So if a pedestrian walked onto the road without looking or anything, you’d say the driver is at fault?
A cycle lane is to a bike as a road is to a car. A pedestrian is allowed to cross it after looking and checking that no vehicle is coming, and the pedestrian has to give right of way.
Cars have to be aware of cyclists when cyclists are driving on the road, since both have equal rights to be there. Same as a car has to be aware of another car or a cyclists of another cyclist. Both are allowed to use the road, so both need to be aware of each other.
If a car driver is expected to be aware of pedestrians, then a cyclist is to be expected to be aware of pedestrians. You can’t have it both ways. A cyclist can easily cause serious injury to a pedestrian.
To be honest, it’s a wrong argument anyways. The cyclist was aware of the pedestrian on the bike lane and he stopped in time. So the whole argument doesn’t matter.
The actual point is whether the pedestrian was in the right to wander onto the bike lane, completely oblivious to his surroundings.
It’s by momentum. The greater the momentum the greater the responsibility.
Edit: To actually respond to your examples:
No. It is the responsibility of the high mv cars not to enter the sidewalk, or to be incredibly cautious if they must.
Yes. It is the responsibility of the high mv car to look far enough ahead to respond to low mv (or rather high delay v) obstacles ahead. If this sounds impractical, the design of highways and the illegality of a pedestrian entering one makes unavoidable incidents of car-hitting-pedestrian-on-highway low enough to be practical.
Ok, let’s put it differently: In the story we are talking about
A cyclist was aware of the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane
A pedestrian was unaware of the fact that he was on the biking lane
The cyclist managed to stop safely before the pedestrian
The cyclist got angry for the pedestrian not caring about whether he was allowed to walk where he did
The pedestrian felt so justified in walking on the cycling lane that he considered throwing the bike off the river
So what’s your point? The cyclist shouldn’t have gotten angry and should have just been fine and dandy with the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane?
The equivalent would be a pedestrian walking on the road, and then drivers should be just fine with that. They aren’t and neither should they be.
If a driver shouldn’t need to be happy with a pedestrian wandering around on the road completely unaware of his surroundings, why should a cyclist be ok with the same circumstances?
That’s what the law says in France, at least. People are supposed to cross on crosswalks, but if they don’t and a car hits them the driver is at fault regardless. I can try to find a source in english if that’s important to you.
Anyway, context is king here and what I didn’t specify in my post above is that the space where it happened was quite crowded and ambiguous (especially for an alien like me who had seldom seen a bike lane at the time)
The whole concept of “being at fault” only applies to accidents. If you see someone breaking the law (e.g. walking across the road where it’s not allowed) and you then purposely ram them with your vehicle, then it’s not an accident and of course you are at fault then. If someone else breaks the law you would have to be an utter idiot to think that this gives you the right to legally murder that person.
I repeat: you’d have to be seriously braindead and messed up to belive that you can legally kill someone over a minor traffic violation.
If it’s an actual accident though, e.g. if the pedestrian darts out between parked cars so fast that the driver can’t stop in time, then it’s clearly the pedestrian’s fault (even in France) and the driver will not get in trouble.
Again, all of that is super basic.
A bike lane is not ambiguous. If you don’t inform yourself of laws and customs in a country you travel to, then it’s still your fault if you are too ignorant to understand basic traffic situations, and neither does ignorance excuse you from following the law nor does it make your wrong actions and lawbreaking right, nor does it give you any moral high ground.
So if a pedestrian walked onto the road without looking or anything, you’d say the driver is at fault?
A cycle lane is to a bike as a road is to a car. A pedestrian is allowed to cross it after looking and checking that no vehicle is coming, and the pedestrian has to give right of way.
Cars have to be aware of cyclists when cyclists are driving on the road, since both have equal rights to be there. Same as a car has to be aware of another car or a cyclists of another cyclist. Both are allowed to use the road, so both need to be aware of each other.
If a car driver is expected to be aware of pedestrians, then a cyclist is to be expected to be aware of pedestrians. You can’t have it both ways. A cyclist can easily cause serious injury to a pedestrian.
Is a pedestrian expected to be aware of car drivers on the side walk?
Is a car driver expected to be aware of pedestrians on the highway?
Yes, and also yes. personal responsibility for your own safety doesn’t magically disappear because of paint on the ground.
Responsibility for the machine you’re operating that can harm others doesn’t magically disappear when it weighs less.
To be honest, it’s a wrong argument anyways. The cyclist was aware of the pedestrian on the bike lane and he stopped in time. So the whole argument doesn’t matter.
The actual point is whether the pedestrian was in the right to wander onto the bike lane, completely oblivious to his surroundings.
It’s by momentum. The greater the momentum the greater the responsibility.
Edit: To actually respond to your examples:
No. It is the responsibility of the high mv cars not to enter the sidewalk, or to be incredibly cautious if they must.
Yes. It is the responsibility of the high mv car to look far enough ahead to respond to low mv (or rather high delay v) obstacles ahead. If this sounds impractical, the design of highways and the illegality of a pedestrian entering one makes unavoidable incidents of car-hitting-pedestrian-on-highway low enough to be practical.
Ok, let’s put it differently: In the story we are talking about
So what’s your point? The cyclist shouldn’t have gotten angry and should have just been fine and dandy with the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane?
The equivalent would be a pedestrian walking on the road, and then drivers should be just fine with that. They aren’t and neither should they be.
If a driver shouldn’t need to be happy with a pedestrian wandering around on the road completely unaware of his surroundings, why should a cyclist be ok with the same circumstances?
You can’t have it both ways.
You fail to recognize that everyone can be wrong at the same time.
That’s what the law says in France, at least. People are supposed to cross on crosswalks, but if they don’t and a car hits them the driver is at fault regardless. I can try to find a source in english if that’s important to you.
Anyway, context is king here and what I didn’t specify in my post above is that the space where it happened was quite crowded and ambiguous (especially for an alien like me who had seldom seen a bike lane at the time)
The whole concept of “being at fault” only applies to accidents. If you see someone breaking the law (e.g. walking across the road where it’s not allowed) and you then purposely ram them with your vehicle, then it’s not an accident and of course you are at fault then. If someone else breaks the law you would have to be an utter idiot to think that this gives you the right to legally murder that person.
I repeat: you’d have to be seriously braindead and messed up to belive that you can legally kill someone over a minor traffic violation.
If it’s an actual accident though, e.g. if the pedestrian darts out between parked cars so fast that the driver can’t stop in time, then it’s clearly the pedestrian’s fault (even in France) and the driver will not get in trouble.
Again, all of that is super basic.
A bike lane is not ambiguous. If you don’t inform yourself of laws and customs in a country you travel to, then it’s still your fault if you are too ignorant to understand basic traffic situations, and neither does ignorance excuse you from following the law nor does it make your wrong actions and lawbreaking right, nor does it give you any moral high ground.