Regarding if a driver would be treated the same. Without reading any of the referenced articles (!) if there is lots of pedestrian activity, a driver should adjust his speed to be prepared to stop/and or take avoiding action. If not, they could be charged with driving without due care.
The same should apply to the bike rider. If you see lots of pedestrians behaving erratically, you should adjust your speed to give time to react. It’s not enough to say they shouldn’t be there.
Incidentally, a friend had his car hit by a turning lorry at the weekend. Even though he was over the line on the junction, his insurance company have stated it is not his fault. Doesn’t matter that he shouldn’t have been there, the other vehicle should have taken avoiding action.
My reading of it is much more benign, he just thought he could avoid the pedestrians so didn’t slow down - as joex said above. A bad judgement call, driven by an desire not to stop.
Ironically, he would probably have been better off not using his air horn if that’s what startled the pedestrian and caused her to turn back. If he hadn’t, she would probably not have noticed him and he could have ridden behind her.
My first view was as @Cobbie and @joex, cyclist going through green, bit stressed and thought he’d sound horn and avoid rather than stop. The fact he has an airhorn , maybe unfairly, suggests a certain type of cycle commuter to me.
London Bridge is terrible though. I’ve had so many near misses by Tooley St. due to the lemmings that I’m always covering brakes and riding slowly. There’s a junction I turn into south side and 99 peds out of a 100 cross without looking and most days as I go to turn in someone will cross in front of me. The one person that doesn’t I’m now so slow turning in expecting it I typically let them go whilst track standing like a boss
It sounds like the cyclist should have entered a counter-claim against the pedestrian. He’s been ordered to pay compensation of £4k, but he’s also got to pay all the legal fees and court costs to the tune of about £100k
Wow - I hope he has insurance which will cover it otherwise that’s crippling. The only winners are the lawyers, 100k fees for 4k compensation, should never have gone to court.
From our tri club post on the subject, I’ve been told that BTF specifically excludes “commuting”. If they can see it’s a regular route you take to/from work, they’ll worm their way out, even if you argue it counts as “training” which is meant to be covered.
I had to use BTF insurance for a commuting accident 2+ years ago and specifically said at the start of the process that it was on a commute and they were fine with it. The excess was pretty high but more than worth it.
Interesting. I’m just going by what someone in my club has posted having recently checked the point with BTF. However, I do now see someone else from the club said they successfully managed to raise a claim against a driver for damages when they were commuting. It would at least seem a bit of a grey area.
Difficult to argue whether a structured commute wouldn’t help towards a triathlon-related goal though which is what they mention elsewhere, it’s a form of training, just happens to take place between where you live and where you work.
I think that probably depends to a large extent on where you are commuting. Commuting into central London you have so many lights and other road users to deal with (cyclists, motorists and pedestrians) that approaching it with a “training” attitude is likely to lead to unsafe riding. I think you just have to go with the flow and if you get any training benefits from it then that’s a bonus.
Fair point, guess I’m lucky that I’ve got a mix of country lanes and then a five mile section of relatively quiet dual carriageway. City commuting is a different beast which I’d forgotten about and glad to be away from!
