Cycling on the pavement

[NickT]

I quite often see adults cycling on the pavement on Lordship Lane but last night I finally witnessed one causing an accident. A cyclist in his thirties I would guess, passed me at speed on the pavement opposite House of Tipler, he went straight into the side of a small car pulling out of the small gated estate on the west side of the lane. The car was nudging out slowly and the driver could never have seen the fast moving cyclist. The cyclist appeared to go across the bonnet landing on the far side. The cyclist seemed shocked and winded but it was the young driver I felt sorry for. I hung around to make sure the cyclist didn't blame the driver for the incident. I guess because cyclist aren't required to be insured the driver will have to pay for the damage to his car which seems very unfair.

[Lowlander]

You value an inanimate object more than a human being?!

[NickT]

Lowlander a dumb human being that puts others at risk by his thoughtless, careless and illegal behaviour?.....sure.

There are children, dogs, elderly people etc on the pavement, he had no concern for their safety, why should I be concerned about his.

[Lowlander]

Statistically speaking you're more likely to be struck by lightning, win the lottery or be killed by a motorist going through a red light than be hit by a person riding a bicycle on the pavement.

So what's your point - are you lumping lemmings like the one you describe with all cyclists in a ploy to bash cyclists?

It just sounds like you've been waiting your entire life to view an accident like the one you desribe!

[intexasatthe moment]

Lowlander give NickT a break .

Just because some motorists are irresponsible/bad drivers it doesn't follow that all cyclists are beyond reproach and can cause no harm .

And I'm a car driver and life long cyclist .

[Cyclemonkey]

Lowlander, whilst accidents are alway horrid for those involved cycling on the pavement is illegal and dangerous. I am a cyclist but being an adult i cycle on the road. I am increasingly irritated by cyclists who peddle at speed up the wide pavement at the Peckham Rye end of East Dulwich road. On Tuesday i was nearly hit by a cyclist as i walked down to the bus stop outside the Costcutter.

[Lowlander]

And that's something I totally agree with, I've had arguments with such nutters myself.

The OP's first post read like he had no concern for the injured lemming, that's what I have an issue with.

[Cyclemonkey]

I didn't read it like that at all. As someone who cycles i feel strongly about the fact that cyclists should be respected as road users and given the space they need to cycle safely. However there is never an excuse for riding dangerously, especially on pavements.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Clearly a grown man cycling at speed on the pavement is an idiot. It doesn't mean that I take satisfaction in seeing him hurt. I too feel sorry for the car driver, but my immediate concern in such a situation would be for the well being of the potentially injured man. I think this is Lowlanders point. Thankfully, I think this type of incident is extremely rare.

[NickT]

I am a cyclist, love my fixie, It just annoys me when my two wheeled colleagues pass me at the red lights or ride on the pavement, we don't have any special rights because we aren't polluting. I'm not bashing cyclists, just the few idiots like the guy yesterday.

[henryb]

The car driver was at fault too. He should have checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210

[reeko]

I have to say I have limited sympathy with people who do not take responsibility for their own safety. Anyone can have an accident, but the behaviour as described sound pretty wreckless to me. I feel the same way about cyclist with ear phones in. Only today a cyclist overtook me on a corner, which was bad enough, she had ear phones in and couldn't hear the rubbish truck coming the other way around the corner. She was forced into my path and I had to take evasive action. In this case, had she been injured by the lorry, my symapthy for her would absolutley have been limited due to her wrecklessness. Why should I have concern for people who show limited concern for themselves and others?

[NickT]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The car driver was at fault too. He should have

> checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

>

>

> https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care

> -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210

I don't see how the driver could have been more cautious, his driveway joins Lordship Lane beside a shop and he came out very slowly until he had a view from his side window by which time the cyclist was in the air.

I was walking towards the driveway as the cyclist came past me, it was like a slow motion film. I actually think other pedestrians blocked the cyclists view of the car til the last minute. Had the cyclist been on the road this would never have happened.

[jimbo1964]

Oh for God's sake don't start all this crap again it's been done to death.

There was a road going cyclist killed yesterday outside Dulwich College by a lorry. Maybe that's more worthy of discussion?

[LadyDeliah]

Agreed Jimbo1964

[ruffers]

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> struck by lightning, win the lottery or be killed

> by a motorist going through a red light than be

> hit by a person riding a bicycle on the pavement.

Great stat - what's the source please?

[JohnL]

does seem a strange stat - unless he means a tenner win :)

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> > struck by lightning, win the lottery or be

> killed

> > by a motorist going through a red light than be

> > hit by a person riding a bicycle on the

> pavement.

>

> Great stat - what's the source please?

[LadyDeliah]

Apparently 5 people per year are killed by lightening: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-282884

And "According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.

...

"Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The car driver was at fault too. He should have

> checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear.

>

>

> https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care

> -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210

Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as described by the OP.

Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than just reading it.

[Lowlander]

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Statistically speaking you're more likely to be

> > struck by lightning, win the lottery or be

> killed

> > by a motorist going through a red light than be

> > hit by a person riding a bicycle on the

> pavement.

>

> Great stat - what's the source please?

LadyDeliah kindly gives the lightning and red lights

Lottery is 1 in 14 million (and I mean the jackpot). Plus you have to buy a ticket, which increases the odds :-)

[miga]

.

[henryb]

> Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as

> described by the OP.

>

> Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed

> wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the

> chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then

> reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than

> just reading it.

We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The car was on the pavement and clearly the driver hadn't looked carefully either way before driving on to it - otherwise they would have seen the cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at fault too. However not being able to see is not an excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are driving on the pavement.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as

> > described by the OP.

> >

> > Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed

> > wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the

> > chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then

> > reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than

> > just reading it.

>

> We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The

> car was on the pavement and clearly the driver

> hadn't looked carefully either way before driving

> on to it - otherwise they would have seen the

> cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at

> fault too. However not being able to see is not an

> excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are

> driving on the pavement.

The cyclist rode into the side of the car. The car didn't hit the cyclist. The cyclist was on the pavement. Cyclist 100% to blame.

[edhistory]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The

> car was on the pavement

[henryb]

Rule 206

"Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"

Did the driver do that? No.