Cyclist v bus (cyclist survives)

[frank9755]

Red,

You overstate the strength of your arguments with assertions which cannot be supported by facts eg:
'the primary cause of an uncontrolled skid is always down to one thing '
'This driver was obviously very poorly skilled'
'the driver would certainly have been charged'
+ you have no idea how much time I may or may not have spent on a skid pan!

Some of your points make sense individually but I'm afraid that when you put them together they don't make sense.

 

[flecc]

As Frank has said Red, you overstate and in doing that you oversimplify.

A driver is not automatically liable when they collide with a pedestrian on a zebra crossing if the pedestrian has rushed out without looking in the way that the cyclist did in the video starting this thread. The pedestrian has to take due care and if they dash into view when it's too late for a vehicle to be stopped, the pedestrian is at fault. I also strongly disagree with you on your judgement of the bus driver, and I do that as someone with considerable heavy vehicle driving experience, advanced skid pan skills which include heavy vehicle control and 57 years of driving experience without no-claim loss or accident prosecutions.

We will have to disagree on this since it's obvious you will not budge from your view, but can you please do me a favour? Please don't ever apply to become a magistrate.
.

 

[RedSkywalker]

Frank, I have no wish to be rude but it became clear to me several posts back that your knowledge of driving and observational skills is limited which is why I said then "If you really believe that, then we live in very different worlds and there's nothing more to be said!"

I should not have allowed myself to be drawn because I know how even the best intentioned people will defend poor, subjective judgements when faced with a situation outwith their training and knowledge.

I'm sure you believe what you say, and I wish you well, but there is really no point in us continuing this particular discussion any further.

 

[RedSkywalker]

Flecc, I have asked you several times to point me to the Act which allows drivers not to stop at pedestrian crossings but you have never done so - why? - sorry flecc but it can only be because no such Act exists.

Of course I agree with you that anyone using a crossing should exercise care BUT we all know that people are not perfect and that crossings are used by all sorts of people, old people, people on medication, disabled, poor sighted, young, etc, and we know that they will not always exercise the degree of caution that they should - which is why the RTA and the Highway Code are worded the way they are - all drivers must exercise caution and be able to stop if a pedestrian steps out.

This is perfectly reasonable when you consider how infrequent crossings are while drivers have virtually every junction signed or controlled for them - is it really such a burden for them to exercise care when they happen across a pedestrian crossing? The law does not think so and nor do I [and like you I have been involved with driving for more years than I care to remember]

Bring back the birch, that's what I say

 

[Footie]

If one plays the film repeatedly, the speed of the bus appears to match the other traffic; so it seems either the bus is going at the legal speed or everyone is speeding. Although the newsreader does say "a fast moving motor coach".

I took a snapshot the screen at a point "just before" the coach slammed on it's brakes (see attachment). The bus is only a van's length (see van on right) from the crossing and doesn't have a hope in hell of stopping. The cycle seems to be taking a diagonal path.

As flecc said the speed of the moving cycle is the biggest contributing factor here. Its because the cycle is going so fast that the bus can't avoid colliding with it.

But, as the saying goes "no-one is fault free in an accident".

The cyclist should have stopped and dismounted. However, it must be remembered this is China. I believe cyclists ride on pavements so does the cyclists have to dismount?
The coach driver should have been looking for run-outs on the crossing and downed his speed slightly (because of the wet conditions) - just in case. The pedestrian area is fairly wide (not obstructed) I think a more "observant" driver could have seen the cyclist heading for the crossing.

PS: As an experience school minibus driver I would have slowed (just in case) - would do it without thinking - but then I'm a watchful driver
.

 

[eddieo]

all the time in London you get pedestrians just marching out onto pedestrian crossings as if its there God given right and they expect all cars to stop, pretty stupid IMO.

The driver may not see you for a host of reasons, it may be dark, you may have on dark clothing. He may be distracted or on the phone or having an argument with his girlfriend..the list goes on. inexperienced/new driver/sociopath/ moron who knows!

If crossing the road its up to you to make the assessment if its safe to cross. I certainly would not cross if traffic was not at least slowing to a halt...and if wet as in this video I would wait till it more or less stopped. the cyclist was damn stupid IMO assuming the bus would stop.

 

[flecc]

If a pedestrian has stopped or is waiting at a zebra crossing, then a driver is required in law to stop for them to cross, and not doing so is an offence.

That cannot be extended to cover someone running into view immediately into the path of a vehicle when it's too close to stop. If that were the law, all vehicle drivers would have to approach crossings at near to walking pace where there are pedestrians anywhere in the near vicinity, as someone else has already observed. That is not the case of course.

Birch 'em no! I think we should be quite smug about our UK accident rate with just under 3000 deaths a year now. Other European nations are worse and usually far worse, and even in the USA where their laws are far stricter than ours, their death rate on the roads is a staggering 3 times ours pro rata to the population. Clearly strict laws don't necessarily reduce accidents and deaths.
.

 

[frank9755]

Frank, I have no wish to be rude but it became clear to me several posts back that your knowledge of driving and observational skills is limited which is why I said then "If you really believe that, then we live in very different worlds and there's nothing more to be said!"

I should not have allowed myself to be drawn because I know how even the best intentioned people will defend poor, subjective judgements when faced with a situation outwith their training and knowledge.

I'm sure you believe what you say, and I wish you well, but there is really no point in us continuing this particular discussion any further.

Red, really there is no point here. You make yet more assertions with no evidence and use the tactic of being rude while pretending to wish not to be, then you try to make it appear that this is some complex subject that only one with your (implied) expertise, which again with no evidence you assert to be superior to that of others, could grasp. Er, it's a pedestrian crossing!
I'll say no more and invite you to have the last word.

 

[Barnowl]

I was only thinking last week that motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists really don't mix well. I guess cycling across pedestrian crossings is the ultimate bad mix. If that had been me on the bike, in the UK ,I'd have considered myself lucky to be alive and blamed myself for being such a complete idiot.

 

[rooel]

Motor vehicles should never have been allowed to mix with pedestrians and cyclists. Our ancestors insisted that the steam engine should be deployed only on its separate "ways", and we call them railways.

With regard to motor vehicles they did in the early days at least attempt to restrict speeds to walking pace with a red flag man going on before, but that was soon doomed to failure with the new motor vehicles in the hands of the great and the good, ie the rich establishment who soon stole the streets and roads for their own selfish enjoyment, and were eventually of course unable to retain an exclusive right, as the working man, and woman, attained first his, and then her, dream of getting a "wee car", as if the size makes them any less dangerous to human life and limb.

It is convenient now for the politician to urge cyclists to separate themselves from danger by means of a few centimetres of polystyrene round their skulls, the politician knowing that true separation, by means of curbs, verges, bushes, trees, etc as might be found in the Netherlands, would be too expensive.

 

[john]

The subject of this thread is an accident involving a cyclist on a crossing in China. However, most of the debate has related to zebra crossings as used by pedestrians in the UK.

I don't know anything about Chinese law, and I'm not sure any of the contributors here do either so lets suppose that the accident was in the UK and that it was a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. (It doesn't look to me that the cyclist was travelling much more than walking pace)

This is what the law says about pedestrians on a zebra crossing:
"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."
(And as far as I can tell, this is all the law says on the matter.)

Clearly the "pedestrian" (ie the cyclist) was on the crossing so the question is whether the driver accorded him precedence. If not then the driver would be at fault.

Firstly, it is very difficult to tell from the video and I think it would take someone with specific experience to analyse it. However, it looks to me that the driver did not brake until quite late (give that the car behind didn't seem to close on it). He was certainly much more than a van's length when the "pedestrian" began to cross.

Secondly, the conditions were certainly wet and the driver should take that into account.

Having said that, I don't think the law expects people to do the impossible, and if the driver was driving carefully but physically unable to stop in the time available then s/he would not be at fault.

 

[flecc]

"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

And that is the crucial thing, "within the limits of a zebra crossing". The limit I'm familiar with relative to vehicles being able to stop in a controlled area such as the approach to traffic lights in 30 mph limit areas was always 30 feet. Whether that exact amount still applies to zebra crossings in these hybrid imperial/metric times I don't know, but the limiting zone of our zebra crossings is now marked by zig zag lines within which one must not park and must be able to stop for a pedestrian on a crossing or waiting at one to cross.

If a driver has already entered that limit zone before someone runs or suddenly changes walking direction onto the crossing, they are not liable for a collision that results.
.

 

[Barnowl]

First there was the motorbike, then the cyclist. The pedestrian, rather sensibly was avoiding the crossing altogether. Obviously a different culture. Would the law in the UK view the cyclist as a pedestrian? Would the law view somone riding a motorbike across as a pedestrian. Surely you should dismount at a zebra crossing (unless no ones around to see you).

 

[flecc]

Surely you should dismount at a zebra crossing (unless no ones around to see you).

Yes, there has been a case related to this, here's the findings on someone who did dismount:

"Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."
.

 

[RedSkywalker]

And that is the crucial thing, "within the limits of a zebra crossing". The limit I'm familiar with relative to vehicles being able to stop in a controlled area such as the approach to traffic lights in 30 mph limit areas was always 30 feet.

This really doesn't stand any examination when you consider that the stopping distance for a vehicle moving at 30 mph [in ideal conditions] is 75 feet and even at only 20 mph the stopping distance [in ideal conditions] is still no less than 40 feet!

So if a pedestrian stepped onto a crossing just before a vehicle came to the markings/studs they should expect to finish up in hospital because it would be impossible for the driver to stop - clearly this does not make sense.

I'm sorry flecc, but I have asked you to point to this piece of legislation several times and you have consistantly ignored all my requests. Given the wide readership of this site and the high regard in which you are held I am confident that if anyone could support your 30 foot assertion they would.

And do you think that if such a rule existed the Highway Code would simply ignore it? Yet it makes no reference to it at all - this is what it does say about Pedestrian Crossings:

195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads

do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching

be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing

That's it - not one word about not having to stop once you're over the studs or within 30 feet or anything else.

This would be very easy to resolve - just point to the legislation and I will be happy to offer up my unreserved apologies to you and everyone else and then eat a huge portion of humble-pie - but I bet you anything you like that you can't!

 

[flecc]

I'm no expert on the legislation Red, but the simple fact is that the police use the distance delineated by approach studs etc to determine whether an offence of traffic light jumping has been committed. That to me indicates that there must be such legislation, and your contention that a driver has to be able to stop in any circumstance is so ridiculous that I'm satisfied that like legislation exists for zebra crossings.

And the 30 feet was definitely the law relating to traffic lights and not a figment of my imagination, and that's why the approach markings are there, not just to decorate the road surface to make it look pretty. As I've said, the actual distance may have changed and I happily admit not knowing that.

You on the other hand make a wild assumption that vehicle stopping distances are what can determine such things. Where's your support for that? Hasn't it struck you that your position is only yours in this thread, the other contributors giving no support to it?

And you've ignored that John has posted the official support for my distance based view:

"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle"

(Bold accentuation is mine.)

In other words, if the vehicle is within those limits, the pedestrian does not have the right of way, and that's the law. The Highway Code isn't.
.

 

[Barnowl]

Interesting discussion though much of it not really related to the original video. Speaking as a motorist, a pedestrian, and a cyclist, for me, the purpose of a journey is to get from A to B as fast as possible without @*ssing anybody off. That includes me, the authorities and anyone on the journey. The finer points of the law don't really matter. What matters at a pedestrian crossing is not hurting or killing someone. That really, seriously, upsets everyone concerned. As far as the rules go my understanding is that as a pedestrian using the crossing I should give traffic plenty of time to see me and to stop before starting to cross. Traffic does not have to stop until I have moved onto the crossing. As a car driver or cyclist I must give way when someone has moved onto a crossing.
I well understand that not all pedestrians are in full possession of their wits for all sorts of reasons (The same goes for car drivers and maybe a few cyclists). But does that make a driver culpable if they do something unpredictable and dangerous. I don't believe so.
Like most drivers I slow down and stop if someone is standing at a Zebra crossing or even close to it. Like most pedestrians I wait till the traffic has stopped before stepping out in front of it. That's why most most pedestrians don't get killed or injured on pedestrian crossing. At least in the UK.

 

[john]

I'm sorry flecc, but I have asked you to point to this piece of legislation several times and you have consistantly ignored all my requests. Given the wide readership of this site and the high regard in which you are held I am confident that if anyone could support your 30 foot assertion they would.

I think perhaps you have made too much of this point. Although there doesn't appear to be any specific legislation, as I quoted above, the law says:

"...driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian..."

The exact meaning of that can only be determined by the courts and there may well be case law along the lines that flecc has stated. Police are not expert on law but they do seem to follow easy rules of thumb which are generally in line with the law.

If the disagreement is whether an accident on a zebra crossing between a car and a pedestrian is always the drivers fault, I would say that the legislation does not support that. It may well be that courts usually come down on the side of the pedestrian but I doubt that it would be 100% of the time. The court would weigh up the available evidence and judge it against its interpretation of the law.

 

[wotwozere]

Hi

Always use the green cross code, when in doubt.

If there is a bus beyined me i would usually take the kerb until it is past, but always check for people walking first.

thx

Bob

 

[Blew it]

If I were a traffic cop called to that accident, I would be very interested in the condition of the tyres on that coach.

It finally came to rest, after turning through 180 degrees, on the wrong side of the road. Assuming it had a single, double wheeled rear axle, I would have expected those six tyres to have easily cut through the standing water and maintained control.

The distance covered before coming to a standstill suggests it was aqua-planing. This may be because, either the tyres were bald, or the speed was far in excess of what was safe for the given conditions.

I'm not really sure why I've bothered to join in with the latest blazing row that Pedelecs UK forum is becoming increasingly well known for. What, exactly, IS the mission statement for this place?

'Nite all

Bob