Car pulls out on me and I'm to blame?

[siadwell]

while cyclists should not undertake lines of stationary traffic, especially coming up to a junction.

Could you please point me at the relevant bit of the Highway Code?

 

[Greenbank]

Could you please point me at the relevant bit of the Highway Code?

There's nothing explicit, but if you take this part of Rule 163 to justify undertaking by bicycles:-

"stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left"

then Rule 167 has (albeit for overtaking):

"
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

"

Also Rule 88 (although it is in the motorcycle section):-

"
88

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 in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.
"

There's nothing illegal about undertaking on a bicycle: http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue44/issue44page41.html

But common sense says that you need to be careful when undertaking when there are road junctions on the left hand side, either for cars turning out, or for cars coming the other way turning right across you.

You may legally have priority, and the other person may be at fault, but the moral high ground isn't much use with a broken leg or even a mild case of death. Much as you may dislike it, the easy way of avoiding such problems is slowing down and being careful whilst remembering that you although you may, technically, have the right to barrel along the road as fast as you can just because the law says you can't, you also have the duty to be careful and avoid accidents if possible.

 

[marinyork]

Rule 167 is not about undertaking. It's to stop stupid manuevers at major junctions and primarily to protect against head on smashes. It's why it is a do not.

 

[gaz]

Rule 167 is not about undertaking. It's to stop stupid manuevers at major junctions and primarily to protect against head on smashes. It's why it is a do not.

I think greenbank was quoting it to say that cars shouldn't overtake cyclists when coming up to a junction and then giving way to cars going into or out of the side road.

 

[marinyork]

I think greenbank was quoting it to say that cars shouldn't overtake cyclists when coming up to a junction and then giving way to cars going into or out of the side road.

Indeed. Well fair enough.

 

[Greenbank]

Not really, that's a separate issue. You can't be undertaking someone if they're overtaking you. If they were overtaking you then they won't have been stopped in the road to let other traffic in front of them.

It was more that Rule 163 describes an allowable case of undertaking (in slow moving traffic) but it's still considered overtaking.

So, if you take undertaking on a bicycle to mean following the same rules as overtaking, then the other rules/advice are in force.

Whether this logic is solid enough or not is debatable, which is why I also posted a link to the article on the legality of undertaking. Given that even that isn't clearly defined you're not going to find a section on the Highway Code saying that undertaking on a bicycle is tickety-boo. And, given that there's nothing explicit about it in the Highway Code doesn't mean that it's perfectly legal and your divine right.

However, rules aside, and this was my main point; there's no point being morally, or even legally, right when you're dead. So, choose to take the risk or not, it's up to you, but be aware that you will be increasing your chances of getting into trouble if you choose to do it. You can then choose to be careful when you get to situations like this (i.e. slowing down when approaching junctions on the left just in case) or barrel through it assuming that a government produced pamphlet that the driver may or may not have read will protect you from a tonne and a bit of metal.

 

[tightwad]

From many of the helpful posts on here, for which I am very grateful, it appears to be the consensus that I was not to blame. Whether I am in the eyes of the insurance companies will be decided in due course.

I have held Gold Standard insurance with the British Cycling Federation for many years and have mobilsed them to assist me.

In my original post I mentioned that the police appeared hostile towards me, I suspect because they felt it was a trivial matter to be called out for. They are definitely responsible for the driver changing his mind in terms of paying.

I originally explained to the driver, who pulled out on me, that I would happily repair the damage at his expense which he agreed to. Sadly following the police's intervention he retracted this and on the back of their suggestion that some culpability lay with me, the pound signs lit up in his eyes and whiplash was hinted at and the decision to go through the insurance was agreed upon.

I am now reluctantly forced to act in a way that I would have liked to avoid. It is encouraging, as stated at the start of this post, that it appears he will fail in his attempts to blame me.

 

[tightwad]

I'll admit that I have not read the other reponses but here is my two cents worth:

You could argue that the driver of the car flashing the mini bus out should have checked there mirrors before doing so due to the nature of what they are doing and that there may be overtaking or undertaking traffic.

You could also say (and this is your strongest point) that the driver of the mini-bus should have definitely checked before pulling out. Time and time again motorists have assumed that it is safe to go just because a driver has flashed their headlights at them.

Having said that you shuld have been travelling at a speed and checking what other traffic is doing. The fact that you wrote off the front end of your bike speaks volume imho. What speed what were you doing? And why undertake in rush hour doing that speed?

imho I think the cop is right yes the driver of the car shows poor awareness and the driver of the mini bus shoud have definitely checked before pulling out, but you should have been travelling at a speed where you can stop in time.

In future ride to the conditions of the road, and overtake stationary/slow moving traffic rather then undetake.

My apologies if this sounds a tad patronising, remember it is only my opinion and I would echo some of the comments regarding contacting the CTC and see what they say.

Good luck

Upon impact 10 - 12 mph, the front end was written off by the front offside wheel going over it.

 

[thomas]

I originally explained to the driver, who pulled out on me, that I would happily repair the damage at his expense which he agreed to. Sadly following the police's intervention he retracted this and on the back of their suggestion that some culpability lay with me, the pound signs lit up in his eyes and whiplash was hinted at and the decision to go through the insurance was agreed upon.

I would like to think that any insurance party would tell them to go **** themselves about getting whiplash for a bicycle. I don't have a problem if people want to go for a "legitimate" whiplash claim (as in, you did have a sore neck...and the insurance party decide to just give some money for it).

imho I think the cop is right yes the driver of the car shows poor awareness and the driver of the mini bus shoud have definitely checked before pulling out, but you should have been travelling at a speed where you can stop in time.

I do agree that as a cyclist filtering at any speed is a bit silly (OP, was it 20mph you were doing...or 12mph?). It does depend on the road, but if I was undertaking cars (very, very rare for me), I'd probably be doing around a walking pace. I really only every overtake cars at speed when I can use the outside lane/their are some hatchings to give me some room.

So, yes, in the future be a bit more careful! However, I wouldn't hold you to blame for causing the accident. The van came out of a side junction without checking.

It might pay to mention that...somewhere in the highway code (too lazy to quote it), it does say about not overtaking at junctions. This might be used against you.

 

[Greenbank]

One small point as this phrase is often wheeled out in discussions like this:-

but you should have been travelling at a speed where you can stop in time.

Within reason, or it would be impossible to pass the junction.

Assume you're going along that road with a junction to the left (just as in the original setup) and there are no other cars around to flash or otherwise interfere. It doesn't really matter whether you're driving or riding a bike either.

If you stick by the "travel at a speed where you can stop in time" then you'll need to slow down approaching that junction, just in case the car pulls out.

Even if you slow down to 5mph to pass the the junction, the waiting car can lurch out into the road at the last second so that you don't have enough time to brake before you hit it.

Is 5mph really too fast when you don't have to give way? 2mph? 1mph?

 

[marinyork]

In my original post I mentioned that the police appeared hostile towards me, I suspect because they felt it was a trivial matter to be called out for. They are definitely responsible for the driver changing his mind in terms of paying.

Just ignore what the police said. Someone I know went into the side of a taxi on a roundabout that pulled out on him and the copper egged on the motorist and told porkies about seeing it and cooked up a fanciful story that could easily be demonstrated to be false by evidence.

I originally explained to the driver, who pulled out on me, that I would happily repair the damage at his expense which he agreed to. Sadly following the police's intervention he retracted this and on the back of their suggestion that some culpability lay with me, the pound signs lit up in his eyes and whiplash was hinted at and the decision to go through the insurance was agreed upon.

Again don't think too much of this, people do this, whether the cop had intervened or not. Hopefully the whiplash claims will either be thrown out or investigated by a special investigator as part of the insurance company. I believe that insurance companies are a lot wiser on whiplash thesedays and low momentum collisions and whiplash claims will get frowned upon.

I am now reluctantly forced to act in a way that I would have liked to avoid. It is encouraging, as stated at the start of this post, that it appears he will fail in his attempts to blame me.

You don't owe him anything. You are insured for 3rd party and it is for his insurance company to sort out any claims he thinks he has for damage. You really need someone forcefully arguing your case though, as otherwise I think there is a chance of cooked up stories and them getting away with it. If there are double dotted white lines on the junctions and they crossed it, you need to tell the insurers this.

 

[Alien8]

One small point as this phrase is often wheeled out in discussions like this:-



Within reason, or it would be impossible to pass the junction.

Assume you're going along that road with a junction to the left (just as in the original setup) and there are no other cars around to flash or otherwise interfere. It doesn't really matter whether you're driving or riding a bike either.

If you stick by the "travel at a speed where you can stop in time" then you'll need to slow down approaching that junction, just in case the car pulls out.

Even if you slow down to 5mph to pass the the junction, the waiting car can lurch out into the road at the last second so that you don't have enough time to brake before you hit it.

Is 5mph really too fast when you don't have to give way? 2mph? 1mph?

Yep, when I hit (on a bike) an oncoming vehicle that decided to make a right-turn across the front of me they only person to suggest I might had been going too fast was the driver of the car - strange that.

I think speed and stopping in time only really applies to avoiding rear-ending what's in front.

 

[very-near]

Strange wording on that sect 72 passage, referring to motorcyclists. If it had been a motorcycle in your position, I'd have expected him to be largely responsible for the accident. (I've been a motorcyclist for 25 years)

Does being on a bicycle reduce that responsibility? I think the best you could hope for is 50/50.

I'm glad you're not hurt though.

The right of way lies with the cyclist in this instance as he was on the main carraigeway, on his side of the road and was able to make progress.
It could be argued that the driver who flashed the van out has taken responsibility in the same way you do if you stop to let a ped cross the road.

What goes against tightwad is that you should proceed in a manner that you can stop within the distance you see to be safe!

 

[Greenbank]

It could be argued that the driver who flashed the van out has taken responsibility in the same way you do if you stop to let a ped cross the road.

No, there's no duty of care on a driver who flashes, waits, waves someone through or any other similar behaviour. It's been legally tested before but I can't find a reference to the case.

Put it another way, being beckoned like this does not absolve the driver of any part of their responsibility.

 

[Alien8]

It could be argued that the driver who flashed the van out has taken responsibility in the same way you do if you stop to let a ped cross the road.

That will be no responsibility.

What goes against tightwad is that you should proceed in a manner that you can stop within the distanc eto see to be safe!

As far as I can understand it was clear ahead until some muppet pulled-out from a side-road in front of him at the last moment. If he'd been going slower then (i) he might had been able to stop before the collision or (ii) reduced to damage from the impact. These are good things and I recommend them but I don't think failure to do it apportions blame in this instance.