Cyclist v bus (cyclist survives)

[lectureral]

Here's some video of a cyclist who misjudges the time he needs to cross before the bus arrives at the same point - lucky chap - very poor primary safety skills.

Bus ploughs into cyclist - Lucky Chinese cyclist escapes serious injury in a potentia...

 

[BrizzleBoy]

unbelievable if i hadnt seen the cyclist crawling out there is no way i would have thought he could survive that.

Sorry mate i didnt see all 10 tons of you bearing down on me

 

[flecc]

He must have been daydreaming, but that sure woke him up!

The driver of the white car the bus slewed towards had a lucky escape, I though he was going to be hit too.
.

 

[RedSkywalker]

He must have been daydreaming, but that sure woke him up!

But he was on a pedestrian crossing!

 

[flecc]

But he was on a pedestrian crossing!

True, and he started cycling across off after the bus crossed the diamond markers when it had no chance of stopping. Like our zebra crossings, it's the person crossing who is responsible to make sure that it's safe to cross.
.

 

[Danny-K]

But he was on a pedestrian crossing!

A) Yes, but he wasn't a pedestrian.
(Well, if he got off and walked his bike across he would've been).

It's no consolation to him, but yes he was on a pedestrian crossing, and the driver was driving to fast for the conditions, but even in China I don't think the law entitles you to ride your vehicle across a pedestrian crossing, unless disabled. If he set out walking his bike across, the errant bus would have missed him as that was all the bus driver was expecting; not a faster moving human-powered vehicle.

b) Pedestrian crossings are the same the world over - first you stop; then you look. If all clear - then you cross. With variations on that theme. He did none of that.

That rider reminds me of the schoolkids at the pedestrian crossing at the foot of my road. They march along the pavement in gangs and step off on to the pedestrian crossing in one swift movement without stopping, without looking or whatever. They have a look of sheer devilment on their faces as if thinking - 'We're cool and we know the law you all have to stop for us!'

The number of times I've seen cars hooting their horn in sheer terror screeching to a halt fully over the crossing. And the tutting-tutting from the kids that follows makes me certain that one day they'll cop for it. But in 12 years I've never seen an accident there - even though it's a twice daily ritual with the kids. Teenagers they are. The under 10's have far too much common sense to behave like that.

Absolutely Nil sympathy for that cyclist! (Nor for the bus driver either).

 

[Django]

He was seriously lucky that the bus driver, firstly kept his foot on the brake and, secondly, didn't have ABS, otherwise that wheel would have run straight over him.

 

[RedSkywalker]

"Pedestrians have right of way over traffic once they are on the crossing.
If there is an island in the middle of the crossing, the two parts must be treated as two separate crossings. Make sure to check that traffic has stopped before you step off the island, in the same way that you did at the kerb.

If the traffic does not stop, then you can carefully put one foot on the crossing. This means that the right of way is legally yours, and the traffic must stop so that you can cross."

Certainly he should have dismounted but the bus driver was at fault because he clearly could not stop in time - what if it had been a blind person crossing? or a child or a mother with a pushchair, an old person - the list is endless but the point is the same - the driver was at fault.

 

[frank9755]

Rubbish!

There's no evidence the bus was speeding.

What could the driver have done other than slam on his brakes, which he clearly did as the bus skidded round?

 

[RedSkywalker]

Rubbish!

There's no evidence the bus was speeding.

What could the driver have done other than slam on his brakes, which he clearly did as the bus skidded round?

The fact that the bus skidded the way it did is clear evidence that it was travelling at excess speed as it approached the pedestrian crossing! And you only have to look at the clip to see this for yourself.

This is basically the same as a driver running into the car in front - that driver is automatically at fault because you must always drive to suit the conditions and that includes stopping safely e.g. a child steps out in front of the vehicle in front of you and you crash into it - no excuse! you weren't driving safely!

 

[flecc]

Not so, the driver isn't automatically at fault where crossing use is concerned. That's why we have approach studs, zig-zags, diamond marks as in that Chinese instance etc, to delineate the distance within which a driver is not expected to stop in law.

It is the responsibility of the person crossing not to endanger themselves by crossing unreasonably with a vehicle too close, within the stop limiting marks. It is the responsibility of a driver to stop for the pedestrian if the vehicle has not yet reached the stop limiting marks. Otherwise they do not have to be able to stop in law.

The instance of a blind person isn't relevant, since the light controlled crossings intended for their unsupervised use have sound signals to indicate when it's safe to cross. Zebra type crossings are not suitable for their unaccompanied use.
.

 

[Phil the drill]

a child steps out in front of the vehicle in front of you and you crash into it - no excuse! you weren't driving safely!

Hmm

Easy to say, but in reality not really always true. If a pedestrian unexpectedly appears in front you, (eg. steps out from behind a parked bus), they can appear literally feet in front of you. On a slippery surface even 5mph could then be too fast to avoid a collision! Does that mean we should limit our speed to less than 4mph - 'just in case...'
I've seen a good few cyclists going too fast to stop and on pavements too! It's too easy to always quote the technical aspects of the law and blame 'the enemy (read motorist)'. Pedestrians and cyclists need to take responsibility for their actions too - something far too many of them are loathe to do.

Phil

 

[Engineer]

Having worked in China on many occasions, I have to say that incidents like this are fairly common. I remember an instance where an old lady stepped in front of the minibus I was travelling in, and the driver was able to avoid her by driving onto the pavement. The old lady calmly went on her way as if nothing had happened.
It may be because fast moving vehicles are relatively new to the older generation of Chinese, who are more used to the pace of cycles and donkey carts.

 

[frank9755]

The fact that the bus skidded the way it did is clear evidence that it was travelling at excess speed as it approached the pedestrian crossing!

It's not. It's evidence that it was braking.

Vehicles skid when their brakes are applied and the wheels lock up.
They don't skid because they are going too fast.

 

[RedSkywalker]

It's not. It's evidence that it was braking.

Vehicles skid when their brakes are applied and the wheels lock up.
They don't skid because they are going too fast.

If you really believe that then we live in very different worlds and there's nothing more to be said!

"Easy to say, but in reality not really always true. If a pedestrian unexpectedly appears in front you, (eg. steps out from behind a parked bus), they can appear literally feet in front of you. On a slippery surface even 5mph could then be too fast to avoid a collision! Does that mean we should limit our speed to less than 4mph - 'just in case...' "

Let me quote the Highway Code: 206 - Drive carefully and slowly when driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road - if you want to go into court and tell them the Highway Code is wrong, best of luck!

In any case I never said anything about having to avoid someone stepping out unexpectedly [except at designated crossings] - what I said was that any driver who runs into the vehicle in front is automatically wrong! and that's the premise taken by police and Courts throughout the UK.

Flecc, I have always had the greatest respect for your thoughts and opinions since I found this site but your lack of understanding about the purpose of the studs is surprising.

The main purpose of the studs is simply to delineate the crossing area - why is this necessary? Because the road surface of areas of particular hazard are often treated with special compounds to assist braking and studs are fitted to warn vehicles that they are approaching such an area e.g. road junctions, crossings, etc!

"4.77 High friction surfacing must be applied for a minimum length of 50m ahead of the stop-line on roads subject to a 30 mph limit, but an increased length may be required due to the approach speed, accident record, average queue length, proximity of side roads and mix of traffic. Outside 30mph limits you should provide a minimum length equal to the stopping distance for the approach speed plus 10 m. On approaches to pedestrian crossings the high friction surfacing must be continued past the stop-line to the first line of crossing studs."

The rules relating to the rights of pedestrians on crossings are set out in the Highway Code and I suggest that some of you badly need to read it again!

Of course pedestrians should stop and look for oncoming traffic before using a crossing and only a fool would say that they should not BUT vehicles are required to slow down to a speed where they can stop safely if necessary at a delineated crossing and if an old or young person was to step out onto such a crossing and was run over the driver would automatically be at fault

In this case the road was wet, the driver was travelling far too fast and in the UK could have faced a Manslaughter charge if the cyclist had died.

 

[flecc]

In Britain the law is quite specific about the last 30 feet on approach to crossings and traffic lights, the driver is not expected to be able to stop when the vehicle is already within that zone.

The studs at pedestrian crossings were not the ones I was referring to of course, only mentioned as one of the examples of the types of way such approach zones are shown in various locations.

The Highway Code isn't the law, though road users are expected in law to abide by it's guidance, and drivers are most certainly not expected to be able to stop if a pedestrian steps out in front of them leaving insufficient stopping distance, nor are they prosecuted in such circumstances.

That's currently true of a respected forum member who had the misfortune to hit someone who suddenly ran across the road in front of his car in just such a manner, leaving him no chance of stopping in time.
.

 

[RedSkywalker]

In Britain the law is quite specific about the last 30 feet on approach to crossings and traffic lights, the driver is not expected to be able to stop when the vehicle is already within that zone.

Sorry flecc but I must disagree - all the law says in relation to vehicles the area inside the studs is that they must not stop, however this is because they are then legally on the designated crossing and would be guilty of an offence under the RTA.

Can you reference the law you are referring to? I agree that the Highway Code is not "law" however it is always taken as "expert" guidance in court on what a roaduser should do and it's virtually impossible to go against its guidance in court.

Which brings me to: 171: Zebra crossings.

As you approach a zebra crossing look out for people waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

you MUST give way when someone has moved onto a crossing.

Law ZPPPCR reg 25

That is a word for word quote so I'm sorry flecc but any driver who runs over someone on a designated crossing is in the wrong.

 

[frank9755]

If you really believe that then we live in very different worlds and there's nothing more to be said!

I believe the bus skidded and skewed round because it did an emergency stop. You clearly have some knowledge of driving and the Highway Code, so I find it hard to believe that you are arguing that the bus would spontaneously go into skid if driven at normal speeds in an urban area in the approach to a pedestrian crossing; but that is what you appear to be saying!

 

[flecc]

As you approach a zebra crossing look out for people waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

As I just made clear, I wasn't referring to the studs at the pedestrian crossing, and I'm aware of the law about stopping on a crossing.

But a driver is absolutely not in the wrong if they collide with a pedestrian who steps out under the vehicle when it's too close to stop, whether on a crossing or not. That is why many drivers do not get prosecuted under such circumstances.

I'm sorry, but the contention that a driver must stop from say, 30 mph, even if someone steps instantly in front of them in the nearside lane they were on is totally wrong, and the law absolutely does not require that. I was a witness in such an accident at a light controlled crossing where a driver in a low red car wasn't seen by a woman intent on looking at the red double deccker bus further away behind, and she stepped straight into the path of his car and went over the top, breaking her leg in the collision. With several of us seeing this happen, the police soon satisfied themselves and sent the driver on his way without charge.

Even the highway code requires pedestrians to make sure it's safe to cross, whether at a crossing or not, and when they don't the liability is theirs, not a driver's.
.

 

[RedSkywalker]

Flecc, I have consistantly made it clear that I am talking about stopping at "designated crossings" e.g. pedestrian crossings.

The incident you quote was NOT at a pedestrian crossing and your post does not make it clear if it was a pedestrian controlled light crossing - if it was and the lights were in favour of the pedestrian then any driver going through it would automatically have been guilty of an offence under the RTA and would most definately have been charged.

I suspect, however, that there was no designated pedestrian crossing, or if there were the lights were against the pedestrian when she stepped out - which is why the driver was not charged.

Had it been a Pedestrian crossing the driver would certainly have been charged and I've already quoted the section of the Highway Code which references this. I don't know where you think the 30 foot allowance comes from but I'm afraid it's a fallacy - unless you can reference the Act?

Frank, if you had ever been trained on a skid pan you would be aware that the primary cause of an uncontrolled skid is always down to one thing - excess speed for the driving conditions and required manoeuvres.

Point a vehicle in a straight line on a skid pan, gently power up to the desired speed then apply the brakes - till they just start to lock up - then release them - repeat as often as required [in the old days this was called Cadence Braking] nowadays ABS does this for us - result? A CONTROLLED HALT WITH NO SKID

This driver was obviously very poorly skilled and simply held the brake on even when his wheels were locked - pure incompetence - that was the second cause of the skid

The primary cause was travelling at too high a speed on wet roads so that the vehicle could not be stopped in the required distance.

Skids are always driver error! If you don't believe me, ask any Police or ADI driving instuctor.