It is that simple but he's completely wrong. The simplistic part of it is that it wouldn't be your fault in the slightest.
Poll: who is at fault here
- Thread starter bigmike20vt
- Start date
It is that simple but he's completely wrong. The simplistic part of it is that it wouldn't be your fault in the slightest.
Making things up
It's ironic you claimed I couldn't read because you clearly have vision issues if you're siding with the bike here.
Last edited:
Making things up
It's ironic you claimed I couldn't read because you clearly have vision issues if you're siding with the bike here.
Quote the legislation.
You're right it's not always that simple but in this case it is that simple, bike is clearly at fault.
Here’s a bullet point from the Highway Code for pedestrians:Making things up
It's ironic you claimed I couldn't read because you clearly have vision issues if you're siding with the bike here.
When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run. Keep looking and listening for traffic while you cross, in case there is any traffic you did not see, or in case other traffic appears suddenly. Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic. Do not walk diagonally across the road.
The woman in the video blatantly ignored everything the Highway Code states to do.
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,898
I have quite enjoyed this thread and have flipflopped a few times reading different views but settled pretty much where I started on my opinion (which still not sure if the law would agree). both at fault but ultimately bike was going too fast for conditions so 60:40 with the majority of the fault to the bike.
had the bike been going a bit slower I would personally then have sided with the bike. the woman clearly didn't look and there are scenarios where even if the bike had going what I would consider a safe speed they could not have stopped.
but the law doesn't always make sense to me.
my ex wife was a legal clerk at a solicitors in Cambridge (we get a lot of mad cyclists in Cambridge and it is routine for cyclists to get drunk at the pub and cycle home without lights on the pavement - I know as I work with some who do/did it). the police turn a blind eye.
but the one which shocked me was a case my wife saw. a car hit a cyclist who was cycling the wrong way down a 1 way street. whilst there was some mitigation given to the car driver ultimately the ruling was the car driver ended up with a fairly substantial fine and the cyclist got awarded money to replace.theornv expensive bike.
to me that was not justice at all, which is why I no longer assume anything when it comes to pedestrians or cyclists and the law any more.
had the bike been going a bit slower I would personally then have sided with the bike. the woman clearly didn't look and there are scenarios where even if the bike had going what I would consider a safe speed they could not have stopped.
but the law doesn't always make sense to me.
my ex wife was a legal clerk at a solicitors in Cambridge (we get a lot of mad cyclists in Cambridge and it is routine for cyclists to get drunk at the pub and cycle home without lights on the pavement - I know as I work with some who do/did it). the police turn a blind eye.
but the one which shocked me was a case my wife saw. a car hit a cyclist who was cycling the wrong way down a 1 way street. whilst there was some mitigation given to the car driver ultimately the ruling was the car driver ended up with a fairly substantial fine and the cyclist got awarded money to replace.theornv expensive bike.
to me that was not justice at all, which is why I no longer assume anything when it comes to pedestrians or cyclists and the law any more.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2015
- Posts
- 530
Both are in the wrong here, the biker shoulders the majority of the responsibility according to the highway code however the old lady also failed to follow the code.
Biker should really have been going slower, I was taught no more than 10mph over the queue speed
Old lady should not have just dashed out without looking even when the traffic was stationary precisely for the reason she found out, something could be coming down the middle or the opposite side.
Biker should really have been going slower, I was taught no more than 10mph over the queue speed
Old lady should not have just dashed out without looking even when the traffic was stationary precisely for the reason she found out, something could be coming down the middle or the opposite side.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,549
- Location
- Falling...
Personally I think they are both at fault. The old lady should know better. The biker whilst completely legally filtering was probably going too fast for filtering.
The highway code also states
The road users most at risk from road traffic are pedestrians, in particular children, older adults and disabled people, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older adults and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders. In any interaction between road users, those who can cause the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they pose to others.
So the bike has a greater responsibility here.
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.
Bike clearly fails at this, going too fast and cant react once somebody does step into the road. Just happens in this case he hit a 'dozy bint' rather than a child.
I’m not disagreeing with you on that, the issue I have is people putting 100% blame on the bike rider and completely ignoring the stupidity of the woman running out between the cars into oncoming traffic.
The sensible way to assess the situation is to put the blame on both parties involved and hoping they’ve both learned a lesson from this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,355
She runs. It almost looks like one of those fake insurance claim attempts.
Isn't that the point? She is stupid but riders and drivers should expect that and drive accordingly.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Biker should have been going slower.
Lady should have stopped and looked.
They are both to blame.
Lady should have stopped and looked.
They are both to blame.
Just because it says this in the code still doesn't mean that the bike isn't at fault. You are hiding behind the code here.
Any accomplished and experienced rider would know to slow right down here and it looks like to me that the rider was pushing his luck. He knew that there was a possible situation here but ploughed on anyway taking that chance. He lost and the unexpected happened of which he knows he should have been ready for but due to rushing/being late for something/impatience/bad mood decided to take that chance.
As a pedestrian you cannot really ever be wrong, drivers and riders are expected to predict and prevent all possibilities from happening and I do not think that this level awareness was demonstrated by this particular rider
Yeah, it's hard to say 100% responsibility lands at any one's door in these situations, you all have a responsibility to look out for others, as pointed out by others, there are sections that apply to both, however, I can say with absolute certainty, the bike rider was an idiot, the moment the video started and he was filtering in a built up area like that at that speed my gut reaction as someone that heavily filters that it was too fast by far..
When filtering you have to more alert, no one is expecting you travelling at speed when everything else around you is stationary..
And of course, the woman is stupid, she literally did nothing as well, she steps out without looking, however as she is the most vulnerable, you'd have to say the biker needs to take more of the cop for that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
The woman is at fault she did not look, nor is that a crossing.
Both to blame is not a valid option in the poll, IMO.
The bike could stop, or he could go much slower, and thus it could be avoided, but this does not mean blame, blame occurs only if moving between cars in such a way is illegal in itself.
Both to blame is not a valid option in the poll, IMO.
The bike could stop, or he could go much slower, and thus it could be avoided, but this does not mean blame, blame occurs only if moving between cars in such a way is illegal in itself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Need some code to detect fault, we know what she did wrong, what did he do wrong that is written down.
Speed is subjective, to me he is going slowly, i cycle faster than that on a pedal bike, i also react faster, and so forth.
The law does not differentiate between me and him or anyone else, otherwise i would have a different alcohol driving limit.
So what is the "slow right down speed", and where is it written down.