To the rider involved in an accident outside C4 this morning

Yeah but the OP said 'You were overtaking a queue of stationary...traffic' not parked, if the rider wasn't wondering why they are stopped and slowing down in anticipation then they are an idiot.

I agree with you

But the bit you quoted was referring to this post

Originally Posted by lpg
Yeah, this is a fundamental rule of the road.. If you're going at a speed that you are unable to stop in time for, should a hazard appear in your path, you are going too fast.

Wow - Kidboy deleted his post

This just pisses me off, the fact is that by cycling at 20mph you are going at a speed within the law, the issue here should be the dopey brain dead idiots with headphones on and texting at the same time who wonder out into to the road!
If i'm not allowed to cycle on the pavement then pedestrians can get the fuck off the road.

It depends - were the dungarees Osh-Kosh?

No, they we Pumpkin Patch. What is your interpretation of this additional evidence?

Bike radar that way mate -----> http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=40012

How. Dare. You.

This just pisses me off, the fact is that by cycling at 20mph you are going at a speed within the law, the issue here should be the dopey brain dead idiots with headphones on and texting at the same time who wonder out into to the road!

Yeah, the next time a car hits me on a blind corner country road at 60mph I'll just laugh it off... he was obeying the law after all.

Twit.

I agree with you

But the bit you quoted was referring to this post

Wow - Kidboy deleted his post

Yeah my post wasn't really directed at you but a general point as everyone seem to be ignoring that part and going on about ped's being in the wrong, i just happened to pick your post out.
I then decided i couldn't be arsed getting involved in another argument, already had one with a car driver and a van driver this morning which is more than enough for me.

no it wouldn't

Traveling 20 mph in a car the stopping distance is aprox 12m

How would you stop in time if someone runs out the SECOND you pass the van?

The things some people say on this forum is utter bullshit...

You wouldn't, but it would still be your fault. I have the penalty points to prove it.

it wasn't crazy james was it he doesn't seem to have crashed for about 10 minutes now must be due for another one soon

Tut tut...
2 crashes on the road this year, one relatively minor which involed a white van deciding to suddenly pull a U-turn out of stationary traffic without indicating, so I decided the side of his lovely van and his wing mirror would be a nice place to rest my shoulder whilst he was in the mood to try and kill me.
The other one caused by a numpty on a dutch shopper coming the wrong way up a one way street after nippin out of an alley way whilst I was mid-turn into the corner, I could have swerved and completely avoided her, but frankly I didn't fancy smacking up the pedestrians either side on the relatively small pieces of pavement.
For the record I have only had 2 other crashes on the roads whilst riding around London in 10 years, one was my own stupidity, and no one but myself and the car I hit were injured, and the other one was mechanical failure (cog thread stripped on my well used and abused formula rear hub at the time), which hurt a lot.
There's people on here who have had more crashes than that this year alone....i'm naming no names ;)

Although that doesn't include the one time I was drunk and casually drifted into the curb in the middle of Soho somewhere, I don't drunk ride anymore!

This just pisses me off, the fact is that by cycling at 20mph you are going at a speed within the law (...)

Yes and no. The speed limit was designed for the motor vehicles.
It's more about the general awareness. It's exactly the same problem, as when let's say, you attempt to plough through a stationary traffic between the cars and a scooter zooms past you when you try to squeeze between the cars - sometimes you just don't expect anything there. But you should.
Pedestrians also should, but they usually feel protected while on zebra or pelican crossing, you see...
That's why as a cyclist, you should take care while riding fast next to a stationary vehicles stuck in traffic - not many people will expect anything coming at them at 20 mph.

Speed limits are a limit on maximum speed, if you drive at an inappropriate speed in a situation that requires caution then that is wreckless/careless driving.

There are no speed limits for cyclists as it is not appropriate, instead you are simply labelled with responsibility towards other road users, crashing into peds as they cross between cars is wreckless cycling. A cyclist jumping out at you on an open road is one of the few situations I can think of where the cyclist cannot avoid being at fault.

Peds are road users and always have the right of way, end of.

The peds have right of way thing is something that I have heard mentioned quite often, not seen anything legislative to back it up mind.

The peds have right of way thing is something that I have heard mentioned quite often, not seen anything legislative to back it up mind.

They do have right of way in certain circumstances but certainly not carte blanche to leap out into the road anyplace and anytime. A quick but little known example is peds have right of way if they are already crossing a road that you turn into.

+1 to JonoMarshall re. speed limits being precisely that - a maximum speed, not a must do speed.

Also to reiterate, these girls were steeping across a small gap between the front of a van and a road island (pedestrian refuge). I also put a small portion of blame on them but nowhere near as much as some have inferred. I tried to find a picture of the location but google maps have not photographed that part of the street yet.

Is there any specific legislation that points to this being the case?

Not arsed. peds should exercise common sense. When I take care on the road, it's as much about my self-preservation as not killing anyone else. I say peds have to take some responsibility for their own safety. If I create a dangerous situation and then get hurt, I dust off my ego and accept I was twat (not often..although there was that time I was texting and riding no-handed @ 05:30 after nearly 12 hours on the booze, spread myself over the back of a taxi and felt silly).

By the same token, if a ped can't be bothered to look both ways before crossing, I have trouble feeling sympathy. If you live in a city, you know to look left and right ALWAYS.

Sound like he been watching MASH.

if you drive at an inappropriate speed in a situation that requires caution then that is wreckless/careless driving.

Oxymoron alert.

It's 'reckless'...

But wreckless driving is good, isn't it?

It depends on what you wreckon.

oliver what's your/the lcc's take on the matter, ped at fault or cyclist, or both?

If the mentioned island was there as a part of pelican crossing, then definitely cyclist's fault.

I thought it was a traffic island, you know, the ones that are in place to provide ped refuge and also to slow down cars.

Rule 146 "Take extra care at junctions. Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

I don't know if it fits here, but it was a similar situation - the pedestrians were already crossing the road (not on a junction, though).

Rule 181 " In urban areas there is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions."

I was riding down a quiet road along a route i regularly take in to work a few months ago and from behind a parked van a woman and a child came out in front of me (i was just building up speed from a stop about 25/30 metres before hand) without looking. I tried to avoid them by swinging into the other lane (no cars) but they seemd to have the same thought and stepped forwards, i tried to stop (i have a brake) but couldnt slow down fast enough and ended up piling into them, knocking them down and falling off my bike (with my leg somehow scraping against the chain ring in the process). Anyhow, as i was getting up i saw all these other riders shaking their heads at me, as if I was in the wrong. Anyhow, i apologised profusely and set off on my way. As i rode off it occured to me that i had done nothing fucking wrong. If it was a car they would be dead.
Of course i was upset that i knocked someone over, but i felt more angry at the fact that they had just wandered out, and that fellow cyclists seemed to thing i'd done something wrong. How can we be blamed in situations like that. Fucking ridiculous.

ok .. IMO if you hit a pedestrian, you are generally at fault. if a ped steps out behind a car and you crash into them, you either weren't covering the brakes well enough, or you had crappy brakes, or you are a bad rider and need to improve/improve your reflexes, or you were riding too close to left, reducing your maneuvering room...

if you can not see behind an obstacle and you are passing it, you should pass it at a speed where you can slow down if something were to come in to the road. this is especially true for two-wheeled vehicles, who are smaller, so less visible, and can filter easily and pass in between small gaps - also any collision could easily result in both parties being injured...

yes peds can be annoying stepping out of nowhere, but i think they should always have right of way. the onus should be on the rider to avoid a collision. in the UK, Ped is King, and rightly so.

lpg - I don't think you should neglect the fact that the initial responsibility lies with the ped to look before they walk.

I've almost had this happen many a time, and as a result ride at a cautious speed when it's a big risk, but even then they will just seemingly leap out from nowhere, especially in heavy congestion.

Fully aware of how fast and silent cyclists can be, as a ped I always stick my head out to see before I walk, and all potential accidents are instantly avoided.

Fast reflexes and braking skills are an essential defense, but I do think it's usually pedestrian stupidity that causes the problems.