Cyclist not guilty of causing pedestrian's death by "wanton or furious driving" after trial over "3mph" towpath collision

I was on a cycle lane/shared path the other week, with pedestrians just scattered randomly both sides of the path some in the cycle lane some not, most staring at phones, dogs off leads, children running around.

bit of a nightmare to navigate, so I ring my bell, nothing happens, nobody reacts they just carry on as before

so I think well ok Ive got to keep ringing my bell and adjust speed for each and every hazard Im approaching right as clearly they cant hear me, or theyre not paying attention and I dont want of these fools to step into me and claim I appeared from nowhere.

all told probably about 6 or 7 individual bell rings,finally pass the last pedestrian still staring at their phone walking in the cycle lane, who mutters "we heard you the first effin time mate".

which i ignored, when I should have stopped and said, well if you had heard me the first time, as Im not psychic could you please in future acknowledge it in some way, like perhaps stepping out of the cycle lane, and not keep staring at your phone as you walk as that deprives you of the sense of seeing where you are walking.

stonojnr wrote:

which i ignored, when I should have stopped and said, well if you had heard me the first time, as Im not psychic could you please in future acknowledge it in some way, like perhaps stepping out of the cycle lane, and not keep staring at your phone as you walk as that deprives you of the sense of seeing where you are walking.

"No, no, no - you're confused, 'mate': its my other helmet which allows me to read minds!"

I was asked to cycle on a pedestrianised area of a shopping centre.
Not massively crowded but plenty of people around.
Nothing happened but the memory of it still scares me more than when I cycle on main roads, with drivers around me, on a regular basis with almost no concern.

On the cycle path at Elephant and Castle a couple of weeks ago I politely called out "Could you walk on the [completely empty and wider than the cycle path] pavement please so I can come through?" Completely ignored, I tried again, "Can I just come through please?" Response, "I heard you the first time and I'm not moving, there's no law says I have to." So I bunny hopped onto the (as I said, completely empty) pavement, went round him and back onto the cycle path, I'm sure he told people when he got home that there was a bloody cyclist riding on the pavement.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Response, "I heard you the first time and I'm not moving, there's no law says I have to."

If you meet him again - Highways Act 1980, Wilful obstruction of the highway is the law that says he has to.

Tom_77 wrote:

If you meet him again - Highways Act 1980, Wilful obstruction of the highway is the law that says he has to.

I'll bear it in mind!

I always shout 'bike back', or, 'bike front.' If I don't get a reaction I know the person is probably hard of hearing.

bensynnock wrote:

[...]I'm not often actually asking people to move out of the way, just to alert them that I'm there. But what are you supposed to do if you don't get a reaction? I would slow down and pass cautiously, but should I be waiting to pass until I've got a definite positive that they're aware of my presence and aren't just going to jump in front of me? [...] At least why, if they do choose to walk on the cycle path, they aren't aware that there might be cyclists on it?

You can't get it right for some people and that's ultimately because you're "cycling in their space".

Since we've learned to get out of the way of cars (over a couple of generations, via lots of trial and fatal / crippling error) we've mostly seized on the idea that the compromise is that all the other space is for walking.  (That's a misunderstanding of course - it's just sometimes less desirable, to some motorists...)

... so "cycling on the footpath!" *.

Bell / no bell?  Can't get that right for everyone either - because of above a few people interpret it not as "I am here" but "out of the way!" (cf. "friendly toot")  And it can be unnecessary noise pollution / bit distracting if you're walking and keep hearing bells.  OTOH some people will kick off even if you pass them very slow and wide without serving sonic notice - even when there's zero need for you to alert them as there's tons of space...

* TBF I think (with some exceptions) many such spaces at least started as footways / paths.  I think the exact legal status can vary so I tend to avoid saying "cycle path" in the UK (certainly not for "shared use") unless it's clearly a dedicated one with special markings.  Which are very rare ...  All so as not to spook my fellow vulnerable road users.

That path is a clearly marked national cycleway. Signposted regularly and conspicuously. It is also the Thames towpath and on any reasonably dry day tends to be very busy with walkers, tourists, rowing coaches on bikes staring at their rowers and trying to keep up as they shout at them and cycle commuters dodging Oxford traffic. 

Carbon cycle wrote:

That path is a clearly marked national cycleway. Signposted regularly and conspicuously. It is also the Thames towpath and on any reasonably dry day tends to be very busy with walkers, tourists, rowing coaches on bikes staring at their rowers and trying to keep up as they shout at them and cycle commuters dodging Oxford traffic. 

Well... not a few roads are also signposted as part of the NSN ... I believe legally it depends how it was set up eg. was it converted to highway under the process per The Cycle Tracks Act 1984 (not well versed on this and subsequent developments though!).

Again though when you're outnumbered considerably by pedestrians who know they're right, that's moot.  Shouldn't be, but will probably continue until we finally start doing these "the way that works in practice" (or have sufficient % people cycling, which likely needs the former)...

It's quite rare for anybody to take offense at the bell, although there's sometimes a problem with a large groups walking or standing and chatting oblivious to the bell. A man with a dog on a long lead shouted at me once, I asked him what he thought would happen to his dog if the lead got caught in my bike.

The worst person was a blind man who yelled abuse at me after I rang the bell to let him know I was nearby. The rules state clearly that we should ring a bell especially when passing vulnerable pedestrians and I'm sure being blind would fall into that category. There's a strong chance that he's never read the rules for cycling in shared spaces though.

I always make sure I either raise a hand in thanks or say thanks as I pass when somebody has acknowledged me. I try to be friendly and polite to people.

The vast majority of the time I have no problems - as usual it's the bad interactions which are unusually salient (this is on shared use paths away from motor-traffic around Edinburgh).

I don't always ring - as I'll always slow when passing - but I try to make some noise though.

A very few occasions I can remember folks getting boilingly angry *.  A bit more common is a grumble (e.g. "it's not just for bikes you know") or just a look.

I try to remember to make eye contact and thank anyone who seems to have moved / waited for me.  Quite a few people are positively friendly!

* A couple of people who I think didn't realise the path was shared use - I hadn't even passed them but was hanging back as I was turning off anyway and perhaps that worried them?  One "big man" felt I'd encroached on his girlfriend's space and even decided he was going to run after me - so (having sped up after passing them slowly) I slowed down again just enough so he didn't get dropped and waited to see how far he could go!

The denouement

https://youtu.be/aUU89xI_0Hs?t=194

Hirsute wrote:

The denouement

https://youtu.be/aUU89xI_0Hs?t=194

Ah, that one never gets old

"be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians, and horse riders  Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by calling out or ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted."

When necessary makes it a judgement call, as it should be

Having read a more detailed account of this incident I suspect

that he rang his bell as he came up behind them, they were on the rhs side of the path, he was on the LHS, the woman who was with the victim said "that's a bike coming [or similar]" and moved further to the right (but doesn't want to admit it now or has genuinely forgotton) and the victim moved, without looking, to the LHS intending to go to other side but actually stepped right in front of him. In which case, had he not rung his bell she would not have moved and probably would still be alive.

I can't prove it of course, it is conjecture based on the evidence of the three people present who are still alive and their accounts are not entirely consistant

Agree, and I certainly echo your thoughts/actions.

Most people are either offended you have rung your bell (sometimes repeatedly as their is no obvious way of knowing they have heard you) or annoyed you did not ring your bell (when you actually did).

I have also been made to stop and wait on a stretch of a "National Cycle Route" by a "family group", when asked if I could just squeeze through, I was verbally abused and told it was a footpath and "pedestrians had right of way." When I pointed out it was a shared path and right of way does not extend to completely blocking the 3+ metre wide bridleway, I was told to "shut the f#ck up!"

Nothing like a relaxing Sunday afternoon bike ride to lift the spirit!

bensynnock wrote:

On a slightly different note, I do wonder sometimes why so many dog walkers on Southampton Common choose to walk their dogs on the cycle path, rather than in the huge empty open space.

They're not daft - they walk their dogs on the path, cycle or otherwise, to avoid treading in the dog eggs left by the more carefree members of society.

Daclu Trelub]<p>[quote=bensynnock wrote:

... to avoid treading in the dog eggs left by the more carefree members of society.

Off-topic, but what is it with the type of dog walker who dutifully follows the law by picking said item up in a bag then hangs it on a tree or drops it back on the ground, often in wooded areas or other places council cleaning services are unlikely to visit? 🤬 If you choose to have a canine companion, you have no legal choice but to dispose of its mess correctly. 😡

In recent months it has probably been a bit of swamp, though I do notice the same on my park, some sort of deep seated fear of the wild!

john_smith wrote:

"I was fully aware of my surroundings and gave adequate warning for the pedestrians to move out of the way. She moved into my line and made the accident unavoidable."

I sounded my horn! It's not my fault if the ped didn't jump out of the way fast enough!

Come on, that's entirely unfair. According to the evidence given, which was accepted by the jury, the cyclist was doing 3 miles an hour, rang his bell, moved left to go round the pedestrian and she stepped into his path. Absolutely nothing like the comparison you're trying to make.

john_smith wrote:

"I was fully aware of my surroundings and gave adequate warning for the pedestrians to move out of the way. She moved into my line and made the accident unavoidable."

I sounded my horn! It's not my fault if the ped didn't jump out of the way fast enough!

Yes, that's a risky way to put things. However, it does sound, in context, as if the appropriate comment was that he had given adequate warning of his presence and had passed when the walkers were to one side.

Sadly I think it is sensible these days to ride with a camera on your bike.  A couple of years ago I was cycling to work and a school kid ran out from behind a lorry, colliding with me.  She was obviously not hurt because by the time I'd picked myself up off the road she was already gone.  However, I was glad I had my camera because had it turned out to be something more serious I would have been able to show that I was unable to avoid her because she simply ran into me.

Decent cameras are quite expensive though, and cheaper ones seem to have very short battery life.

In the article the claim is the "Victorian law" (ie the wanton furious driving law) weakened their case. Even though they admit the evidence was basically just one person's word against another anyway.

But the Telegraph have a clear agenda with this thats more than just culture war stuff, they claimed police back new laws in an article the other week, when they just actually responded to the DfT consultation about it. Claimed councils spending "millions" on adult cycle training was a "frivolous waste". Have had 3 articles already covering just this one case alone.

I'm surprised anyone who was part of the London cycling campaign would talk to them.

stonojnr wrote:

In the article the claim is the "Victorian law" (ie the wanton furious driving law) weakened their case.

I've said it before, but I don't see any newspapers out there campaigning for some serious revisions and updating of "the Victorian law" (the offences against the persons act 1861) which governs assault, GBH, etc…?

This annoys me because, while it is clearly your duty to give way to the walkers, their dog is their responsibility, not yours. They have a duty to control their dog, deaf or otherwise.

They also have a duty to be aware of their surroundings. Walking across the whole path in a shared setting and without keeping vigilant for those approaching from behind is inconsiderate. That doesn't trump the need for a cyclist to have greater care, but it doesn't absolve the walkers of taking any care.

(and yes, this is different from cycling two abreast)

See the e-biker who was run into by a pedestrian at a green light ped crossing.

Initially press attacking the illegal ebike flying through red light, ploughing into a pedestrian, with witnesses discussing how it was all the riders fault and they tried to stop + detain them 

Until CCTV footage emerged;

Oh; Green Light.

Oh; E-bike just been overtaken by a normal bike (i.e. doing ~15mph motor assist limit, so not illegal).

Oh; pedestrian ran into the cyclist, impacting the bike behind the rider.

Oh; rider reported incident to police.

Basically you had a crowd shouting at and grabbing the injured rider for being hit by a pedestrian so the rider fled.