Pedestrian dies after collision with cyclist (Bristol)

PRSboy wrote:

Yes, the comments made me despair.

However, I noticed this:

"The 27-year-old was hit by a cyclist in Brook Road, Bristol, at around 8pm on Saturday, November 25.

A cyclist was travelling on Lower Cheltenham Road onto Brook Road in Montpelier when they collided with Mr Graydon"

Its telling that the rhetoric of this report personalises the people involved and infers the cyclist did the colliding.  Compare to this other tragic story yesterday, which immediately distances the bus driver from blame.

"A 14-year-old girl has died, after she was involved in a collision with a bus in Beeston last night.

The teenager, who has not been named, was riding a bicycle at the time, when she was involved in the collision."

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/14-year-old-cyclist-d...

 

To be fair I do not think that minors can be named....

PRSboy wrote:

Yes, the comments made me despair.

However, I noticed this:

"The 27-year-old was hit by a cyclist in Brook Road, Bristol, at around 8pm on Saturday, November 25.

A cyclist was travelling on Lower Cheltenham Road onto Brook Road in Montpelier when they collided with Mr Graydon"

Its telling that the rhetoric of this report personalises the people involved and infers the cyclist did the colliding.  Compare to this other tragic story yesterday, which immediately distances the bus driver from blame.

"A 14-year-old girl has died, after she was involved in a collision with a bus in Beeston last night.

The teenager, who has not been named, was riding a bicycle at the time, when she was involved in the collision."

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/14-year-old-cyclist-d...

 

Absolutely.  I keep hearing the defence for the driver-erasing/blame-avoiding way RTC's involving motorised vehicles and their users are reported that 'they have to be legally careful about implying blame'. 

Yet the same thing never seems to be an issue when its a cyclist and a pedestrian.  It's pretty much always framed as 'the cyclist hit/ran into/knocked down the pedestrian'.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Yet the same thing never seems to be an issue when its a cyclist and a pedestrian.  It's pretty much always framed as 'the cyclist hit/ran into/knocked down the pedestrian'.

Or , more accurately, it's often stated that 'the cyclist PLOUGHED into the pedestrian'.

If they want to remove the driver in these statements and avoid saying "A driver drove into a pedestrian", they should also remove 'the pedestrian' and reframe it as:

"A car collided with a pair of shoes".

TheScotsman wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Yet the same thing never seems to be an issue when its a cyclist and a pedestrian.  It's pretty much always framed as 'the cyclist hit/ran into/knocked down the pedestrian'.

 

Or , more accurately, it's often stated that 'the cyclist PLOUGHED into the pedestrian'.

 

If they want to remove the driver in these statements and avoid saying "A driver drove into a pedestrian", they should also remove 'the pedestrian' and reframe it as:

 

"A car collided with a pair of shoes".

Or in the case of a cyclist/car... "a car had a collision with a pair of shoes, which were not wearing hi viz or a helmet"

don simon wrote:

Perhaps someone could ask the Bristol commenters about this story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42310180

Who was at faults here?

The first one to hit her?

The second?

The third?

The fourth?

Or perhaps the victim for not getting out of the way (on a crossing)?

This country is proper fucked.

It depends on whether the green man was there for her to walk across.

Unfortunately if you, as a pedestrian or a cyclist, use a crossing and the green man isn't there and get hit it is your own fault. 

However every single motorist that hit her should have stopped.  They can all  now be prosecuted for not stopping at the scene of an accident, regardless of whether there is proof about what colour the lights were.

Bluebug wrote:

don simon wrote:

Perhaps someone could ask the Bristol commenters about this story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42310180

Who was at faults here?

The first one to hit her?

The second?

The third?

The fourth?

Or perhaps the victim for not getting out of the way (on a crossing)?

This country is proper fucked.

It depends on whether the green man was there for her to walk across.

Unfortunately if you, as a pedestrian or a cyclist, use a crossing and the green man isn't there and get hit it is your own fault. 

Its got sweet FA to do with whether she had a green man or not. Flesh and bone trumps any "priority" given by traffic lights. 

Edit: Rule 198.Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

don simon wrote:

Perhaps someone could ask the Bristol commenters about this story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42310180

Who was at faults here?

The first one to hit her?

The second?

The third?

The fourth?

Or perhaps the victim for not getting out of the way (on a crossing)?

This country is proper fucked.

It depends on whether the green man was there for her to walk across.

Unfortunately if you, as a pedestrian or a cyclist, use a crossing and the green man isn't there and get hit it is your own fault. 

Its got sweet FA to do with whether she had a green man or not. Flesh and bone trumps any "priority" given by traffic lights. 

Edit: Rule 198.Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings.

The quote you gave from the Highway Code infers pedestrians crossing who started while the green man was still on but have not completed their journey across before it changed.

While I agree with your sentiment, the most vunerable road user should always be given priority. However the vunerable road users also own some responsability because *if a pedestrian decides to run out on a pedestrian crossing when the green man is not on then it can be hard or impossible to avoid impact with them.

*I am not saying that this is the situation in this case, I am just exploring all hypothetical points of view

ClubSmed wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

It depends on whether the green man was there for her to walk across.

Unfortunately if you, as a pedestrian or a cyclist, use a crossing and the green man isn't there and get hit it is your own fault. 

Its got sweet FA to do with whether she had a green man or not. Flesh and bone trumps any "priority" given by traffic lights. 

Edit: Rule 198.Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings.

The quote you gave from the Highway Code infers pedestrians crossing who started while the green man was still on but have not completed their journey across before it changed.

While I agree with your sentiment, the most vunerable road user should always be given priority. However the vunerable road users also own some responsability because *if a pedestrian decides to run out on a pedestrian crossing when the green man is not on then it can be hard or impossible to avoid impact with them.

 

*I am not saying that this is the situation in this case, I am just exploring all hypothetical points of view

@ClubSmed - and I totally agree with you.

I'm not saying pedestrians shoud not bear *some* responsibility for their actions, just that simple lack of green man does not automatically imply the fault is with the pedestrian as per BB's post.

You are right in saying rule 198 implies a ped who started crossing on a green man. However if you take it and a number of other rules relating to other road user behaviour around pedestrians all add up to what can be summarised as "a pedestrian in the carriageway has priority".

Eton Rifle wrote:

Christ, the fucking comments under that article already make me want to puke. Tragic that the poor chap has died but the anti -cycling twats are already ratcheting up the hate in the absence of the actual facts.

Try living in Bristol. The Post has at least one story per week that lets the mouth-breathers fist pound their keyboards about the standard list of cyclist misdeeds.  I have a standard response saved that lists all their rants so that I can save them the effort of wittering on about 'road tax', insurance, red lights, etc etc. Doesn't make any difference though.

In fact pretty much anything to do with roads or transports ends up as a cycling hate-fest.

mbrads72 wrote:

Eton Rifle wrote:

Christ, the fucking comments under that article already make me want to puke. Tragic that the poor chap has died but the anti -cycling twats are already ratcheting up the hate in the absence of the actual facts.

Try living in Bristol. The Post has at least one story per week that lets the mouth-breathers fist pound their keyboards about the standard list of cyclist misdeeds.  I have a standard response saved that lists all their rants so that I can save them the effort of wittering on about 'road tax', insurance, red lights, etc etc. Doesn't make any difference though.

In fact pretty much anything to do with roads or transports ends up as a cycling hate-fest.

This. I actually think that the Post has a contract with the Rent-a-Twat Internet Commenters Agency, as the comments on any Post article are always a particularly spectacular shade of callous, totally at odds with my experience of Bristolians in general.