In that case then is without doubt the fault of the driver.
But as others have said it is a common problem when filtering and one which requires upmost attention.
Accident: Bethnal Green road - who's responsible?
- Thread starter Howard
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
In that case then is without doubt the fault of the driver.
But as others have said it is a common problem when filtering and one which requires upmost attention.
IMHO you were both at partial fault. I don't know the road but 18mph passed stationary traffic on a narrow road in a place where there are junctions and meandering pedestrians obstructed by the traffic just seems too fast. I would not have ventured passed 10/12 mph.
I wonder what the view of the motorist was? If he had a long bonnet and the cars immediately to his right had no clear windows he has to edge well into your danger zone before he can see you. If my bonnet had been bent in that condition my insurer might think it worth a claim.
I wonder what the view of the motorist was? If he had a long bonnet and the cars immediately to his right had no clear windows he has to edge well into your danger zone before he can see you. If my bonnet had been bent in that condition my insurer might think it worth a claim.
DrSquirrel
Guest
I was asking how fast past this junction... in your mind.
jonny jeez
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chislehurst, Kent, UK
+1 I would say both vehicles displayed a lack of observation given the move they were each making.
but, interestingly the cyclist in question clearly felt it was their fault as they seemed to embarrased to stop and report, or even discuss this with you (jumping a red just to get away) these seem like the actions of someone who is a little in shock (not medical shock but mental) and more than a little embarrased about the outcome.
Main thing is, YOU spotted the threat, so well done to you... (you will need those spidy senses if you plan to continue to filter at a shade under 20mph
) 
bit of both, the centre line has no legal force, you're quite entitled to drift over it to overtake which is legally what you were both doing
so driver at fault if you have to chose
you however should not be overtaking someone else overtaking, I thought it was going to be about that
so driver at fault if you have to chose
you however should not be overtaking someone else overtaking, I thought it was going to be about that
ferret fur
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Roseburn
Imagine if everyone concerned was in a car. Who would be at fault if someone overtook another vehicle approaching a side road and hit a vehicle coming out of it.?
In my book if you are overtaking you need to make sure that it is safe to do so. Don't forget neither of the bikes are in a separate lane whne they go pat the traffic. Therefore this is an overtaking manoevre.
In my book if you are overtaking you need to make sure that it is safe to do so. Don't forget neither of the bikes are in a separate lane whne they go pat the traffic. Therefore this is an overtaking manoevre.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
What I don't understand is why would it matter what side of the road the cyclist was on? I usually shake my head when someone comes up with the "wrong side of the road" line, it's like a "Road Tax" call. It's the right side of the road to be overtaking on.
Other than this, I'm with the general consensus - mostly the driver's fault for not expecting filtering traffic, but also some on the cyclist.
Other than this, I'm with the general consensus - mostly the driver's fault for not expecting filtering traffic, but also some on the cyclist.
2Loose
Guru
- Location
- Loughborough, Leicestershire.
IIRC Vike was knocked off his work motorcycle in a similiar situation not long ago and he would be perfectly placed to comment on the apportionment of blame in this kind of situation.
For what it's worth, the driver should have checked mirrors and indicated before moving out, but the cyclsit should have been taking extra care filtering near juntions\side turnings etc. and looking out for just this kind of thing. Six of one and half a dozen of the other imho.
For what it's worth, the driver should have checked mirrors and indicated before moving out, but the cyclsit should have been taking extra care filtering near juntions\side turnings etc. and looking out for just this kind of thing. Six of one and half a dozen of the other imho.
Lizban
New Member
- Location
- Blackheath, London
Not good at exact MPH but a speed in which i could stop in 1/2 a cars length - so say 5-10 mph?
Personally I would say that while what you and the other cyclist were doing is OK - maybe you were going a bit quick - have to give people a chance to see you - however the car driver really had no excuse to proceed without being certain that there was nothing on the other side of the stationary vehicles.
I would be doing the same but at a speed where I can be certain that I can both observe and stop easily for errant turning traffic
I would be doing the same but at a speed where I can be certain that I can both observe and stop easily for errant turning traffic
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Both are at fault. The driver failed to accord precedence, and the cyclist was overtaking past a junction.
Highway code rule 167:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
Highway code rule 167:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
- approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
jonny jeez
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chislehurst, Kent, UK
+1, overtaking is exactley what the otehr side of the road is for. useing it should be something you are very comfortable in doing (whether in a car or on a bike) and you are taught to move as far across as you can on some advanced motorcycle classes to avoid right swinging vehicles (who are frustrated by the stationary traffic).
So drifitng is not a concept you should buy into
