Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

[beardy]

Or the driver, forced into making a snap decision by the reckless actions of the cyclist, thought it better to drive around the cyclist than to try and stop and nearly took you out but didnt despite your reckless actions.

Then no they are not in the wrong and quite entitled to give you an earful.

[beardy]

The idea that cyclists come before pedestrians in the hierarchy is a joke.

Is it?

So now I (big bloke around 90Kg) can walk infront of a ten year old on a bike when they have priority and it is their fault because they are on a bike and I am vulnerable?

I think some jokes are bigger than others.

Reductio ad Absurdum doesn't make your point valid, sorry.

The point remains valid though. It shows that the hierarchy is flawed by giving a clear example where the cyclist is more vulnerable than the pedestrian. In actual practice the vulnerability will be more balanced than that but in reality the vulnerability depends more on the people involved than on whether one has a bike or not.

[reohn2]

Again the entire point of all my posts has been missed and far too much attention has been given to the detail in this one scenario.
Probably my fault by responding to individual posts which try to rubbish my point by using it...

I see the point you've been making throughout but in these particular set of circumstances don't agree.
However as for a general point of stop if in doubt about the outcome,and give way to pedestrians if at all possible I agree with.

[kwackers]

Or the driver, forced into making a snap decision by the reckless actions of the cyclist, thought it better to drive around the cyclist than to try and stop and nearly took you out but didnt despite your reckless actions.

Then no they are not in the wrong and quite entitled to give you an earful.

When I said "being in a position to stop" I was implying that they had enough time to make a decision. I'm not about to give someone a hard time for a snap decision.

Mind you, imo often snap decisions are nothing of the sort and more a side effect of not paying attention in the first place...

[[XAP]Bob]

So you define the basis of the hierarchy (i.e. vulnerability) and then give the example of horse<ped<cyclist<motorcyclist<car, but noting that the individuals in the most vulnerable categories could result in a reversal of the order given (e.g. a prop forward on foot is clearly less vulnerable than a nonogenarian on a Rayleigh shopper).

With the basic concept established it is then for specific changes to be demonstrated. The car cannot be moved down the list though...

[beardy]

That's not my point, my point is simply that claiming something is a non-event doesn't make the event invalid.

I am not saying the event is invalid but she didnt cause it, he did. Her close pass was a reaction to his crossing the road infront of her when traffic controls said that he should not. The near collision was caused by his actions not hers. She did however manage to avoid it so hindsight shows her actions were actually correct.
On the other hand we have no hindsight available to check how things would have turned out if she had attempted to stop. She may have stopped Ok, she may have lost control and fell or ran into him or she may have been tail-ended. What we do know is that her chosen course of action was successful in avoiding that collision.

[beardy]

So you define the basis of the hierarchy (i.e. vulnerability) and then give the example of horse<ped<cyclist<motorcyclist<car, but noting that the individuals in the most vulnerable categories could result in a reversal of the order given (e.g. a prop forward on foot is clearly less vulnerable than a nonogenarian on a Rayleigh shopper).

With the basic concept established it is then for specific changes to be demonstrated. The car cannot be moved down the list though...

That seems like a logical approach.

As for moving a car down the list, how about pedestrians pushing a concrete football pitch roller into the path of a Smart Car.

[Velo]

I'd be interested in how this discussion would had gone if she had attempted to stop and was then hit from behind. I'd imagine there would have been a number of people saying that there was plenty of space to avoid the pedestrian or that it would be foolish to stop coming through a junction on a green light etc.

So your argument is that we should never stop?

If your hit from behind then the issue it the guy behind you, not the reason you stopped.

That is a rather peculiar and reductive reading of my post. The point I am making, perhaps unsuccessfully, is a little more nuanced. Before giving way to a pedestrian, you should (ideally) apprise yourself of what is going on behind you to avoid a potentially more serious conflict as a significant proportion of road users following you through a busy, traffic light controlled junction will not be expecting you to give way. Wherever possible, I give way to pedestrians, but occasionally, if the conditions are not conducive for stopping, I continue, slow/speed up, or change direction. "Stopping" is an important part of a cyclist's defensive riding tool-kit, but it is not always appropriate or safe to do so.

[kwackers]

That is a rather peculiar and reductive reading of my post. The point I am making, perhaps unsuccessfully, is a little more nuanced. Before giving way to a pedestrian, you should (ideally) apprise yourself of what is going on behind you to avoid a potentially more serious conflict as a significant proportion of road users following you through a busy, traffic light controlled junction will not be expecting you to give way. Wherever possible, I give way to pedestrians, but occasionally, if the conditions are not conducive for stopping, I continue, slow/speed up, or change direction. "Stopping" is an important part of a cyclist's defensive riding tool-kit, but it is not always appropriate or safe to do so.

Sounds perfectly sensible, but I rather thought you were offering a more black and white view of things.

FWIW green lights don't mean 'Go' they simply mean 'give way'.

[beardy]

FWIW green lights don't mean 'Go' they simply mean 'give way'.

Give Way instructions place a restriction on a road user that green lights do not.
Green lights do not order the driver passing a green light to give way to those passing the red light for instance or even those waiting to cross the traffic flow who have a green light and in addition must give way to those going straight ahead.

[kwackers]

Give Way instructions place a restriction on a road user that green lights do not.
Green lights do not order the driver passing a green light to give way to those passing the red light for instance or even those waiting to cross the traffic flow who have a green light and in addition must give way to those going straight ahead.

I've paraphrased:

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear"

Which to all intensive purposes means you should 'give way' to any vehicle, person, tree or other foreign body or alien that happens to be blocking your way.

[beardy]

"GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear"

Which to all intensive purposes means you should 'give way' to any vehicle, person, tree or other foreign body or alien that happens to be blocking your way.

Which is true when there isnt a green light too. Not that you are actually giving way to something that is already there.

A "Give Way" sign means you also have to give priority to things which are not in your way but you may get in theirs.
Which would cover the situation with this cyclist and pedestrian in their first encounter. Where as the pedestrian had no law stating that he must give way he did have a highway code saying that he should give way.

If a pedestrian steps out in front of me despite me having priority, I will just cycle around behind them if I have time. That fits in with a general policy of giving way to pedestrians. If they do it too close to steer around them then it is just a matter of not colliding.

Where I have priority I only have to allow, in advance, enough safety space to avoid collision, not to avoid the possibility of a close pass. That doesnt extend to doing a gratuitous close pass just because you have right of way but it doesnt make you wrong for not endangering yourself with emergency measures to avoid the resulting close pass.
Where they have priority I have to avoid the possibility of a close pass or causing them distress or to have to change speed or direction because of my presence.

[kwackers]

Where I have priority I only have to allow, in advance, enough safety space to avoid collision, not to avoid the possibility of a close pass. That doesnt extend to doing a gratuitous close pass just because you have right of way but it doesnt make you wrong for not endangering yourself with emergency measures to avoid the resulting close pass.
Where they have priority I have to avoid the possibility of a close pass or causing them distress or to have to change speed or direction because of my presence.

Have enough close passes and eventually one of them wont be. That's the whole principle of the 'Risk Pyramid'.

Of course if you really had to take emergency measures then there's no discussion but IMO the OP didn't require any emergency measures at all, merely to slow down a little and possibly move right, although I do consider her to be a fairly borderline case.
As generalisation thing you don't have to look too hard to find cyclists/motorists who simply have no intention of slowing down.

[AlanJ]

If you mean giving him the finger there is no firm evidence she did, maybe she pointed at him when asking not to be knocked off as his response is "don't you raise your finger at me"

In the video he said "You wanna put your finger up at me". There is no evidence she did, but then I find it difficult to think people, even in London, would resort to this kind of action against women without antagonism. He seems to be a yob, but what motive would he have for saying that, why not just push her off? I don't believe he knew the camera was running and saying that would hardly justify the following shove. I imagine she probably gave him the finger after he called her a mug.

OK got what he said wrong but pointing at him could still fit what he said. Could've been the finger, no one can tell from that video. But what motive would he have for running after her and pushing her into the road?

[Ellieb]

What motive could anyone have for pushing a woman off her bike and into the road? You know those people in pubs who object to the way you look at their girlfriend?