Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?

[Exile]

For all the "could've, should've" that's being banded about here, I can't help but wonder if the insurance decision would have been the same had it been two lanes of cars the driver was crossing and had a car v car smash rather than car v bike. Also wonder how accepting of the insurers decision the motorcyclist would've been if it had been a right turning car flashed out of the side road which then knocked him off.

The long and short of it is that it's a drivers responsibility to ensure each manoeuvre they make is carried out safely. Just because another driver flashes to say they're letting you turn across them doesn't mean it's safe to do so right at that moment. Whatever the cyclist could have done in the lead up to this collision in order to avoid it really doesn't have any bearing on who's responsible. After all, we could all remove the risk of being involved in a collision if we stayed at home all the time.

 

[Feastie]

I agree it's a ridiculous decision re: the laws of the road. The driver turned across a flow of traffic which had right of way, and did so without checking it was safe. The existence or not of a cycle lane is irrelevant because a cyclist is not being 'unsafe' simple by virtue of not being in a bike lane, that would be lunacy.

Although on a human level (and assuming there is no cycle lane to give the driver a clue) you do wonder in terms of visibility whether it's reasonable for the driver to have seen the cyclist under those circumstances. Seems like they're filtering along beside a load of cars at some speed and it would have to be quite a hypervigilant driver who'd spotted him or her come into their vision in time to react. I'm not sure if I would have spotted that guy until the last moment if I were driving. The cyclist has hopefully also learnt a lesson from this in the sense that you can't be confident and look after yourself when you don't know if people can see you. Popping out at speed from behind a row of stationary cars is unwise to say the least. What he did was within the law but the law and self-preservation aren't the same thing sometimes. At least that's my experience.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

... it would have to be quite a hypervigilant driver who'd spotted him or her come into their vision in time to react. I'm not sure if I would have spotted that guy until the last moment if I were driving.

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.


GC

 

[PK99]

Almost an exact re run of my smidsy - except i was going much slower than the cyclist shown here.

Insurance company accepted liability immediately - £10k payout.
Magistrate court on careless driving: Case dismissed
Guy defended himself and the prosecuting solicitor was a total drip who could hardly string s sensible or coherent question together.

 

[clockman]

I agree it's a ridiculous decision re: the laws of the road. The driver turned across a flow of traffic which had right of way, and did so without checking it was safe. The existence or not of a cycle lane is irrelevant because a cyclist is not being 'unsafe' simple by virtue of not being in a bike lane, that would be lunacy.

Although on a human level (and assuming there is no cycle lane to give the driver a clue) you do wonder in terms of visibility whether it's reasonable for the driver to have seen the cyclist under those circumstances. Seems like they're filtering along beside a load of cars at some speed and it would have to be quite a hypervigilant driver who'd spotted him or her come into their vision in time to react. I'm not sure if I would have spotted that guy until the last moment if I were driving. The cyclist has hopefully also learnt a lesson from this in the sense that you can't be confident and look after yourself when you don't know if people can see you. Popping out at speed from behind a row of stationary cars is unwise to say the least. What he did was within the law but the law and self-preservation aren't the same thing sometimes. At least that's my experience.

Totally agree. I think, that as a cyclist I would have been slowing. The driver of the car obviously didn't see the cyclist and obviously wasn't aware of the cycle lane he was also crossing. As far as I'm aware, it is the driver turning right in that instance, that has to make sure it is safe to do so, especially with the traffic which will be obscuring their visibility.
It would seem that the insurance company is looking for a way out. I'd look up the relevant yellow box junction rule in the highway code and quote it to them.

 

[downfader]

OK let me play devils advocate here for a second . The cyclist is clearly behind d the motorcycle rider and he is behind a car . The car in front of the motorcycle applies his breaks and I'm speculating he has flashed the car waiting to turn right at the junction , the motorcycle rider has anticipated this and slowed down . The cyclist has come from behind d the rider and continued forwards not reducing his speed and gets smacked by the car .
The insurance probably used the unable to stop cos of his speed because all the other road users in the video managed to do so
Anyways just put it out there and not saying its my opinion

To a lot of older drivers flashing your headlights is still a warning measure... and iirc it is still listed as a warning in the Highway Code.

 

[Colin B]

To a lot of older drivers flashing your headlights is still a warning measure... and iirc it is still listed as a warning in the Highway Code.

Agree and that's why I don't acknowledge it nor do it , but I was speculating on that part the driver could have simply stopped because he thought he might block the box .

 

[classic33]

110.Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.

111. Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal for you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully.

I've never known flashing headlights to have had any other meaning given to them in the Highway Code, other than advising other road users of your presence.

 

[Wobblers]

Helmet: check
Hi-viz: check
Lights: check
Cockwomble who doesn't see cyclist despite all the above: check.

100% the fault of the motorist, despite his insurance company's protestations. You are required to check for oncoming traffic when making a right turn and yield to them. The cyclist needs to get himself a solicitor: it'll most likely encourage the insurers to pay up rather than incur expensive legal bills when they know they can't win.

A dishonourable mention needs to go to the cycle lane here. Traffic was slow moving: the safe place for the cyclist was in the traffic stream. Instead, the cycle lane funneled him into the junction, encouraging exactly this sort of conflict. And it would probably have made it harder for the cockwomble to spot the cyclist - though that certainly is no excuse for not bothering to look.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Helmet: check
Hi-viz: check
Lights: check
Cockwomble who doesn't see cyclist despite all the above: check.

I'd add just one more to that: it was broad feckin' daylight!

GC

 

[Hip Priest]

We can talk all day about the benefits of anticipating incidents like this, but it's beside the point. The driver was wholly at fault for the collision.

 

[400bhp]

For all the "could've, should've" that's being banded about here, I can't help but wonder if the insurance decision would have been the same had it been two lanes of cars the driver was crossing and had a car v car smash rather than car v bike. Also wonder how accepting of the insurers decision the motorcyclist would've been if it had been a right turning car flashed out of the side road which then knocked him off.

The long and short of it is that it's a drivers responsibility to ensure each manoeuvre they make is carried out safely. Just because another driver flashes to say they're letting you turn across them doesn't mean it's safe to do so right at that moment. Whatever the cyclist could have done in the lead up to this collision in order to avoid it really doesn't have any bearing on who's responsible. After all, we could all remove the risk of being involved in a collision if we stayed at home all the time.

^^This^^

What the insurer is implying is that there is only a flow of singular traffic. Or in other words, cyclists should never filter.

Insurer's decision means jack in terms of right and wrong. I do hope the cyclist has/had a good solicitor as they should/would tear another hole in the insurer's ass if it went to court.

As we have more and more cyclists on the roads, in the short term more of this (accidents) will happen but might actually reduce longer term as car drivers get used to cyclists.

 

[PK99]

^^This^^

Or in other words, cyclists should never filter.

I.

There is a difference between filtering and undertaking at speed.
The driver was in the wrong, but, from the video evidence, the cyclist was injudicious in his choice of speed - an event such as occurred is eminently possible at junctions like that

 

[marzjennings]

Driver is at fault and it's clear the cycle lane continues across the junction. I think, as mentioned, the insurance company is trying to pull a fast one.

 

[Schneil]

The driver's insurance company will of course deny any claim or payout initially.
However the final decision on who is at fault does not lie with them, but with the courts.
I'm assuming the cyclist has instructed a solicitor and no doubt they will be proceeding to the next stage, which is to take the insurance company to the civil courts.
A civil case only needs to be won on the balance of probabilities, and there's video evidence in this case.
IMHO the court would rule it's the drivers fault. So the insurance company once given a court date will likely settle the claim.