Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?

[Wobblers]

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

The cyclist was in a cycling lane. It this thus rather difficult to argue that he was undertaking.

Nor does his speed seem unduly high.

 

[Schneil]

The cyclist was in a cycling lane. It this thus rather difficult to argue that he was undertaking.

Nor does his speed seem unduly high.

Agreed. The cyclist was in a clearly marked cycle lane, so the driver should have checked for a cyclist before completing the manoeuvre. (The think cyclist poster reminds drivers of this).

 

[PK99]

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.

As i pointed out in an earlier post, my smidsy was almost an exact carbon copy in term of road positioning: Insurance company accepted lability instantly, only issue was waiting till injuries resolved to sort out amount, but court dismissed the careless driving case against the driver. My insurance agreement in principle came before the decision to prosecute.

Those are facts, your post is opinion.

 

[Labradorofperception]

That's Woodhouse Lane in Leeds - one of the most heavily used and clearly marked cycle lanes in the city. To be honest, it's usually filled with private hire cabs and the charvers using the take away.

It's clearly marked and a continuation of a well used and obvious cycle lane. The driver should have anticipated cyclists and it is also downhill so the cyclist will be picking up speed anyway.

IMHO driver's faulty all the way - for the same reason they made a road one way further up in Headingley after numerous asshats turned right into cyclists.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The cyclist was being a bit dozy in not wondering why there was a gap in the traffic, but I'd say the car driver here is 100% liable.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The cyclist can ride as fast has he likes, within the bounds of furious cycling.
The cyclist can filter as much has he likes.

The nobber-driver drove like a nobber-driver drives. Anyone who attaches any blame to the cyclist is probably a nobber-driver themselves who has yet to be re-educated to understand that might is not right and that the nobber driver is totally 100% at fault for this collision.

The insurance company will be populated by nobber-drivers and our courts are full of 'em too. That CycleChat is too distresses me.

 

[cd365]

The driver was at fault, as others have said I hope he has a solicitor and gets it sorted.

 

[Custom24]

The insurance company will be populated by nobber-drivers and our courts are full of 'em too. That CycleChat is too distresses me.

Some of these CycleChat members may ride like they drive, in that they remain able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, and which can be reasonably be expected to remain so.
Are you saying this guideline ought no to apply to cyclists?

 

[Leodis]

I thought it you wore HiViz you would be seen? Shocking, I bet if he wore black he would have been seen

Obvious it was the driver at fault for presuming the road was clear, the cycle lane is clearly marked. tbh the cyclist should have spotted it, he/she just didnt until the impact.

 

[gaz]

Highway code rule 183 " When turning give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction."

 

[GrasB]

Some of these CycleChat members may ride like they drive, in that they remain able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, and which can be reasonably be expected to remain so.
Are you saying this guideline ought no to apply to cyclists?

But what is 'clear'. The cyclist failed to anticipate the s**t driving by the motorist, this failure resulted in the cyclist being unable to stop in time only after their clear distance was dramatically reduced. The cyclist no doubt could easily have stopped in the distance they saw to be clear right up until a motorist decided to reduce that distance by an order of magnitude!

 

[PK99]

Getting away from the legalistic issue of fault, how would you advise that cyclist, or other cyclists, to use that junction in future?

Barrel along at speed as this guy did
or
Approach with caution, anticipating potential error by ano driver, rider or cyclist turning across the box junction?

 

[NorvernRob]

It's the drivers fault from an insurance liability point of view, he turned right across other lanes and didn't have right of way.

However, as a driver and cyclist I wouldn't have gone across the junction at the speed the cyclist did. It wasn't his fault, but had he been more cautious passing stationary traffic at a junction he wouldn't have gone flying into the side of the car.

There's a woman who lives across the road from me, she's had 7 or 8 car accidents - none of them actually her fault technically, but all could have easily been avoided had she got any road awareness whatsoever. Some cyclists are the same. Just because you have right of way doesn't mean nobody is going to put you in danger, and 'it wasn't my fault' doesn't help you when you're under a car.

 

[Leodis]

All with the exception of Rosa members and myself are numpties on the roads, you have to expect the unexpected and ride with a war face

 

[HLaB]

Maybe the cyclist could have adopted a defensive cycling technique but only one person is 100% to blame and I'll give you a clue its the one with five wheels!