Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?

[Archie_tect]

Do not enter box unless your exit is clear... where you can see the road ahead is blocked by traffic you should approach yellow hazard boxes with caution and not assume the way is clear especially when you can't see the cars on the other side of the road at the box junction.

 

[Schneil]

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.

There is a difference in the burden of proof between criminal and civil law.
In your case the insurance company admitted liablity as they would have lost a civil case - the burden of proof is the "balance of probabilities".
The careless driving would be a criminal charge. To be prsecuted in criminal law, it has to be "beyond reasonable doubt".
So that's why the insurance company backed down, but the criminal case was unsuccessful.

 

[gaz]

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.

You mean priority. Using right of way in that context is incorrect. Right of way is a term that is used to describe if you have right to use that way. e.g. pedestrians have right of way on the footpath. pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have right of way on bridal paths. It does not mean you have more right than others, just that you can use it. As such, both the cyclist and the motorist had right of way. I.e. right to use the road.

The cyclist had priority over the car turning right who should have given way to the cyclist. The cyclist, if cycling with more care, could have conceded their priority and given way to the car.

 

[PK99]

The cyclist had priority over the car turning right who should have given way to the cyclist. The cyclist, if cycling with more care, could have conceded their priority and given way to the car.

HWC:
1. Overview
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

 

[Tony Smith]

Driver 100%. He failed to keep proper look-out

 

[snorri]

The driver was on the wrong side of the centre line as she entered the side road too, so in need of driver training on at least two counts.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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?

They should stay home and ride a turbo thus avoiding any and all risk of a collision at that location caused by nobber-drivers.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Philosophical question

'if a grand piano were to drop for the sky and land on a law abiding road-going cyclist would some nobber-drivers in this forum still blame the cyclist for cycling there?'

 

[glenn forger]

Driver 100% liable and 100% inattentive, cyclist 100% not liable but 11.43% Not Very Sensible.

The end, plz lock thread.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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?

That bit in bold, which nobber-driver taught you that? The Road Traffic Acts and the Highway Code, and RoadCraft manuals and IAM 'instruction' iirc make no mention of reasonable expectations.
-and-

If we allow this reasonable expectation mentalism to prevail is it not a reasonable expectation from the cyclist that the the nobber driver won't turn right across the path of another road user unless said nobber is CERTAIN it is safe to do so?

Or should all road users, on seeing the right hand indicators on an oncoming car light up simply stop dead on the basis one can be reasonably certain that the oncoming car is operated by a nobber-driver?

 

[PK99]

They should stay home and ride a turbo thus avoiding any and all risk of a collision at that location caused by nobber-drivers.

No, they should go out and ride according to the wise guidance of John Franklin in Cyclecraft (at such junctions) ....always ensure that you leave yourself a sufficient margin of error for the aggressive driver who flouts all the rules....

 

[vickster]

Being knocked off hurts regardless of who is at fault.
Ride cautiously in light of the prevailing conditions. I unfortunately didn't see the driver coming so couldn't take evasive action.
Frankly knowing that he was at fault doesn't stop my leg hurting nor help me sleep better at night. Pretty grumpy about it all right now!

Currently reading cyclecraft, an excellent book IMO

 

[400bhp]

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!

And, the cyclist wasn't going particularly quick.

 

[Custom24]

Philosophical question

'if a grand piano were to drop for the sky and land on a law abiding road-going cyclist would some nobber-drivers in this forum still blame the cyclist for cycling there?'

No one blamed the cyclist.

 

[vickster]

No