h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

By which I mean in the UK, first and foremost.

1) two lanes, stopped at lights, motorcyclist filtering at low speed down the middle. Pedestrian steps out from between the stationary cars, motorcyclist brakes but hits them.
So - does the motor cyclist have every right to be there and the pedestrian is at fault?
Or was the motorcyclist going too fast by definition?

Similarly the right-turning motorist poking his bonnet out across the first lane and into the gap?

Discuss, anyway.

Well, in Australia the pedestrian would be jaywalking because they crossed within 20 metres of a controlled intersection...so I reckon they deserve to get splattered. Mind you, don't know if that's a particularly correct legal interpretation...

I think in civil matters there's what's called "the balance of probabilities" - it's a lesser burdern of proof - and thus both parties can be found to be equally at fault.

Anyway, I'm kind of biased, so hopefully some non-motorcyclist with a bit of law behind them will answer your question.


BadZen

I would tend to agree with you, BadZen. What was the pedestrian doing in the middle of a bunch of cars in the first place?
But then again, I've never, myself done any Lane-splitting/filtering/whatever you call it, so the practice of that is nothing I'd condone either.


And I also have to whole-heartedly agree with your statement that anyone and everyone out there that isn't a biker him/herself is blind, deaf, irrational and is out to get you.

There are usually two types of motorcycle accidents:
1. Motorcyclists messing up by going too fast and not being able to handle the bike.
2. Motorcyclists being hit by blind, deaf, irrational, ignorant car/truck/bus drivers.

I wish I had a bike to ride to work on... *sigh*

I would tend to agree with you, BadZen. What was the pedestrian doing in the middle of a bunch of cars in the first place?
But then again, I've never, myself done any Lane-splitting/filtering/whatever you call it, so the practice of that is nothing I'd condone either.


And I also have to whole-heartedly agree with your statement that anyone and everyone out there that isn't a biker him/herself is blind, deaf, irrational and is out to get you.

There are usually two types of motorcycle accidents:
1. Motorcyclists messing up by going too fast and not being able to handle the bike.
2. Motorcyclists being hit by blind, deaf, irrational, ignorant car/truck/bus drivers.

I wish I had a bike to ride to work on... *sigh*

There's no such thing as jaywalking in the UK and except for motorways where they are prohibited unless in emergency, pedestrians have right of way at all times!

Consequently the biker would have been at fault.

Sorry. Good biking.

F

Highway Code Article 71 (for motorcyclists):
"
Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When overtaking traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions.
"

So - it is not clear that Lane splitting per-se is legal. However, my example could perhaps apply equally well to overtaking traffic queues.

I refute the implications of "pedestrians have right of way at all times". If someone is doing twenty in a thirty zone on a clear road, car or bike, it is still perfectly possible for a pedestrian to step out, presumably without looking, giving the driver rider insufficient time/distance to stop, resulting in gross injury to themselves. In this case, surely the driver/rider has done nothing wrong, and the pedestrian is at fault?

"If traffic is coming, let it pass", and all that?

I would tend to place the fault with the motorcyclist. My rule was always to ride defensively and keep a sharp eye open for danger down the road, so unless we are talking midget jaywalkers here the biker should spot them coming over the car roofs and if the visability is so restricted that they cannot then the biker should adjust his/her speed accordingly.

Ex Biker Commuter (now a Dad!)

I live in Texas. Lane splitting is illegal here. It is apparently legal in California however. I have no idea why. I agree with you Badzen. I think it's a bad idea. You would be putting yourself in a situation with low visibility and very little room for an emergency manouvre(sp?). I would always fear the inbred/cornfed redneck who would think it funny to open their door in front of you. Or if they're not quite that sociopathic they might decide it's a good time to toss that Slurpy(tm) out of the window as you pass.

On another note regarding legalities and proper biker behaviour, I say this. Whether something is legal or not I always err on the side of my skin. For instance, the traffic light has just turned green in your direction. It has been green for a few seconds and you pull into the intersection. That Volvo runs his red light and you get smashed. You had the right of way of course. But I say this. "You may be right, but you may be Dead right."

Oh and don't forget your mirrors at intersections. Redlight runners don't always cross your lane, they may be in it.

Keep the shiny side up and watch out for the other guy.

Fathom, I thought that pedestrians only had right of way at zebra crossings and once they'd put their foot on the zebra crossing.
If a pedestrian is standing on the sidewalk a foot away from the zebra crossing, looking as if he is desperately wishing to cross the street, the drivers would still have the right of way, as he has not put his foot on the zebra crossing.

If you have a look at Entry A954713 there is a section that states, and I quote (Copy/paste):
"Pedestrians have right of way over traffic once they are on the crossing."

It also says that:
"Other areas where pedestrians have right of way over vehicles are: already crossing a side road that a vehicle wants to turn into, and on a pelican crossing when the light to cross is lit."

Thus, a pedestrian only have right of way if he's at a zebra crossing, with a foot on the markings, at a pelican crossing where the lights are lit, or at a side road, if the pedestrian is crossing, and the motorised vehicle is turning onto the side road.

I've got a confession to make. I lane-split all the time. Except when there's a pillion aboard - and even sometimes then.

It's a serious challenge of wit and concentration. What a way to start the day...

But I don't endorse it.




Bad

And anyway, what about the poor motorcyclist? Sod the pedestrian! Some bloke innocently riding to work gets jumped by a walking obstacle, slides under a car, damages his precious machine and probably gets run over because all the drivers were too busy looking in the rearview mirror at their hastily applied mascara or bloodshot baggy eyes to notice and drove merrily on when the lights turn green.

That pedestrian should be locked up!

I filter all the time, was taught it on my bike lesson to do it, was taught again on my Advanced Bike "observed rides" - and the observer was a Solicitor specialising in bike claims, (BTW I'm in th UK)

However!

When I was overtaking a line of traffic prior to a junction, a hit a car that had been "flashed" into the line of traffic from a side road on my right, the insurance went 80/20 against me as yuo should not "overtake prior to a junction"

This ruling stems from a single test case back, I think, in the 70s and one that has been challenged a few times.

So be warned.

CH (lovelly day to do the 40 miles home again on my red, shiny Triumph)

I got my driving lessons in Sweden, and in Sweden there's only one rule about the Lane Splitting... It's illegal!
So I was told that I should never do any lane splitting, and because of that, have never done so.

And I don't endorse it either.

I like the Driver's beware ad they've got in the UK about the "Now you see him.. Now you don't." with the biker in the rearview mirror of a car. Gives drivers a bit of perspective that they should pay attention.

I've got a bumpersticker that says "How many motorcycles have you seen today? LOOK AGAIN!"

That's cool. I wish I had a bumper sticker like that.. Then again, I wish I had a car I could stick that sticker on.. Or better yet, I wish I had a bike that I could ride around on...

Hi Ku (may I call you Ku?)

Your quotation is of course correct and the foolish pedestrian who steps into moving traffic may spend enough time in traction to regret his decision. This isn't just a matter of what the law or the Highway Code says though; it's how people treat the situation in practise (sp?).

If a pedestrian starts wandering about in the road a motorist does not have the right to force them to the kerb. The motorist absolutely must give way to the pedestrian. (In the UK at any rate). In any collision with a pedestrian the motorist is going to have to demonstrate the collision could not be averted or a prosecution will almost certainly follow. This is not the case with a collision with another vehicle - even where personal injury is sustained or where the other vehicle has a high passenger vulnerability (i.e. is dangerous ) such as a motorcycle.

As a motorist, if a pedestrian steps (or falls) into your path you WILL stop or swerve, even taking a collision with another object to avoid hitting the pedestrian. And that gives the pedestrian right of way. And that is just as it should be.

Cyclists on the other hand are a different matter ...

F

Fathom, call me Ku if you want, it's easier to type and faster as well. I won't try to shorten your name, though, cause there's only one thing that would work, and that'd be insulting.

You say that as a motorist you WILL swerve or stop to avoid a collision with a pedestrian.. Of course you will. No one wants to hit another person. HOwever, if that person walks out from behind a parked lorry and you hit them, that can hardly be your fault, can it?

You also say that a motorist doesn't have the right to "force" a pedestrian onto the kerb, but shouldn't that work both ways? A pedestrian don't have the right to force a motorist to stop, just cause the pedestrian wants to cross the road. Or am I incorrect in that assumption?

Hi Ku,

The obvious abbreviation is sadly appropriate.

You're right: obviously you would not want to hit another person and that's what gives the right of way to the pedestrian; not the legal factor but the simple human expedient of not pulverising a fellow human being. That's kind of what I was getting at.

Presumably if you can't avoid them then you can't be blamed *but* the law - and public opinion - tends to fall much more in favour of the pedestrian than the motorist in the UK. Hit a pedestrian, a child especially, and you'll be lucky if you're not stoned to death at the kerb. It's hard to prove your innocence and if you were even a smidgeon over the speed limit your defence is screwed.

In some countries walking about on the highway is a specific crime - jaywalking - but that's not the case in Britain. Over here the crime might be 'obstructing the highway' which always seems a much more tenuous charge and isn't something you're going to be arrested for just for crossing 'against the lights' on your way home from the pub. In the USA, so far as I know, you CAN be arrested for just that.

I admit I don't know this for sure but I suspect that, aside from the unlikely event of being charged with obstructing the highway, a pedestrian *can* force you to stop while they cross the road. I'll have to look this up (conjecture alert) but I seem to remember reading that at a light controlled crossing (pelican) the crossing is still a crossing even if the lights are green. I'm sure I remember a prosecution of a motorist who failed to give way to a pedestrian despite the lights showing green in the motorist's favour.

You're not incorrect though - a pedestrian doesn't really have the 'right' to force a motorist to stop - but in practise the motorist surely has no choice but to give way to the pedestrian?

I'm getting interested in this topic, Ku. It obviously has implications. If we come across any more information do you mind discussing it further?

F

I can add this little tidbit. What is the origin for the term "Jaywalking"?

It has nothing to do with walking in a "J" pattern obviously. Nor does it have anything to do with bluejays. It seems its source is the latin word "gaius" which means a countryman or a rustic. The term then goes through Old French and Middle English to become the word jay which then becomes slang for a newcomer or bumpkin in turn of the last century US. This first use of the term "jaywalking" would seem to have occured in Boston. (there's some disagreement whether it was in the 1900s, the 1910s or the 1920s)

But at anyrate when the "jays" would come to the big city of Boston, they would gawk at all the sights and wander into the middle of the road not paying attention to be hit by a horse and buggy or a stanley steamer or whatever conveyance there was to run them over and so anyone crossing the street, not at an intersection or against traffic, was referred to as a "jaywalker".

Wow! Thanks Count ... I'm sure I wasn't the only one wondering.

F