accident help

mileburner wrote:
Matthew Brealey wrote:

The pedestrian has right of way. We don't know where the bicycle came
from, but I'm confused that the cyclist apparently *saw* the
pedestrian but thought that ringing his bell to make the pedestrian
get out of the way was an appropriate course of action.

It does seem a bit bizarre thet the cyclist was ringing his bell
instead of braking. I guess that if you do that and *expect* others
to get out of the way you deserve to have an accident.

It is not uncommon for people to become fixated on a single (and often
wrong) course of action in an emergency. Such fixation explains a number of
accidents; pulling the wrong lever, pushing on a door which should be
pulled, etc. Ringing the cycle bell rather than braking could be a similar
occurance.

Difficult to comment on the specifics of the case above as I didn't see it.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Nick wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 13 June, 18:35, Nick wrote:
snips


A bicycle weighs, nett, of the order of 10Kg. The rider weighs of the
order of 80Kg. So the weight of the rider is around 87% of the weight
of the whole gross weight. So if the weight of the rider moves
rearwards with respect to the wheelbase, the centre of gravity of the
whole assembly moves back, which means that more braking force can be
exerted at the front wheel without lifting the back wheel.


But it isn't a solid object. The rider's weight is now applied to the
handlebars and pedals. The bike underneath the rider will start to
rotate. This rotation will take the bars and hence the rider's hands
forward. So which part of this is wrong?

if you don't belive the idea, try it on a steep hill, thats why MTB's
will hang back off the bars etc.

this said for full on "oh ****!" moments normally it's over before
you've had a chance to do much movement.

If you don't believe me, borrow a bicycle from someone and try it (if
you can't ride a bicycle, the physics are the same for a tricycle).

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Nick wrote:

Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:56:24 +0100
Nick wrote:

But it isn't a solid object. The rider's weight is now applied to the
handlebars and pedals. The bike underneath the rider will start to
rotate. This rotation will take the bars and hence the rider's hands
forward. So which part of this is wrong?

Initially most of the rider's weight is on the saddle, with the pedals
supporting his legs and the handlebars supporting his arms.
Then he straightens his legs and arms and sticks his bum out behind the
saddle. This shifts his centre of mass behind the pedals, so he has
to pull on the bars in order to stop himself falling off the back of the
bike.

It's an emergency stop the force from his arms will be to stop himself
moving forwards, i.e. pushing forward on the bars.


As the bars are higher than the pedals this has the effect of
rotating him (and the bike) backwards, which counteracts the tendency to
rotate forwards caused by braking.


The critical force to stop rotation will be the down force on the
pedals. Given that he is moving off the saddle in an uncomfortable way
whilst starting to brake (I just tried it) he will be losing stability
and I suspect his legs will not be able to offer the same initial down
force as his arse on the saddle would.

the main issue with moving is the time, in a about town ped steps out,
you are unlikley to get the time to move back much, much better to
anticpate.

He will also be losing the normal additional control that his legs have
on saddle to prevent sideways movement of the back of the bike that can
occur in an emergency stop.

not likely people seem to manage to control bikes off road very well
while off the saddle, the rear tire is normally very easy to cope with,
don't often have to do emergency stops but i do ride in all weathers and
standing with the rear tire scrabbling for grip isn't a problem, the
front yes, rear no.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

Señor Chris wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
Rob Morley considered Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:09:53
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:12 +0100 (BST)
(Terry) wrote:

Sorry to hear that, hope you recover quickly. In addition to the
other advice on avoiding rotating over the the handlebar, it helps if
you apply the rear brake first, even if only milliseconds before the
front. Not easy to remember in an emergency though.
This helps how, exactly?

If a little rear brake is maintained, the back wheel locking will
provide warning before it actually lifts.

The lifting point can be felt without the loss of control caused by a
rear wheel slide.

indeed i find that it's quite easy to feel the point, on both wheels.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman

On 15 June, 11:42, Matthew Brealey wrote:
On 15 June, 09:20, Toom Tabard wrote:





On 15 June, 00:04, Matthew *Brealey wrote:

On 14 June, 22:10, Toom Tabard wrote:

On 14 June, 21:54, Matthew *Brealey wrote:

On 13 June, 14:23, spindrift wrote:

On 13 June, 14:11, Shumit wrote:

I broke a rib last year this way. A ped crossed the road against a red
man holding a mobile against her ear- on my side. She didn't respond
to my bell and carried on so I jammed on the brakes and the bars
twisted.

I don't quite understand. You saw her, you saw she wasn't paying
attention, but you didn't take evasive action but instead expected her
to jump out of te way. Jaywalking btw is not a crime, if there are no
cars, it's quite usual for pedestrains to cross.

But that doesn't mean the pedestrian can cross without regard to the
safety of others. It would depend on the actual circumstances of any
particular case but *the general legal principle regarding liability
would be that the pedestrian and cyclist each owe the other a
reasonable duty of care. Crossing against a red man. not looking, and
concentrating on answering a mobile phone would normally indicate some
degree of negligence. And the cyclist would have an obligation to *try
to avoid or mitigate any collision. His liability would depend on the
reasonableness of his actions in the particular circumstances.

The pedestrian has right of way. We don't know where the bicycle came
from, but I'm confused that the cyclist apparently *saw* the
pedestrian but thought that ringing his bell to make the pedestrian
get out of the way was an appropriate course of action.

If I'm in my car and I see a pedestrian crossing the road ahead,
stupid or not, I have no choice but to stop. Beeping my horn and then
running them over is not an option. A slow dim-witted pedestrian on
his mobile in a typical urban situation is exactly the sort of hazard
that the pilot of a vehicle must be able to stop in time to avoid,
whether they be a car driver or a cyclist.

'Ding ding' does not mean 'you must move or I hit you' any more than a
car's horn does.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The pedestrian has no 'right of way' on the road.

They do somethimes.

Highway Code 170
"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning.
If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way "

The fact that jaywalking is not an offence, does not mean you can walk onto the
roadway regardless of the consequences. All road users, including
pedestrians, owe other road users a reasonable duty of care.

Indeed they do, although the pedestrian crossing the road at a
junction as per Highway Code 170 has every right to assume that he
will not have vehicles coming round the corner and trying to bully him
out of the road, and therefore strolling across while talking on his
phone is not unreasonable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

!70 is irrelevant in the instance described. And see also "rules for
pedestrians 1-35, including

"8
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning
into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started
crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority
and they should give way (see Rule 170)."

Note the detail " look out for traffic turning into the road" - you
have no right to assume that there are not vehicles coming round the
corner - you have to check - having done that, if you have determined
it is safe to cross, then once you have then "started crossing" cross
you have priority.

Simply strolling out clutching a mobile phone to your ear would be
considered negligent and unreasonable


"7 Crossing the Road

B. Stop just before you get to the kerb, where you can see if anything
is coming. Do not get too close to the traffic. If there’s no
pavement, keep back from the edge of the road but make sure you can
still see approaching traffic.

C. Look all around for traffic and listen. Traffic could come from any
direction. Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic
before you see it.

D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and
listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you
are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is
a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."

The circumstances regarding civil liability for negligence and
contributory liability are exactly as I described. The Highway Code
provides guidance on some issues in particular road situations which
may be taken into consideration in deciding civil legal liabillty in
these particular circumstances. The basic principles are in any
introductory text on negligence and for road accident cases, see the
cases cited in eg 'Bingham's Motor Claims Cases' published by Sweet
and Maxwell.

Toom

On 15 June, 11:47, Matthew Brealey wrote:
On 15 June, 11:42, Matthew *Brealey wrote:

Indeed they do, although the pedestrian crossing the road at a
junction as per Highway Code 170 has every right to assume that he
will not have vehicles coming round the corner and trying to bully him
out of the road, and therefore strolling across while talking on his
phone is not unreasonable.- Hide quoted text -

Also there is 198

"Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has
changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings."

Indeed, in general any green light is not 'Go'; it is 'Go if it is
safe to do so' We have no evidence or information that it is relevan
tin this case.

Toom

On 15 June, 12:30, "Nigel Cliffe" wrote:
mileburner wrote:
Matthew Brealey wrote:

The pedestrian has right of way. We don't know where the bicycle came
from, but I'm confused that the cyclist apparently *saw* the
pedestrian but thought that ringing his bell to make the pedestrian
get out of the way was an appropriate course of action.

It does seem a bit bizarre thet the cyclist was ringing his bell
instead of braking. I guess that if you do that and *expect* others
to get out of the way you deserve to have an accident.

It is not uncommon for people to become fixated on a single (and often
wrong) course of action in an emergency. *Such fixation explains a number of
accidents; pulling the wrong lever, pushing on a door which should be
pulled, etc. *Ringing the cycle bell rather than braking could be a similar
occurance.

Difficult to comment on the specifics of the case above as I didn't see it.

Phil W Lee wrote:
Señor Chris considered Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:35:37
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
Rob Morley considered Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:09:53
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:12 +0100 (BST)
(Terry) wrote:

Sorry to hear that, hope you recover quickly. In addition to the
other advice on avoiding rotating over the the handlebar, it helps if
you apply the rear brake first, even if only milliseconds before the
front. Not easy to remember in an emergency though.
This helps how, exactly?
If a little rear brake is maintained, the back wheel locking will
provide warning before it actually lifts.
The lifting point can be felt without the loss of control caused by a
rear wheel slide.

A slight rear wheel slide does not cause loss of control.
once the rear wheel lifts, control has been lost, in that peak braking
can no longer be maintained once the centre of mass has moved upwards
and forwards.

It is possible to feel the rear wheel about to lift before it actually
does, allowing the rider to keep the rear wheel on the ground without
locking it up.

Quoting Nick :
Simon Brooke wrote:
forward. You can increase the effect by getting out of the saddle and
pushing your backside out over the back wheel; this moves the centre
of gravity of the bike backwards and will enable you to use much more
braking force without being thrown over the bars.
Can't see this myself. Once your arse is off the saddle the centre of
gravity moves forwards and the bike is far likelier to rotate.

There's a confusion between two factors here. If you anticipate in advance
the need to brake (like a mountain biker approaching a descent) then
sticking yourself behind the saddle does change the relative positions of
the CoG and the front contact point. But if you're already in an emergency
braking situation, these gymnastics do you no good at all.
--
David Damerell Oil is for sissies
Today is Second Brieday, June.

On Jun 13, 2:23*pm, spindrift wrote:
On 13 June, 14:11, Shumit wrote:

Someone pulled out in front of me and I went over the handle bars when
braking and didnt hit the car - probably one of hundreds in London
yesterday. Two things I wanted to know are would it have been better
if I had actually hit the car - for me I mean - and do I sue for
personal injury? happily no broken bones but several loose teeth that
may require a lot of work.

thanks,Shumit

I broke a rib last year this way.

Ignore him Shumit: this never actually happened. Spindrift is
extremely, infamously mentally disturbed and has a pathological,
totally illogical hatred of motorists. His main plan of attack is to
hugely exaggerate the dangers posed by cars in order to get ever-
increasing restrictions imposed on motorists. But unfortunately he
doesn't care what those restrictions are, as long as they make
motorists suffer, and even when such restrictions have been shown to
make things *more* dangerous for vulnerable road users, he still
advocates them, and starts hate campaigns against those who oppose
them and show them to be dangerous.

Don't take him seriously. He is a deranged fantasist. Sir Jeremy and
many others think the same.