Hard Impact; Where does fault lie?

[Schneil]

Given in the letter of the law the car was at fault, did the cyclist engage legal advice, challenge the insurance company decision and proceed to settle. Was the cyclist hurt, the bike damaged? If the fault was with the cyclist according to insurance did they go after the cyclist for damage to the car, injury to the driver? Be nice to know after 7 pages of discussion!?
This is where British cycling membership comes in handy.

I got this reply
"
You would think so but it was the driver who claimed against the cyclist for damage to his car and the insurance went in the drivers favour and as far as I know he won the case, this is because the cyclist was technically speeding and should have already been slowing for the red light, the way he was riding and the speed he was going indicated no intention of slowing and also suggests that he plans on running the red light, due to the ridiculous layout it's apparently the cyclists job to make sure the junction is clear before crossing and although the cyclist hit the side of the car it still counts as him going across the cars path as the car had already made the maneuver before the cyclist was anywhere near the junction.
It's all pretty controversial and i would say it's the fault of the council and their crap lane layout."

If I was the cyclist I'd be getting a better solicitor! Viewing the video it appears the car does not pause to check the cycle lane is clear before proceeding into the junction.
So moral of the story is to have legal cover (through ctc or bc)

 

[glenn forger]

The same chap reckons he called the insurance company and they told him the outcome of the case, which seems unlikely.

 

[NorvernRob]

If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights at green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ.

But if you're observant, you'll take note of the truck approaching the lights slowing or not slowing and hence act accordingly. You never take a green light alone as a go, you check the traffic flow too.

You'll not drive onto that roundabout because that motorist on the next exit might not stop.

Observation and reaction, same as above.

You won't walk across that zebra crossing, because that car might not stop.

Is the car slowing down? Is the driver looking your way? No? Then don't walk into the road stupid!

A bus might mount the pavement, so let's not walk to the shops. In fact, let's not use the car, the mechanic might have botched servicing the brakes...

Totally different, unforeseen events which you cannot control.

You can't do it: it's not possible to anticipate every mistake someone might make. Experience may help you anticipate some mistakes - but not all.

No you can't anticipate every mistake, but going past stationary traffic in an inside cycle lane across a junction doesn't require much thinking about. You just slow down and make sure the junction is clear.


The question is then: was it reasonable for the cyclist to be cycling in that manner? Given that he does not appear to have been travelling at an unwise speed, that it was a box junction and it would thus been reasonable to expect a gap there anyway, that it has been commented that traffic queues mean brakes are applied often, hence the appearance of brake lights isn't a useful warning and he was very visible if the motorist had bothered to look I would be very hesitant before condemning him.

I don't think anyone is condemning the cyclist at all, just saying that they personally wouldn't have gone straight past the traffic into the junction without slowing and having a look first.

Maybe some people have to really think about these things, to most people it should just come without having to think. You don't consciously try and anticipate the actions of others, it's just a part of staying safe no matter what mode of transport.

 

[Profpointy]

I think there's a bit of stubborn silliness in this thread; arguing for the sake of even.
No one at all has said car driver not to blame.

However, if you are going down the inside, cycle lane or not, only particularly observant car drivers are going to be aware of this when the traffic stops leaving you a nice gap for your right turn - cyclo-drivers like ourselves most likely. The cycle lane per se may not even be visible to them to be fair.

Whizzing through regardless has a likely outcome.

Cycle lanes leading to false sense of security and hence "a bad thing" might be said too.

Let's try another thought experiment - clear road, doted whites, legal to over take - but a junction on RHS. Do the overtake - car comes up to junction turning left - duly looks left - clear - smack into overtaker !
It may be technically the puller-outer's fault, but two drivers are dead, so it's little consolation to anyone.
Puller outer made a mistake - but understandable all the same - you just don't expect cars coming the wrong way

 

[CopperBrompton]

Let's try another thought experiment - clear road, doted whites, legal to over take - but a junction on RHS. Do the overtake - car comes up to junction turning left - duly looks left - clear - smack into overtaker !
It may be technically the puller-outer's fault

Both are at fault there.

Highway code rule 167
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

 

[glenn forger]

Cyclist wasn't overtaking, he was in his lane. Driver 100%

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Y8HKhMais

 

[CopperBrompton]

Cyclist wasn't overtaking

My response was to Profpointy's thought experiment.

 

[glenn forger]

beg your pardon.

 

[Profpointy]

Both are at fault there.

Highway code rule 167
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

very sensible of it. double whites as well in such places would be even better. For avoidance of doubt I'd never overtake in such circumstances anyway.

 

[Wobblers]

If your only activity in life is to try and anticipate cockwomblery in others, you're not going to do very much. You'll never pass those traffic lights at green, because it's just possible that a truck driver will RLJ.

But if you're observant, you'll take note of the truck approaching the lights slowing or not slowing and hence act accordingly. You never take a green light alone as a go, you check the traffic flow too.

You'll not drive onto that roundabout because that motorist on the next exit might not stop.

Observation and reaction, same as above.

You won't walk across that zebra crossing, because that car might not stop.

Is the car slowing down? Is the driver looking your way? No? Then don't walk into the road stupid!

A bus might mount the pavement, so let's not walk to the shops. In fact, let's not use the car, the mechanic might have botched servicing the brakes...

Totally different, unforeseen events which you cannot control.

You can't do it: it's not possible to anticipate every mistake someone might make. Experience may help you anticipate some mistakes - but not all.

No you can't anticipate every mistake, but going past stationary traffic in an inside cycle lane across a junction doesn't require much thinking about. You just slow down and make sure the junction is clear.


The question is then: was it reasonable for the cyclist to be cycling in that manner? Given that he does not appear to have been travelling at an unwise speed, that it was a box junction and it would thus been reasonable to expect a gap there anyway, that it has been commented that traffic queues mean brakes are applied often, hence the appearance of brake lights isn't a useful warning and he was very visible if the motorist had bothered to look I would be very hesitant before condemning him.

I don't think anyone is condemning the cyclist at all, just saying that they personally wouldn't have gone straight past the traffic into the junction without slowing and having a look first.

Maybe some people have to really think about these things, to most people it should just come without having to think. You don't consciously try and anticipate the actions of others, it's just a part of staying safe no matter what mode of transport.

Please read my reply to pk99. I deal with the issues you bring up there. Also, please refrain from replying within the quote, as it makes it extremely hard to read, and breaks the forum's reply mechanism.

 

[davefb]

Both are at fault there.

Highway code rule 167
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

who's overtaking? [edit] aaarggggh got confused sorry trikeman

if it was two car lanes of traffic and the outside lane stopped, flashed the guy... but the other car lane was okay, would anyone call it "overtaking" or even question this?

its' completely the drivers fault.. Yes the cyclist might have been more defensive ( though who knows they might have backed off ?) but theres only one person making a mistake here.

Bah, like probably all of us, I had a driver flash a learner turning right recently, not at a box, the bloke had just stopped in the main road for god knows what reason... obviously I was slowing down, but still had to lock up as he turned across.

the problem with the flashing is that it takes the drivers attention, its a stupid thing to do.. Thing is, I thought good lawyers also sue the car doing the flashing since they were part of the incident?

 

[benb]

It's not necessarily stupid to flash someone across.
If you are completely sure it's safe, then it's OK. Say for example they are coming out from a side road, you have checked for cycles and motorcycles filtering in the same direction as you, and you can see it is clear in the other direction.

But you do have to be completely certain, and correct in your certainty.

 

[vickster]

The onus is on the car manoeuvring to ensure the road is clear before they do so, it's not the responsibility of the person flashing, they have a different view of the road. As much as it may not be advised, it's not an offence.

 

[Garethgas]

If YOU were riding your bike instead of the chap we saw, would you
a) Ride exactly the same as he did
b) Slow down as you were crossing a junction
c) Stay in bed

 

[vickster]

b)