| [+] Embed the video | Video Download | Get the Flash Video |
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting
This morning I almost flattened a pedestrian
(21 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Nice swerve
What is the strange rubbing sound tho?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I nearly knocked over a bunch of Abrdeen fans this evening. As I rounded a corner to turn into a one way street, going downhill at some speed, the idiots were walking up the other way in the middle of the road. Brakes are handy things.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I thought that the red man at a crossing was only advisory for pedestrians? Still, look right, look left, look right again, look right through oncoming vehicles...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Two words WC. 'Strict Liability!!' ;0)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Pretty sure I could argue that that was the pedestrian's fault even under strict liability Mr C ;)
@Arellcat - advisory indeed, but doesn't mean you can just step out into the road with your eyes shut! The red man should at least hint that there might be some traffic coming along the route...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Red man is advice that is normally helpful to follow. Did the ped look right way before the kerb and decide there was nothing there. WC underneath her radar? Walked very confidently into oncoming traffic
Posted 11 years ago # -
Dave got there first :-P
If I even vaguely understand strict liability, I think the point is that even if it was completely her fault, because the vehicle you are using carries slightly more operational risk than hers you could expect to pay out a proportion of the damages. This is only based on a few hours googling yesterday, so I may be completely wrong!
Either way, nice swerve. I'm not sure I'd have been as successful...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Looks like the woman was judging by sound; the last motor vehicle had passed her and the road was clear of them. Perhaps if you attached a loud siren to your bike, Wilmington's Cow? In circumstances like that when I can see potential trouble ahead I'd ring my (quite loud) bell repeatedly when approaching the danger zone. Makes people look at me and aware of my presence even if they think I'm daft. (Actually as I said before I simply wouldn't be in circumstances like those as that road just isn't safe to cycle on as far as I'm concerned.)
As for strict liability, I like the idea that the person in charge of the vehicle which causes the damage should take some of the blame, even when it was "the other person's fault". Because isn't part of the skill of using the road the ability to look ahead and spot idiots and their potential idiocies, and avoid those before they happen?
Posted 11 years ago # -
@cc with respect, if Melville Drive isn't safe to cycle on, then no road in Edinburgh is safe.
I take your point that MD would be safer if it had a segregated cycle way and/or no intersections, and no parking on weekends. But given that there is no parking during weekdays, I can't think how you could make it any safer otherwise, except banning cars altogether?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Melville Drive DOES have segregated cycle paths along its whole length. In fact it has nearly double segregated cycle path along its length. The start points and end points at east and west are close or in the same place as the Melville Drive. For those going north from east or west, there is the MMW option. For those from the east heading south (Argyle Pl) you can cycle along Melville Terr. For those from Bruntsfeild there is the Links path and for those from Toll Cross, you can cycle along the NMW and MMW to Argyle.... Are we seriously saying its unusable unless the small stretch from Marchmont Road to |Toll ross doesn't have a fully segregated path which runs parallel to Melville Dr?
I think we're whipping a dead horse with this 'Segregated cycle provision for Melville Drive' thing!
Posted 11 years ago # -
@WC -- could you describe your camera mount setup? Ta
Posted 11 years ago # -
Strict Liability - no, it doesn't meant the 'more powerful vehicle' will always have a share in responsibility.
At the moment, if there is an incident in the road (say a cyclist hits a pedestrian), then the pedestrian has to prove that the cyclist had been at fault.
Under strict liability the starting position would be that the cyclist is at fault unless he can prove that the pedestrian was at fault (say by walking out into traffic without looking against a red man).
The position on shares of liability remains unchanged. In both situations the judge/court could determine that the cyclist was 'partly' to blame and so apply contributory negligence. The only think strict liability changes is the initial presumption.
I think I'm beginning to see Min's point here now though. I went through a green light, and had a pedestrian step out against a red man without looking or registering I was there. Here, and on twitter, I've been variously told that: red man is only advisory (the assumption being that pedestrians can therefore cross the road without looking); I should have been riding in primary; I didn't ring a bell (surely you'd be ringing it all the time if you're riding alongside a pavement with peds on it?); and that Melville Drive is too dangerous to ride on (so my own fault really? Does that mean any road with a pedestrian crossing on it is too dangerous?).
o_0 - I've got a 'RAM' mount. Quite a good system. Normal commuter has a handlebar mount - whereas this bike is a headtube mount. If I remember I'll grab a picture of it on the way hom - easier than describing it!
Posted 11 years ago # -
@SRD nevertheless Melville Drive is plainly not safe :-) as WC alone has had two recent near misses there. The narrow painted cycle lane between heavy traffic and pavement just doesn't work safely.
I don't know what the solution is, though I suspect as DaveC says it would involve separating the modes by route, guiding the bicycles onto other routes and the motor traffic onto Melville Drive. Those long-mooted barriers across Melville Terrace/Rillbank Crescent/Fingal Place would probably help in that regard.Posted 11 years ago # -
Though one near miss was with a pedestrian rather than that heavy traffic, and the other was decanting kids from the car, so neither are interaction with 'traffic' as such, and while the near misses are recent if they're averaged over the 5 years I've been riding that route...
I personally still prefer taking the road to using the off-road routes through there, but can understand why people would choose to avoid it as well. I tend to find on the routes where traffic is at its busiest I feel safer (it's more slow moving etc).
There are a lot of other routes in the city where I've had more near misses or plainly stupid driving to cope with.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Some kind of constantly ringing cow bell perhaps? :p I haven't got a comparable road on my commute, mainly due to Glasgow's lack of painted cycle lanes.
Going back to the strict liability thing, I've completely lost the plot on what is what. I originally thought that it just affected the starting position, but various things about 'operating risk' make me think that there's more to it, and simply being in the more dangerous vehicle exposes you to a proportion of the liability in any incident, regardless of cause.
In choosing to cycle, I am placing my convenience over the safety of those in the default state of walking. Therefore if something happens, my insurers should be paying out for that convenience.
Clearly if I drove instead of cycled, I've stuck a huge thumb on the scales of convenience/others' safety.
I don't know if this operating risk is the same as strict liability, an optional component, or something completely different. I like the sound of it though. It seems fair.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think I'm beginning to see Min's point here now though.
My finger hovered briefly over the Told You So button but I am not quite that obnoxious. :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not quite. ;)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Here's a thing with strict liability:
If @WC hadn't been rocking a bike cam, how could he prove that the incident, bad it happened, wasn't his fault? Does it rely on witnesses? What if there aren't any?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I thought we had a kind of liability in respect of pedestrians?
Back when I was learning to drive (a wee while ago)! I was taught that the onus was on me as the motorist to be able to avoid peds even if they did something daft. Extend that type of protection to cyclists I say.Posted 11 years ago # -
(Edit: @PS) If there were no witnesses he probably couldn't, so his insurers would be paying out full whack.
This seems to be a key plus point. If a car driver completely wipes me out and leaves me in a coma for six months with no other witnesses, strict liability would result in the car driver's insurance paying for my care, as they couldn't prove that they weren't to blame. If I was Dutch, my liability as a vulnerable road user is limited to 50% regardless of cause.
This is all based on yesterday's googling, so if anyone actually has experience in how this works please correct me!
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
