Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bessacarr425

Cyclists -- Take out insurance.

Recommended Posts

I guess we have to remember that everyone has a right to use the pavement including the elderly, infirm, young, erratic, ill, etc.

 

In theory you have to assume that they could do anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a new  offence? 'Walking without due care and attention'? It's entirely sensible for the pedestrian, being more vulnerable, to have right of way if she or she has started to cross the road; but that pedestrian must have his/her own duty of care to self and others by putting the phone to 1 side for the less than 10 seconds it takes to concentrate on not ending up in hospital or on a mortuary slab.

I have had both hips replaced and whilst using crutches, I was regularly put at risk by morons staring at their phone instead of looking where they were going; or, worse still, that peculiar practice of emerging from a shop entrance, not only not looking, but looking backwards into the shop to converse with their friend - quite Pythonesque ...

 

Steve

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, marchie1053 said:

Time for a new  offence? 'Walking without due care and attention'? It's entirely sensible for the pedestrian, being more vulnerable, to have right of way if he or she has started to cross the road; but that pedestrian must have his/her own duty of care to self and others by putting the phone to 1 side for the less than 10 seconds it takes to concentrate on not ending up in hospital or on a mortuary slab.

I have had both hips replaced and whilst using crutches, I was regularly put at risk by morons staring at their phone instead of looking where they were going; or, worse still, that peculiar practice of emerging from a shop entrance, not only not looking, but looking backwards into the shop to converse with their friend - quite Pythonesque ...

Steve

 

But aren't you then effectively saying that some people can't be allowed out on their own as they would be at risk of causing offence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was something on the news recently and it may be China where they have started painting road signs on pavements for the pedestrians who are looking at their phones all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/06/2019 at 12:06, Paul1957 said:

There was something on the news recently and it may be China where they have started painting road signs on pavements for the pedestrians who are looking at their phones all the time.

Shame that this didn't happen in Honolulu. He would have been exonerated and she would have been fined. Read my post, "Honolulu", posted in the Social Club section on Oct 26 2017. (I'd post a link but I'm a techno dummy and don't know how to do it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same in Switzerland...I was warned for crossing a road and not using a proper lit section, as a tourist I was let off....

 

geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A British Cycling membership covers the cyclist in the event of any incident or accident...    British Cycling link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/06/2019 at 10:40, bobthevanman said:

  I am a cyclist and welcome this ruling due to the amount of arrogant/irresponsible cyclists I constantly witness who think it is their divine right to cycle at speed anywhere without a thought for pedestrians..........

......or horses.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/06/2019 at 10:40, bobthevanman said:

  I am a cyclist and welcome this ruling due to the amount of arrogant/irresponsible cyclists I constantly witness who think it is their divine right to cycle at speed anywhere without a thought for pedestrians. 

 

 

Including pedestrians that walk on to the road without looking?

 

Pavements are for pedestrians - roads are for vehicles in my book but in everyday life you will find someone with power from the planet Stupid that says otherwise when all it requires is a little common sense in the reality of the world. Oh sorry, he / she is from the planet Stupid - hence the  HC rule.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 days ago, my wife and I were walking along the footpath, side by side, and looked up to see an 'adult'[solely in the legal age aspect], cycling at speed towards us, whilst reading his phone. Mrs Marchie stood her ground and the spokesmoron swerved at the last moment to avoid a collision, before remonstrating volubly.

I confined my response to procreation and travel and asked if he'd ever read the Highway Code. By my estimate, he was riding at about/over 20mph and was just about dead centre of the footpath, so no escape route.

The Funfair [misnomer if ever there was one] sets up camp on the Links, opposite the footpath for 3 months each year, and the road is jammed with parked cars in a designated parking lane, leaving 2 carriageways with ample room for cars and bikes to travel easily and safely, as long as you're not reading your phone. But, the footpath is hemmed in by the parked vehicles on the right and metal railing fences to the properties lining the road on the left. So there was nowhere to go to avoid this idiot with phone and bike.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/06/2019 at 23:28, hawkaye said:

 

An implied extension of HC Rule 170 which applies to pedestrians crossing at junctions, some of the rule says, "If they (pedestrians) have started to cross they have priority, so (vehicles and cycles) give way."

Rule 170 only applies when the vehicle is turning into a side road which a pedestrian is crossing.  I do not see how it is relevant to this case.  The judge reasoned that, although the cyclist had right of way, he could see that his path was obstructed and did not take sufficient care to avoid a collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...