-
Something else quite frustrating is that the law, the application of the law, and the reality are all very far apart. We don’t have jaywalking laws, and we don’t often observe the laws that are in place anyway. When we do observe them we don’t consistently observe them.
So, regardless, if a pedestrian is already in the road the vehicle should yield, but a pedestrian should not step into the road when a vehicle is coming. The solicitors argue speed and distance to determine who had the right to be on the road and who should have stopped and decided they were equally to blame.
However, the equally to blame is determined on the basis that the guy saw her in the road so could and should have yielded. That is based on their own analysis of what would be acceptable distance and speed.
But, this never marries up with the reality of British infrastructure and behaviour. London is a clusterfuck, and if you would yield for every pedestrian that stepped out, you would never make your destination.
In a situation like this, when you see a pedestrian walking along you probably saw them from 20m away, but their decision to cross in front of you was made after the gap had already closed to maybe 5 or less.
I’d question why did the guy have an airhorn if he wasn’t frequently confronted by lack of awareness by pedestrians when crossing.
Probably the takeaway should not be, insure and lawyer up, but improve infrastructure and educate.
pdlouche-
We don’t have jaywalking laws
Not only that, but the absence of such laws means the concept doesn't actually exist in Britain. :) This is a very good thing, a much-underrated freedom.
But, this never marries up with the reality of British infrastructure and behaviour. London is a clusterfuck, and if you would yield for every pedestrian that stepped out, you would never make your destination.
I don't agree. The vast majority of the time, it isn't even the slightest problem--if you know what you're doing. This present case is a vanishingly rare edge case. If there's some conflict, as a cyclist you can always initiate a police standoff--a friendly 'after you' will usually cause the other party to give up their resistance to your politeness. :)
I’d question why did the guy have an airhorn if he wasn’t frequently confronted by lack of awareness by pedestrians when crossing.
There is no reason for having an airhorn on a bike whatsoever. Not justifiable. You shouldn't even need a bell. If you need to say something to someone, use your voice. There are only very few people with an impairment that prevents them from doing so.
Probably the takeaway should not be, insure and lawyer up, but improve infrastructure and educate.
The order is wrong. It should be: (1) insure (a basic sensible move, just become a member of a cycling organisation--the problem is that it's really aimed at middle-class people and many people on tight incomes can't afford it); (2) educate (consider cycle training, etc.); (3) improve infrastructure (although that really has no bearing on the present case). Obviously, 'lawyer up' is only in the event of a crash, so doesn't belong in this list.
Oliver Schick
Some more info coming out from a discussion between the legal bods involved and Martin Porter, specifically that [Hazledean] admitted that he saw her from 20m away and chose to accelerate rather than slow down.
https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752
(Useful info in those tweets from first to last...)