-
until she step back into his path again
That doesn't match what I read as the description of what happened, and it wouldn't help his case either if that was true: if there was enough time to shout, the pedestrian reacting, and then stepping out again, there was more than enough time for him to slow down a bit more in a clearly already dangerous situation.
SwissChap-
If you can be arsed, the judges summing up is interesting as to whats expected of a cyclist in these circumstances.
You shouted at her twice to (in your own words) ‘get out of the
fucking way’. She reached almost the centre of the road but could not go further
because of on-coming traffic. On your own account you did not try to slow any more
but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way.
You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. That meant threading a path between
her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left.From that I taken that a verbal warning is a bad idea and will count again you if the worst happens.
As an aside the judges comments regarding her not being able to go any further because of on coming traffic in the other lane always boils my piss. No suggestion that they should have know she was in danger, no suggestion that they should be performing an emergency stop.
HousecatHST
Yeah that's what Charlie thought until she step back into his path again.