Now, we could call this a "bike crash", but that would be a little off, at least by our standards.
To be honest, we can't even tell who the real cause of this accident is: if we were to judge the basic facts, running a bike into a person on a pedestrian crossing is not at all legal, and puts the blame one the motorist.
However, it's the same road regulations which advise pedestrians to look sideways before crossing the street... just because some police/ ambulance/ firetrucks may be coming (and not everyone has good hearing) or... drivers who would not stop!
We could understand the rider for being unable to brake harder: we just know how bad things are when the huge holes turn the road into a trap. In our opinion the guilt could be split three ways: the rider gets most of the blame, because he should have seen people near the crossing and anticipate at least one would cross.
Finally, its the old lady who should have checked for incoming riders who can't anticipate and can't stop in time, either. Finally, the city authorities and that pathetic, poor excuse for a road.
However, it's the same road regulations which advise pedestrians to look sideways before crossing the street... just because some police/ ambulance/ firetrucks may be coming (and not everyone has good hearing) or... drivers who would not stop!
We could understand the rider for being unable to brake harder: we just know how bad things are when the huge holes turn the road into a trap. In our opinion the guilt could be split three ways: the rider gets most of the blame, because he should have seen people near the crossing and anticipate at least one would cross.
Finally, its the old lady who should have checked for incoming riders who can't anticipate and can't stop in time, either. Finally, the city authorities and that pathetic, poor excuse for a road.
Google News