Peds!

If peds didn't jump red lights, then they wouldn't get hit by road users at all in these instances, is that hard for your to get you simple mind around?

If that's how you think the world works then that explains an awful lot.

Whole load of victim blaming going on in this thread.

One. Ped walked off of a roundabout in front of a motorcyclist in pitch dark from a roundabout with no pedestrian infrastructure, no idea how or why he got there, anyway..

Motorcyclist hit the ped and both went flying and sent the ped in the air onto my upper body which sent me down to.

Couldn't talk about it then because I was "witness" to it when it went to court. It's all done now.

It's an accident which might not have been tragic if the cyclist had been riding with a bit more care. I'll concede there's a lot of speculation on my part, but the very obvious attitude of some people is that they don't have even the slightest bit of responsibility towards anyone who is in the road when they shouldn't be. Frankly I find that very depressing.

I do get that but there is only so much road users can do, we have so many other possible dangers on the road to concentrate on from other vehicles.

All we have to do as peds is be a bit more patient when waiting at lights, I don't jump reds when I'm on the bike either, if we all followed the rules that are put there to keep safe then we wouldn't be having this.

I find it depressing that this accident could have been averted so simply.

Or we can just ride slower and be prepared instead.

Peds should be able to walk in London without being in fear of motorised traffic, or in this case, a person on a bicycle.

If every single person in London cross exactly when they should and only at crossing, motorists would actually take more risk when they drive.

A good example is those old railing we used to see in junction, motorists take less care because they think no one cross the road because of the railing.

^ Evidence please...

Oh wait...

http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/06/29/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-safety-2/

If every single person in London cross exactly when they should and only at crossing, motorists would actually take more risk when they drive.

I was referring to this pearl...

So was I :p

Or we can just ride slower and be prepared instead.

Like I said above dude we have a lot to concentrate on and sometimes can't devote 100% of our attention to look for peds, especially when we're doing our over shoulder checks and stuff, it only takes a second for someone to run out.

Peds should be able to walk in London without being in fear of motorised traffic, or in this case, a person on a bicycle.

It's a nice sentiment, but how do we draw the line here?

At traffic crossings we the share right of way, and we have traffic lights to tell us when we can do that safely. If there isn't any kind of system in place and people can run into the road at any time then it's up to the skill of each individual road user to avert a collision, how would we quantify who is safe enough to be a road user?

Like I said above dude we have a lot to concentrate on and sometimes can't devote 100% of our attention to look for peds, especially when we're doing our over shoulder checks and stuff, it only takes a second for someone to run out.

That's a pretty good argument for segregation you've got there

Haha! Yeah you've got me :)

But I suppose I'm not just doing my over shoulders to look out for motorists though.

I'm also checking to make sure I haven't caught a drafter, my summer bike is deathly silent when on the move, so I'm not surprised that I haven't noticed that a cyclist has been on my rear until I actually look around and clock them.

If you can't provide 100%, then compensate to adjust for this.

It baffles me that you're asking me to use 100% of the attention I use to navigate the road safely to avoid peds that are blatantly flouting the rules that are there to keep people safe.

I don't jump red lights and expect cars and lorries to compensate for my blatant disregard for their safety and my own, there is no difference what so ever.

If you can't call a ped out for jumping a red then you can't call a cyclist out for doing it either.

Isn't it just so much simpler to encourage people to use crossings and junctions as they are supposed to?

Prevention is better than a cure and all that...

A pedestrian can't jump a red because it's not an offence, they're perfectly entitled to cross at any time they think it's safe to do so.

any time they think it's safe to do so.

any time they think its safe.

Just because they think it's safe doesn't mean it is, that's the whole reason were having this conversation.

It's because it's not safe. That's what traffic lights are for, to tell us when it is safe.

Double post.

^ This. We have no jaywalking laws, and quite right too.

Edit. The ^ is to Brun's post.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-highway-code-light-signals-controlling-traffic

Traffic Light Signals

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing"

There is no such thing as crossing against a red when you're a pedestrian in the UK. We don't have jaywalking laws here, despite what some in the motor lobby would like. Quite right too. Pedestrian lights are advisory only and peds retain the right to walk on the highway (apart from motorways and other restricted roads) at any point, no matter what the signals say. Admittedly a judge may look less favourably on an injured pedestrian who crossed on a red and was hit, but they certainly haven't been breaking any law.

Vulnerable peds, in particular, should be looked out for and respected by those higher up the transport foodchain. Just like I always slow down in my car if I see a cyclist wanting to emerge from a side road - in case they wobble out accidentally into my path - so I behave warily on my bike around peds at junctions and pelican crossings.

In 11 years of cycling 14 miles through central London every day I have probably touched a pedestrian fewer than 5 times - each time would be them stepping out unexpectedly of course, which might prompt an immediate British apology from all sides followed by a quick sigh of frustration or annoyed retort, but I have certainly never come close to injuring or knocking someone over who stepped out in front of me. I'm prepared to stop at all times, as all vehicles should be when in busy areas.

edit: others got there first (as usual!)

I didn't say it was illegal?

Where did I say it was illegal?

I said it was unsafe.

The "red man" at a pedestrian crossing means it's not safe to cross. Why are you having a problem grasping that principle?

The "red man" at a pedestrian crossing means it's not safe to cross.

Nah. It means that motor traffic along the road that the crossing crosses has priority*.

*having priority doesn't mean "the right to smash into peds who happen to be in the road", mind

Enter your text here...

1 Attachment

Enter your text here...

There's no "MUST", so it's not a requirement. "MUST" is an important concept in the highway code. Everything that's not a "MUST" is a guideline rather than a law, and on crossings (as on all roads), vehicles in the carriageway are supposed to cede priority to pedestrians.

https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.