Small Minded Race Steward - Mare and foal die

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : Run itís course - getting too personal


LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
20 Jun 2019 8:21PM

Quote:Len, if you do not understand the Judges ruling on this case and the government's written advice on the Highway Code, specifically for cyclists in close proximity to pedestrians, the confusion is 100% yours.
You are trying to deflect this landmark ruling, reinforcing the care cyclists must take around pedestrians by making motoring comparisons.
The Judge's ruling is clear and unequivocal - cyclists must take care around pedestrians and be prepared for the unexpected.
If you had read the link I posted, it would be crystal clear to you.


It is you who is in the wrong - possibly because you do not know how the law works.

The press report you read (which is substantially shorter than the definitive All England Law Report) said the judge said forcing ones way through a group of pedestrians after blowing an air horn and swerving ' did fall below the level to be expected of a reasonably competent cyclist in that he did proceed when the road was not completely clear.'


Quote:
Aggressive cyclists shouting "Coming through" at pedestrians is not good enough in the eyes of the law.
The dangerous cyclists need to rethink their behaviour and show the same consideration to pedestrians as they themselves expect from motorists.


A moderate speed for a a pre 1950's cyclist in a suite cycling to and from work on a raised handlebar chain guard bike is presumed as 12 mph.
It is a bit difficult to cycle at more than 15 mph off tarmac on a pedal cycle.
You know that if you have done grass track racing on a cycle in an enclosed racing circuit.

Who says cyclists approaching you from behind when you are walking at perhaps 3 mph is automatically dangerous - other than you?

A cyclist even on a dropped handlebar machine has to sit up to give a friendly audible warning of approach and instinctively puts hands on the brake levers to be ready to stop if the pedestrian does not reasonably move over toward the left - as advised in the Highway Code.

You untruthfully suggest no cyclists are not prepared to stop if pedestrians do not or for some reason cannot (as when pushing a pram) easily move over to make the route suitable for a cyclist to pass in safety.


Quote:
The Highway Code for cyclists is crystal clear - "Cyclists must be prepared to slow down or stop" near pedestrians - and the Judge's ruling reinforces what has been in the Highway Code for many years.


The Highway Code is guidance rather than legislation to help safer use of the roads by all types of road users.

It places an obligation on cyclists (and motorists) to take reasonable care when passing slow moving pedestrians, and an obligation on pedestrians to reasonably move over, ideally by keeping a look-out and otherwise having been given a reasonable audible warning of approach to help faster traffic pass in safety.

You appear hypocritical in suggesting faster traffic (and joggers) have no right to take reasonable care when passing pedestrians by giving an audible warning and, in the case of cyclists, they are planning to overtake, usually to the right of pedestrians.

I hope you do not think a motorist, horse rider, cyclist or jogger should not sensibly pass a pedestrian on a country tarmac road where there is no verge for pedestrians to use.


Quote:
Cyclists are equally as guilty of "close passes at speed around pedestrians" as motorists are around cyclists on the road. The irony of cyclists demanding protection from motorists whilst cycling dangerously around pedestrians is beyond belief.


You are in a hypocritical mood Sad
Nobody doubts cyclists should not close pass pedestrians.

Cyclists on a good obstruction free road are expected to ride within about one yard of the pavement edge - so ideally not less than 4 feet from a pedestrian - though as always it depends on how many pedestrians and where as to whether 4 feet, while being ready to stop if a pedestrian does something stupid, is enough.

About half of serious cycling accidents and deaths involving motor vehicles are caused by close passing by motorists.

Is it hypocritical, perhaps to anyone other than you, to suggest cycling organisations should not provide the police with training material for other motorists on safe passing, and to work with the DOT on a likely amendment to the next Highway Code.

Come on - be honest - you give a clear impression that there should be no cyclists on pedestrian/cycle routes if you are walking on one of them.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

rhody 17 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
23 Jun 2019 8:50PM
Len you seem to be deliberately ignoring the facts on this matter, making totally erroneous judgments about what I think and inventing situations to justify poor cycling behaviour.
In Richmond Park and other areas, cyclists approach pedestrians at speed from behind on pavements, paths and in shopping precints. They shout very positively, "Coming through". That is a very aggressive statement of intent and totally at odds with the written guidance and advice in the Highway Code and in the Judge's ruling which clearly states "Cyclists should be prepared to slow down or stop when approaching pedestrians". The judge took this one step further by adding when finding against the cyclist in his ruling "The ruling is clear and unequivocal - cyclists must take care around pedestrians and be prepared for the unexpected."
I have never heard a cyclist shout "I am preparing to slow down or stop" and that is because they have every intention of proceeding at high speed to close pass pedestrians in precints, on pavements and paths.
I fail to understand why the selfish and aggressive cyclists demand pedestrians move out of their way and pass them in close proximity at high speed when cyclists demand motorists slow down or give them 1.5 metres of safe passing space.
Hypocritical in the extreme. These selfish and aggressive cyclists are part of the problem not the solution and they give considerate cyclists a very bad name.
AlexE 2 159 United Kingdom
24 Jun 2019 10:50AM

Quote:I fail to understand why the selfish and aggressive cyclists demand pedestrians move out of their way and pass them in close proximity at high speed when cyclists demand motorists slow down or give them 1.5 metres of safe passing space.

I would argue that there are a few bad apples everywhere but I think that nobody should run over the good ones, just because of the bad ones.

Quote:Cyclists should be prepared to slow down or stop when approaching pedestrians

I would argue that everyone should also be prepared to slow down and stop.

At the same time, if someone looked like they aren't paying attention, I would let them know that I was there. That's partly to do with the way some people have jumped when I've came past, not even doing very fast. Wink

Also, I can't justify what other roadusers/pathusers do because I and others don't essentially agree with them.
rhody 17 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
24 Jun 2019 11:05AM
Thanks for the balanced reply AlexE. I use a bicycle, ride a motorcycle and drive a car so I have no particular axe to grind - apart from the selfish ones who give the responsible ones a bad name.
Pedestrians step off pavements wearing earphones in and cyclists wearing earphones have no idea of approaching motor vehicles.
When you take hearing out of the equation and you mingle with traffic - it is a dangerous sense to remove from one's personal protection.
As a pedestrian who has been startled by cyclists approaching at speed from behind and passing in close proximity (and I don't wear earphones) - it is an unsettling experience. If one is walking in a group or with a dog, you may not hear the approach of said cyclist.
As the Highway Code states and the Judge reinforced in his ruling - cyclists need to be more aware and allow for unpredictable behaviour from pedestrians.
Apparently the damages against the cyclist will be awarded shortly.
As the cyclist also has to pay legal costs - it is not going to be a cheap outcome for him and his moment of poor judgement..
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
24 Jun 2019 11:37AM

Quote:
As a pedestrian who has been startled by cyclists approaching at speed from behind and passing in close proximity (and I don't wear earphones) - it is an unsettling experience. If one is walking in a group or with a dog, you may not hear the approach of said cyclist.
As the Highway Code states and the Judge reinforced in his ruling - cyclists need to be more aware and allow for unpredictable behaviour from pedestrians.
Apparently the damages against the cyclist will be awarded shortly.
As the cyclist also has to pay legal costs - it is not going to be a cheap outcome for him and his moment of poor judgement..


More detail of the case is becoming available.
The judge ruled that the pedestrian was partly to blame.
As the cyclist was injured the cyclist can claim damages from the pedestrian.
Obviously it is wise to cycle/walk/drive/ride a horse sensibly - and to have insurance if an unplanned incident turns into an accident.
My normal way of alerting unwary pedestrians is a friendly good morning or good afternoon.
rhody 17 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
25 Jun 2019 7:50PM
"Mr Hazeldean had come through a green traffic light, and had sounded a loud airhorn attached to his bike, as well as shouting, swerving and braking in a bid to avoid the pedestrian - but ploughed into her at up to 15mph.
But in a significant ruling Judge Shanti Mauger said Mr Hazeldean was liable to pay her compensation because 'cyclists must be prepared at all times for people to behave in unexpected ways.'"

The cyclist was clearly not prepared to stop or slow down to avoid pedestrians and cycled straight into her with so much force the cyclist and the pedestrian were knocked out. He was going too fast for the conditions around him, a criticism often leveled at motorists by cyclists. His airhorn and shouting showed he had no intention of slowing down or stopping.
The cyclist is very worried that the case could bankrupt him. A very sobering thought for all the selfish, aggressive cyclists out there.
Given the wording in the Highway Code and in the Judges ruling - any counter claim he may consider is not a strong case.
I fail to understand why the selfish and aggressive cyclists expect motorists to adjust their speed and give them plenty of clear space, yet are happy to weave in and out between pedestrians at speed in close passes. Hypocrisy in the extreme.
This is a very important ruling for pedestrians as protection against the selfish and aggressive cyclists who plague pavements, precints, walkways and paths.

"My normal way of alerting unwary pedestrians is a friendly good morning or good afternoon." - Don't forget you need to be prepared to slow down or stop Len