If I did, would it be my fault?

[slowwww]

Now that the days are getting shorter and I’m driving in and going home in the dark (no bike-parking or shower facilities yet at my new office yet!) I’ve also noticed another strange phenomenon about my new place of work, which is Crawley. A truly God-forsaken place

While many of the locals use their bikes to get about, many have no lights, reflectors, reflective clothing or helmets. Bearing in mind once you get outside the immediate town centre there are many roads where the lighting is sparse at best, this is ridiculous.

I was driving in this morning along one such road with a 50mph speed limit, came around a bend, and only saw at the last minute one such cyclist in stretch of road where the streetlights are probably 60-70 yards apart and so in between it's very dark. I wasn't speeding (promise!), and managed to swerve to avoid him, but probably only missed him by a foot or so. I was really shaken up.

My question is that if I hit him, would the law consider that to be solely my fault? Would they take into account his lack of appropriate safety equipment, or would I now be facing a death by careless/dangerous driving charge?

 

[asterix]

There is always the possibility that a cyclist may set out with lights but that they fail en route. The same could be true of any vehicle. At least the cyclist was travelling in the same direction as you thus reducing your speed of approach. Suppose it had been a stationary object? Could you have avoided collision?

 

[mattobrien]

How do you think it would play if you hit a car with no lights in the dark?

You can only see what is trying to be seen, what it trying to hide and possibly to their own detriment, is down to them.

Lights are so cheap and batteries last such a long time now there isn't really an excuse.

 

[asterix]

Slowww, next time you round that bend will you be travelling at the same speed?

I drive on bendy roads and my car is able to round them at some speed. One day it occurred to me that if there was a cyclist, pedestrian or an obstacle round them and another vehicle coming in the other direction, even in daylight, I might have a serious problem. I take such bends more slowly now with that in mind.

 

[slowwww]

If you had to 'swerve' to avoid the cyclist, then you were probably going too fast to be able to stop safely in the distance you could see to be clear.

We've all got so used to whizzing about in our cars that we've lost touch with just how slowly we would need to be travelling to fulfil that basic requirement. Coming up to a bend that you can't see around, it's quite surprising how much slowing down is needed - and most of us are too impatient to do it.

So yes, it would have been your fault.

So not even contributory negligence on his part?

I didn't post this to seek absolution, and I know that just because the speed limit is 50mph it doesn't mean that you do this speed the whole time as you must adjust according to the conditions (and as a regular cyclist and biker I believe that I am alert to them) but even at moderate speeds dark clothes and few streetlights are a very dangerous combination when they have no lights/reflectors

 

[Paul99]

If you had to 'swerve' to avoid the cyclist, then you were probably going too fast to be able to stop safely in the distance you could see to be clear.

This.

 

[Paul99]

So not even contributory negligence on his part?

Contributory negligence could be argued to mitigate your punishment i.e. the size of your sentence/ban or more likely fine, but you would still face the same charge.

As TMN and Asterix have pointed out we all do it sometimes, but we need to learn from it when we can.

Nobody got hit today, so don't fret about it but take it slower next time!

 

[slowwww]

No. If it had been a broken-down tractor round the bend, would you have hit it?

No, because it woudl have reflectors on.

 

[Paulus]

Remember, speed limits are purely that, they are not target speeds that you must travel at. We have many roads around here that go from 40 to 25 mph as there are bends and vehicles travelling at 25 mph or below, then have enough sighting time and braking distance to stop, should there be something stopped or travelling slowly around the bend.

 

[mr_cellophane]

Must be a country thing. I see more cyclists with no lights in Derby than I ever have in London and the street lights are better there as well.

 

[Cheddar George]

So not even contributory negligence on his part?

I didn't post this to seek absolution, and I know that just because the speed limit is 50mph it doesn't mean that you do this speed the whole time as you must adjust according to the conditions (and as a regular cyclist and biker I believe that I am alert to them) but even at moderate speeds dark clothes and few streetlights are a very dangerous combination when they have no lights/reflectors

Yes there would be contributory negligence on the cyclists part.

I think this raises an interesting point. Should somebody find themeselves in a situation where they have hit a cyclist riding without lights in the dark then they would employ a solicitor who quite rightly would look for contributory negligence due to lack of lights. However, in view of recent cases it is more than likely that he would also look for contributory negligence if the cyclist was also not wearing a helmet.
Personally i could live with my solicitor pursuing the former but not the latter.

 

[Markymark]

Yes there would be contributory negligence on the cyclists part.

I think this raises an interesting point. Should somebody find themeselves in a situation where they have hit a cyclist riding without lights in the dark then they would employ a solicitor who quite rightly would look for contributory negligence due to lack of lights. However, in view of recent cases it is more than likely that he would also look for contributory negligence if the cyclist was also not wearing a helmet.
Personally i could live with my solicitor pursuing the former but not the latter.

Not having lights could be argued would make you more likely to be hit but not wearing a helmet would make no difference.

 

[asterix]

Yes there is a significant difference between morality and the law, however compensation claims are a civil matter whereas motoring offences fall under criminal law. There is a higher burden of proof in the latter and the penalties are less negotiable. IMO helmet use should not be a factor in either but lighting could be (as Cheddar George says). I made a very successful compensation claim in a matter where the police quickly lost interest.

 

[swee'pea99]

[QUOTE 2777131, member: 9609"]
I know of a case where a bloke, while out on the rob, illegally entered a construction at night, switched his lights off as he did not want to be seen. then drove into a pile of black-top and was injured - he successfully won a compensation claim from the company for not having highlighted the black-top with cones.
[/quote]
Just how well do you 'know' 'this case'? Sounds to me like one of those urban myths, circulated to support everyman's conviction that the law is an ass, when most of the time, it isn't.

As for the OP, I suspect the answer to your question in reality is that it's a classic case, however unfair, of 'it depends'. Specifically, it depends what beak you found yourself in front of, and what their particular foibles happened to be. If they were cyclist-hating petrolheads, you'd be let off without so much as a harsh word. If they were a keen cyclist (whose kids cycle too) you could find yourself looking at an exemplary 30 days. I personally think any cyclist who frequents darkened 50MPH-limit roads in the middle of the night with no lights is asking for trouble, and no motorist who hits one should have to deal with anything other than shock and distress...but I'm not a magistrate.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Yes there is a significant difference between morality and the law, however compensation claims are a civil matter whereas motoring offences fall under criminal law. There is a higher burden of proof in the latter and the penalties are less negotiable. IMO helmet use should not be a factor in either but lighting could be (as Cheddar George says). I made a very successful compensation claim in a matter where the police quickly lost interest.

Do we have a civil claim of unlawful death in this country. I know the Americans do.