But the onus is on the cyclist to prove they could see the pedestrian wasn't there, I think? Probably rather difficult.
One of the drawbacks of presumed liability
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
ped/cycle crashes do happen
(192 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Presumption is the larger object (either cyclist or driver) is to blame unless can prove otherwise. However amount of blame can range from 51per cent to 100%. Dependent on behaviour of smaller object ( cyclist or pedestrian)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Forgot to mention that the only time that I have actually (partially) collided with somebody in the dark occurred immediately after navigating around one of the chicanes on the towpath, on what used to be a pitch-black section of the canal before the LED lights were installed. The other party was a pedestrian who was walking towards me. I think that they were probably confused by my 'sudden' movement from the left to the right of the path and back again, and were trying to move to avoid me. The fact that I had to weave through the chicane meant that my light was briefly not pointing straight ahead, so despite the fact that I had slowed down to a mild jogging speed I was unable to stop and/or avoid them when they were illuminated by my light. I clipped his shoulder but luckily we were both ok.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"So if you are driving down a residential street, it is not unreasonable for a child to run out from behind a parked car. It is an event which is sufficiently expected that a prudent driver/rider should allow for it"
That's certainly the case, however the problem with the running out form parked cars / jumping out from behind a tree thing is that it could occur, quite easily, when you're one yard form the runner / jumper. With the best will in the world this means that if you're going down a residential street, and such a thing is to be anticipated (maybe rather than expected) you should drive / cycle at about 3mph to avoid any collision.
So some pragmatism does have to come into it.
But certainly Dave's 'jumping out from behind trees' is definitely an apple to the pears of 'people walking along the path in front of us'.
With presumed liability the onus is on the cyclist / driver to prove that they were not responsible (either wholly or partly) for the collision, which is subtly, but importantly, different from proving they couldn't see the pedestrian. In this case, for instance, the cyclist could give evidence of the speed he was travelling at, the type of lights he was using, the clothing the pedestrian was wearing, and whether the pedestrian was carrying a torch or not. The court would weigh up the evidence (which includes simply whether they believe the person giving it or not) and make a determination.
It's entirely possible here that they could say "we believe you were travelling too quickly for the conditions, those being pitch black with your light only illuminating x yards ahead; but the situation was also contributed to by the pedestrian not wearing a reflective tabard and carrying a torch, knowing that they were walking in a pitch black area frequented by cyclists," and off the back of that give a 75% - 25% split of responsibility.
In reality strict liability (which operates in other areas of our law already, form memory Occupiers' Liability is one) isn't much different from the present situation, in that both parties have every right and ability to state their case which could sway the liability, it's just that if it was in place and the evidence lead by both parties was inconclusive, the alleged perpetrator would carry the can; whereas at the moment if that were the case it's the victim who gets nowt.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I can't understand the effort going into trying to find a way to exonerate the cyclist.
Posted 9 years ago # -
For my 2p, I was amazed how willing everyone was to condemn someone who couldn't speak on their own behalf and felt obliged to argue the other side, but then I realised that this discussion is like a window into the world of strict liability, and I really don't like what I see there.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"felt obliged to argue the other side"
otherwise known as sympathy for victims and the less powerful - or at least willingness to listen to them.
basis of most moral systems currently adhered to in the world ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
this discussion is like a window into the world of shared use facilities, and I really don't like what I see there
fixed that for you
Posted 9 years ago # -
Dave, you do make me laugh :)
Posted 9 years ago # -
I know. In places like France, you can't move in the countryside for people hiding behind trees, just waiting to jump out on unsuspecting cyclists.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Dave sticking to his principles of not liking strict liability nor indeed bells. I can see his point about donkeys dinging their bells and bombing under bridges. But for every donkey there is an eccentric ass who both dings and slows in a way scottish canals would like. Sometimes you can be there for hours dinging on either side of the bridge waiting to see which of you will go first.
Can't fathom why any cyclist would not want strict liability it is what makes drivers courteous in mainland Europe.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I believe there is to be a meeting to discuss issues on the path between 'concerned parties' on 25th Feb.
I don't think it is open to the public, although Spokes have been invited.
Perhaps it would be good if a 'PoP representative' could attend? Would have to see if they could get an invite (if someone is willing...)
Posted 9 years ago # -
In case of doubt this is -
"meeting to discuss the ongoing issues with path user conflict on the Golf Courses Path at Barnton. The meeting will take place at 2.00pm on Wednesday 25 February"
It's in Clermiston.
I'm not clear who has been invited, but it would be useful if path users who cycle there are represented.
Clearly the time won't suit a lot of people, but if anyone is interested PM me and I can tell them who to contact.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Who has organised the meeting?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Council.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ongoing issues of conflict??? I ride that path most days and usually you're lucky if there's any more than a couple of people on it (including me!).
And for all the distance it is?
How is it the council are prepared to arrange a meeting to discuss what must be a low number of incidents on a path a couple of hundred yards long but blindly ignore the pleas of cyclists across the city for better infra. Beggars belief.
Posted 9 years ago # -
This is
EdinburghBarnton.Posted 9 years ago # -
The more I hear of this issue, the more I believe it is motivated by people who just don't want bikes on this path under any circumstances. What are the 'ongoing issues of conflict'? What is the evidence for any series of problems? We (as the cycling community) are aware of one alleged event. And it is only alleged; there has been no chance to get any corroboration or to hear the other point of view.
I entreat anyone who is allowed to attend this meeting from a cyclists' group to emphasise that there is no significant problem that they are aware of; that any changes to the path should be evidence-based; that cyclists behave responsibly and do not cycle fast on this path (they do, I have observed them); that it is a shared use path and all users should exercise consideration for others, including pedestrians in the dark keeping half an eye out for cyclists, and possibly carrying a light or wearing something light.
There are two sensible options: 1. Install some tasteful lighting, which wouldn't have to be very bright but would make all the difference to visibility. 2. Do nothing, because there isn't really a problem.
There are some ridiculous options which might nevertheless be suggested: 1. More chicanes. To slow cyclists down to the required walking speed, you would need continuous chicanes along the whole length. Is that what they really want? More conflict, more accidents. 2. Segregated paths. This isn't going to happen and anyway you would still get people walking in the cycle lane. 3. Close the path to cyclists. This is National Cycle Route 1 for goodness sake.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I cycle the path several times a week and the majority of people I meet on the path are other cyclists and school kids.
Only twice in the recent months have I met other peds and they were dressed in dark clothes at night where it was very hard to see them.
Another waste of council time and resources
Posted 9 years ago # -
Maybe better to go in with a more open mind and willing to discuss rather than standing by already entrenched views?
"Another waste of council time and resources"
Which is exactly what other groups say about money and time spent on cycling projects, simply because they themselves don't see the problem or benefit.
Yes, there probably isn't as much of a problem as the people who are raising this, but I do suspect there's more of an issue than we're willing to accept or know about. View the meeting as a collaborative matter, working together to find out what the actual problem is first, then look at solutions. Better than everyone, pedestrians and cyclists, are fully informed before wading into each other.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Obviously they needs some tasteful new signs -
Posted 9 years ago # -
@wilmington's cow - good approach. One problem however is that the problem itself is likely to be relative.
Thus older folk walking dog on path perceive cyclists to be bombing at them. Most cyclists on the other hand will imagine they have slowed down to accommodate the shared users of the path.
Again, many people will be able to see things from other people's perspectives. However, there will be people at the margins who won't budge. Some of them may well be wealthy and connected. Others may be young and gung-ho.
So hopefully the council will fly in an expert negotiator from the USA to sort out the barnton path problem.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"So hopefully the council will fly in an expert negotiator from the USA to sort out the barnton path problem."
No, but whatever the 'issues' and possible 'improvements', they do appear to have more concern about THIS than any number of daily bike/vehicle 'conflicts' - and future ones caused by removing all-day buslanes.
I don't want to underplay/sideline pedestrians' concerns/fears. One person is known to have been hit by a bike (obviously under the notional control of a person - classic SMIDSY?) Others have complained to CEC.
I doubt if any people using bikes have been complaining (to CEC) about 'pedestrians wearing dark clothing' perhaps they should(?)
SOME people on bikes go too fast.
Actually I don't know if that's true.
SOME people don't cycle to the conditions/expectations of other people.
Clearly the second part of that is true, so is it about managing expectations??
I don't just mean the walkers. Cyclists shouldn't expect to be able to barrel along as though there was no possibility of anyone else being on the path - especially if their lights/eyesight/reactions aren't adequate (ride to the conditions and be ready for the unexpected?)
Wots 2b done?
More chicanes/rumble humps?
Ban bikes/peds - almost impossible and undesirable.
BIG signs at each end saying something like -
"
This is a shared use facility.
Recent improvements - wider, improved surfacing - have attracted more users.
Please respect other users.
Cycle with care and understanding of other people's expectations.
At night make sure you can be seen (especially pedestrians).
Keep dogs under control.
"
That should cover most things.
Alternatively MASSIVE signs saying DON'T.
With regular path markings saying NO!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Of course one problem was 'built-in' and (presumably) difficult to resolve...
'
The land is currently owned by the neighbouring golf courses, and permission was refused for standard pathway lighting columns to be provided over the extents of the unlit section of path. As a compromise, LED edge lighting was provided to delineate the path edges in times of reduced light.
'
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is the meeting public or not? If not, who cares, but if it is I might be interested if I could get a half day from work. I'd be absolutely fascinated to experience these kind of people first hand.
I wonder if they would let me play videos of cyclists bombing down the path?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"... these kind of people..."
Exactly why you shouldn't go....
Posted 9 years ago # -
Naturally, I'd be driving to the meeting and wearing my finest financial services high flying power garb (my colleagues can vouch for sartorial excellence in this regard).
I could describe my experience standing there in the dark being buzzed mercilessly by a stream of cyclists while desiring nothing more than to walk around in peace.
As the council are certain to give short shrift to NIMBYs in favour of the public good, I have complete confidence in the outcome of this meeting.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Walking along the canal on Saturday observing some features which would perhaps have not been so observable on a bike, our patrol encounters 2 clos passes at idiot speeds with no warning of approach by cyclists. In one case, just a slight deviation to one side would have had me placed to make contact with his handlebars and delivered him gracefully into the freezing waters of the Union Canal. The temptation is immense when I do come across idiotic riding on paths and footways, to place myself in a position which blocks the cycle user.
With care I should avoid any serious injury, and I do have sufficient mass to remain upright against a lighter person on the bike...
Posted 9 years ago # -
This is life - try walking along a road without a pavement, it's just the same (well, it's literally the same).
I've twice been hit by people and smashed their wing mirrors. If it wasn't a bit scary it would be satisfying I suppose.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I've twice been hit by people and smashed their wing mirrors."
"If you're not going to use it you might as well loose it!" Premium Rush
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
