registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618 
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Sept 13, 2024 9:30:25 GMT
I'm annoyed. I'm also tired, not having slept well because I have a head cold, and I know how this can affect my mood.
I went for a coffee this morning. The shop on the corner of a side street and a main road. Just outside the door (but slightly on an angle to the right), is a set of traffic lights, put there to facilitate pedestrians crossing the road, and traffic entering / exiting a Sainsburys car park. There are railings up, with a gap for pedestrians to cross the road, and a traffic island. Sainsburys is on the other side of the road. I was going shopping.
As I was leaving the coffee shop I looked to my left and saw nothing, looked to my right and saw traffic stopped at the lights, and moved forwards to the gap between the railings intent on crossing the road. As I did this a runner came from my left. I don't know how I hadn't seen him but I didn't. He went past close enough to brush my left shoulder but not so close as to actually bump into me.
So far no harm done.
I didn't see his dog, on a lead, either. So as I was proceeding between the railings my ankle caught on the lead between the runner (on my right) and his dog (on my left). I pulled up immediately, not knowing what was impeding me and looking down to find out. The runner did the same. Had I been older or infirm I likely would have faceplanted into the road.
So, basically, he crossed my path perpendicular to me, with a dog on a lead behind him, and I caught the lead trying to walk across the road. He saw me and my intended path before anything happened. I didn't see him or the dog.
The runner was about to square up to me when he caught the look on my face and then went on his way. I was... extremely unimpressed... with him, and was more than prepared to let him know how inconsiderate and dangerous I thought his behaviour.
What are the competing rights and expectations associated with different types of pedestrian? Who was in the right (or wrong) here? Is my annoyance justified?
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,806
Likes: 3,237
|
Post by jonno on Sept 13, 2024 10:08:17 GMT
Your annoyance is more than justified but his behaviour sums up the lack of consideration to others that prevails today. You should have done a "Springfield" and ate his dog.  |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 10:26:12 GMT
I'm annoyed. I'm also tired, not having slept well because I have a head cold, and I know how this can affect my mood. I went for a coffee this morning. The shop on the corner of a side street and a main road. Just outside the door (but slightly on an angle to the right), is a set of traffic lights, put there to facilitate pedestrians crossing the road, and traffic entering / exiting a Sainsburys car park. There are railings up, with a gap for pedestrians to cross the road, and a traffic island. Sainsburys is on the other side of the road. I was going shopping.As I was leaving the coffee shop I looked to my left and saw nothing, looked to my right and saw traffic stopped at the lights, and moved forwards to the gap between the railings intent on crossing the road. As I did this a runner came from my left. I don't know how I hadn't seen him but I didn't. He went past close enough to brush my left shoulder but not so close as to actually bump into me. So far no harm done. I didn't see his dog, on a lead, either. So as I was proceeding between the railings my ankle caught on the lead between the runner (on my right) and his dog (on my left). I pulled up immediately, not knowing what was impeding me and looking down to find out. The runner did the same. Had I been older or infirm I likely would have faceplanted into the road. So, basically, he crossed my path perpendicular to me, with a dog on a lead behind him, and I caught the lead trying to walk across the road. He saw me and my intended path before anything happened. I didn't see him or the dog. The runner was about to square up to me when he caught the look on my face and then went on his way. I was... extremely unimpressed... with him, and was more than prepared to let him know how inconsiderate and dangerous I thought his behaviour. What are the competing rights and expectations associated with different types of pedestrian? Who was in the right (or wrong) here? Is my annoyance justified? I think we need graphics...... I assume the runner was running along the pavement and you were going across it to cross the road ? If that was the case, TBH I'd have some sympathy with the view that you were more crossing his path than he yours. That said, everyone should have a duty of care to everyone else and someone running with a lead attached to an animal behind them is very clearly the one creating the hazard, and one that others may not easily spot - not least because they aren't expecting it. If he thought you hadn't seen him he should have at least shouted in advance and be ready to come to a halt rather than cut across you. That is a matter of courtesy and common sense rather than rights I'd say.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Sept 13, 2024 10:37:54 GMT
I think it's probably fair to say that we crossed each others' paths, but he was aware of me whilst I was unaware of him. And he was the one going at speed. I'm not sure whether or not I am right in this, but I've always considered that the onus to... avoid... situations is on the one going faster (I've no idea if this is formalised in the Highway Code for eg cars either).
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 10:53:14 GMT
I think it's probably fair to say that we crossed each others' paths, but he was aware of me whilst I was unaware of him. And he was the one going at speed. I'm not sure whether or not I am right in this, but I've always considered that the onus to... avoid... situations is on the one going faster (I've no idea if this is formalised in the Highway Code for eg cars either). The highway code NOW formalises concept of hierarchy - updates made in latest issue Jan/Feb '21 but might have been Jan/Feb '22). That is based on 'vulnerability' and works on classes of road users, but I don't think has a "speed" variable as such. So hierarchy of "priority" goes from pedestrian (most vulnerable), horses, cyclists, motorbikes, cars, vans, lorries etc. So there is a responsibility of the least vulnerable/lower in the hierarchy to give consideration/priority to the more vulnerable/highest in the hierarchy. And indeed, in the absence of other facts an element of assumption of responsibility for incidents accordingly. I'm not sure the HW code will cover such outliers as runner-with-dog-meets-man-on-foot. However, as a general principle, they are creating the greater hazard by virtue of having a trailing dog shaped object attached to them and going at speed. So morally I think the onus is on them, and in the event that it had resulted in injury you might well have had a case to chase them (under household PLI perhaps). As an example of the hierarchy, on mixed / shared pedestrian and cyclist paths, pedestrians have priority (unless signage says otherwise, in which case it is a cycle path with pedestrian use allowed). Regardless...if I was cycling on a cycle path and coming up to a pedestrian with their back to me or coming towards me and staring into space/talking to their mate not looking where they are going, I will always shout out to let them know I am there, and to advise which side of them I am going to pass. And slow down and ready to come to a stop if they are mindless idiots taking no note of the world around them while wearing ear buds.... EDIT: though I should add I wouldn't need hierarchy codified in the HW Code to do this. Its courtey, common sense (and an element of self-preservation as well).
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Sept 13, 2024 10:55:14 GMT
Oh yeah he was wearing buds too.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 13, 2024 11:48:07 GMT
Glad you weren't injured anyway, registerme . I would say the person moving at much greater speed represents the greater hazard, so it behoves him/her to take the greater care. Now add in a dog on a lead and that hazard at least doubles in magnitude. A runner with a dog on a lead on city pavements is just crying out to cause an injury. It is nothing short of irresponsible in my book. There are plenty of fields and parks to go running, open spaces where you won't trip normal pedestrians over. I'd say your instinctive reaction was perfectly correct. EDIT: Pedestrians aren't expected to be familiar with the Highway Code, so, while the hierarchical argument is entirely valid, it perhaps doesn't apply in this circumstance. |
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Sept 13, 2024 12:06:37 GMT
It could have been worse registerme. Instead of a getting tangled with the dog lead, it could have been with the e-scooter / e-bike travelling @ 40Mph. It’s ridiculous these dangerous toys are allowed on the road without licensing or regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 12:10:10 GMT
It could have been worse registerme . Instead of a getting tangled with the dog lead, it could have been with the e-scooter / e-bike travelling @ 40Mph. It’s ridiculous these dangerous toys are allowed on the road without licensing or regulation. they aren't. But that probably isn't quite what you mean.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Sept 13, 2024 12:13:33 GMT
It could have been worse registerme . Instead of a getting tangled with the dog lead, it could have been with the e-scooter / e-bike travelling @ 40Mph. It’s ridiculous these dangerous toys are allowed on the road without licensing or regulation. they aren't. But that probably isn't quite what you mean. Well, some delivery app riders are definitely riding them, perhaps illegally but they carry on doing business with them. I guess they don’t have third party insurance when they collide with someone else, and definitely don’t pay any road tax
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 12:21:43 GMT
they aren't. But that probably isn't quite what you mean. Well, some delivery app riders are definitely riding them, perhaps illegally but they carry on doing business with them. I guess they don’t have third party insurance when they collide with someone else, and definitely don’t pay any road tax I doubt it would be at all possible for them to have 3rd party insurance for the simple overriding reason that they are illegal. Unless you are talking about electric motorbikes, which are. But I don't think that is what you are referring to. Yes souped up e-bikes (delimited) and indeed e-scooters are being used, on roads and indeed on pavements. They are however not allowed to do so and are illegal. Frankly if you are seeing them being used by delivery drivers I'd be inclined to take a photo and send it on to the firm. The firm of course will likely shrug its shoulders as their delivery guys will I'm sure be self-employed.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Sept 13, 2024 12:28:02 GMT
So tell me, has the media reported anyone sentenced to prison for using e-bike or e-scooter on the road yet?
AFAIK, lime bikes are “allowed” on the road and limited to <15 mph. However, I have seen some enthusiasts modding their bike to a fast e-bike.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 13, 2024 12:58:24 GMT
AFAIK, lime bikes are “allowed” on the road and limited to <15 mph. However, I have seen some enthusiasts modding their bike to a fast e-bike. Owning five e-bikes, and having ridden e-bikes for over 30 years now (I was an early adopter), I feel qualified to comment. It definitely happens. And you don't even need to mod the bike yourself, you can buy them ready made, quite legally, online or from a high street shop. Unless riding on private land with permission, you are then required to affix number plates, have a licence, road tax, wear a helmet, have insurance, etc, because it's classed as a light moped once it has a motor above 250w continuous or can exceed 15mph under engine power (pedal power alone, or rolling downhill, over 15mph is allowed). Yes, a lot of people ignore the law, as they do with e-scooters. The police are only just beginning to sniff around e-bikes, but I think progress will be slow to non-existent. Mine are all legit, sub-15mph BTW. 15mph is quite adequate on a bicycle for me. I would not want to injure a pedestrian on an illegal bike, even more so with no insurance.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 13, 2024 13:02:17 GMT
So tell me, has the media reported anyone sentenced to prison for using e-bike or e-scooter on the road yet? AFAIK, lime bikes are “allowed” on the road and limited to <15 mph. However, I have seen some enthusiasts modding their bike to a fast e-bike. Its not just Lime bikes (or similar). E-Cycles are entirely legal to be owned and ridden by private individuals as well. Providing they fall into the category of "electrically assisted pedal bike". Limited to 250W, assistance only not sole powered, limited to 15.5mph and rider > 14 y/o. Anything outside of that - e.g. a bike which is capable of being electrically propelled without being pedalled don't qualify. Since they have no separate classification, they would either fall into e.g. Mopeds (thanks bernythedolt ) or that catch-all category of 'other motorised vehicle'. Which would then mean they would need to comply with a whole raft of DVLA requirements as they have no separate carve out of their own. E-Scooters fall into the same category, as they don't (yet) have their own carve out.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Sept 13, 2024 13:05:31 GMT
I can’t remember if Lime bike or similar needs proof of age, definitely seen a bunch of very young teenagers riding them on the road, most likely under 14, so have they been sent to juvenile prison for riding them?
|
|
