Poll: who is at fault here

[mid_gen]

Equally at fault for me. Bike rider should have clocked her earlier, and if he couldn't, should have been going slower. Woman should not assume there's no bike traffic.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

I think of it this way. If you step out into a road without looking and get hit by traffic, it matters little who was in the right. You're still dead. It's the reason I still look both ways when crossing a one way street.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I think of it this way. If you step out into a road without looking and get hit by traffic, it matters little who was in the right. You're still dead. It's the reason I still look both ways when crossing a one way street.

The person in the video wasn't dead and they stepped out in traffic.

 

[Devilman]

The person in the video wasn't dead and they stepped out in traffic.

The point being made (quite obviously, so I'm not sure why you need this pointing out to you) is that if a pedestrian does not do the most basic of checks (such as looking both ways) to avoid being hit by a vehicle when crossing a road then significant blame lies on their own shoulders.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

The point being made (quite obviously, so I'm not sure why you need this pointing out to you) is that if a pedestrian does not do the most basic of checks (such as looking both ways) to avoid being hit by a vehicle when crossing a road then significant blame lies on their own shoulders.

My point is what they said. "I think of it this way. If you step out into a road without looking and get hit by traffic, it matters little who was in the right. You're still dead". The person in the video wasn't dead so this statement is null.

 

[alexakasloth]

Motorcycle had right of way, lady walked out without looking.

The unaware bint is in the wrong.

 

[Puzzled]

Both were stupid but ultimately the bike is at fault as he is going too fast past stationary traffic in a residential area.

 

[bigmike20vt]

back in the day didnt a traffic copper used to post in these forums (or perhaps i am getting my forums confused, i post on a couple)...... i would be interested to see his take if he has not already commented somewhere.

 

[BUDFORCE]

back in the day didnt a traffic copper used to post in these forums (or perhaps i am getting my forums confused, i post on a couple)...... i would be interested to see his take if he has not already commented somewhere.

The traffic copper is the OP, he's asking us.

 

[inflames]

Both of them are stupid. The women should have looked before running out into the road. The biker should have been more aware, this why you have to sit a hazard perception test. Also with how the new high way code, the biker also has more responsibility on the road to take care.

 

[Mr Jack]

The woman is predominately at fault: she runs into traffic, and the biker brakes in timely fashion to try and avoid hitting but has no option for evasion or warning her in time due to her speed. Had she looked, or crossed at a more normal pace, there wouldn't be any accident. However, in my view, 20mph is too fast for filtering in that kind of situation and so the biker carries a small proportion of the blame.

 

[UTT]

All the fault of the bike for me

Both lanes of traffic are stationary so there is zero possibility of being hit by a car, so could be argued green cross code goes in the bin. Personally i would still check but that's from experience of cyclists and bikes zipping down between stationary(and moving) cares. In the mind of the old dear there's no cars moving so she should be perfectly safe. Same for kids on the path, see stationary traffic and think it must be safe

Bike should be using heightened awareness than normal due to potential pedestrians when passing stationary traffic due to perception above and doesn't need to go any faster than 5mph in that scenario. Could even be argued bike sits in traffic like the rest of us or at best crawls through taking extra care

Luckily she got straight up and looked OK

 

[bigmike20vt]

The traffic copper is the OP, he's asking us.

lol.... whilst my contract is coming to an end at the end of this month and as of yet not been offered a new one.................... unless i really drank too much last night and signed up to something i have forgotten about, i am definitely not a traffic copper (and I was the OP )

 

[BUDFORCE]

lol.... whilst my contract is coming to an end at the end of this month and as of yet not been offered a new one.................... unless i really drank too much last night and signed up to something i have forgotten about, i am definitely not a traffic copper (and I was the OP )

I'll get my coat.

 

[Mr Jack]

Could even be argued bike sits in traffic like the rest of us or at best crawls through taking extra care

Not in Britain it couldn't. Motorbikes have the right to filter in the UK.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

so could be argued green cross code goes in the bin.

Looking and listening before and while crossing never goes in the bin. It could be 3am Christmas morning and I will look both ways before crossing the street.

Could even be argued bike sits in traffic like the rest of us

Do you like sitting in traffic on the road? Because that’s how you get more traffic on the roads.

 

[200sols]

Not in Britain it couldn't. Motorbikes have the right to filter in the UK.

Not with impunity though. People seem to think because they have the right to filter that the bike isn't in the wrong.

 

[bazzabear]

If the bike is at fault here, then you are basically saying filtering through traffic between cars should be banned essentially.

Not at all.

In order for a biker to be able to stop within a few feet there upon seeing her, he would have to have been going literally <5mph. Riding most bikes at that speed is very hard to do so without swerving around a lot to counter balance, which would be more dangerous getting close to wing mirrors of cars etc.

Come on, don't exaggerate to try to prove your point. That bike could clearly have been going significantly slower without impacting balance.

You can't just blame bikers for filtering at 20mph past stationery traffic.

Yes I can. It was clearly faster than he was able to go without impacting his ability to plan ahead and drive safely.

With some of the mindsets on here, it would be the bikers fault if someone jumped off a bridge and landed in front of them.

Another exaggeration. Is this because true statements aren't sufficient to support your stance?

If it was a car in this situation (obviously not filtering) then everyone would say the pedestrian at fault.

Absolutely not. How much space would you say there is either side of that bike between him and the cars? I reckon it would be generous to say about 6 inches - it's probably less. If someone in a car drove along at 20mph along a stretch of road with parked cars on either side and only 6 inches either side of them I would think thy were being an absolute idiot.

It's targeting bikers because everyone is obsessed with the stereotype that they ride too fast and that filtering is dangerous and selfish. Bikes have filtered for literally decades. The women has been around for decades by the looks of it. She has no excuse.

No. More like you're taking the fact that some people are indeed anti-biker, and using it as a reason to discard any possibility of a biker doing wrong because you can simply disregard any other opinion as being anti-biker.

 

[Demon]

People should also note that if you pause at 1 second in that is your first visual view from the camera, let alone the rider position. The distance from visual to contact is 1 car length, it actually extends to just under 2 as she is moving away from the rider. It takes on average at 20mph to stop at 3 car lengths. In the clip the rider stops within that 2 car length although making light contact didn't drop the bike or loose control in doing so.

If you take the stopping distance then the rider is doing at most 20mph. The rider has already considered the speed as the road that is normally a 30mph has stationary/slow moving traffic, the rider has reduced speed to about 20mph or maybe less due to the stopping distance achieved. That is as expected and as noted generally as taught in advance riding schools.

I can't / don't agree remotely with this, he didn't stop in time to an 'expected' hazard in that situation so 20MPH was too fast for him to react/stop and that's basically where it all falls down. (No excuse for the idiot woman of course, but thats not the point).

It's all risk based, in slow moving traffic, i.e. non stationary, your hazards switch focus to cars and other road users.. When in stationary traffic you still have hazards from cars and other road users, but the risk of pedestrians stepping out in front suddenly increases in likelyhood and should be taken in to account. Someone stepping out from between stationary cars on an urban road with a pavement etc is to be 'expected', i.e. it's a real hazard that reasonable could be expected to occur and should therefore be something you are taking in to account. In this case the guy couldn't stop, he had no 'escape route' and hit the lady. We all agree she was stupid and has her part to play and has contravened highway code guidance, that doesn't mean
the rider should not also be following the highway code.

And here is a good summary of all HWC points: HWC summary

Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

The fact he hit the woman who was a pedestrian crossing between vehicles means he was either not looking out for her or he was travelling too fast..

You mentioned the IAM and 20MPH, here is one article of theres on filtering : IAM Link

• Only filter when the surrounding traffic is moving at less than 20mph, and then only exceed that speed yourself by 10 to 15mph maximum (if safe and legal to do so)

Sounds to me like the IAM would suggest no more than 15MPH (considering a stationary car) and that is a maximum. the 20mph is the max traffic speed.

With the new hierachy of vulnerability it changes things, it actually does (or is intended) to put that responsibility on the motorcyclist in this case, i.e. both where negligent, both ignored highway code rules, but the lady is the more vulnerable.

I don't like the principle of a hierachy it implies pedestrians (or cyclists etc) can simply do what they want and put all the responsibility on the motorcyclists/cars etc.. however, I would say it's a bit clearer cut in this case when both ignored rules, so it should work.

 

[Mr Jack]

Not with impunity though. People seem to think because they have the right to filter that the bike isn't in the wrong.

No, not with impunity, but he does have the right to filter so there's no debate to be had that he should have sat in traffic. Filtering through completely stationary traffic is what motorcyclists should be doing - with appropriate care and attention. He says he's "only doing 20" which, as I said, I think would be too fast for that situation but looking at the video, he hits her at 0.02s almost exactly having braked to a near stop and having passed just two cars so I think he was actually doing somewhere in the 10-15mph range.