of little benefit) but for us to move to a system like Germany has where third party liability insurance on a more generalised basis isn't hidden in home contents/buildings insurance where hardly anybody knows it exists, but rather that every adult/family maintains a policy as a general thing so you can claim off this if it is needed in life more generally, e.g. for things like your kid putting a football though the neighbour's window.  They call it a "Haftpflichtversicherung" if you wanted to know more.

Post edited at 13:37
 daWalt 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Wow.

no, not really.

Roadrunner6 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> You knocked the guy unconscious?

> Wow.

> Have the police estimated the speed you were going at?

It really doesn't take much sometimes. I've seen students suffer serious concussion from glancing blows on their head playing basketball and they've not been themselves for months. 

The brains odd in what it can take. 

 Mike Stretford 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> You knocked the guy unconscious?

> Wow.

> Have the police estimated the speed you were going at?

Ah c'mon Eric!

A banana skin can 'knock someone unconscious', it's no indication of a cyclists speed.

 Neil Williams 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

To the OP, what sort of speed were you doing (I know there won't be absolutes but did it feel fast?) and in what sort of context?  Also what sort of cycle lane was it?

 Dark-Cloud 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Does it matter ? Somebody stepped into a live lane of traffic, not much more to it than that is there ?

Post edited at 14:27
2
 Neil Williams 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

> Does it matter ? Somebody stepped into a live lane of traffic, not much more to it than that is there ?

Yes, there very much is more to it than that.  In a busy city it is to be expected that people will do that particularly on cycle paths which are just a white line, and is necessary to take into account that they might when choosing how to ride or drive, because by choosing to use a vehicle (whether mechanically powered or not) you take some responsibility for the risk it poses to others over and above the risk that would be posed if it was not there.

If it was down a 40mph dual carriageway with a fully segregated cycle lane (i.e. separated from the pavement by a full height kerb), less so.  The Police/CPS will absolutely take that into account when deciding whether to prosecute.

Post edited at 14:34
2
Removed User 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Agreed.

I nearly got flattened in Amsterdam by a bike because there was no division between the lane and where I was supposed to walk, I expected the traffic to be going the other way because I'm an ignorant Brit and because bikes are silent and I didn't hear it coming.

We expect car drivers to assess road conditions and drive appropriately. While I'm not accusing the OP in this thread I would hope that cyclists would also behave in a responsible manner and not risk the well being of those around them.

4
 Dark-Cloud 04 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

And cyclists hope pedestrians behave in a responsible manner by not stepping out in front of them !

In reply to Neil Williams:

> you need to not hit pedestrians using a road vehicle (powered or not) even if they walk out in front of you, as pedestrians have absolute priority.

I suspect that if someone stepped off the pavement, in front of a car with no warning, and the car was travelling within the speed limit, the driver would not be prosecuted. Cars driving on roads with a pavement running beside do not have to slow down just in case a pedestrian steps out directly in front of them; that is clearly the established situation we see all around us.

 elsewhere 04 Feb 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

I would hope you would adjust your speed or level of paranoia in your case if pavements are crowded or the schools have just let the kids out compared to 2am. Traffic including foot traffic and people or kids stepping off the pavement is all part of normal traffic conditions.

Yes normal. It's not as if we haven't seen or done it.

Post edited at 21:30
 Yanis Nayu 04 Feb 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

I think the initial expectation in an incident involving a cyclist is that the cyclist was in the wrong. I read about a cyclist who was killed after hitting a pedestrian who walked in the road in front of him and the police told the family he’d have been prosecuted if he wasn’t dead. 

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > you need to not hit pedestrians using a road vehicle (powered or not) even if they walk out in front of you, as pedestrians have absolute priority.

> I suspect that if someone stepped off the pavement, in front of a car with no warning, and the car was travelling within the speed limit, the driver would not be prosecuted.

There is a chance they might.  The speed limit is not the be-all and end-all, and there are circumstances where driving at it would be inappropriate.  The charge would be dangerous driving/DWDCAA.

With regard to cycles, their braking systems are often inferior to cars and they aren't, due to stability, necessarily able to swerve as easily.  So a speed well below the motor vehicle speed limit (which doesn't apply to cycles) *can* be considered inappropriate.

Coupled with cycle lanes typically being very close to the kerb and so having no leeway, belting along the cycle lane at 20mph in central London (that being the motor vehicle limit in most of it these days) might well be inappropriate as it gives no leeway to deal with the likely event of someone stepping out.  A motor vehicle would be further from the kerb and have more chance to judge that.  If wishing to travel at the prevailing traffic speed away from the kerb, the cyclist of course has the right to ride in the general traffic lane then he can have the same amount of warning.

Post edited at 09:57
3
 Dark-Cloud 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Have you ever ridden a bike, the fact that you think their stopping distances and manoeuvrability is less than a car makes me think not ?

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

> Have you ever ridden a bike

Yes, I ride one frequently.  Probably more often than I drive a car.

> the fact that you think their stopping distances and manoeuvrability is less than a car makes me think not ?

Depends on the bike; an old style road bike with caliper brakes has very poor braking particularly in the wet, whereas a modern hybrid with V brakes can stop very quickly, disc brakes even better.  With regard to manoeuvrability a bike is less stable than a car so you can't necessarily, unless very skilled, turn it as quickly, though you can of course squeeze it into a smaller gap.  That said, if there's a bus alongside you you can't go anywhere and that also needs taking into account.

My point is that a pedestrian stepping out is not necessarily 100% at fault.  They could be, but there may be other circumstances, and those circumstances need not include exceeding the motor vehicle speed limit.  Very often it is not appropriate to go anywhere near the limit; single track country lanes are a great example.  Often the limit is NSL (60 for cars) but 30 is way too fast.

Post edited at 11:05
3
Removed User 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Dark-Cloud:

> And cyclists hope pedestrians behave in a responsible manner by not stepping out in front of them !

Well I'm sure all road users hope other road users don't behave in unexpected ways but I'm sure you'll agree that every road user has a certain duty of care to others. We drive and I hope cycle, carefully past schools for example because we realise something unexpected may happen. By the same reasoning we should be aware of other situations where something unexpected might happen and should drive or cycle accordingly. Cycle lanes separated from footpaths by nothing but a line of paint are surely places where a cyclist must excercise some care and moderate their speed when pedestrians are present.

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Cycle lanes separated from footpaths by nothing but a line of paint are surely places where a cyclist must excercise some care and moderate their speed when pedestrians are present.

The OP still hasn't said what kind of cycle lane it was.  But for that type of cycle lane my view would be that it isn't suitable for any more than the speed of a slow jog unless no pedestrians are present, if you want to go fast you want to be on the road and out from the kerb.  They're for old Granny Smith to ride her basket-fitted shopper to the supermarket, not for a fit bloke in lycra to ride a fast road bike at 20mph+.

Post edited at 11:23
 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I think the initial expectation in an incident involving a cyclist is that the cyclist was in the wrong. I read about a cyclist who was killed after hitting a pedestrian who walked in the road in front of him and the police told the family he’d have been prosecuted if he wasn’t dead. 

That’s not the norm. In that case I think they judged the way he was cycling to be contributory to his injuries. 
 

 fred99 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Cycle lanes separated from footpaths by nothing but a line of paint are surely places where a PEDESTRIAN must excercise some care and moderate their CHANGE OF DIRECTION when CYCLISTS are present.

Fixed that for you.

2
 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to fred99:

Neither is true, or both are if you prefer.  Cycle lanes separated from footpaths by nothing but a line of paint are places where both classes of user need to use more care than were they separate.  Cyclists need to cycle slowly anticipating possible pedestrian errors (particularly by small children who don't know better), and pedestrians need to look out for cyclists when making a "manoeuvre" too, as well as e.g. not having dogs on extending leads as these may pose a risk.

The line simply indicates on which side each class of user should normally be.  You cannot assume that they will not be on the other bit, e.g. to circumvent an obstacle.  Effectively they need to be treated as shared-use paths that simply have an indication to assist both types of user on where they should normally be.  A bit like a white line down the middle of a road helps to indicate where each road user should normally be, but you can't assume that they will be in that location, e.g. a large lorry may need to move across the line to go under a low curved bridge, or there might be a multi-car pileup round the next blind corner.

Therefore, they are only suitable for slow cycling (<10mph) unless the cyclist can see for absolutely certain that (a) no pedestrians are present, and (b) that there are no exits where a pedestrian could come out of without being seen.  If cyclists wish to go faster they need to be on the road.

Post edited at 14:06
1
 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I think the DFT guidelines are 12mph for shared, where there are no lines, and 18mph for segregated, whether that’s by a curb or a white line. 

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Interesting, I would say 18mph is too fast unless there's an actual kerb, not just a white line.  Or do you mean segregated *from the road* by a white line?

Post edited at 14:28
 deepsoup 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The OP still hasn't said what kind of cycle lane it was.

And is under absolutely no obligation to do so.

The OP was a cry for help and a bit of advice after a (literally) bruising experience that may run a slight risk of escalating into a whole lot of trouble.  (Hopefully not, but you never know.)  That opening post struck me as the writing of a perfectly reasonable, conscientious and intelligent person who will undoubtedly have worried about this a fair bit, relived the whole experience a few times and lost some sleep over it.  I can't imagine why you think (s)he might want to furnish you with details that you can use to further flesh out your analysis of how it was all her fault.

I think it's easy to forget on threads like this that one person's fascinating hypothetical discussion is another's painful personal lived experience.  I don't envy anyone reading a UKC 'cycling' thread with a personal stake in it, the self-righteousness that's sometimes on display can be hard enough to stomach at the best of times. 

Post edited at 14:45
 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

No. They class segregated as white line or curb. But I think anyone cycling at 18mph towards a family of children or someone who is obviously not concentrating needs to have a word with themselves. 

1
Removed User 05 Feb 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes.

I think the white line cycle lanes are definitely hazardous. I often find myself wandering through a park or suchlike where a path is split between cycles and pedestrians but the markings are so far apart I am unable to tell which side of the line I'm on. Obviously trying to keep a toddler on one side of the line would be nigh on impossible without holding on to them.

 ClimberEd 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Interesting, I would say 18mph is too fast unless there's an actual kerb, not just a white line.  Or do you mean segregated *from the road* by a white line?

You're being terribly pedantic. 

If a pedestrian steps into the road or a cycle lane in front of a bike, it should be their fault. End of discussion.

1
 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> And is under absolutely no obligation to do so.

No, but if he wants help (beyond the first few postings referring to insurance options) then he needs to give enough detail to give it.

That said, it may well be that he has now engaged a legal professional who has suggested ceasing to post - that is likely to be advice if he has.

> I think it's easy to forget on threads like this that one person's fascinating hypothetical discussion is another's painful personal lived experience.  I don't envy anyone reading a UKC 'cycling' thread with a personal stake in it, the self-righteousness that's sometimes on display can be hard enough to stomach at the best of times.

I've had a serious cycling accident.  It was my fault.  I admit it was my fault and have learned from it.  Fortunately it only resulted in a bike write-off, a knee injury which has since recovered (though it took years) and a damaged bumper on the car that hit me due to my negligent actions (and in the context there wasn't much he could have done to avoid it).

To be honest I may be a rather special case - I have very strong views indeed in favour of defensive road use, and consider to some extent that both parties in any collision are at fault because the vast majority are avoidable if the "wronged" party is paying attention.  I also take the view, again very strongly, that the "hierarchy of vulnerability", as you might call it, applies to road traffic - that is, the more dangerous the vehicle you use, the more responsibility you personally carry for ensuring that nobody is killed or injured as a result of that vehicle being on the road.  Pedestrians are right at the bottom of this "food chain" (as they are vulnerable to users of all vehicles) and thus are very rarely to be fully blamed for an incident.

This may be hard to stomach, but if you post on a public discussion forum you are inviting discussion.  This is not Mumsnet and you can't post here and expect just to get sympathy.  I am sympathetic to the pain the OP has experienced, of course, but in the end he has to be honest with himself about whether he is indeed to blame and if so to modify his future behaviour, even if he then engages a member of the legal profession to ensure he is not prosecuted.

This to some extent crosses over with the thread about discussion of climbing accidents.  I also take the view that they should be discussed, anonymously if necessary, but completely openly and without reservation, as otherwise people simply do not learn.  The way air accidents are investigated is a good model.

Post edited at 14:59
 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> You're being terribly pedantic. 

> If a pedestrian steps into the road or a cycle lane in front of a bike, it should be their fault. End of discussion.

Absolutely not.  It depends on how fast the bike is travelling, whether that is appropriate speed, whether the issue could have been anticipated (e.g. the cyclist saw a kid playing football and the kid run out into the road following it) and so on.

Out of interest, if a cyclist pulls in front of a car is it wholly the cyclist's fault in all contexts in your book?

Your view is contrary to the principles of defensive road use and I cannot and will not accept them.  It might define *insurance* blame (as that's a simplified model) but it certainly does not define legal or moral blame.

Post edited at 15:03
 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> No. They class segregated as white line or curb. But I think anyone cycling at 18mph towards a family of children or someone who is obviously not concentrating needs to have a word with themselves. 

Any pedestrian, to be honest.  I often cycle on the MK Redways (which are fully shared) and while you can easily do 20mph on a clear run with no junctions, when you approach people (particularly with dogs or children) and blind junctions/bends you really do need to slow down to little more than walking pace.

A cycle lane which is on the road is rather different as it's far more heavily demarcated, but even if I was driving a car if I saw a kid playing football on the pavement I would be slowing down and paying attention, a cyclist is no different.

Post edited at 15:05
 wintertree 05 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> If a pedestrian steps into the road or a cycle lane in front of a bike, it should be their fault. End of discussion.

If I apply the same logic to cyclists when driving home tonight, are you going to pay my bail and legal fees, and pony up a team of mercenaries to spring me from jail?

As a motorist I have to be aware of all other road users, anticipate their range of less-then-sensible decisions and modify my driving accordingly.  It’s exactly the same for any other road user. 

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> As a motorist I have to be aware of all other road users, anticipate their range of less-then-sensible decisions and modify my driving accordingly.  It’s exactly the same for any other road user.

Precisely.  As road users we all make mistakes whatever vehicle we use (or none).  We therefore need to be anticipating and accommodating mistakes by other road users all the time.  It is incumbent on every road user to use the road defensively and avoid collisions as far as possible, even if their actions did not initiate the issue.

I get bored of hearing "it wasn't my fault, it doesn't matter".  Yes, it does.  At an extreme level, how about a gravestone inscription?  "Here lies Bob, he had right of way".

And back to the OP, when (and it is when) a similar situation occurs, how is he planning to modify his approach to avoid it resulting in a collision or reduce its severity?

Post edited at 15:12
 wintertree 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I get bored of hearing "it wasn't my fault, it doesn't matter". 

Riding a motorbike drives home very strongly that “it wasn’t my fault” doesn’t scrape you off the road and buy you a new helmet.  It worries me that the concepts of legal blame and insurance fault seem to guide so many people over all else.  There’s always room for more caution.

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > I get bored of hearing "it wasn't my fault, it doesn't matter". 

> Riding a motorbike drives home very strongly that “it wasn’t my fault” doesn’t scrape you off the road and buy you a new helmet.  It worries me that the concepts of legal blame and insurance fault seem to guide so many people over all else.  There’s always room for more caution.

Agreed.

 ClimberEd 05 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > If a pedestrian steps into the road or a cycle lane in front of a bike, it should be their fault. End of discussion.

> If I apply the same logic to cyclists when driving home tonight, are you going to pay my bail and legal fees, and pony up a team of mercenaries to spring me from jail?

> As a motorist I have to be aware of all other road users, anticipate their range of less-then-sensible decisions and modify my driving accordingly.  It’s exactly the same for any other road user. 

A pedestrian on the pavement isn't a road user.

A pedestrian walking along the road (on a country lane for example) is a road user, but that isn't what 'stepping into the road in front of you' is about. 

2
 ClimberEd 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Out of interest, if a cyclist pulls in front of a car is it wholly the cyclist's fault in all contexts in your book?

Sure. Unless the car is speeding away from a bank robbery at double the speed limit or some such. 

> Your view is contrary to the principles of defensive road use and I cannot and will not accept them.  It might define *insurance* blame (as that's a simplified model) but it certainly does not define legal or moral blame.

And your view is contrary to taking responsibility for your actions and I cannot and will not accept it.

1
 wintertree 05 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> A pedestrian on the pavement isn't a road user.

> A pedestrian walking along the road (on a country lane for example) is a road user, but that isn't what 'stepping into the road in front of you' is about. 

A pedestrian in the road is a road user.  Regardless of how they got there.  Generally, stepping in to the road is how they become a road user by your definition.  

As a motorist I count all people on the pavement as road users because they can almost instantly end up in the legitimate path of my vehicle and not just through fault of their own (eg  inattention) but through a trip or fall, a collision with another pedestrian (eg a runner), or some other mishap.

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to ClimberEd:

> A pedestrian on the pavement isn't a road user.

Yes, they are.  They would only not be if in a wholly pedestrianised area or on the side of a mountain or something.

If you genuinely don't think that pedestrians need to be considered when determining how to ride or drive, please go and retake your Hazard Perception test.

Post edited at 15:47
1
 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes. Cycle path and cycle lane are two different things. A cycle lane is cars/bikes. A cycle path is bikes/pedestrians. 
 

The worry is that mopeds are allowed to use cycle paths in some areas. And they seem to be immune from prosecution when it comes to the speeds that they do. 

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I would not be supportive of allowing mopeds on cycle facilities of any kind.  The Dutch used to and have progressively abolished it.

E-bikes and scooters with restricted top speeds are somewhat different, even if legislation presently would see some of them as mopeds.

Post edited at 16:09
 gazhbo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> There is a chance they might.  The speed limit is not the be-all and end-all, and there are circumstances where driving at it would be inappropriate.  The charge would be dangerous driving/DWDCAA.

> With regard to cycles, their braking systems are often inferior to cars and they aren't, due to stability, necessarily able to swerve as easily.  

 

Really?! A bike is less easy to stop/swerve than a car?

Post edited at 16:56
 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> Really?! A bike is less easy to stop/swerve than a car?

I already replied above, but in certain circumstances it can be, such as:

 - An older style road bike with caliper brakes which were about as effective as trying to grab the wheel with your hands.

 - Ice or contaminated road surface

 - If you're in a narrow cycle lane with other vehicles to your right

 gazhbo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I already replied above, but in certain circumstances it can be, such as:

>  - An older style road bike with caliper brakes which were about as effective as trying to grab the wheel with your hands.

>  - Ice or contaminated road surface

>  - If you're in a narrow cycle lane with other vehicles to your right

Well that’s only really fair if you compare like for like.  I’d like to think I’d be better able to stop or move a bike out of the way of a pedestrian than a car, especially if the car is a shed with no brake pads having a race downhill on an icy narrow road.

 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

They’ve been allowed in Stevenage for decades. 
 

http://www.stevenage.gov.uk/52710/52736/

In reply to Neil Williams:

> My point is that a pedestrian stepping out is not necessarily 100% at fault

That's a very different point to your earlier point that 'pedestrians have absolute priority'; absolute priority would mean they never have any responsibility if they are hit when stepping out without care.

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Perhaps that was a bad choice of wording on my part.

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Though they do in a sense - if a pedestrian steps into the road you do, as a vehicle user, have to avoid them if you are in any way able to do so.

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Hi Neil, 

It was a blue cycling lane, two way, with a small kerb separating it with pedestrian path and a big kerb separating it from the road. 

Cyclist there fly at crazy speeds, overtake each other.. in my instance I was making 15-20kph I think, nothing out of ordinary. 

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Thanks, but if there were no cameras, how on earth are they gonna establish that? Like it's unusual for a cyclist to cycle on a pedestrian path when there is a lane to use... Whereas makes sense for ped to cross. It's so confusing. 

Probably you're right, it's evidence. But it's just ped word against mine. Could it be that it's just coming from the police, not the ped suing me for liabilities? right?

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to gezebo:

Thanks for encouraging words! I do resonate with your logic. Hopefully it's the reality. But in fact this has been interfering with my sleep to a great extent... 

From what experience have you seen that many RTCs?

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Removed User:

It was unfortunate landing. Ped was facing back to me, didn't anticipate anything, so landed on the kerb, hitting the head. 

I wasn't doing anything abnormal, 15-20kph, just my estimate. It's a lane where everyone goes nuts, with mad overtakes etc, tons of cyclists. I came back the week after to check how it looked from ped's view and the traffic there is nuts. 

gezebo 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

No worries. 
I’ve seen the rtc’s from the police point of view for my sins. Hope you’re feeling better now. 
All the best. 

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

ahhh.. lovely.. Got a link to that maybe?

 Neil Williams 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

> It was a blue cycling lane, two way, with a small kerb separating it with pedestrian path and a big kerb separating it from the road.

I think I know the kind you mean, they are sort of a halfway house between lined and kerbed.

> Cyclist there fly at crazy speeds, overtake each other.. in my instance I was making 15-20kph I think, nothing out of ordinary. 

10-15mph...that seems reasonable.

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

By popular demand here is the equivalent cycling lane to the one in question.  

https://imgur.com/WqocE2I

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

hey, thank you very much for kind words. Yes, indeed, it's encouraging to have your views and comments, I really hope we both recover and it won't happen again. 

 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

That’s a segregated cycle path, not a cycle lane. A cycle lane would be in the road.

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

hmm not sure, as it has it's own description 

"....is a long bike freeway in XXXXX, UK. It is part of the Cycle Superhighway network coordinated XXXX...  For almost the entire route, cyclists are separated from other traffic in segregated cycle lanes, and cycling infrastructure has been provided at major interchanges."

Getlin_ab 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Jesus... this is pretty brutal

 DancingOnRock 05 Feb 2020
In reply to Getlin_ab:

The pedestrian was crossing at a light controlled crossing. A traffic light on green means proceed if clear, also another pedestrian started to cross at the same time but saw the cyclist and stepped back. 
 

More to that accident than is being reported. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...