Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?

[PK99]

A thought experiment.... Imagine a similar road set up with a significant difference. It is a two lane road.

Same traffic light set up. Same box protecting the side junction.

Rh lane is stopped as in the video.

Cyclist is coming toward the camera. He intends to turn into the side road.

Cyclist turns into the box and across the first lane of stationary traffic, and is taken out by the car proceeding legitimately across the box junction as his exit is clear.

Who is to blame?

 

[Feastie]

No need for hypervigilance. If the driver had paused even briefly, rather than swinging through the turn as though nothing were coming, normal vigilance would have revealed the cyclist.

I think 'pausing briefly' counts as hypervigilance. For me anyway. Once I've seen that there's apparently nothing coming and have begun turning into somewhere where everybody else seems stationary and the way seems clear, I rarely pause half way through turning into something to look left and right again. On a bike or in a car. Unless I'm in a super busy place where the situation is constantly changing, or if I'm expecting the possibility of a cyclist filtering up the side having seen a bike lane or something - but then that would just be vigilance appropriate to the situation. I think it's not outside the realms of normal human decision making and fallibility that you don't constantly check side to side or pause if you think you're doing a completely safe turn. Which, in seemingly stationary traffic, isn't totally unreasonable to think.

 

[Profpointy]

A thought experiment.... Imagine a similar road set up with a significant difference. It is a two lane road.

Same traffic light set up. Same box protecting the side junction.

Rh lane is stopped as in the video.

Cyclist is coming toward the camera. He intends to turn into the side road.

Cyclist turns into the box and across the first lane of stationary traffic, and is taken out by the car proceeding legitimately across the box junction as his exit is clear.

Who is to blame?

Where's the car coming from ?
(unless by "two lane" you mean the cycle lane in the OP's example is not a "car" lane)

 

[400bhp]

[QUOTE 3020031, member: 30090"]Cyclist[/QUOTE]

+1

Have we missed something here? The OP must have had a point to prove?

 

[Dragonwight]

Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.

 

[uclown2002]

Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.

Oh ffs!
#gobsmacked.

 

[oldroadman]

I give up. The car driver made a turn without properly checking that it was safe to do so. Simple fact. All other comment is pointless. Whether lights were flashed or not is of no consequence. The cyclist had perfect right to proceed, therefore the other vehicle is at fault. On advanced driving courses, trainers emphasise observation and NEVER using the silly flashing lights which indicate NOTHING. You may as well say that before making the turn horn was sounded as a warning to others to stay clear as something dangerous was about to happen.
Insurers are just stalling, get a lawyer (the crashed rider would have if he/she was a BC/CTC member) on it and screw them.

 

[400bhp]

Sorry but I would go with the cyclist being to blame, the car had already made the turn and the cyclist essentially ran into the side of him, he should have waited.

Quoted for ridicule.

 

[PK99]

I give up. The car driver made a turn without properly checking that it was safe to do so. .

The video is not as clear on that point as you seem to think. as the still below shows.

As the driver enters the box, the cyclist is still some way behind the stopped mini (the section of video preceeding the still frame shows a clear cycle lane)

 

[PK99]

Where is the cyclist and how fast are they travelling?

The cyclist has not yet appeared and is somwhere to the rear of the mini. Speed unknown, estimate possible from ground measurements and video evidence.

 

[oldroadman]

View attachment 42053

The video is not as clear on that point as you seem to think. as the still below shows.

As the driver enters the box, the cyclist is still some way behind the stopped mini (the section of video preceeding the still frame shows a clear cycle lane)

View attachment 42053

It is still the responsibility of the driver making the turn to check that it's OK and safe to do so. A pause and check look would have been required to do this, there is no evidence of this. I'll reiterate, if you turn across a line of traffic on the indication of someone else, the responsibility is all yours as you are effectively turning "blind". You are supposed to be able to see it's clear to make the turn before doing so. How difficult is that concept to grasp?
The cyclist may have been on a cycle lane and moving briskly, but had every right to be there and to proceed, all the fault is with someone who turns across without properly checking it is safe to do so. Case closed.

 

[PK99]

It is still the responsibility of the driver making the turn to check that it's OK and safe to do so. A pause and check look would have been required to do this, there is no evidence of this. I'll reiterate, if you turn across a line of traffic on the indication of someone else, the responsibility is all yours as you are effectively turning "blind". You are supposed to be able to see it's clear to make the turn before doing so. How difficult is that concept to grasp?
The cyclist may have been on a cycle lane and moving briskly, but had every right to be there and to proceed, all the fault is with someone who turns across without properly checking it is safe to do so. Case closed.

you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.

case closed?

 

[400bhp]

you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.

case closed?

Which proves what exactly?

 

[Profpointy]

you might think so, but as i posted up thread, in almost identical circumstances, the case against the diver who hit me was dismissed but his insurance had already paid out.

case closed?

There are actually two cases here - the criminal / traffic law one - where the man got off (ie driving not bad enough for a conviction) - case closed.
And the "was it his fault" case - where it seems it was - so insurance paid out for his mistake - different case closed.

(not arguing with you, but there's risk of deja vue all over again...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Oh ffs!
#gobsmacked.

Post of the month.

Very well said.