Hi, I was travelling in an area that was knew to me, it was around 8:30pm so roads were still busy and it was dark. My bike was litup like a christmas tree with Lights front and back, also I was wearing a high-viz jacket and high viz bottoms. I needed to cross the road and the quickest way was to just jump onto the pavment and go across the road with everyone else when the lights changed to red and the green man appeared. The beeping noise stopped just as I was about to cross so it was too late to stop and I thought they would stay red for a couple of seconds longer anyway. The lights instead of staying red changed to the flashing amber and the cars started going without seeing me and I was hit by a taxi which was travelling at very low speed. I was fine and so was my bike frame. However the front wheel took the brunt and is completely unusable and something has happened to the gears. I also got a dent in his car so I can't ask him for money. Basically I was just wondering who is to blame ?
Involved in my first collison with car, my fault ?
- Thread starter tomlocke
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
gratts
New Member
- Location
- Nottingham
How could the cars not have seen you if you were so visible?
There should be a delay between the pedestrian lights going red and the road traffic lights going to amber then green. I've walked across pedestrian crossings just as the lights turned from green to red and the road traffic lights are still on red by the time I've got to the other side.
I don't think cars are techincally allowed to proceed on amber..
The highway code says about cars.."you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision."
If there was no way you could realistically stop and they went on amber then I'd put the blame with them, but it's pretty iffy IMO.
I guess you didn't swap any info with him?
There should be a delay between the pedestrian lights going red and the road traffic lights going to amber then green. I've walked across pedestrian crossings just as the lights turned from green to red and the road traffic lights are still on red by the time I've got to the other side.
I don't think cars are techincally allowed to proceed on amber..
The highway code says about cars.."you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision."
If there was no way you could realistically stop and they went on amber then I'd put the blame with them, but it's pretty iffy IMO.
I guess you didn't swap any info with him?
Rolling Thunder
Guest
When you jumped onto the pavement did you dismount the bike?
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
50/50. You shouldn't have been cycling across the crossing at all, and shouldn't have started to cross after the red man went on; and the taxi driver should have checked it was clear before setting off.
On the 'lit up like an xmas tree' front, it's worth being aware that cyclists are often much less visible from the side than front or rear.
When you say 'hi-vis', do you mean actual reflective strips, or just dayglo yellow? As dayglo doesn't help at all in the dark.
Ben
On the 'lit up like an xmas tree' front, it's worth being aware that cyclists are often much less visible from the side than front or rear.
When you say 'hi-vis', do you mean actual reflective strips, or just dayglo yellow? As dayglo doesn't help at all in the dark.
Ben
PBancroft
Senior Member
- Location
- Winchester
User3143 said:
Cor... I agree with Lee!
I would add that its not a good idea to cycle over crossings anyway (unless it was a toucan crossing) for reasons that are possibly clear.
I think there are two aspects:
a) you should not have been cycling on the pavement or the pelican crossing. It is illegal.
the taxi driver should not have driven into you: he would have been just as much at fault if you were a pedestrian: a parent with a kiddie in a pram; an OAP with a walking aid, for example.
Conform to the rules of the road: it doesn't mean you won't get run into, but it does mean that it will be the other guy's fault!!
Cheers
a) you should not have been cycling on the pavement or the pelican crossing. It is illegal.
the taxi driver should not have driven into you: he would have been just as much at fault if you were a pedestrian: a parent with a kiddie in a pram; an OAP with a walking aid, for example.Conform to the rules of the road: it doesn't mean you won't get run into, but it does mean that it will be the other guy's fault!!
Cheers
Andy 71
New Member
- Location
- Chelmsford
Basically, if you had not entered the crossing at the time the lights changed from red to flashing amber, the vehicles (by the highway code definition) would have taken that as a signal to start moving and wouldn't expect anyone to start crossing because the little red man would have been showing.
In such a case, I think they had cause to expect you to wait your turn, and acted accordingly. If this happened, the motorist could claim on you.
However, if you were already on the crossing when the lights changed from red to flashing amber, the motorist jumped the gun and should cough up. The fact you were on a bike would immaterial to the case as you could have easily been a pedestrian.
Obviously, only you were there, so only you'll know exactly where you were and precisely when.
In such a case, I think they had cause to expect you to wait your turn, and acted accordingly. If this happened, the motorist could claim on you.
However, if you were already on the crossing when the lights changed from red to flashing amber, the motorist jumped the gun and should cough up. The fact you were on a bike would immaterial to the case as you could have easily been a pedestrian.
Obviously, only you were there, so only you'll know exactly where you were and precisely when.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Nope. Legally there is no right for a cyclist to cross and no requirement for drivers to accord precedence to a cyclist.Andy 71 said:
Both were at fault, and my guess is that were it to go to court, it would be a 50/50. Since repairing the dent (plus the lost earnings while the taxi is off the road) will cost more than a replacement wheel, the OP should be happy it was left with each party sorting out their own damage.
Ben
HF2300
Insanity Prawn Boy
+1 for James AC, Ben et al.
I've had a couple of discussions with the police about drink driving in the past, where I've said it seems a bit unfair that a driver who is at fault in an accident should be let off because the other driver had been drinking.
Their reply was had the drinker been legal - i.e. not driving because he was drunk - he probably wouldn't have been there and the accident would not have happened.
Whatever you think of this, I suspect they would take a similar view in this case - you shouldn't have been cycling on the pavement and you shouldn't have cycled across the crossing. That it 'might have been' a pedestrian is not material - it wasn't.
Having said that, the cabbie was probably a twit not to see you, but perhaps it depends how fast you entered the crossing.
Ben's point about dayglo is a good one - it's no better than bright clothing at night unless it has reflective areas, and many cyclists pay massive amounts of attention to being seen front and rear but very little to being seen from the side.
I've had a couple of discussions with the police about drink driving in the past, where I've said it seems a bit unfair that a driver who is at fault in an accident should be let off because the other driver had been drinking.
Their reply was had the drinker been legal - i.e. not driving because he was drunk - he probably wouldn't have been there and the accident would not have happened.
Whatever you think of this, I suspect they would take a similar view in this case - you shouldn't have been cycling on the pavement and you shouldn't have cycled across the crossing. That it 'might have been' a pedestrian is not material - it wasn't.
Having said that, the cabbie was probably a twit not to see you, but perhaps it depends how fast you entered the crossing.
Ben's point about dayglo is a good one - it's no better than bright clothing at night unless it has reflective areas, and many cyclists pay massive amounts of attention to being seen front and rear but very little to being seen from the side.
Andy 71
New Member
- Location
- Chelmsford
Ben Lovejoy said:
That asides Ben, it does not give the motorists the right to run him down.
The key material issue in this case is when he entered the crossing and the light sequence the motorist saw at the time. If the lights said 'stop' and motorist had plenty of opportunity to notice and react to his presence, but decided to stick his foot down, surely it wouldn't matter whether he was on foot, on a bike or on a pogo stick?
If the motorist had done this, then claimed, the cyclists insurer could easily point towards the behaviour of the driver as contributory negligence. OK, the highway code might say you shouldn't ride bikes on pedestrian crossings (which I actually strongly agree with), but in that scenario, that should not allowed to be used as a means for the motorist to wriggle out of liability by creating a distraction from the material basis of the case, i.e. person on crossing collides with driver.
hackbike 6
New Member
- Location
- The Mile End Road.
When you say 'hi-vis', do you mean actual reflective strips, or just dayglo yellow? As dayglo doesn't help at all in the dark.
Isn't it possibly better than wearing black?
I came across a "ninja" cyclist the other week and I saw him very late,so late in fact that it was only an instinctive no time to look behind swerve.
Isn't it possibly better than wearing black?
I came across a "ninja" cyclist the other week and I saw him very late,so late in fact that it was only an instinctive no time to look behind swerve.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
The dayglo only, or fluorescent colours, turn to a dull colour under typical street lights, not much different from the colour of the roads under the same lighting. They need UV light to fluoresce.
Being seen is about behaviour and positioning, not about hiviz and reflectives. This is a classic example of someone relying on hiviz to protect themselves when it won't. Most if not all PPE has gaping "holes" in strategy where the protection won't work, and it tempts people to place their trust in the PPE inappropriately.
Being seen is about behaviour and positioning, not about hiviz and reflectives. This is a classic example of someone relying on hiviz to protect themselves when it won't. Most if not all PPE has gaping "holes" in strategy where the protection won't work, and it tempts people to place their trust in the PPE inappropriately.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Indeed: there is an overriding obligation on all road-users to avoid collisions, no matter who has the right of way. I doubt many of us here would be alive today if were were not rather more adept at that particular skill than the cabby was. But legally, the OP doesn't have a leg to stand on.Andy 71 said:
Ben
