Near Miss of the Day 190: Pedestrian steps out in front of cyclist

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

John Smith wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

Again, define 'going some', he clearly was not 'going some' at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

Again, define 'going some', he clearly was not 'going some' at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

John Smith wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

Again, define 'going some', he clearly was not 'going some' at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

 

By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

 

Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

 

How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

I'm not sure where you got the figure for a filtering speed of 20mph on a motorcycle. My ex police biker mate tells me the filtering speed is 10-15mph as advised by the Cops. When I'm filtering on my motorbike, I do it at a max of 10mph higher than the speed of the vehilces i'm passing. 

The cyclist in this instance looks to have been going too fast.

OldRidgeback wrote:

John Smith wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

Again, define 'going some', he clearly was not 'going some' at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

 

By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

 

Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

 

How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

 

I'm not sure where you got the figure for a filtering speed of 20mph on a motorcycle. My ex police biker mate tells me the filtering speed is 10-15mph as advised by the Cops. When I'm filtering on my motorbike, I do it at a max of 10mph higher than the speed of the vehilces i'm passing. 

The cyclist in this instance looks to have been going too fast.

20+20 (20mph faster than the traffic, up to traffic moving at 20mph) was what I was taught, but I also recognise that this is more of a nice round number that is easy to pass on than a strict rule. The point is a cyclist that seems to be doing somewhere close to what a motorbike should be doing as a maximum in ideal conditions, on a bicycle between lorry’s and vans in a built up area.

John Smith wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

John Smith wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

Again, define 'going some', he clearly was not 'going some' at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

 

By my calculations (assuming the video speed is accurate) between 15-17 miles per hour. It takes between 1.5 and 2 seconds to pass the blue lorry, which is a 3 axle ridged body lorry, so approximately 12m long, so therefore a speed between 6mps & 8mps, or 15-18mph. The feeling of speed in the video gives the impression this is a reasonable guess.

 

Given the the maximum recomended filtering speed on a motorbike is 20mph above the speed of traffic I would suggest that going almost that speed past a lorry is inadvisably fast, and at that speed motorbikes, with much bigger contact patch, bigger breaks and abs stop much faster than a bicycle. Having done both myself I can say with some confidence that an emergency stop on a bicycle at that speed is a lot more dramatic than a motorbike. Even my heavy, old, slow 650.

 

How much more attention? Enough to not need to grab the brakes like that when someone walks out and you are passing a lorrry unable to see if someone is about to walk out. The case law agrees with me.

 

I'm not sure where you got the figure for a filtering speed of 20mph on a motorcycle. My ex police biker mate tells me the filtering speed is 10-15mph as advised by the Cops. When I'm filtering on my motorbike, I do it at a max of 10mph higher than the speed of the vehilces i'm passing. 

The cyclist in this instance looks to have been going too fast.

20+20 (20mph faster than the traffic, up to traffic moving at 20mph) was what I was taught, but I also recognise that this is more of a nice round number that is easy to pass on than a strict rule. The point is a cyclist that seems to be doing somewhere close to what a motorbike should be doing as a maximum in ideal conditions, on a bicycle between lorry’s and vans in a built up area.

Well we'll have to agree not to agree on the filtering speed then. I had a  copy of the police roadcraft publication somewhere but I haven't seen it in a while so I can't check it to be sure.

My feeling about the cyclist in this instance is that he/she was pushing it to the limit and was very lucky to be able to stop in time. 

Riding on 2 wheels (where with an engine or not) you have to suppose that you're surrounded by idiots who don't give a stuff about their own safety or yours either for that matter. The closer to the limit you ride, the less chance you've got of saving a situation when something goes wrong.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

 

Again, define 'going some', he clearly was not 'going some' at all, he DID take care and with regard to others hence why he was able to stop easily for an idiot paying ZERO attention whatsoever. 

How much more attention must one make if all your actions took account of the absolute fuckwittery of someone running through traffic without looking? If that had been a motorcyclist they most definitely have been struck and seriously hurt.

You want someone to define 'going some' as a definitive yet talk absolute shit about 'most definitely' have been struck if it was a motorcycle.

You are aware that some tossers ride bikes badly and some good people ride motorcycles; just like there's some shit posts on here (naming no names)...

John Smith wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I was thinking that and certainly bigger nads than I posess, but the cyclist did slow at the crucial point when visibility was blocked by the van. 

 

I agree. He seemed to be going some with no regards for the fact that it was blind, the cyclist didn’t appear to slow or take care when he could not see and people do run out. I’m afraid that if he had hit the pedestrian the police and courts probably would have put significant blame on the cyclist. See Powell v Moody, Worsfold v Howie and Woodham v Turner for equivalent cases involving motorbikes filtering, and courts tend to hold pedestrians to a lower standard of behaviour than drivers. 

Aren't those all civil liability cases? (involving filtering bike / crossing car collisions and split on liability)....no ideas if either motorcyclist or driver prosecuted in any of those cases ? 

Cyclist saw the ped' and stopped. 

My opinion not the best example that Road CC could have chosen - looks like a young person who probably should know better but doesn't and a cyclist who used their road ninja skills - near misses I experience with peds (sorry no video)usually fall in the I'm an adult and know better:- "its a red light for me but its only a cyclist so I'll cross"..."I don't bother looking when I step out to go to the drivers door because the vehicles are all in the other lane"...."the cycle lane is a space for me to walk along whilst I wait for a gap in the traffic to cross" etc 

antigee wrote:

.."the cycle lane is a space for me to walk along whilst I wait for a gap in the traffic to cross" etc 

Actually, cycle lanes are advanced stop lines for pedestrians.

EK Spinner wrote:

She didn't even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

 

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

How quick?

12mph max, any quicker and he'd never be able to stop like he did and it was obviously a controlled stop at that without histrionics/wheel lock etc..

He was obviously looking out and able to stop to avoid a collision, yet the ped simply ran into his path without any consideration whatsoever.

Ever wonder why despite bias/discrimination against people on bikes by police and the justice system, pedestrians are 50% more at fault for their own demise in collisions with cyclists?

EK Spinner wrote:

She didn't even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

 

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

I couldn't agree more - yep the pedestrian didn't look first but that filtering speed is way too high.

OldRidgeback wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

She didn't even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

 

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I couldn't agree more - yep the pedestrian didn't look first but that filtering speed is way too high.

It may have been too fast for your liking, but the cyclist was paying attention, was in control and was able to safely stop for a hidden pedestrian. If only motorists held themselves to those same standards.

hawkinspeter wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

She didn't even glance to her right as she got to the fornt of the van,.

 

BUT that seems a bit quick for filtering through traffic, especially when passing a high van which completly blocks visibility for both parties.

 

I couldn't agree more - yep the pedestrian didn't look first but that filtering speed is way too high.

It may have been too fast for your liking, but the cyclist was paying attention, was in control and was able to safely stop for a hidden pedestrian. If only motorists held themselves to those same standards.

No, he was able to stop for a pedestrian he had already seen on the pavement. If she had been obscured by the van for the entire time of his approach, then he probably wouldn’t have slowed down in time and would have hit her.