Theoretical scenario, who's at fault?

[ManiaMuse]

Depending on the speed you were riding at, some lawyers would probably try it on to make you share some of the blame for insurance purposes (as well as other stupid contributory negligence things like not wearing a helmet/hi-vis if you weren't...). There have been cases where motorbike riders who were hit whilst filtering have been deemed partly at fault for riding too fast for the traffic conditions.

I agree it is annoying when drivers flash drivers out when the road is clear, but then again from a self-preservation point of view you have to assume that all drivers are blind and don't use their mirrors and it is probably wise to avoid possible conflicts, or at least be riding slow enough to react to them, when possible.

 

[classic33]

Depending on the speed you were riding at, some lawyers would probably try it on to make you share some of the blame for insurance purposes (as well as other stupid contributory negligence things like not wearing a helmet/hi-vis if you weren't...). There have been cases where motorbike riders who were hit whilst filtering have been deemed partly at fault for riding too fast for the traffic conditions.

I agree it is annoying when drivers flash drivers out when the road is clear, but then again from a self-preservation point of view you have to assume that all drivers are blind and don't use their mirrors and it is probably wise to avoid possible conflicts, or at least be riding slow enough to react to them, when possible.

Neither a legal requirement for cyclists in the UK. I got the Hi-Vis side thrown out/dismissed when I was hit on the legal requirement.

Flashing of headlights has only one meaning, "I am here", nothing else should be read into this. You stand a good chance of being proved at fault, if that's your excuse.

 

[ManiaMuse]

Neither a legal requirement for cyclists in the UK. I got the Hi-Vis side thrown out/dismissed when I was hit on the legal requirement.

Flashing of headlights has only one meaning, "I am here", nothing else should be read into this. You stand a good chance of being proved at fault, if that's your excuse.

I know, that's why I said it was stupid!

But some insurance providers will try it on to try and reduce their liability, especially if they have any other evidence to suggest you might have been cycling carelessly, and there may be other judges who are prepared to listen to their arguments.

 

[KnackeredBike]

It is a difficult one, on many congested roads drivers will quite sensibly leave a gap at junctions to enable people to pull out.

My standard technique (bearing in mind I always try and filter on the outside) is to pull out into the middle of the opposite carriageway, which tends to be empty if someone is likely to turn right or turn out of the side road. This makes you more visible and also gives you more escape options if you need them. You then tend to have a pretty good view of the junction and any potential conflicts.

Of course some drivers are so oblivious they will still treat a gap as divine permission to turn, and you have to be aware of that, but I find it no worse than, say, mini roundabouts.

 

[spen666]

The


Theorectically no one is at fault , as theoretically no collision has taken place.

You don't need a collision before there is fault

 

[mjr]

But some insurance providers will try it on to try and reduce their liability, especially if they have any other evidence to suggest you might have been cycling carelessly, and there may be other judges who are prepared to listen to their arguments.

That's a shoot argument. Some insurance providers will try almost anything to try and reduce their liability - don't wear H&H and they'll argue you were irresponsible and ignoring the highway code, but wear it and they'll argue you were an aggressive racing-style irresponsible rider. Unless they can argue successfully that it would probably have avoided the collision or mitigated the injury, it won't work as long as you refute it - and they can't do that because to argue any aid the cyclist would use would probably have avoided the collision means effectively arguing that their driver was incompetent and not driving so they could stop within what they can see to be clear ( http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/126 ); and to argue it would have mitigated the injury means proving that the things help in a multi-vehicle collision, which most manufacturers specifically deny.

Trying to behave based on what random other people may claim is absurd (and yes, I realise the irony of this advice given the above claims ). Act on what you consider to be the best evidence.