Is this the unraveling of CyclingMikey?

[Diddums]

What's with the yellow text

 

[Brun]

The Highway Code - Rules for pedestrians (1 to 35) - Guidance - GOV.UK

Rules for pedestrians, including general guidance, crossing the road, crossings, and situations needing extra care.

www.gov.uk

What part of this do you believe "allows" pedestrians to obstruct the road? It's all fairly simple if not spelled out for every conceivable situation

Fair enough, I'll concede that the guidelines do say pedestrians should have consideration for other vehicles. However, a pedestrian not following those guidelines is definitely not 'obstructing' traffic unless they do something like deliberately stop in the middle of the road.

 

[d_brennen]

Fair enough, I'll concede that the guidelines do say pedestrians should have consideration for other vehicles. However, a pedestrian not following those guidelines is definitely not 'obstructing' traffic unless they do something like deliberately stop in the middle of the road.

I must have joined this convo half way through, not sure what your definition of obstructing traffic is in conflict with Roff?

Crossing the road, even while ****** as a fart and wobbling all over the place for example, isn't "obstructing" traffic. Other road users still have legal responsibility to give the ped space to cross and not hit them. Plod might take issue and remove you for doing that though, but that's a different story

 

[Brun]

He said should, which is probably correct. I don't believe pedestrians have any requirement to read the highway code so... I just know running them over is frowned upon, even if they are *****

Having said that, I don't believe I have ever "read" the highway code. It's mostly pretty obvious, follow the rules you learnt and don't be a ****

Here's a good example of why drivers should know the Highway Code, because the majority clearly don't and expect pedestrians to wait at or hurry across juctions.

At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way

 

[Rroff]

The driver had already committed to reckless driving? He set off (for a second time) from a standing start in the middle of the road and accelerated hard even after he saw Mikey step off the pavement. He should have just turned his car around and followed the diversion. He instead made a decision to drive the wrong way on the right-hand-side of the road (creating a risk of having a head-on collision with an oncoming motor vehicle or bicycle).

He should have braked the moment Mikey stepped off the kerb, instead he hit the accelerator. He shouldn't have set off down that lane in the first place.

Look at the way the Police handled this previous (quite similar) road rage incident with Mikey. The car driver there bumped Mikey with his car to try to make Mikey get out of his way so he could continue to drive on the wrong side of the road to jump a queue for vehicles making a right turn. The Police came to the scene and were ready to charge the driver with assault. They didn't tell Mikey off for blocking the driver's path while he made an illegal maneuver or threaten him with prosecution.

I'm sorry, you're obviously very intelligent, but you're letting the "irritating vigilante cyclist" narrative cloud your judgement. In a situation like this the law puts most of the responsibility on to the car driver to drive safely and to avoid causing harm to others on the road. He is driving a heavy fast vehicle which is capable of maiming or killing other people easily. HE DECIDED TO FORCE HIS WAY THROUGH.

The moment the "chicken game" began with Mickey he should have disengaged and driven round the diversion. If he was in the right he should have called the Police rather than getting into a potentially dangerous contest with a pedestrian. This is real life not a Mad Max movie! What if another car had driven round that blind left-hand-bend behind Mikey when he went speeding through? The speed limit on that road was 20 mph, but the way that driver accelerated he must have been doing at least 30 mph. If another car had come round the bend there would have been a head-on collision with a combined speed of 50 mph. That could write-off both cars and result in serious injury or death.

What if Mikey had been hit and killed by the car? The driver would have been looking at a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving". Dangerous driving is defined by the driver's standard of driving, not the actions of others. It's about whether the driver's driving fell 'far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous'. Mikey's actions might be considered in determining the driver's level of fault (culpability), but they are unlikely to reduce the charge itself. The driver's own dangerous driving would remain the focus of the charge. Mikey's contributory negligence would only be a factor in the judge's custodial sentencing decision for the driver.

I was talking in terms of what actually happened - Mikey himself admitted he was late in reacting when he put the bike in the path of the car, he choose to make the collision happen when he had the choice to avoid it. I'm not meaning that the driver wouldn't be responsible if a serious incident had occurred or excusing the driver here.

If you watch the long video make by Mikey of the incident you can see the road layout. There is no way that lane could safely be used by cars travelling in both directions. If there was an exception to the No Entry sign for residents then there would be a one-way lane cordoned off for them or a temporary 3-way traffic light system. It's obvious that the driver just didn't want to drive round the diversion (he could still access the road on his far left by driving round and coming down the road on his far right).

There is a roundabout the other side of that closure - any traffic approaching should be slowing for it and has a view down that road before they'd come into conflict with another driver on the wrong side https://maps.app.goo.gl/dGwyoXLtK2HrLYRk6 given the road layout of the area and nature of the premises alongside it is unlikely anyone has an exemption but Mikey isn't to know that.

 

[d_brennen]

Here's a good example of why drivers should know the Highway Code, because the majority clearly don't and expect pedestrians to wait at or hurry across juctions.

Should. Should. Should.

Should won't help you in hospital! We all know about giving way to pedestrians but those of us old enough to remember the green cross code will know to open your eye holes and look before walking into the path of a moving vehicle

 

[Brun]

must have joined this convo half way through, not sure what your definition of obstructing traffic is in conflict with Roff?

I'm sure they'll claim otherwise, but I've always got the impression that what they term obstruction is what I'd consider hindrance. For example drivers being 'obstructed' by someone crossing the road inconsiderately.

 

[Brun]

Should. Should. Should.

Should won't help you in hospital! We all know about giving way to pedestrians but those of us old enough to remember the green cross code will know to open your eye holes and look before walking into the path of a moving vehicle

The problem is that drivers have taken complete advantage of that. Why is it acceptable that they've been allowed to distort the rules to the extent that they become irrelevant?

 

[Maple Leaf]

I was talking in terms of what actually happened - Mikey himself admitted he was late in reacting when he put the bike in the path of the car, he choose to make the collision happen when he had the choice to avoid it. I'm not meaning that the driver wouldn't be responsible if a serious incident had occurred or excusing the driver here.

But it's not just about what actually happened. It's about what could have happened too. As a motorist you cannot do reckless things and hope for the best. The driver should not have escalated the situation like that.

There is a roundabout the other side of that closure - any traffic approaching should be slowing for it and has a view down that road before they'd come into conflict with another driver on the wrong side https://maps.app.goo.gl/dGwyoXLtK2HrLYRk6 given the road layout of the area and nature of the premises alongside it is unlikely anyone has an exemption but Mikey isn't to know that.

People still speed and it depends how fast they are coming round that left-hand-turn from the A402 to the position where the incident with Mikey occurred. Someone flooring it coming straight at them could have a nasty ending.

 

[Rroff]

I'm sure they'll claim otherwise, but I've always got the impression that what they term obstruction is what I'd consider hindrance. For example drivers being 'obstructed' by someone crossing the road inconsiderately.

I'm just talking about normal common sense reasonableness and how it is a two way thing, it is interesting when people try to frame me as the bad person for suggesting it.

 

[d_brennen]

The problem is that drivers have taken complete advantage of that. Why is it acceptable that they're allowed to distort the rules to the extent that they become irrelevant?

What does that even mean ?

On the regular I'll stop for pedestrians on a roundabout and they will just stare like I have 2 heads. It would have made more sense for them to just wait 1 second for me to pass and to cross a clear road in the real world.

In clown world, the new regs are ill conceived and poorly communicated

 

[Rroff]

But it's not just about what actually happened. It's about what could have happened too. As a motorist you cannot do reckless things and hope for the best. The driver should not have escalated the situation like that.

In this context of what I was saying my post was about what actually happened it wasn't ruling out or intended as an answer to possibilities that could have happened.

 

[Rroff]

What does that even mean ?

On the regular I'll stop for pedestrians on a roundabout and they will just stare like I have 2 heads. It would have made more sense for them to just wait 1 second for me to pass and to cross a clear road in the real world.

In clown world, the new regs are ill conceived and poorly communicated

There is still a lot of confusion as to whether a roundabout counts as a junction in the new hierarchy and when I'm a pedestrian I just do the common sense thing and wait for the appropriate gap in the traffic unless traffic is so heavy I have to take a more decisive approach and if I do take a more decisive approach I get across at a reasonable pace.

Personally I try to be considerate to other road users whatever form of transport I'm using, including stopping for pedestrians if they've clearly been waiting awhile, I've had drivers get unhappy with me a couple of times lately when driving for stopping to let buses go (which the highway code does actually advise - rule 223).

 

[d_brennen]

I've had drivers get unhappy with me a couple of times lately when driving for stopping to let buses go (which the highway code does actually advise - rule 223).

Always give way to busses in London, they'll just drive into you. While indicating left still

 

[Brun]

I'm just talking about normal common sense reasonableness and how it is a two way thing, it is interesting when people try to frame me as the bad person for suggesting it.

You've failed this on previous occasions by claiming people should be driving at speeds 'you' feel reasonable while completely ignoring that they're allowed to do likewise. Your definition of reasonableness is very self-centered.

 

[Brun]

What does that even mean ?

On the regular I'll stop for pedestrians on a roundabout and they will just stare like I have 2 heads. It would have made more sense for them to just wait 1 second for me to pass and to cross a clear road in the real world.

In clown world, the new regs are ill conceived and poorly communicated

You can hardly blame pedestrians for being reluctant to cross a junction with a car approaching, even if they'd be in the right.

I agree with Rroff for once, the situation with roundabouts is confusing and should have been made more clear.

 

[Rroff]

You've failed this on previous occasions by claiming people should be driving at speeds 'you' feel reasonable while completely ignoring that they're allowed to do likewise. Your definition of reasonableness is very self-centered.

Rubbish, as I've said before I often drive vehicles which are restricted to van limits and have no problem with people doing somewhat below the speed limit, I do have a problem, while acknowledging that sometimes it may be due to circumstances, with people who intentionally drive significantly below the speed limit - which is actually against the general guidance of the highway code and will have you fail a driving test.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

As a motorist you cannot do reckless things and hope for the best.

But a pedestrian can?

Let’s not pretend that mike wasn’t reckless with his actions, he was fully intending to cause a collision.

 

[Maple Leaf]

But a pedestrian can?

Let’s not pretend that mike wasn’t reckless with his actions, he was fully intending to cause a collision.

A car driver has to exercise a higher standard of care and vigilance than a pedestrian because they are controlling a vehicle which can easily kill and maim other people. There's plenty of case law to support that principle; see Lunt v Khelifa EWCA Civ 801, Eagle v Chambers and Sabir v Osei-Kwabena EWCA Civ 1213.

Don't be preposterous! Mikey knew that his bike and himself would come off far worse than the car in a collision. If the driver had stepped on his brake rather than his accelerator when Mikey stepped off the kerb we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[Rroff]

If the driver had stepped on his brake rather than his accelerator when Mikey stepped off the kerb we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

And likewise if Mikey had just documented it and sent to the relevant authority rather than carry out an action he knew almost certainly would cause a collision - another time if he'd got that call wrong he'd have done damage to an innocent person's car or maybe caused them to swerve hitting a pedestrian, etc. let's not pretend this is a one way thing.

Also I want to know if he is cycling around in those flip flops - I don't think people have to be perfect to call out others but they should make an attempt to try and do the best they can and that is certainly not doing your best to ensure safe and proper use of the roads.