who is in the right

jb-redbull

hi i am new to cycleing and been having a bit of an arguement with my bbrother in law over something can you please tell me who is right and who is wrong.
if i am riding down a road come to a line of standing traffic cars stopped close to the kirb so i cannot pass on the inside.i f i overtake on the outside and a car turns infront of me out of the standing traffic to do a u turn if i hit that car is it my fault for being on the outside or the drivers for not looking.i think it is the drivers fault by the way i may be wrong and how would the law look at it if it ever did happen could i claim my brother in law says no i could not.
can someone proove us right and wrong thank you.

CyclingBantam

I don't know the actual legal position on this however,

If the car didn't indicate and simply pulled out and hit you it would be his fault. You are simply overtaking and the car should be aware/looking for hazards.

Can't see any reason why it would be your fault if it was a very straightforward scenario.

In that position though, you always have to be very careful when overtaking as drivers are likely to do exactly that. No point in being right when you are sat on the floor on one side of the car with your mangled bike on the other.

I may be proved to be talking out of my hat with all of the above but it seems to be logical to me.

lostboysaint

It's the cars fault. It's the same as if you were filtering on a motorcycle. Driving without due car and attention or Driving without consideration for other road users.

springtide9

It's my understanding that...

You are allowed to overtake, but obviously as the person who is overtaking - you should only do so if it's safe.

Cars should obviously look out for bikes and be aware of their surroundings; and this applies to all users of the road.

Many cars drivers seem to drive like madmen on the road as well as some cyclists appear to think they are superheros!

I've seen a few accidents where there has been a standing line of traffic, where cars have left a gap to allow cars (and bikes) to turn right - but cyclists just 'tank it down the inside' without a care in the world - until a car does actually turns right. By the time the car actually see's the bike, it's usually flying over the bonnet.
It's not always the cars fault: sometimes it's black, sometimes white; other times grey.

Im Bald Ok

The cars fault IMO. Though it's debatable, you should be doing it safely and at a reasonable speed.

I had a similar incident when i rode a 125cc. I was filtering/overtaking on the outside of stationary cars when someone pulled out of a side road from the left hand side.

100% fault was given to the car driver.

mattshrops

IT DOESNT MATTER- YOU WAKE UP IN HOSPITAL NOT THE CAR DRIVER

woodywmb

It's the car driver's fault. Indicating or not indicating has no bearing on this. And, yes, YOU will always come off worse in a collision - so take it easy and be vigilant.

Bozman

Roughly speaking it is legal to filter pass stationary traffic apart from -
If you're in a no-overtaking zone(solid white line) or in a crossing zigzag area, you can still overtake on a road with a solid white line as long as you do not cross the white line on to the otherside of the road.

woolwich

My girlfriend got to the bottom of this problem, unfortunatley the hard way with a broken leg as a result.
It's a legal grey area. Yes the car is at fault for pulling out, either of a side road or turning right across you.
However as you are performing an overtaking manouvre there is an emphasis on you to ensure that it is safe to do so. So in the event of the unthinkable, expect a court case where you argue through the details of the particular situation.
In her case the car divers insurers started bargaining at 50/50 blame. With 75/25 in her favour being finally accepted after much negotiation. You might get a better outcome, you might not.
Practically speaking the general rule is, if you havnt made eye contact, assume they havnt seen' you.

gixxerboss

Happened to me on a M/cycle as long as the traffic is not rolling forward, and is standing you may pass with care, soon as traffic starts to move off you must try to get back in, you cant do any of this if the line's are solid white either double or single on your side of the rd, you would have to prove the cars were not moving at all, very hard to do even with a witness.

Essex Man

When you fill in your claims form, make sure you use a comma or two. Much better chance of success I reckon.

pianoman

This topic has already been covered last summer:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

Now I know cyclists always stick together and defendeach other and so do car drivers, even if it's just moral grandstanding at times, but I know I read in the beginners section of "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program" that it's never a good idea to pass stationary cars because you can get "doored" as people let their friends out at traffic lights. Also, it irritates motorists who've had to fight to pass you once and will have to do so again as the lights change. In fact, Lance implies that anyone caught doing this in America can get done for it (wouldn't know about in the UK though).

I for one always identify the last car that passed me prior to the formation of the queue at the red light and then stop just behind it. Then everyone just has to pass me once. And I've never tried switching from the "left" to the "right" when passing slow cars anyway - it's not as if every ride is on a TT course is it?

nakita222

you're not meant to undertake, by overtaking you are doing the right thing, whether that will stand up in a court of law or not, I dunt no. I'm guessing the driver is to blaame, but i'm biased for obvious reasons.

pianoman

When I'm out in my car I've never seen a cyclist "overtake". I've seen them "undertake" hundreds of times. It's just that when on the bike I prefer to do neither and just eliminate the chance of any aggression, that's all.

cougie

I do both to be honest - depending on circumstances. I do assume that every car driver will turn without indicating - and plenty do. Cover your brakes.

Anonymous

Who was in the right?

The guy who stayed at home eating cake. That's who.

bails87

As a cyclist and driver, I'd say the driver was in the wrong. Remember when you learnt to drive (even if you didn't, everyone knows it!) Mirror. Signal. Manouver.

So if the driver turns without the mirror or signal, he's at fault. If he looks, sees the cyclist anyway and still goes, he's at fault. If he looks, doesn't indicate and turns, and hits the cyclist, he's at fault.

If he's done 'MSM' and is indicating whilst turning and the cyclist doesn;t see it, then the cyclist is at fault.

As others have said, being hit by cars isn't fun (trust me!) so keep an eye out for drivers turning without looking or signalling.

bails87

and from the highway code

103

Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see 'Signals to other road users'), of your intended actions. You should always:
-give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
-use them to advise other road users before changing course or direction, stopping or moving off

Remember that signalling does not give you priority

163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

-only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so

Tell your brother in law to read the highway code

And while you're at it, direct him to this:
If my rides are anything to go by he'll be about the third driver in the country to have understood it!

Headhuunter

I really don't see how it can be anyone other than the driver's fault. If I understand the situation correctly - cyclist is on the left, approaches a queue of stationary traffic, pulls out to move round, the way forward is clear when all of a sudden a driver decides to throw a U turn without looking. How could the cyclist have predicted the car would be pulling out all of a sudden? I suppose if the motorist had been indicating there may be a mitigation of blame but I still don't see that absolves the driver of blame, it's mirror, signal, manoevre not signal and go....

c0ugars

mattshrops wrote:

IT DOESNT MATTER- YOU WAKE UP IN HOSPITAL NOT THE CAR DRIVER

+1

Headhuunter

c0ugars wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

IT DOESNT MATTER- YOU WAKE UP IN HOSPITAL NOT THE CAR DRIVER

+1

It does matter! Slightly simplistic to say it doesn't. If the driver's to blame the yuo get cash for the bike and injuries (or a pay out for death), if the driver's not to blame you have to stump up the many thousands to sort yourself out and potentially the driver if yuo are held accountable!

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

c0ugars wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

IT DOESNT MATTER- YOU WAKE UP IN HOSPITAL NOT THE CAR DRIVER

+1

It does matter! Slightly simplistic to say it doesn't. If the driver's to blame the yuo get cash for the bike and injuries (or a pay out for death), if the driver's not to blame you have to stump up the many thousands to sort yourself out and potentially the driver if yuo are held accountable!

Exactly, I don;t think anyone is suggesting deliberatly throwing yourself under the wheels just to prove a point. But if the OP can show at least one driver the correct way to drive/who has priority/responsibility for looking then that might save a cyclist or motorcyclist from being hit.

Also, THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT!!11!?*&$!! ZOMG MEGALOL

jb-redbull

well thank you all who have replyed it would seem that most people have the same understanding of this as me you can overtake on the outside (right) if traffic is stopped but always must be done at a safe speed the brakes covered and always expect the un expected. as stated mirror signal manoevre never gets done by all i told brother in law that if they just pull out on me with no indication ther fault.
i will show him this and hopefully he will follow me now and make our rides more enjoyable instead of me sat waiting for ages for him to catch up in the line of traffic. thanks again to all

WisePranker

Headhuunter wrote:

c0ugars wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

IT DOESNT MATTER- YOU WAKE UP IN HOSPITAL NOT THE CAR DRIVER

+1

It does matter! Slightly simplistic to say it doesn't. If the driver's to blame the yuo get cash for the bike and injuries (or a pay out for death), if the driver's not to blame you have to stump up the many thousands to sort yourself out and potentially the driver if yuo are held accountable!

It doesn't matter at all, what's the point in having a payout for your bike and kit when you can't ride it anymore due to your injuries?

Hands up who'd like to see their family benefit from a payout after they were killed in an accident even though they were in the right? Or, who'd prefer to be wrong and living to see another day?

It's crazy logic to think that when you're laying in your hospital bed with whatever injuries you've sustained you won't mind as long as you were in the right!

tiny_pens

jb-redbull wrote:

well thank you all who have replyed it would seem that most people have the same understanding of this as me you can overtake on the outside (right) if traffic is stopped
<snip>

It is not illegal to overtake when traffic is moving providing you do not break any road restrictions at that point (i.e solid white lines, the zig zag lines at crossings, etc)

Usual disclaimers about common sense of when you choose to do so apply (Are there any reasons for a car to change direction - junction/faster flowing traffic in another lane/ another cyclist riding slowly / etc) but there are parts of my route that I feel happy to overtake moving cars that aren't going fast enough. YMMV

mikeq

http://www.markthompsonlaw.com/motorcyc ... torcycles/

in particular this case

"Next we move to Davis v Schrogrin, a Court of Appeal decision in 2006. The accident occurred on a long straight section of road with one lane in each direction. There was a long queue of stationary/slow moving vehicles. A motorcyclist travelling in the same direction was overtaking at about 40 mph. He was half to two thirds of the way across from the central white line, was displaying a dipped headlight and a right hand indicator. He had been in that position for approximately half a mile and was not weaving in and out of traffic. A car driver lost patience and decided to carry out a U turn when the motorcycle was no more than five car lengths back, and the inevitable collision occurred. The Court found the car driver wholly at fault on the basis the motorcyclist was there to be seen and that even if he had been travelling more slowly, it would have made no difference because he had been right on top of the point of the accident when the driver first did anything to alert the motorcyclist of his intended manoeuvre."

StillGoing

jb-redbull wrote:

hi i am new to cycleing and been having a bit of an arguement with my bbrother in law over something can you please tell me who is right and who is wrong.
if i am riding down a road come to a line of standing traffic cars stopped close to the kirb so i cannot pass on the inside.i f i overtake on the outside and a car turns infront of me out of the standing traffic to do a u turn if i hit that car is it my fault for being on the outside or the drivers for not looking.i think it is the drivers fault by the way i may be wrong and how would the law look at it if it ever did happen could i claim my brother in law says no i could not.
can someone proove us right and wrong thank you.

You both have a duty of care to be aware of other road users. However, there is nothing other than a solid white line preventing you from passing vehicles on the right if it is safe to do so. If while doing that a car pulls out from the line of traffic to do a U-turn or to turn right, the driver must make sure it is safe to do so first. If you're on the wrong side of the road as a car comes around the corner from the opposite direction and a collision occurs, you would be in the wrong, but a proportion of blame could be attributed to the car driver for not being able to stop within the distance he could see to be safe. Imagine it's a casualty lying in the road when he comes around the corner.

Headhuunter

WisePranker wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

c0ugars wrote:

mattshrops wrote:

IT DOESNT MATTER- YOU WAKE UP IN HOSPITAL NOT THE CAR DRIVER

+1

It does matter! Slightly simplistic to say it doesn't. If the driver's to blame the yuo get cash for the bike and injuries (or a pay out for death), if the driver's not to blame you have to stump up the many thousands to sort yourself out and potentially the driver if yuo are held accountable!

It doesn't matter at all, what's the point in having a payout for your bike and kit when you can't ride it anymore due to your injuries?

Hands up who'd like to see their family benefit from a payout after they were killed in an accident even though they were in the right? Or, who'd prefer to be wrong and living to see another day?

It's crazy logic to think that when you're laying in your hospital bed with whatever injuries you've sustained you won't mind as long as you were in the right!

I'm not saying that I would find solace whilst on my death bed after an accident, that I was right and the driver was wrong, however what if you sustain injuries that incur substantial ongoing medical costs? What if your injuries are light but your bike was written off and you wanted to get a new one? What if the driver sues you for damages to his/her car? OK if you are dead then that's that, as you say, it doesn't matter, but if not, it certainly does!

mattshrops

the point your managing to miss is "it doesnt matter.. blah blah" make sure you do everything you can to avoid it happening to you. the actual answer to the original question was so obvious it didnt really need discussion did it? when youre pressing the morphine button and wondering where the f@ck you are and why you cant move IT DOESNT MATTER.

bails87

mattshrops
Stop being so bloody melodramatic :roll:

I got hit by a car a while back. I was in the right, you know what, that was quite important to me. As was knowing I was in the right because otherwise I would be unsure about being able to get compensation for my injuries, or who was liable to repair my bike and the substantial damage to the car.

Having a basic understanding of road law and rights and responsibilities IS important, for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

If you want to continue in ignorance then go for it, but please stay away from me when you're riding/driving around not knowing what you should be doing!

Headhuunter

bails87 wrote:

mattshrops
Stop being so bloody melodramatic :roll:

I got hit by a car a while back. I was in the right, you know what, that was quite important to me. As was knowing I was in the right because otherwise I would be unsure about being able to get compensation for my injuries, or who was liable to repair my bike and the substantial damage to the car.

Having a basic understanding of road law and rights and responsibilities IS important, for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

If you want to continue in ignorance then go for it, but please stay away from me when you're riding/driving around not knowing what you should be doing!

Exactly. I was run off the road by an idiot driver who then told me he couldn't even afford to replace my bike. I went straight to a solicitor who assisted me in getting the money back to replace the bike, damaged clothing and for medication for my injuries. Knowing I was in the right was very important. Case closed.