Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve G on November 26, 2015 at 5:02am

50% pedestrian, 50% cyclist. Pedestrian was jaywalking, cyclist has to avoid hitting him in any case.  Since he couldn't, he was going to fast for conditions, and there was nothing obstructing the cyclist's view to mitigate his responsibility. Also the cyclist didn't signal his lane change, and was breaking that law at the time of the accident. 

But in a court of intelligence the pedestrian would be convicted of being a dumbaxx. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on November 26, 2015 at 5:50am

That almost looked deliberately staged. But two doofuses don't make a right. Both.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve G on November 26, 2015 at 6:37am

Two doofuses make a duofus. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on November 26, 2015 at 2:52pm

I think this type of thing (or the situation with the taxi) could happen to any of us. A temporary lapse in attention could easily cause this accident (or worse). Pedestrians jaywalking and going fast/slow/fast can make it difficult to judge when they are going to be in your path so as a cyclist, slowing down/stopping could help avoid this from happening if unsure of what is going to happen next. I agree, I think this is the fault of both the cyclist and the pedestrian. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Irvin Steinert on November 27, 2015 at 2:00pm

I don't know the laws in that town or country but I would guess that pedestrian crossing in that location is illegal. The cyclist should be going slower in that situation but that is a judgement call and probably he was not breaking any speed laws. The man crossing should have been more diligent and not entered the roadway unless he could cross in a single movement at a consistent speed therefore allowing other users of the roadway to easily predict his actions; he did not anticipate the cyclist passing the vehicle (the one with the recording camera) but since he saw the other cyclist do this also he should have thought that it could be possible for it to happen again even if a normal person could expect a repeat occurrence in a short time span to be a to be a low probability.

As far as regulatory compliance goes, if "jaywalking" is illegal  (without discussion of morality) in this location, then both both are potential recipients of fair judgement against them: one for jaywalking and one for too fast for circumstances (if such a law or legal precedence exists in that location). The laws and most particularly the application of those laws an area have much to do with the expectations of actions of what any individual person might do.

In absence of laws then neither has any fault at all, both would be at zero percent fault.

I believe that laws exist and that and expectation of normalcy exists in this scenario as there are many indicators displayed. Since it is simply not "normal" that pedestrians expect free reign over all treadable areas and that all vehicles should yield to their motions no matter how unpredictable and, as well, that it is normal and expected for any motion in the roadway be parallel to and within the edges of the roadway my judgement leans in favor of the cyclist where he could potentially be granted monetary compensation and that the pedestrian should not be allowed any monetary compensation.

• ▶ Reply