Today nearly had the ubiquitous pedestrian step in front of me without looking. Fortunately was able to stop without falling.  But it was funny because the same day a friend of mine sent me this:   http://imgur.com/gallery/jZvpbwY

The IMGUR page shows a video clip of a English  cyclist approaching a street crossing, with various pedestrians here and there.  The cyclist goes behind one of the peds and is going to mske it through ok, but the ped sees him and turns around and then steps in front of him.

The title of the video is that once a ped is crossing you have to stop by UK law. However, others responding to the post pointed out if the ped is out of the way you can go behind him.  That makes sense.  Either way, 

What the heck?

Biker should have stopped because there were peds crossing, but this particular ped was in no danger until he tried to body check the rider.

  You can see the ped with the man purse deliberately turned around and walked in front of the bike to "prove a point". (then kept trying to dance with him. "Excuse me, would you like to tango?" WTF?).

Had he not deliberately turned back and stepped in front of the biker, who was going behind him, biker would have made it through without incident. And when he did the two step across the road I'm surprised the biker didn't just kick him in the nads.  It's one thing to say the biker should have stopped.  Yes he should.  But how is the ped trying to get hit and then doing a dancing with the starz routine anything but dumb and dumber?

Let's look at this logic: "Oh, a vehicle is doing something that might be illegal, but won't hit me.  Let me throw myself in front of it maybe we'll both get adjoining rooms at the ER"!

 

I mean, if a cyclist responded to what he perceived as a careless crossing pedestrian by deliberately aiming for the pedestrian, would he be considered a victim here?  No.  So why is this guy? 

 

I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.