Consequences of a RTA?

Melo

As I was cycling I ignored a red traffic light. A car crossed a T- junction and turned right onto the road where I was cycling. Just after the junction he turned left into a little street knocking me off my bike; I fell off my bike and was unconscious. Does anybody know what consequences this is likely to have for me, as the police think I have caused the accident by ignoring the traffic light signal.

spen666

you may have done.

It is impossible to answer that properly on the basis of the limited information given.

Any answers are speculation.

il_principe

What are you doing ignoring the lights in the first place?

cee

without going into to the redlightthisandthat.......its all been done elsewhere on the forum and whether or not it was your fault or not, because i have absolutley no way of commenting, the fact is....

You may very well end up having to pay for the damage to the blokes car, unless you have insurance.

Clever Pun

I hope you're ok

but it sounds like as you're at fault jumping the light, I think you'll have to take it again on the chin... sounds a little surprising they didn't see you.

from the info you've given

robmanic1

Melo, you need to be more pacific!

iainment

Shouldn't ignore a red light.
However if safe imho it's fine to go on a red. This time it doesn't seem it was safe so you shouldn't have gone.

SmellTheGlove

Did the driver stop after you were hit?

So many questions - but good that you didn't become a terminal statistic.

nwallace

Melo wrote:

As I was cycling I ignored a red traffic light. A car crossed a T- junction and turned right onto the road where I was cycling. Just after the junction he turned left into a little street knocking me off my bike; I fell off my bike and was unconscious. Does anybody know what consequences this is likely to have for me, as the police think I have caused the accident by ignoring the traffic light signal.

You have described either a T-Junction followed by a side street or a staggered cross road.
If the driver failed to make way for your illegal actions he has a level of fault. You're probably going to be made an example of.

JoeSoap76

nwallace wrote:

If the driver failed to make way for your illegal actions he has a level of fault.

Indeed as a green light means 'go if the way is clear' and not 'you are now relieved of all responsibility and can drive through this junction with impunity'.

That said, a red light means 'stop' and not 'stop if you think that you would like to obey the rules of the road today'.

nwallace wrote:

You're probably going to be made an example of.

This may sound callous, but I hope so. It p*sses me off royally when people accuse me of being 'one of those cyclists who goes through red lights'. I'd expect drivers to be prosecuted for it, why should cyclists be any different?

always_tyred

So, maybe I'm reading this wrong guys, but the events in order were;

- cyclists runs red light and cycles through junction
- car proceeds through junction on green
- after the junction, car overtakes cyclist and left hooks them, knocking them off

There doesn't seem to be a direct link between the red light and the accident. How is the police position different from "2 wrongs make a right"? I mean, if a motorist speeds, slows for a junction and is rear ended by someone following them, do the police say, well, he was speeding shortly beforehand, therefore its his fault that someone drove into the back of him?

I don't want to provide false hope, but this does not appear to be clear cut to me.

Without providing a lawyer with your sort code, account number and mother's maiden name, in the first instance, I'd suggest getting some legal advice. From who, I don't know. :?

RufusA

Always Tyred wrote:

So, maybe I'm reading this wrong guys, but the events in order were;

- cyclists runs red light and cycles through junction
- car proceeds through junction on green
- after the junction, car overtakes cyclist and left hooks them, knocking them off

There doesn't seem to be a direct link between the red light and the accident.

My reading is car turns right from the bottom of a T on to the crossbar. Cyclist jumps red light proceeding along the top bar of the 'T' from left to right. Car then turns immediately left and swipes cyclist, having assumed safe to do so as traffic held by red light.

Not clear cut, and blame would depend largely on speeds, distance between T junction and left turn i.e. 20m to left turn, slow speeds, IMHO cyclist largely at fault. 300m and faster speeds, car driver more to blame.

Always Tyred wrote:

Without providing a lawyer with your sort code, account number and mother's maiden name, in the first instance, I'd suggest getting some legal advice. From who, I don't know. :?

If you have household insurance, worth checking the policy, as many will provide free legal aid if you were not driving a motor vehicle. Though TBH, you'd be best paying the money and asking the kind folks recommended by CTC.

I suspect the best you can hope for is that both are equally to blame, and you go home alive, recover quickly and only have a dent in your pride and pay for the damage to your own vehicle!

Police may well wish to issue a fine as well "as an example", if concusion and a broken bike wasn't enough.

Mend quickly, chalk it up, and move on.

HTH - Rufus.

alfablue

iainment wrote:

Shouldn't ignore a red light.
However if safe imho it's fine to go on a red. This time it doesn't seem it was safe so you shouldn't have gone.

Trouble is, the judgement of what is safe may have to be with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose every time you get away with this trick, you conclude it was safe and hence justify your fine judgement.

dang65

Always Tyred wrote:

So, maybe I'm reading this wrong guys, but the events in order were;

- cyclists runs red light and cycles through junction
- car proceeds through junction on green
- after the junction, car overtakes cyclist and left hooks them, knocking them off

There doesn't seem to be a direct link between the red light and the accident. How is the police position different from "2 wrongs make a right"? I mean, if a motorist speeds, slows for a junction and is rear ended by someone following them, do the police say, well, he was speeding shortly beforehand, therefore its his fault that someone drove into the back of him?

I don't want to provide false hope, but this does not appear to be clear cut to me.

Without providing a lawyer with your sort code, account number and mother's maiden name, in the first instance, I'd suggest getting some legal advice. From who, I don't know. :?

Yes, this is how I saw it. Though it's hard to get any sort of precise picture from the original post, it does seem to me that the two incidents are not directly related. You aren't absolved from responsibility just because you expected another vehicle not to be there. I now this very well because the only time I've ever had a crash in my car was when I was approaching a roundabout, checked to the right, nothing coming, all clear, accelerated onto the roundabout... only to find that the car in front of me had stopped! There was absolutely no reason for him to have stopped, the coast was completely clear, but it was his choice, and my fault I didn't double check that he was out of the way. Judging by this standard rule of insurance, I would say that the original poster should have a very strong case, and no more reason to feel a bit guilty than the guy I drove into the back of did.

always_tyred

alfablue wrote:

iainment wrote:

Shouldn't ignore a red light.
However if safe imho it's fine to go on a red. This time it doesn't seem it was safe so you shouldn't have gone.

Trouble is, the judgement of what is safe may have to be with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose every time you get away with this trick, you conclude it was safe and hence justify your fine judgement.

Well put.

From previous posting experience, I think Iainment is going to continue to advocate rljing as a lifestyle choice, until such time as an incident like this happens to him.

Pedestrian crossings I understand - I don't agree with rljing at them, but at least it is relatively simple to assess onward safety. But any type of actual road junction? This to me is no different from drivers priding themselves that they can second guess the merits of level crossing barriers.

It must be the same part of the male brain.

That's not to say that I'm unsympathetic that Melo had an accident.

I am also at risk of hijacking the thread.....

.....so, the crucial point seems to be, was it the left turn of the motorist at the junction, or was it a left turn by the motorist at a later (albeit close) junction, at which the accident occurred?

iainment

alfablue wrote:

iainment wrote:

Shouldn't ignore a red light.
However if safe imho it's fine to go on a red. This time it doesn't seem it was safe so you shouldn't have gone.

Trouble is, the judgement of what is safe may have to be with the benefit of hindsight. I suppose every time you get away with this trick, you conclude it was safe and hence justify your fine judgement.

I suppose so, but never having had an accident in about 30 years or so of commuting that was anything to do with running a red, I guess my judgement is ok.
I am extremely cautious and only rlj if absolutely no danger to me or others.

JoeSoap76

iainment wrote:

...never having had an accident in about 30 years or so of commuting that was anything to do with running a red, I guess my judgement is ok.

So that's about 30 years of drivers sitting at red lights watching as yet another cyclist squeezes past and then blatantly breaks the law by skipping through the red?

I wonder how many of those drivers then - all be it subconsciously - cut a little closer to the next cyclist they overtook than they would normally?

Melo

The car turned left 3-4m after the junction. I was cycling straight down the road. I can't remember whether I was parallel to the car for about 1m or whether I actually overtook the car, because I was faster coming down hill and the car obviously had slowed down to turn left (5mph).

iainment

JoeSoap76 wrote:

iainment wrote:

...never having had an accident in about 30 years or so of commuting that was anything to do with running a red, I guess my judgement is ok.

So that's about 30 years of drivers sitting at red lights watching as yet another cyclist squeezes past and then blatantly breaks the law by skipping through the red?

I wonder how many of those drivers then - all be it subconsciously - cut a little closer to the next cyclist they overtook than they would normally?

How can anyone know. Do you have any evidence or is this just opinion about something you don't approve of?
If you have proof for your assertion give it, if not keep stum.

always_tyred

I was assuming that you'd made it through the junction before the motorist, but at best it appears to be simultaneous or you came through your light after he'd gone through his.

Its starting to sound as though you got into his blind spot.

What I'm still not sure about is how you overtook him (partially or fully) and got hit by him turning left.

Was it an overtake, or an undertake?

If the latter, well, for once I'll let others pass judgement.

If the former (which I guess means you either rear ended him, or were clipped by him swinging out to make the left turn) then I'd say you were unlucky, but still precipiated the incident.


But look, either way, put yourself in the position of the motorist - I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect him to have been aware of you, to be honest.

always_tyred

Iainment - its clear that you are not going to stop rlj-ing under any circumstances.

Personally, I get that you can do it okay and that statistically its "safe" for you.

The "for you" bit is important though.

You must accept that the majority of cyclists will feel (mostly based on experience of abuse and aggression from motorists) that rlj-ing does indeed make matters worse for the rest of us. There may not have been a double blind study on the subject, by that's our opinion, and since we aren't going to change yours, assume that you aren't going to change ours. Thanks.

Also, just because your great experience has enabled you to rlj "safely" (I can't quite bring myself to dispense with the inverted commas, sorry), it does not follow that introducing the concept to less experienced cyclists is a good idea. It may take years to perfect.

nwallace

Always Tyred wrote:

What I'm still not sure about is how you overtook him (partially or fully) and got hit by him turning left.

Was it an overtake, or an undertake?

If the latter, well, for once I'll let others pass judgement.

Not so much undertook as crashed into the side of.

always_tyred

Well, okay, but the point is that the vehicle behind ran into the vehicle in front, having run a red light a fraction earlier.

I don't think that it matters all that much if the vehicle in front was indicating or not (was he indicating?) because just like cars, we are supposed to leave sufficuent stopping distance. Indeed, if the left turn was only 3 or 4m down the road, was this really a t-junction, or a staggered junction, once the side lane is taken into consideration?

As regards any damage to the guy's car - he should be covered by 3rd party and, if the insurance company are satisfied that he is not to blame, then his no claims bonus should be safe.

Therefore, other than the inconvenience, he will only incur his insurance excess. Perhaps, accompanied by apologies, you could offer to pay his excess?

But to re-iterate - I really hope that you are okay, with no lasting head or neck injuries (were you wearing a helmet, by the way?) and it was poor judgement, but by the sounds of it extremely bad luck.

JoeSoap76

iainment wrote:

JoeSoap76 wrote:

[...]

I wonder how many of those drivers then - all be it subconsciously - cut a little closer to the next cyclist they overtook than they would normally?

How can anyone know. Do you have any evidence or is this just opinion about something you don't approve of?
If you have proof for your assertion give it, if not keep stum.

Bwahahaha

What assertion would you like me to provide evidence of? That I wondered about something? I think you're going to just have to take my word for it.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

....

As regards any damage to the guy's car - he should be covered by 3rd party and, if the insurance company are satisfied that he is not to blame, then his no claims bonus should be safe.
....

Think you have got that wrong

Driver's 3rd party insurance will only cover damage driver causes to a 3rd party's property/ vehicle etc.

It does not cover driver for damage caused to him by a 3rd party.

Also even if driver is fully comprehensively insured and is not to blame for the accident he will lose his NCB unless full recovery is made from 3rd party.

NCB is exactly what it says - a no CLAIMS bonus, not a no fault bonus

always_tyred

Okay - I might be wrong that one. I was basing it on a call centre enquiry I made to my insurance company regarding a pedestrian (of the asbo-variety) wing mirror removal incident while I was parked. Its entirely possible that the highly trained call centre employee hadn't got a clue.

nwallace

A pedestrian taking a wing mirror off a parked car is Vandalism. Any vehicle crashing into another is a Road Traffic Accident. With "No claims bonus" your pretty much at the whim of what the Insurance company wants to do. A mate was recently told he wasn't getting the 5th year for no reason other than they didn't want to give him it.

Edit: With Full Comp your not covered yourself from being hit by another vehicle that is covered by the at fault party's 3rd party cover, Pedestrians, Cyclists, Electric Buggies/Wheelchairs and Horse Riders don't need 3rd Party Insurance, which probably means civil court action if you can't come to an agreement without it, and if you leg it and get caught possibly criminal court.

Another interesting insurance situation I remember from a police visit to school was that when crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing, if you are out with the area of a crossing (usually denoted by those metal plates, zebra stripes or white dots) your insurance (if you have it) is usually void.

always_tyred

Mmm, but the industry doesn't need regulating does it?

Fair enough about the ped crossings. It means that those pedestrians who take a diagonal path about 1/2 mile long, passing through the ped crossing at its centre point, are now fair game.