Dangerous cyclists? not!

30mph is the speed limit, not the speed you have to drive at.

that's what she said

Sadly, most people seem to interpret it as the speed at which you should travel at all times regardless of circumstances.

Yeh but imagine you're doing 70 on the motorway with your eyes closed and a group of feral children, lurking in the bushes, rush out and just stand there like they own the road. You brake but not hard enough and two of the young ruffians are given quite a fright. Who's responsible then? Ultimately I think we have to blame the parents, both of the children and of the driver and ultimately beyond that we have to look at society as a whole.

I blame Adolf Hitler.

He was actually quite the stickler for road safety.

Yeah, I heard he could be a bit of a nazi.

A pedestrian steps out only 5 metres away from you. You're in a car doing 30 mph in a 30 mph zone. You brake but hit the pedestrian causing severe injury or death. Who's responsible? The pedestrian or the driver?

The driver is to blame. If they can see a pedestrian who is about to step out, or there are obstructions that occlude their visibility, these are to be considered hazards, and their speed and driving behaviour should be modified accordingly. Of course the last time anyone pays any attention to these sort of hazards is during the interactive video part of their theory test.

The official DSA guide to hazard perception DVD - YouTube

Surprise that the hazard perception didn't highlighted the peds in the island.

If there is any right of way accorded to pedestrians, it is probably written into any number of pieces of road traffic related legislation, and referenced in the Highway Code - zebra crossings being an example.

Any notion of blame for an incident would tend to be covered by precedent in case-law, decided in court, or decisions between insurance companies.

Are you Ramaye?

And? But if a pedestrian steps out just 5 metres in front of you?

The courts would probably find that there was contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian.

Any luck finding the source or basis of this?

yes
Highway Code Rule 205

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.

Yeah, I heard he could be a bit of a nazi.

repped

If you are doing 20/25/30 in a 30 zone and a pedestrian decides to step out in front of you when they're only 5 metres away from you, an accident will most likely occur. It is unreasonable to expect a driver - any driver - to be able to react and bring the car to halt in those circumstances.
Each circumstance would be different, and different inferences and conclusions could be drawn.

To simply claim that the pedestrian has right of way as soon as their foot touches the road surface is ludicrous.
It doesn't work as a one-size-fits-all rule, no.

Only the ginger one.

RVH vs Jeez

Mutual annihilation would be an attractive possible outcome.

Disregarding the troll fest for a minute, you can't just make a graph about volume, it needs to be percentages, which throws up the classic, age old issue, just how many journeys are undertaken per year by cycle? Should there be a threshold in distance or time as to which journeys are to be counted, and just how will we estimate these?

If that graph is indeed produced by Ben Goldacre as someone else mentioned, I would hope he has considered this and perhaps provided some sort of advice or comment on how to estimate this.

Waiting for a PM from Jeez now.

Ho fucking humm.

ALERT common sense* has been invoked, ALERT!

FU I like graphs.

n/a

There is a difference between having priority on a road and attempting to get hit by a car. You still have "right of way" as a pedestrian, cars should attempt to stop for you and give way, this is more in relation to when you are already crossing on a road at a junction or whatever but does apply everywhere. If you decide to walk out in front of a car that is 5 metres away travelling at whatever speed then you are not crossing a road properly, most of the time self preservation will stop people doing such things but it does happen, the driver would not be coincided at fault if the collision was actually unavoidable and they were paying attention and driving at a suitable speed, but the pedestrian would have still technically had priority (right of way) in that situation.

Common sense innit.

I'd probably do more than trump if hit by a car.