Opinions Please

[icowden]

Would it? I thought the vehicles were high-sided and prevented visibility.

The vehicles could be high sided enough to obscure a bike but not, for example, a double decker bus. As the OP says a bus would have been visible I think we can draw the conclusion that the "high sided" vehicles are single deck vehicles (lorries?) and that the bus route deals in double decker buses.

I don't think the OP is being rude, just leaving the thread to lie now that the usual suspects have jumped in with the usual arguments..

 

[straas]

I think it's something you have to be very much aware of when riding, and I'm always cautious at junctions when alongside queuing traffic, even when in 'protected' infrastructure. The onus is always on the person crossing a lane than the one travelling within the live lane, but as we're pretty vulnerable on bikes I adjust accordingly.

But if it went to court, the finding would be 100% in favour of the cyclist - as the driver hasn't exercised due care when crossing a live traffic lane.

I mentioned previously about a bus, because they do often come in single decker form, even where double are more usual - and can (mostly) be used by black cabs. It is likely that a vehicle would be travelling at a greater speed than a cyclist.

 

[mjr]

The vehicles could be high sided enough to obscure a bike but not, for example, a double decker bus. As the OP says a bus would have been visible I think we can draw the conclusion that the "high sided" vehicles are single deck vehicles (lorries?) and that the bus route deals in double decker buses.

Buses are never the only users of bus lanes. Even if cyclists, taxis and motorcyclists are not allowed (they are many places), there's still police cars, council vans and bus service vehicles using them which could be concealed by lorries. If your interpretation is correct and the driver was only looking for big buses, they had a very lucky escape that what hit them was only a cyclist.

 

[davidphilips]

PaulSB have to agree with your view on post 15, Just hope the cyclist is ok and only damage is to his bikes forks and his front wheel and frame are ok. Best wishes to both your son and the cyclist and hope both can come to an agreement learn and move on.

 

[ManiaMuse]

I recently had a similar accident in September. I was cycling in a bus lane which was clear ahead. A car coming from the other direction turned right across my path, I presume 'flashed out' by another car going in my direction in the lane to my right.

The third party driver's insurance paid out for a new bike within two weeks. The police who attended the scene said that it was the driver's fault and asked if i wanted to prosecute or have the driver sent on an awareness course (I chose neither as they seemed genuinely upset and shocked at what they had done).

I have just had a legal claim pay out for my injuries (broken nose/facial lacerations and scaring/whiplash/cuts and scars on hands/elbow/ shoulder needing physio but thankfully nothing worse).

Make of that what you will, but would your son have crossed the bus lane if was a bus coming? And if he couldn't see if it was clear because his vision was obscured then should he have proceeded with more caution?

I would advise your son to just take it on the chin as one of those things and accept the consequences rather than play a needless blame game which he will in all likelihood lose. Sounds like it could have been a lot worse so he should be thankful for that. I imagine that he will probably be a more careful driver in the future in similar situations.

 

[icowden]

Buses are never the only users of bus lanes. Even if cyclists, taxis and motorcyclists are not allowed (they are many places), there's still police cars, council vans and bus service vehicles using them which could be concealed by lorries. If your interpretation is correct and the driver was only looking for big buses, they had a very lucky escape that what hit them was only a cyclist.

Again, you seem to be answering a question that wasn't asked with your own brand of what-aboutery.

@straas asked "what if it had been a bus". @PaulSB confirmed it would have been visible.
You responded by asking how that was possible and calling him rude.

I offered that there are situations whereby it is possible to see a bus but not a cyclist. It seems to me to be the best assessment of the facts given. No one mentioned, motorbikes, taxis, scooters, hoverbikes, landspeeders, police cars, ambulances, etc etc etc. For clarity, no one suggested that the driver was looking for buses, or indeed any vehicle at all.

What was offered is that buses in general are much bigger than bicycles and can therefore be seen over other vehicles. It may have been when the OP said "high sided" he wasn't making a forensic definition, just trying to convey the information that the cyclist couldn't be seen over the vehicles allowing the OP's son to pass through and then over the bus lane. The OP's son may or may not have had a lucky escape.It is however possible that he could see a bus and not a bike.

 

[Tom B]

Strangely enough a colleague was involved in a collision similar to this. He was in a car legally using the bus lane while traffic in the normal lane was stopped due to congestion ahead and the reason the bus lane was built. Another vehicle crossed the standing traffic and was tboned.

Dash cam footage showed the incident in full.
The insurers of the vehicle crossing paid out in full without disputing or seeking to split liability.

I don't see why a cyclist would be any different.


That said as a cyclist or a driver in the bus lane I would be approaching such a junction expecting someone to the across me. But then again if you look at the dash cam compilations on YouTube the ability to anticipate seems to be a skill many drivers lack.
In the main the YouTube dash cam vids are a collection of people over reacting and failing to anticipate, often both but I digress.

 

[mjr]

@straas asked "what if it had been a bus". @PaulSB confirmed it would have been visible.
You responded by asking how that was possible and calling him rude.

I called an action rude and not the comment about visibility - not even from the same post. Such odious misreporting reflects extremely badly upon the poster when the original exchange is visible above for all to see! https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/opinions-please.256686/post-5852670

I offered that there are situations whereby it is possible to see a bus but not a cyclist.

In other words, you answered another question that wasn't asked with your own brand of what-aboutery. The question asked was whether it would be possible to have not seen a bus, not whether some buses could have been seen. As I hope you know, some short single-deck buses are lower than high-sided vehicles.

It seems to me to be the best assessment of the facts given. No one mentioned, motorbikes, taxis, scooters, hoverbikes, landspeeders, police cars, ambulances, etc etc etc.

Ah right, I'm "no one" to you. Got it. Thanks(!)

 

[icowden]

I called an action rude and not the comment about visibility - not even from the same post. Such odious misreporting reflects extremely badly upon the poster when the original exchange is visible above for all to see! https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/opinions-please.256686/post-5852670

In other words, you answered another question that wasn't asked with your own brand of what-aboutery. The question asked was whether it would be possible to have not seen a bus, not whether some buses could have been seen. As I hope you know, some short single-deck buses are lower than high-sided vehicles.

Ah right, I'm "no one" to you. Got it. Thanks(!)

Some serious hair splitting going on here. In a single post you stated that the OP was contradicting himself. I elected to explain how both conditions could coexist as the OP had indicated he would not post further (an act by the OP which you deemed rude.) No question was raised directly. Let the record stand corrected.
I hope now that you feel the contradiction was clarified by applying a bit of common sense.

 

[boydj]

Strangely enough a colleague was involved in a collision similar to this. He was in a car legally using the bus lane while traffic in the normal lane was stopped due to congestion ahead and the reason the bus lane was built. Another vehicle crossed the standing traffic and was tboned.

Dash cam footage showed the incident in full.
The insurers of the vehicle crossing paid out in full without disputing or seeking to split liability.

I don't see why a cyclist would be any different.


That said as a cyclist or a driver in the bus lane I would be approaching such a junction expecting someone to the across me. But then again if you look at the dash cam compilations on YouTube the ability to anticipate seems to be a skill many drivers lack.
In the main the YouTube dash cam vids are a collection of people over reacting and failing to anticipate, often both but I digress.

I've had this same situation as a cyclist in lane 1 passing standing traffic in lane 2 while a right-turner was flashed to go. There was no question that liability lay with the turning driver and I was fully compensated for damage and injuries.

 

[derrick]

Driver. No argument.

 

[Crankarm]

That's not what "right of way" means. Please learn from it before another incident but ok, maybe you were a bit wrong but that driver was really really wrong. And ultimately, annoyingly, it doesn't really matter who's right or wrong when they're still sat in a comfy chair and we're the ones lying on the ground.

Yes it does. If you are driving/riding a long a piece of road and have not just joined it or are in the process of joining it and the road markings dictate that you can proceed you have right of way. In this instance the son of the OP turned across a bus lane without full view of the bus lane he was crossing. He did not have right of way. Bus lanes are bordered by a thick white line and are not meant to be crossed by vehicles not entitled to enter the bus lane. This applies mainly for the benefit of road users travelling in the direction of the bus lane to demarcate the bus lane and only authorised vehicles such as buses, taxis and cyclists are allowed in it. For those vehicles crossing carriageways, their drivers have to be especially vigilant. From the information given here it appears the son hasn't been. Using high sided vehicles as mitigation in defence is a bit lame. If the son was a prudent and cautious driver he would have stopped and waited until he could properly see that it was clear and safe to proceed. High sided vehicles you cannot see around, should make you drive even more cautiously or wait until you can see for yourself that the way ahead is clear. You just do not pull out blindly from behind such vehicles into traffic that has right of way without first making sure the way is clear. You just don't. And you don't move forward just because other vehicles beckon you on by flashing their lights. This is ripe for causing an accident which the son has done.

If I was the son I would take it on the chin and accept that he caused the collision with the cyclist. I would count my lucky stars that the cyclist wasn't, we hope, seriously injured or he as a driver was not flattened by a bus or coach full of passengers proceeding along the bus lane. I think it is fairly clear cut that the son drove in a manner such that he failed to keep proper look out passing in front of another vehicle that had right of way causing the collision. End of. The rest is all excuses. In fact the high sided vehicles etc are all warnings for him to take extra care which he didn't. He could even be accused of driving without due care and attention. It doesn't matter how fast the cyclist was travelling. In any case he probably wasn't riding in excess of 20-25mph which is below the speed limit of 30mph in most urban areas. The cyclist had right of way cycling in a protected lane which your son decided to enter without making sufficiently careful observation to ensure no traffic was coming before he did so.

On another thread cyclist says he was knocked flying by dozy car driver that came out of nowhere across his path as he cycled down a bus a lane totalling his bike, putting out his shoulder and back, cutting his face when he hit the front of the car and his side, knees and hands when he landed on the road in agony. From a different perspective the same incident takes on quite a different shade.

 

[mjr]

Yes it does. If you are driving/riding a long a piece of road and have not just joined it or are in the process of joining it and the road markings dictate that you can proceed you have right of way.

No it doesn't. If you are driving, you never have "right of way" - in theory at least. I'm sure you know that the Highway Code says: "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."

Feel free to quote any English law giving a motorist right of way.

[...] If I was the son I would take it on the chin and accept that he caused the collision with the cyclist. I would count my lucky stars that the cyclist wasn't, we hope, seriously injured or he as a driver was not flattened by a bus or coach full of passengers proceeding along the bus lane. [...]

I think we agree on that and most of the rest.

 

[rogerzilla]

Cyclist had right of way (I won't get into semantics). If he had been filtering in or between lanes of stationary traffic, it would be more 50/50 (filtering is really at your own risk) but I'm assuming the bus lane was clear and therefore he would have had no reason to creep along cautiously.

An experienced road cyclist can anticipate most careless actions by drivers (seen them all!) but tbh I'm not sure I'd have been ready for this one. The cyclist probably couldn't even see there was a gap in the central reservation if his view was blocked by stationary traffic.

Drivers often don't look in bus lanes properly. I did it myself once, at dusk in Bristol, and just missed a motorcyclist (my eyes are better now!).

 

[boydj]

Cyclist had right of way............................

It's called 'priority'.