Cyclist should have stopped at the Amber light. However as a runner who has almost been hit numerous times by red light running cars/bikes, I always look before i cross.
Yep this- if you're ever stepping onto a road and blindly following the lights you're just asking to be hit. Most people obey them but it only takes one prick not to for you to end up dead.
You mean like if you're a cyclist, who is approaching a green light, that turns amber, but you don't have time to look behind you, to seei if a car is going to run over if you stop?
Cyclist could have safely stopped at the amber light before entering the intersection. Pretty clear case that they are in the wrong.
Having said that- it’s always worth looking before you cross, even with a light. Plenty of people who’ve been in the right have ended up injured or dead.
Pedestrian had a green light and had right of way. This is a closed case. I ride daily and jog 3 times a week, and have thought about this often.
Cyclist also saw pedestrians and knew they were going through a partial red. They shouldn't have entered the intersection. However since they are already in the intersection, they should've moved more to the right to take up the whole lane and easily clear any potential pedestrian starting to move in to cross the road.
The cyclist should not ride into people. There are various steps they could do to avoid that, which might mean going around them, or stopping. They wouldn't not be in the middle of the intersection.
If you look, the jogger hit the side of the middle-rear part of the bike.
If the cyclist was "riding into people" the jogger would have been pushed in the direction the bike was travelling, not the bike falling sideways.
The cyclist possibly had focus on the right hand side as that was where it was navigating right-of-way with the car that was turning.
When I said "stop in the middle of the intersection" it was tongue in cheek, but at that point there was nothing the bike could have done. Saying "dont ride into people" is extremely simplistic and clearly not what anyone would have intentionally done.
If you look at the speed the jogger took off at the lights I don't believe he would have had any time to react and take evasive action. It takes at least 0.5 seconds to realise what's happening and then another 0.5-1 second to react and brake or turn. At that point the rider was already on the ground as the jogger had already taken off.
Yes the rider should not have gone through the yellow light. However after that's occurred, the rider still has right of way over the crossing cycle.
Instead of the bike, it might have been a slow moving car, or a car that was stuck half way through the intersection by a turning vehicle or oncoming traffic.
The green crossing light is an indicator to cross *if it's safe*. The jogger took off at a sprint without looking, and clearly it was not safe to cross. If you remember back to primary school - look left, look right, look left again, then cross.
> but at that point there was nothing the bike could have done.
This is stupid, of course there is. I already fucking mentioned what they could do. What 100s of people manage to do every day.
> If you look at the speed the jogger took off at the lights I don't believe he would have had any time to react and take evasive action.
Only an idiot would wait for them to move. You know thy are going to move, they have a green. Here is the trick, DON'T RIDE RIGHT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE ABOUT TO STEP OUT. Complicated, I know.
> Only an idiot would wait for them to move. You know thy are going to move, they have a green. Here is the trick, DON'T RIDE RIGHT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE ABOUT TO STEP OUT. Complicated, I know.
They had a green half way through - when the bike was already half way over the crossing.
I'll give you one last example.
* You are in a car (car A), and you are wanting to do a right turn, or a right hook-turn.
* You enter the intersection and wait for the oncoming traffic to clear.
* Once it's clear you start to complete your right turn.
* As you're in the middle of completing the turn, the opposite lights go green.
* Another car (car B) who was sitting stationary at the lights jumps off the lights really quickly and hits the side of your car.
What do you say to car A?
* It shouldn't drive into cars?
* It should have driven around car B?
* Don't drive in front of cars about to drive out?
* It should have known the car was about to drive out so it should have stopped in the middle of the intersection?
Agreed.
At least when a cyclist hits a person they get hurt too. Not when cars do this, and it happens all the time, half the time they just drive off.
I'd argue both in the wrong in a practical sense, but cyclist in the wrong in a legal sense. They could and should have stopped when the light went amber (there were no obvious safety issues present that would have caused them to be unable to do so), instead they continued under power through the intersection on the amber.
Jogger didn't follow the simplest rule of being a pedestrian, which is to look both ways before crossing (even when you have the lights). While some people could take the impact of a cyclist, there are plenty who could end up badly injured or dead from an impact, particularly children or the elderly.
Cyclist wasn't even going at full speed. That was an "I'm too lazy/impatient to brake". And as a cyclist, if I know I've cut a fine line at an amber/red light, I'd definitely be looking for pedestrians crossing.
Absolutely the case. Thats one of the big differences between powered and self-powered vehicle users, the willingness to stop differs because in the case of self-powered, the user knows they will have to expend more energy getting back up to speed.
Be interesting to see how much that was/is a contributing factor to running lights and other road signs (ie stop signs)
I will disagree with your argument if you are considering on the basis of the term "wrong".
We both agree that the cyclist is "wrong" from the legal standpoint of road rules however the jogger cannot be "wrong" for not looking both ways before crossing. It was a ***mistake*** for not doing so constantly but definitely not "wrong". Plus, how did you know he didn't actually do that before crossing? Maybe the cyclist was in his blind spot? If you see the video again, the jogger was already a few steps into crossing the road (along with the other pedestrians) in which we can assume that the green man light has already gone on so he shouldn't be in the wrong in expecting it to be reasonably safe to cross the road. A ***mistake*** to assume so? Sure.
Do you know the definition of mistake? [an act or judgement that is misguided or wrong.](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=mistake&rlz=1C1GGRV_enAU807AU807&oq=mistake&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65.727j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Making a mistake **is** doing something wrong
the keyword above is "OR". You're taking the meaning of the word by itself without taking into account the context.
For example, see the difference between these 2 sentences:
> *"I made a mistake"*
vs
> *"I was wrong"*
Both have different connotations. If someone tells you he made a mistake, it implies *he* did something wrong at that given moment or circumstance. If someone tells you he was wrong, it implies that whatever he did was socially, morally, ethically, etc unacceptable at any time or circumstance.
Here are some sources that better describes the differences:
http://media.llb.re.s3.amazonaws.com/pub/notes/mistake_error_fault.jpg
http://www.scottcochrane.com/index.php/2016/07/28/i-was-wrong-vs-i-made-a-mistake/
Fair comment depending on your definition of "wrong". In the context I used it I meant either individual could have avoided the incident by taking what would be considered normal and reasonable steps to ensure their own safety rather than making assumptions. If however you consider it at a moral level, the cyclist was the one in the wrong, while the pedestrian made the mistake of not checking for oncoming traffic that had done the wrong thing.
I basically agree with you here, the jogger has a reasonable expectation that when indicated by lights that they should cross that they will be able to do so safely. My impression however is that we are all responsible for our own personal safety irrespective of who is in the right and who is in the wrong... And I have been tempted to step out at times into the path of oncoming cyclists intent on running red lights just to see how they react, running into me would end worse for them than for me unless they were going extraordinarily fast.
Yep, this is the right answer. Jogger is at fault, doesn't matter that the cyclist has broken the law in the process it was the jogger that proceeded to cross the road without checking it was clear to do so.
Something a lot of motorists don't always realise is that cycling brakes can take some time to bring them to a complete stop, safely - hit them too hard and you can risk going over the front... Not hard enough means you could wind up being stopped within the intersection and there's pressure from vehicles behind to push forward so that they can turn left on the orange. As a cyclist it often feels safer to opt for pushing forward even in the knowledge that the orange will finish transitioning to red by the time you are on the other side.
I think in this circumstance, though - that the assessment "both are equally not sharing the roads sufficiently" is accurate. Cyclist probably could have stopped if they have good brakes and good skills - jogger should probably be paying attention to the intersection in general for dickhead cars that actually are running the red light
Then ride to the conditions, be aware of the traffic light cycle, slow down as you approach the lights? If a car hit a pedestrian or cyclist - would anyone be sympathetic to the story that sometimes it takes a while to slow down.
Well yeah they do ride to the conditions. Unfortunately it's not always easy to pick that a traffic light is going to turn orange before it does. If it is still green and they start slowing down then especially this is less desirable when you have angry motorists behind you who want to beep you for going too slow when they want to enter the intersection or turn left, too - see my previous comment about dangers of motorists you can't see impacting ones riding safety decisions. I also already commented on the fact that bike brakes are much more difficult to gauge compared to car brakes. Cars can slow down and stop faster from greater speeds than cyclists. Also motorists have better indications about their ability to brake safely and intersections and light timings are designed around this. For example, if you are in a car and at the speed limit, the solid lines in the approach to the intersection begin at what is considered to be a safe distance to brake without being a danger to vehicles travelling behind you. The length of time an orange light is displayed is also specified to correlate with these timings to a degree. Additionally, can tend to have antilock brakes which don't flip the vehicle when they are engaged with maximum force.
> cycling brakes can take some time to bring them to a complete stop, safely
You have to be travelling pretty bloody fast on a bike for the brakes to not stop you quickly enough. The rider in the video could have easily stopped at that light, they just chose not to.
My bike has solid brakes, I'm an experienced cyclist and from a cruising speed it takes me around 3 seconds to come to a complete stop if I slam them has hard as I feel comfortable with before I worry about going over the front. Maybe 4-5 seconds if it's a downhill but that doesn't look like the case in this video. Let's have a look at it in some detail, shall we?
Starting at the frame at the beginning of the 2nd second (0.01) his front wheel is in line with the silver sedan's rear tyre. Happy to be educated on what particular make/model that sedan is but I'm gonna pick an average length car like a Toyota Camry as a point of measurement. According to Toyota it is 5m long and a rough eyeball has the middle of the rear tyre around 1.5m from the rear of the car. Move forward to the start of the 4th second (0.03) and he has gone past the silver sedan, past the white suv and is in line with the rear bumper of the red SUV. So in 2 seconds he has traveled 3.5m remaining in the first car length + maybe a 2m gap between it and the white SUV past the white SUV for another 5m, and then another 2m gap between the white SUV so around 12.5m in 2 full seconds which is a pace of 22.5km/h which is a pretty standard speed for a cyclist
At 22.5 km/h on a bike that looks as old as his i'd expect it to take around 4-5 seconds to slow to a complete stop, safely unless he has some well maintained brakes. Decelerating for the 1st second to around 18km/h at 6m/sec, then down to 13 would be another 3m, then 2m to 8 and maybe another 1 meter second to stop completely so around 12m, being generous. Judging from the footage the light turns orange when he's aligned with the rear wheel of the 2nd car in the lane waiting to turn right so probably 2 car lengths + maybe 2 metres. An average car is around 5m long, there's 2 cars + 2m i dunno... 2 metres of space between them so that'd be about 10.5m between the cyclist and the white line before the intersection when the light turns orange.
If it were me stopping from my cruising speed of 25km/h i'd be over the white line by around 2-3m into the intersection and have the risk of being crunched by a road raging motorist who was trying to sneak the orange to turn left. Without knowing the condition of his brake pads, and wires I can't say for certain but I'm guessing he saw the situation - if he had *very* good reaction time by my calculations he'd have stopped maybe 1m over the white line, braking at an intensity that probably would feel dangerous.
I'm not sure if your perception of time is a bit skewed, you have very bad brakes on your bike, or you don't use proper braking form.
I have a cheap Reid single-speed, with its stock rim brakes and from cruise speed (eg. speed of the cyclist in the video), it takes me barely a second to stop completely using both front and bake brakes together (firm, but not hard lock). You can stop quickly using the front brake safely if you shift your body weight above the back wheel. Pretty simple by standing on the pedals and leaning your arse back as you engage the brake.
If I were the rider in that video, I would have had no problem at all stopping in time... in fact I stop in shorter distances with less warning multiple times per week riding through the city.
That rider clearly raced the orange, they in no way contemplated the safety of stopping in making their decision to proceed.
Less than 1 second from 22.5kmh means you are pulling in more than 1g of stopping force and are absolutely full of shit or your own awareness of time is off. Perhaps go test this out next time you are out on the streets. A formula 1 car stops at 1.5gs - I simply don't believe you.
You can bring maths and physics into this all you want on paper, but without scientific measuring and fixed conditions it’s a waste of time.
In my own experience, including a non-scientific test this morning while riding to work, I easily stopped in a little over a second, in about 3m from what I perceived was a quicker pace than the rider in this video, on a down slope too.
Open up the stopwatch on your phone and count to 4-5 seconds. If you come back and tell me it takes you that long to stop a bike from the speed shown in the video, there’s something seriously wrong with your ability to operate a bicycle.
Anecdotes. Meanwhile in my experience 3m of stopping distance will send me over the handlebars regardless of if my wheels lock up. I simply don't believe you - it is physically impossible - the act of standing up to lean that far back in the seat takes half a second in itself. You are full of shit and are clearly only going to continue to talk shit from the sounds of things. If you honestly believe what you're saying then you need to wake up to yourself. I'm not gonna bother wasting my time in this thread further
>Cyclist could have safely stopped at the amber light before entering the intersection.
You mean they could've been cleaned up by a car, for no reason?
So cyclists just don’t have to follow any rules, because of the chance they might be hit by a car? The car following them had left enough space to stop, and was slowing down as it was in a left turning lane.
I think the cyclist in this case couldn’t be bothered stopping, and rode into an intersection that they were never going to clear before the light went red. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times in the CBD, so maybe it’s about time some bike riders took the same level of responsibility for pedestrians that they expect to receive from drivers.
>So cyclists just don’t have to follow any rules, because of the chance they might be hit by a car?
Do you not understand English?
The law is that you should stop at a yellow light if it's safe to do so. If you're in a car, and a truck is tailgating you, it's not safe to do so. If you're a cyclist and there's not enough time to check behind you for a car barreling down on you, it's not safe to do so.
Simple.
>I think the cyclist in this case couldn’t be bothered stopping, and rode into an intersection that they were never going to clear before the light went red.
There's no obligation to clear the intersection before the light goes red under the law, so long as you obeyed the previous instruction. If there was, pretty much every right turning car would be booked at most inner city intersections.
>they expect to receive from drivers.
You mean the expectation to not be the victims of increasing numbers of fatalities that are overwhelmingly the fault of drivers?
So the cyclist should've been psychic; and known that cars behind them would've stopped? Have you ever been on a bike in Melbourne traffic? Cars tailgate you, to the point that you can't actually brake without signalling to them first, and if you attempt to stop for an amber light, they will beep you.
No one is psychic and we all live under the assumption the cars behind us will stop, this is the same for cyclists and drivers. You also know this yourself.
Before you ask me if I’ve ever cycled in Melbourne, yes, it’s my main form of transport - I don’t own a car in fact. You’re just making stupid claims
>No one is psychic and we all live under the assumption the cars behind us will stop, this is the same for cyclists and drivers.
You're going to be killed one day, making assumptions like that. Fact.
That cyclist had ample time to stop, and was close enough to the curb to stop safely and not be in the way of cars behind them.
Cyclists like that piss me off no end, because dickheads like that are what give all cyclists (like myself) a bad reputation on the road.
>That cyclist had ample time to stop, and was close enough to the curb to stop safely and not be in the way of cars behind them.
No they didn't. Cars drive right into the curb all the time.
>Cyclists like that piss me off no end, because dickheads like that are what give all cyclists (like myself) a bad reputation on the road.
Sounds like that's a problem you have to resolve on your own terms.
The cyclist is more at fault here. Part of being on the road is making judgement calls on traffic light changes for everyone's safety.
Clearly the cyclist took a risk that backfired as their speed was not as forgiving as if a motor vehicle does the same thing. And seeing how she kept going through at the same speed shows that she was not trying to make it through before pedestrians crossed. That's plain rude.
And the jogger is an idiot for relying on a green light and not looking to check that all the traffic had stopped. If a car ran a red he'd be in hospital.
To me it looks like the cyclist went through an amber light when they could have easily stopped safely. It also looks like the pedestrian stepped out onto a green pedestrian light.
> To me it looks like the cyclist went through an amber light when they could have easily stopped safely.
Did you see them check the traffic behind them? No. It was not safe to stop.
>It also looks like the pedestrian stepped out onto a green pedestrian light.
So? You're not legally allowed to just step out into traffic.
By not doing enough to clear the intersection in time for cars to go.
Alternatively, stopping at the crossing to let people cross when it is their turn to.
Yes it's unfortunate the jogger ran into her, but this would all have been avoided if both parties stood by their responsibilities, starting with the cyclist because she was the one that started the chain of events we see.
I hate it when cyclists run lights and when they ride on the footpath.
It's kinda hypocritical, when they rightfully call drivers to respect their right to space on the road, both in them not using the bike lane (if there's one available), that was purpose built, and them not respecting pedestrian space.
As a cyclist, I largely agree. Bike lanes aren’t always useable, but then you’re supposed to use the road lanes like every other vehicle. Many cyclists give all of us cyclists a terrible reputation. Either be a cyclist, get off your bike as a pedestrian or get in a car. Make a choice. I’d welcome bike-police to stamp it out. Would help with the many belligerent car drivers too.
If safety is an issue with the bike lane, I kinda get it; I wouldn't have an issue with cyclists on the footpath if they were riding at the same pace as the foot traffic.
However, I've been hit from behind by bikes going at speed a couple times whilst walking, and it hurts like hell. Why should your safety be put above pedestrian safety?
I'm not saying all cyclists are hypocrites, but the ones who complain about cars not respecting their space, whilst intruding on pedestrian space definitely are.
I can't say I have a huge sample space of people who fit that space, but an old co-worker was definitely one. Would complain on social media about cars, but would routinely ride on the footpath, and especially use the pedestrian crossing to quickly flick a left turn.
Cyclists entering the intersection after the yellow is very common in the city. Have had to stop despite having the green signal to cross on a number of occassions. Having said that, happens way more often with cars.
Jogger is at fault, doesn't matter that the cyclist has broken the law in the process it was the jogger that proceeded to cross the road without checking it was clear to do so.
Cyclist didn't break the law. You're only obligated to stop for an amber light if it's safe to do so. And they didn't have time to check for cars behind them. Cars routinely accelerate to make amber lights, so from a cyclist's perspective, where there's no time to head check, you have to continue.
I imagine it would be based on perception of the cyclist who doesn't have any way of knowing how close vehicles are behind him. So stopping suddenly could be a very bad move. Hard to prove the cyclist 'knew' it was safe to stop, despite video.
As someone who cycles daily down some pretty sketchy Melbourne roads, I gotta say: who the hell rides their bike down Punt Rd at all, let alone in the dark... and also runs late orange lights?
The cyclist was approximately two car lengths from the intersection when the light turned orange. They had only two seconds to respond, travelling at about 20kmh. While they could have stopped, it is unwise to slam on brakes in traffic if there is a car travelling behind - and there was. It's so easy passing judgement from an arm chair knowing that the light is going to turn orange.
You mean the car which managed to stop well short of the lights, and which was going slower than the bike due to the driver wanting to turn left? Yeah, huge risk that one, but the cyclist would have been oblivious to it, not once did they perform even the slightest of headchecks.
If that car was going to gun the lights, as a lot do in Melbourne, performing a head check would be pointless and disastrous. Reacting to a light change, performing a head check, and then stopping safely is not something an average person can do in the 2 seconds that cyclist had. I have gone through many red lights in my car because I have not trusted that the car behind me has enough stopping distance. Police have responded to that video saying the law was not broken.
Cyclist wasn’t acting within the law. It’s only legal to go through an amber light when it’s unsafe to stop. The cyclist was traveling at a jogging pace and had plenty of time to stop. Jogger should have looked before crossing, which isn’t illegal. Both are in the wrong, but the cyclist more so as they actually broke the law.
>Cyclist wasn’t acting within the law. It’s only legal to go through an amber light when it’s unsafe to stop.
So what you're saying is that you don't believe drivers go through amber lights ever? Or that the cyclist should kill themselves, for the potential inconvenience of pedestrians who don't look for traffic when they cross?
Were you aware that it's illegal for a pedestrian to obstruct a vehicle, EVEN if they have a green signal?
> So what you're saying is that you don't believe drivers go through amber lights ever?
I refer you to:
> Cyclist wasn’t acting within the law. It’s only legal to go through an amber light when it’s unsafe to stop.
> Or that the cyclist should kill themselves, for the potential inconvenience of pedestrians who don't look for traffic when they cross?
Some should. Or just stop cycling because they don’t think the law applies to them. Just make sure it’s not at the hands of another driver, because no one wants that on their head.
> Were you aware that it's illegal for a pedestrian to obstruct a vehicle, EVEN if they have a green signal?
They weren’t obstructing anyone. They hit the side of the bike.
Look. It's obvious at this point that you just want to have a circular argument where you refuse to acknowledge facts.
You've demonstrated that plainly enough. Why would anyone be interested in discussing anything with you, if you're so obstinate?
It is illegal to go through amber lights unless unsafe to stop. It was more than safe to stop. Cyclist was NOT within the law as they were slow enough, and far away enough to stop safely. How on earth do you think the cyclist is within the law?
It is NOT illegal to not look left or right before crossing, only a suggestion for safety.
Debatable for the cyclist. You are required to stop when the light is amber unless it is unsafe to do so, and it would be awfully hard for the cyclist to demonstrate let alone prove that it was unsafe to stop.
>
[–]Red_Wolf_2
>[S] 5 points 10 hours ago
>Debatable for the cyclist. You are required to stop when the light is amber unless it is unsafe to do so
So not debateable at all?
That was a deliberate push by someone who still didn’t have a green to do what they did.
If any fucking moron would actually ride a bike for 6 months in Melbourne, you would see WHY cyclists do this shit, it’s so that EVERY POSSIBLE MOMENT AND METER of their trip, is as far from vehicles as possible.
From the looks of the video, the jogger intentionally ran into the bike and pushed it (to make a point?).
And even after he didn't immediately go to the attention of the cyclist laying on the road - just jogged on the spot to keep warm.
Regardless of who's at fault - should at least check if the person is injured or not.
Whether or not the cyclist should have entered the intersection, the jogger should have looked right before running because oncoming traffic can kill you, even if you have theoretical roadrules on your side.
A cyclist in the wrong, but a jogger lucky that his stupidity didn't meet the bonnet of a car powering through the amber
Anyone can easily claim anything, whether they can support those claims is another matter. The fact dashcam footage exists in this case would make a claim that it was unsafe to stop very easy to challenge, especially as the cyclist did not even make any attempt to decelerate, speed up or change anything about their riding in response to the light change.
I'm with you on that. At least the cyclist could have pedalled harder to clear the pedestrians before they crossed. She kept going at the same speed, expecting everyone stop for her.
>I'm with you on that. At least the cyclist could have pedalled harder to clear the pedestrians before they crossed.
Why???? Accelerate so they'd do more damage to pedestrians who step out without checking when they don't have right of way?
> Anyone can easily claim anything, whether they can support those claims is another matter.
You've had this pointed out to you repeatedly and it's obvious that it's the case. The fact that you're resisting this criticism is an indictment on your intellect.
There is definitely an argument that the cyclist thought it was unsafe to stop so had to continue through. But if they are going to do that they must realise that they will be going against the traffic control signals and that they must give way to cars and pedestrians that are not going against the traffic control signals.
The pedestrian was crossing on a green, and even though it looks like he might have deliberately done it, there's no way to know for certain.
All we can really say is that the cyclist disobeyed a traffic control signal and hit a pedestrian that was crossing on a green man. At the very least it's 95% the cyclists fault.
By the time the collision occurred, the pedestrian light would absolutely have been green.
EDIT:
You can actually see the light for the traffic change before the cyclist crossed the pedestrian crossing. Those lights change the exact same time the pedestrian lights going the same way do. If the jogger had tunnel vision (and judging by their quick reaction they may well have) and saw their light turn green they simply just ran out onto the road in response to it.
Cyclist should have stopped at the Amber light. However as a runner who has almost been hit numerous times by red light running cars/bikes, I always look before i cross.
Though you shouldn't need to, if the light is green and everyone else is following the rules this shouldn't happen.
Yeah but that's a really good way to end up dead or injured. Never trust anyone else on the road, ever!
Yeh this, you can be legally right yet it doesn't change the laws of physics, you still could be struck
Yes, you should always be aware of your surroundings. To assume everyone is following the law is foolish
Yep this- if you're ever stepping onto a road and blindly following the lights you're just asking to be hit. Most people obey them but it only takes one prick not to for you to end up dead.
You're putting your well being into the hands of others? You're a risky person. Coloured lights don't stop vehicles. Always look.
Shouldn't doesn't mean shit when you're dead under a truck.
Lol, how are you still alive?
You mean like if you're a cyclist, who is approaching a green light, that turns amber, but you don't have time to look behind you, to seei if a car is going to run over if you stop?
Yes you should. A car may have been caught in the intersection as lights changed. Or an emergency vehicle could be running the red
100% agree
Cyclist could have safely stopped at the amber light before entering the intersection. Pretty clear case that they are in the wrong. Having said that- it’s always worth looking before you cross, even with a light. Plenty of people who’ve been in the right have ended up injured or dead.
Yeah, not sure what the debate is?
Pedestrian had a green light and had right of way. This is a closed case. I ride daily and jog 3 times a week, and have thought about this often. Cyclist also saw pedestrians and knew they were going through a partial red. They shouldn't have entered the intersection. However since they are already in the intersection, they should've moved more to the right to take up the whole lane and easily clear any potential pedestrian starting to move in to cross the road.
Exactly. The cyclist saw the people there, could have guessed they had a green light now, and should have avoided them. Or not run the light.
> The cyclist saw the people there So cyclist stops in the middle of the intersection and waits for them to cross?
The cyclist should not ride into people. There are various steps they could do to avoid that, which might mean going around them, or stopping. They wouldn't not be in the middle of the intersection.
If you look, the jogger hit the side of the middle-rear part of the bike. If the cyclist was "riding into people" the jogger would have been pushed in the direction the bike was travelling, not the bike falling sideways. The cyclist possibly had focus on the right hand side as that was where it was navigating right-of-way with the car that was turning. When I said "stop in the middle of the intersection" it was tongue in cheek, but at that point there was nothing the bike could have done. Saying "dont ride into people" is extremely simplistic and clearly not what anyone would have intentionally done. If you look at the speed the jogger took off at the lights I don't believe he would have had any time to react and take evasive action. It takes at least 0.5 seconds to realise what's happening and then another 0.5-1 second to react and brake or turn. At that point the rider was already on the ground as the jogger had already taken off. Yes the rider should not have gone through the yellow light. However after that's occurred, the rider still has right of way over the crossing cycle. Instead of the bike, it might have been a slow moving car, or a car that was stuck half way through the intersection by a turning vehicle or oncoming traffic. The green crossing light is an indicator to cross *if it's safe*. The jogger took off at a sprint without looking, and clearly it was not safe to cross. If you remember back to primary school - look left, look right, look left again, then cross.
> but at that point there was nothing the bike could have done. This is stupid, of course there is. I already fucking mentioned what they could do. What 100s of people manage to do every day. > If you look at the speed the jogger took off at the lights I don't believe he would have had any time to react and take evasive action. Only an idiot would wait for them to move. You know thy are going to move, they have a green. Here is the trick, DON'T RIDE RIGHT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE ABOUT TO STEP OUT. Complicated, I know.
> Only an idiot would wait for them to move. You know thy are going to move, they have a green. Here is the trick, DON'T RIDE RIGHT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE ABOUT TO STEP OUT. Complicated, I know. They had a green half way through - when the bike was already half way over the crossing. I'll give you one last example. * You are in a car (car A), and you are wanting to do a right turn, or a right hook-turn. * You enter the intersection and wait for the oncoming traffic to clear. * Once it's clear you start to complete your right turn. * As you're in the middle of completing the turn, the opposite lights go green. * Another car (car B) who was sitting stationary at the lights jumps off the lights really quickly and hits the side of your car. What do you say to car A? * It shouldn't drive into cars? * It should have driven around car B? * Don't drive in front of cars about to drive out? * It should have known the car was about to drive out so it should have stopped in the middle of the intersection?
Bikes or cars are not allowed to hit pedestrians. Not sure why this is hard for you to understand.
[удалено]
Agreed. At least when a cyclist hits a person they get hurt too. Not when cars do this, and it happens all the time, half the time they just drive off.
I'd argue both in the wrong in a practical sense, but cyclist in the wrong in a legal sense. They could and should have stopped when the light went amber (there were no obvious safety issues present that would have caused them to be unable to do so), instead they continued under power through the intersection on the amber. Jogger didn't follow the simplest rule of being a pedestrian, which is to look both ways before crossing (even when you have the lights). While some people could take the impact of a cyclist, there are plenty who could end up badly injured or dead from an impact, particularly children or the elderly.
Cyclist wasn't even going at full speed. That was an "I'm too lazy/impatient to brake". And as a cyclist, if I know I've cut a fine line at an amber/red light, I'd definitely be looking for pedestrians crossing.
Absolutely the case. Thats one of the big differences between powered and self-powered vehicle users, the willingness to stop differs because in the case of self-powered, the user knows they will have to expend more energy getting back up to speed. Be interesting to see how much that was/is a contributing factor to running lights and other road signs (ie stop signs)
Yeah same. You at least gun it to clear the intersection asap though.
I will disagree with your argument if you are considering on the basis of the term "wrong". We both agree that the cyclist is "wrong" from the legal standpoint of road rules however the jogger cannot be "wrong" for not looking both ways before crossing. It was a ***mistake*** for not doing so constantly but definitely not "wrong". Plus, how did you know he didn't actually do that before crossing? Maybe the cyclist was in his blind spot? If you see the video again, the jogger was already a few steps into crossing the road (along with the other pedestrians) in which we can assume that the green man light has already gone on so he shouldn't be in the wrong in expecting it to be reasonably safe to cross the road. A ***mistake*** to assume so? Sure.
Do you know the definition of mistake? [an act or judgement that is misguided or wrong.](https://www.google.com.au/search?q=mistake&rlz=1C1GGRV_enAU807AU807&oq=mistake&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65.727j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) Making a mistake **is** doing something wrong
the keyword above is "OR". You're taking the meaning of the word by itself without taking into account the context. For example, see the difference between these 2 sentences: > *"I made a mistake"* vs > *"I was wrong"* Both have different connotations. If someone tells you he made a mistake, it implies *he* did something wrong at that given moment or circumstance. If someone tells you he was wrong, it implies that whatever he did was socially, morally, ethically, etc unacceptable at any time or circumstance. Here are some sources that better describes the differences: http://media.llb.re.s3.amazonaws.com/pub/notes/mistake_error_fault.jpg http://www.scottcochrane.com/index.php/2016/07/28/i-was-wrong-vs-i-made-a-mistake/
I was wrong to assume that you had a life other than being a grammar nazi.
Fair comment depending on your definition of "wrong". In the context I used it I meant either individual could have avoided the incident by taking what would be considered normal and reasonable steps to ensure their own safety rather than making assumptions. If however you consider it at a moral level, the cyclist was the one in the wrong, while the pedestrian made the mistake of not checking for oncoming traffic that had done the wrong thing. I basically agree with you here, the jogger has a reasonable expectation that when indicated by lights that they should cross that they will be able to do so safely. My impression however is that we are all responsible for our own personal safety irrespective of who is in the right and who is in the wrong... And I have been tempted to step out at times into the path of oncoming cyclists intent on running red lights just to see how they react, running into me would end worse for them than for me unless they were going extraordinarily fast.
A green light doesnt mean it's safe to go...it means it's legal. Quite different
Yep, this is the right answer. Jogger is at fault, doesn't matter that the cyclist has broken the law in the process it was the jogger that proceeded to cross the road without checking it was clear to do so.
Something a lot of motorists don't always realise is that cycling brakes can take some time to bring them to a complete stop, safely - hit them too hard and you can risk going over the front... Not hard enough means you could wind up being stopped within the intersection and there's pressure from vehicles behind to push forward so that they can turn left on the orange. As a cyclist it often feels safer to opt for pushing forward even in the knowledge that the orange will finish transitioning to red by the time you are on the other side. I think in this circumstance, though - that the assessment "both are equally not sharing the roads sufficiently" is accurate. Cyclist probably could have stopped if they have good brakes and good skills - jogger should probably be paying attention to the intersection in general for dickhead cars that actually are running the red light
Then ride to the conditions, be aware of the traffic light cycle, slow down as you approach the lights? If a car hit a pedestrian or cyclist - would anyone be sympathetic to the story that sometimes it takes a while to slow down.
Well yeah they do ride to the conditions. Unfortunately it's not always easy to pick that a traffic light is going to turn orange before it does. If it is still green and they start slowing down then especially this is less desirable when you have angry motorists behind you who want to beep you for going too slow when they want to enter the intersection or turn left, too - see my previous comment about dangers of motorists you can't see impacting ones riding safety decisions. I also already commented on the fact that bike brakes are much more difficult to gauge compared to car brakes. Cars can slow down and stop faster from greater speeds than cyclists. Also motorists have better indications about their ability to brake safely and intersections and light timings are designed around this. For example, if you are in a car and at the speed limit, the solid lines in the approach to the intersection begin at what is considered to be a safe distance to brake without being a danger to vehicles travelling behind you. The length of time an orange light is displayed is also specified to correlate with these timings to a degree. Additionally, can tend to have antilock brakes which don't flip the vehicle when they are engaged with maximum force.
> jogger should **definitely** be paying attention to the intersection in general
Very true
> cycling brakes can take some time to bring them to a complete stop, safely You have to be travelling pretty bloody fast on a bike for the brakes to not stop you quickly enough. The rider in the video could have easily stopped at that light, they just chose not to.
My bike has solid brakes, I'm an experienced cyclist and from a cruising speed it takes me around 3 seconds to come to a complete stop if I slam them has hard as I feel comfortable with before I worry about going over the front. Maybe 4-5 seconds if it's a downhill but that doesn't look like the case in this video. Let's have a look at it in some detail, shall we? Starting at the frame at the beginning of the 2nd second (0.01) his front wheel is in line with the silver sedan's rear tyre. Happy to be educated on what particular make/model that sedan is but I'm gonna pick an average length car like a Toyota Camry as a point of measurement. According to Toyota it is 5m long and a rough eyeball has the middle of the rear tyre around 1.5m from the rear of the car. Move forward to the start of the 4th second (0.03) and he has gone past the silver sedan, past the white suv and is in line with the rear bumper of the red SUV. So in 2 seconds he has traveled 3.5m remaining in the first car length + maybe a 2m gap between it and the white SUV past the white SUV for another 5m, and then another 2m gap between the white SUV so around 12.5m in 2 full seconds which is a pace of 22.5km/h which is a pretty standard speed for a cyclist At 22.5 km/h on a bike that looks as old as his i'd expect it to take around 4-5 seconds to slow to a complete stop, safely unless he has some well maintained brakes. Decelerating for the 1st second to around 18km/h at 6m/sec, then down to 13 would be another 3m, then 2m to 8 and maybe another 1 meter second to stop completely so around 12m, being generous. Judging from the footage the light turns orange when he's aligned with the rear wheel of the 2nd car in the lane waiting to turn right so probably 2 car lengths + maybe 2 metres. An average car is around 5m long, there's 2 cars + 2m i dunno... 2 metres of space between them so that'd be about 10.5m between the cyclist and the white line before the intersection when the light turns orange. If it were me stopping from my cruising speed of 25km/h i'd be over the white line by around 2-3m into the intersection and have the risk of being crunched by a road raging motorist who was trying to sneak the orange to turn left. Without knowing the condition of his brake pads, and wires I can't say for certain but I'm guessing he saw the situation - if he had *very* good reaction time by my calculations he'd have stopped maybe 1m over the white line, braking at an intensity that probably would feel dangerous.
I'm not sure if your perception of time is a bit skewed, you have very bad brakes on your bike, or you don't use proper braking form. I have a cheap Reid single-speed, with its stock rim brakes and from cruise speed (eg. speed of the cyclist in the video), it takes me barely a second to stop completely using both front and bake brakes together (firm, but not hard lock). You can stop quickly using the front brake safely if you shift your body weight above the back wheel. Pretty simple by standing on the pedals and leaning your arse back as you engage the brake. If I were the rider in that video, I would have had no problem at all stopping in time... in fact I stop in shorter distances with less warning multiple times per week riding through the city. That rider clearly raced the orange, they in no way contemplated the safety of stopping in making their decision to proceed.
Less than 1 second from 22.5kmh means you are pulling in more than 1g of stopping force and are absolutely full of shit or your own awareness of time is off. Perhaps go test this out next time you are out on the streets. A formula 1 car stops at 1.5gs - I simply don't believe you.
You can bring maths and physics into this all you want on paper, but without scientific measuring and fixed conditions it’s a waste of time. In my own experience, including a non-scientific test this morning while riding to work, I easily stopped in a little over a second, in about 3m from what I perceived was a quicker pace than the rider in this video, on a down slope too. Open up the stopwatch on your phone and count to 4-5 seconds. If you come back and tell me it takes you that long to stop a bike from the speed shown in the video, there’s something seriously wrong with your ability to operate a bicycle.
Anecdotes. Meanwhile in my experience 3m of stopping distance will send me over the handlebars regardless of if my wheels lock up. I simply don't believe you - it is physically impossible - the act of standing up to lean that far back in the seat takes half a second in itself. You are full of shit and are clearly only going to continue to talk shit from the sounds of things. If you honestly believe what you're saying then you need to wake up to yourself. I'm not gonna bother wasting my time in this thread further
Geez you’re aggressive. You do you bro.
I get that way when people spout utter bullshit to me
>Cyclist could have safely stopped at the amber light before entering the intersection. You mean they could've been cleaned up by a car, for no reason?
So cyclists just don’t have to follow any rules, because of the chance they might be hit by a car? The car following them had left enough space to stop, and was slowing down as it was in a left turning lane. I think the cyclist in this case couldn’t be bothered stopping, and rode into an intersection that they were never going to clear before the light went red. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times in the CBD, so maybe it’s about time some bike riders took the same level of responsibility for pedestrians that they expect to receive from drivers.
>So cyclists just don’t have to follow any rules, because of the chance they might be hit by a car? Do you not understand English? The law is that you should stop at a yellow light if it's safe to do so. If you're in a car, and a truck is tailgating you, it's not safe to do so. If you're a cyclist and there's not enough time to check behind you for a car barreling down on you, it's not safe to do so. Simple. >I think the cyclist in this case couldn’t be bothered stopping, and rode into an intersection that they were never going to clear before the light went red. There's no obligation to clear the intersection before the light goes red under the law, so long as you obeyed the previous instruction. If there was, pretty much every right turning car would be booked at most inner city intersections. >they expect to receive from drivers. You mean the expectation to not be the victims of increasing numbers of fatalities that are overwhelmingly the fault of drivers?
Hey, you’ve convinced me now! I’m heading out for a cycle right now... Good work- hope you have a great Sunday night!
Cyclist clearly could not make the light transition and should have slowed down to a stop at the lights.
So the cyclist should've been psychic; and known that cars behind them would've stopped? Have you ever been on a bike in Melbourne traffic? Cars tailgate you, to the point that you can't actually brake without signalling to them first, and if you attempt to stop for an amber light, they will beep you.
No one is psychic and we all live under the assumption the cars behind us will stop, this is the same for cyclists and drivers. You also know this yourself. Before you ask me if I’ve ever cycled in Melbourne, yes, it’s my main form of transport - I don’t own a car in fact. You’re just making stupid claims
>No one is psychic and we all live under the assumption the cars behind us will stop, this is the same for cyclists and drivers. You're going to be killed one day, making assumptions like that. Fact.
Fact. Fact
That cyclist had ample time to stop, and was close enough to the curb to stop safely and not be in the way of cars behind them. Cyclists like that piss me off no end, because dickheads like that are what give all cyclists (like myself) a bad reputation on the road.
>That cyclist had ample time to stop, and was close enough to the curb to stop safely and not be in the way of cars behind them. No they didn't. Cars drive right into the curb all the time. >Cyclists like that piss me off no end, because dickheads like that are what give all cyclists (like myself) a bad reputation on the road. Sounds like that's a problem you have to resolve on your own terms.
The cyclist is more at fault here. Part of being on the road is making judgement calls on traffic light changes for everyone's safety. Clearly the cyclist took a risk that backfired as their speed was not as forgiving as if a motor vehicle does the same thing. And seeing how she kept going through at the same speed shows that she was not trying to make it through before pedestrians crossed. That's plain rude.
And the jogger is an idiot for relying on a green light and not looking to check that all the traffic had stopped. If a car ran a red he'd be in hospital.
How is the cyclist at fault?
Disobeying a traffic control signal.
They didn't. Fact. The pedestrian was the one disobeying the road rules.
To me it looks like the cyclist went through an amber light when they could have easily stopped safely. It also looks like the pedestrian stepped out onto a green pedestrian light.
> To me it looks like the cyclist went through an amber light when they could have easily stopped safely. Did you see them check the traffic behind them? No. It was not safe to stop. >It also looks like the pedestrian stepped out onto a green pedestrian light. So? You're not legally allowed to just step out into traffic.
By not doing enough to clear the intersection in time for cars to go. Alternatively, stopping at the crossing to let people cross when it is their turn to. Yes it's unfortunate the jogger ran into her, but this would all have been avoided if both parties stood by their responsibilities, starting with the cyclist because she was the one that started the chain of events we see.
>By not doing enough to clear the intersection in time for cars to go. ??? What do you propose they do other than follow the road rules?
I don't know. Stop when the lights turn yellow I guess.
>Stop when the lights turn yellow I guess. So you want them to risk injuring or killing themselves for no reason?
Let it go man
The cemetary is full of people who had right of way.
[удалено]
Daily? Less than 20% of the drivers obey the 2 stop signs closest to my work.
Yep. The only reason that this made it to air was to allow listeners to vent about how much cyclists annoy them.
Heres one I recorded some years back too, except in this case it was 100% the pedestrian's fault https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww4dPM7rfVg
Good reactions from driver there. Could have easily been a smooshed head.
I hate it when cyclists run lights and when they ride on the footpath. It's kinda hypocritical, when they rightfully call drivers to respect their right to space on the road, both in them not using the bike lane (if there's one available), that was purpose built, and them not respecting pedestrian space.
I hate it when anyone runs the lights.
And when they run the jewels.
As a cyclist, I largely agree. Bike lanes aren’t always useable, but then you’re supposed to use the road lanes like every other vehicle. Many cyclists give all of us cyclists a terrible reputation. Either be a cyclist, get off your bike as a pedestrian or get in a car. Make a choice. I’d welcome bike-police to stamp it out. Would help with the many belligerent car drivers too.
[удалено]
If safety is an issue with the bike lane, I kinda get it; I wouldn't have an issue with cyclists on the footpath if they were riding at the same pace as the foot traffic. However, I've been hit from behind by bikes going at speed a couple times whilst walking, and it hurts like hell. Why should your safety be put above pedestrian safety? I'm not saying all cyclists are hypocrites, but the ones who complain about cars not respecting their space, whilst intruding on pedestrian space definitely are.
[удалено]
I can't say I have a huge sample space of people who fit that space, but an old co-worker was definitely one. Would complain on social media about cars, but would routinely ride on the footpath, and especially use the pedestrian crossing to quickly flick a left turn.
Cyclists entering the intersection after the yellow is very common in the city. Have had to stop despite having the green signal to cross on a number of occassions. Having said that, happens way more often with cars.
Cyclists do it, because if there's a car behind you, and you brake, you die.
[удалено]
You can at least hear if a car or truck are shooting through though.
Jogger is at fault, doesn't matter that the cyclist has broken the law in the process it was the jogger that proceeded to cross the road without checking it was clear to do so.
Cyclist didn't break the law. You're only obligated to stop for an amber light if it's safe to do so. And they didn't have time to check for cars behind them. Cars routinely accelerate to make amber lights, so from a cyclist's perspective, where there's no time to head check, you have to continue.
I imagine it would be based on perception of the cyclist who doesn't have any way of knowing how close vehicles are behind him. So stopping suddenly could be a very bad move. Hard to prove the cyclist 'knew' it was safe to stop, despite video.
Well they didn't have time to look behind them, so obviously they had to continue forward.
As someone who cycles daily down some pretty sketchy Melbourne roads, I gotta say: who the hell rides their bike down Punt Rd at all, let alone in the dark... and also runs late orange lights?
The cyclist was approximately two car lengths from the intersection when the light turned orange. They had only two seconds to respond, travelling at about 20kmh. While they could have stopped, it is unwise to slam on brakes in traffic if there is a car travelling behind - and there was. It's so easy passing judgement from an arm chair knowing that the light is going to turn orange.
You mean the car which managed to stop well short of the lights, and which was going slower than the bike due to the driver wanting to turn left? Yeah, huge risk that one, but the cyclist would have been oblivious to it, not once did they perform even the slightest of headchecks.
If that car was going to gun the lights, as a lot do in Melbourne, performing a head check would be pointless and disastrous. Reacting to a light change, performing a head check, and then stopping safely is not something an average person can do in the 2 seconds that cyclist had. I have gone through many red lights in my car because I have not trusted that the car behind me has enough stopping distance. Police have responded to that video saying the law was not broken.
So your argument is that the cyclist should have been a psychic?
So you stop on the other side, you don't just barrel through, like a car would if it got caught.
On the other side? You mean underneath the car that's barreling through behind you right?
Then they're going through pedestrians as well...
Both were acting within the law. Just an unfortunate accident really.
Cyclist wasn’t acting within the law. It’s only legal to go through an amber light when it’s unsafe to stop. The cyclist was traveling at a jogging pace and had plenty of time to stop. Jogger should have looked before crossing, which isn’t illegal. Both are in the wrong, but the cyclist more so as they actually broke the law.
>Cyclist wasn’t acting within the law. It’s only legal to go through an amber light when it’s unsafe to stop. So what you're saying is that you don't believe drivers go through amber lights ever? Or that the cyclist should kill themselves, for the potential inconvenience of pedestrians who don't look for traffic when they cross? Were you aware that it's illegal for a pedestrian to obstruct a vehicle, EVEN if they have a green signal?
> So what you're saying is that you don't believe drivers go through amber lights ever? I refer you to: > Cyclist wasn’t acting within the law. It’s only legal to go through an amber light when it’s unsafe to stop. > Or that the cyclist should kill themselves, for the potential inconvenience of pedestrians who don't look for traffic when they cross? Some should. Or just stop cycling because they don’t think the law applies to them. Just make sure it’s not at the hands of another driver, because no one wants that on their head. > Were you aware that it's illegal for a pedestrian to obstruct a vehicle, EVEN if they have a green signal? They weren’t obstructing anyone. They hit the side of the bike.
Look. It's obvious at this point that you just want to have a circular argument where you refuse to acknowledge facts. You've demonstrated that plainly enough. Why would anyone be interested in discussing anything with you, if you're so obstinate?
What facts do you think you’re spouting?
The cyclist was acting within the law. The pedestrian was not.
It is illegal to go through amber lights unless unsafe to stop. It was more than safe to stop. Cyclist was NOT within the law as they were slow enough, and far away enough to stop safely. How on earth do you think the cyclist is within the law? It is NOT illegal to not look left or right before crossing, only a suggestion for safety.
Debatable for the cyclist. You are required to stop when the light is amber unless it is unsafe to do so, and it would be awfully hard for the cyclist to demonstrate let alone prove that it was unsafe to stop.
And we are taught from early childhood to look before you cross the road. Clearly the jogger was relying on coloured lights alone. Both are to blame.
> [–]Red_Wolf_2 >[S] 5 points 10 hours ago >Debatable for the cyclist. You are required to stop when the light is amber unless it is unsafe to do so So not debateable at all?
There's only one person here who acted in bad faith and intentionally tried to hurt someone.
The 3AW presenters?
That was a deliberate push by someone who still didn’t have a green to do what they did. If any fucking moron would actually ride a bike for 6 months in Melbourne, you would see WHY cyclists do this shit, it’s so that EVERY POSSIBLE MOMENT AND METER of their trip, is as far from vehicles as possible.
From the looks of the video, the jogger intentionally ran into the bike and pushed it (to make a point?). And even after he didn't immediately go to the attention of the cyclist laying on the road - just jogged on the spot to keep warm. Regardless of who's at fault - should at least check if the person is injured or not.
Shit happens, it was an accident, but the cyclist is a cunt for getting uppety for essentially fucking up.
Whether or not the cyclist should have entered the intersection, the jogger should have looked right before running because oncoming traffic can kill you, even if you have theoretical roadrules on your side. A cyclist in the wrong, but a jogger lucky that his stupidity didn't meet the bonnet of a car powering through the amber
My thoughts exactly, being right is pointless if you're dead or horribly injured.
Both fucked up
Typical fucking cyclist, really.
Also a typical jogger who doesn't think to check that they are safe to go.
Cyclist can easily claim it was unsafe to stop suddenly in traffic.
Anyone can easily claim anything, whether they can support those claims is another matter. The fact dashcam footage exists in this case would make a claim that it was unsafe to stop very easy to challenge, especially as the cyclist did not even make any attempt to decelerate, speed up or change anything about their riding in response to the light change.
I'm with you on that. At least the cyclist could have pedalled harder to clear the pedestrians before they crossed. She kept going at the same speed, expecting everyone stop for her.
>I'm with you on that. At least the cyclist could have pedalled harder to clear the pedestrians before they crossed. Why???? Accelerate so they'd do more damage to pedestrians who step out without checking when they don't have right of way?
> Anyone can easily claim anything, whether they can support those claims is another matter. You've had this pointed out to you repeatedly and it's obvious that it's the case. The fact that you're resisting this criticism is an indictment on your intellect.
Classy one aren't you...
There is definitely an argument that the cyclist thought it was unsafe to stop so had to continue through. But if they are going to do that they must realise that they will be going against the traffic control signals and that they must give way to cars and pedestrians that are not going against the traffic control signals. The pedestrian was crossing on a green, and even though it looks like he might have deliberately done it, there's no way to know for certain. All we can really say is that the cyclist disobeyed a traffic control signal and hit a pedestrian that was crossing on a green man. At the very least it's 95% the cyclists fault.
[удалено]
By the time the collision occurred, the pedestrian light would absolutely have been green. EDIT: You can actually see the light for the traffic change before the cyclist crossed the pedestrian crossing. Those lights change the exact same time the pedestrian lights going the same way do. If the jogger had tunnel vision (and judging by their quick reaction they may well have) and saw their light turn green they simply just ran out onto the road in response to it.
Coloured lights don't stop vehicles. Never trust a traffic light. Always look.
But that doesn't give the pedestrian right of way.
cyclist ran red light?