Left Hooking when in bike lane - legal position

SteppenHerring

Almost got left-hooked last night (small lorry in the right hand lane - he can't be turning left). Saw the indicators and slammed on the brakes and avoided a prang as he pulled straight across.

The thing is, I was in the cycle lane. Not something I'd normally do but on that road the cars can get pretty slow. I know I'm a bit of an idiot for flying up the inside like that, but what's the legal position?

(Note that I could see the guy's left mirror all the way up so had he checked, he would've seen me)

samivel

Others may have a better idea but I believe he was in the wrong as you had the right of way. You were riding in a straight line and he cut across you.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

look at 182

rjsterry

He's pulling across another lane of traffic without checking, no? I'm not sure the fact that you were in a cycle lane as opposed to just the left hand lane makes any difference.

dhope

SteppenHerring wrote:

but what's the legal position?

Irrelevant if you end up flattened...

Would imagine it'd depend how far behind them you were (if you were a few lengths back and doing 30 alongside 5mph traffic then probably your fault etc), though if you could see them in the wing mirror the whole time it sounds like they should probably have seen you.

sketchley

From a saftey point of view, if you were far enough back to see him indicate and start to move then you probally should of slowed down and let him turn left. On the other hand if you where along side or near the back of car and he suddenly indicated and pulled in then he should of been paying more attention.

From a legal postion highway code says the following. The key part, in bold, indicate driver at fault for not giving way to traffic in cycle lane. So had he hit you, you would've been in the right but he would have hit you and that tends to hurt.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070332

Turning left

182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

183
When turning

• keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
• give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction

SteppenHerring

Thanks. Nice to know I'm legally in the right (which would be a comfort when physically in hospital).

Judging from where he was positioned and how late he started indicating, I think he had one of those "oh sh1t - that's my turn" moments. Together the the highly intermittent nature of the bike lane on that road ... well it's an accident waiting to happen. If it hasn't already happened.

I only go that way because it's more friendly to overgeared fixie/undergeared legs. Terrible road.

MyPace

The highway code does not define what is legal and what is illegal.

Some of it might be law, some of it might be advice.

sketchley

MyPace wrote:

The highway code does not define what is legal and what is illegal.

Some of it might be law, some of it might be advice.

Yes but it will be used for determining liability in the event of an accident.

Origamist

A corollary to the OP's question.

With the increasing number of Cycle Superhighways splashing paint through the mouths of junctions, what are the legal ramifications (particularly: contributory negligence) for cyclists who ignore the cycle lane and ride in the general traffic lane and get hit by turning traffic?

sketchley

Origamist wrote:

A corollary to the OP's question.

With the increasing number of Cycle Superhighways splashing paint through the mouths of junctions, what are the legal ramifications (particularly: contributory negligence) for cyclists who ignore the cycle lane and ride in the general traffic lane and get hit by turning traffic?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Origamist

Sketchley wrote:

Origamist wrote:

A corollary to the OP's question.

With the increasing number of Cycle Superhighways splashing paint through the mouths of junctions, what are the legal ramifications (particularly: contributory negligence) for cyclists who ignore the cycle lane and ride in the general traffic lane and get hit by turning traffic?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Failure to use cycing provision has been successfully used against cyclists (contributory negligence) in civil claims and consequently cyclists who have been injured have received reduced payouts.

It's a serious fault line between what is considered best practice (i.e. taking a prominent road position when passing junctions) and the delimiting nature of cycling infrastructure.

nation

Origamist wrote:

Failure to use cycing provision has been successfully used against cyclists (contributory negligence) in civil claims and consequently cyclists who have been injured have received reduced payouts.

I've never heard of this happening bar a couple of occasions where the decision was overturned on appeal. Do you know of any specific instances?

sketchley

Origamist

Do you have any examples / links?

The only one I've heard was the bloke getting fined as he was not using cycle lane. Which was overturned at appeal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -lane.html
&
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 303427.stm

Origamist

nation wrote:

Origamist wrote:

Failure to use cycing provision has been successfully used against cyclists (contributory negligence) in civil claims and consequently cyclists who have been injured have received reduced payouts.

I've never heard of this happening bar a couple of occasions where the decision was overturned on appeal. Do you know of any specific instances?

I know this one off the top of my head:

Dann v. Brackman

Origamist

Sketchley wrote:

Origamist

Do you have any examples / links?

The only one I've heard was the bloke getting fined as he was not using cycle lane. Which was overturned at appeal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -lane.html
&
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 303427.stm

That was handled in the criminal courts - I was talking about civil proceedings where you are disadvantaged by the wording in the HC.

sketchley

Found it.

http://www.ffw.com/publications/all/art ... lanes.aspx
An example from case law

Witness the case of Dann v. Brackman where the Claimant (D) cycled along the nearside of a major route in Southampton, close to the dividing line with a slip road. The Defendant driver (B), drove at 40mph along the slip road into the back of the Claimant’s bicycle.
It was found that D had ignored two signs guiding him onto a cycle path which would have avoided crossing the slip road. Counsel advised that a Judge would have found if D knew, or ought to have known, that he was exposing himself to the risk of being hit by a vehicle merging from the slip road, whose driver was wrongly, but perhaps understandably, concentrating on traffic behind D.

D’s case was settled out of Court with a 20% reduction in damages for contributory negligence. The Court subsequently approved this award. This latter step was necessary due to D having sustained brain damage and his resulting inability to manage his own affairs.

jimmypippa

[quote="Sketchley"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 303427.stm[/quote]

From the top ten stories on the side of that story at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13277186

Why is someone driving with 39 points, even if it would cause "exceptional hardship"? [/url]

SteppenHerring

jimmypippa wrote:

From the top ten stories on the side of that story at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13277186

Why is someone driving with 39 points, even if it would cause "exceptional hardship"? [/url]

It's possible that the person in question is disabled or otherwise can't manage without a car. Outside of Swindon itself public transport in that area is pretty crap (or was when I lived there). Need to get to hospital appointments or work? There is no alternative to the car (if you can't cycle).

I'm not defending this case, just saying that it's not unknown that when the media pick up on something like this, there's a bit more too it than they are reporting.

bails87

SteppenHerring wrote:

jimmypippa wrote:

From the top ten stories on the side of that story at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13277186

Why is someone driving with 39 points, even if it would cause "exceptional hardship"? [/url]

It's possible that the person in question is disabled or otherwise can't manage without a car. Outside of Swindon itself public transport in that area is pretty crap (or was when I lived there). Need to get to hospital appointments or work? There is no alternative to the car (if you can't cycle).

I'm not defending this case, just saying that it's not unknown that when the media pick up on something like this, there's a bit more too it than they are reporting.

Taxi?

I know what you're saying, but there's a point where you have to say "enough's enough. You're been given as many as nine chances beyond what anyone else would get." Going to jail would cause me considerable hardship, that's why I don't break laws that would put me in jail.

The Rookie

I would say the most likely reason he's driving on 39 points is if all were amassed together in one court hearing (say the same speed camera 13 days in a row) and thus exceptional hardship had to be argued just once.

Circa 25% of totting bans are avoiding using a hardship pea, one Magistrate told me that as the driver now knows they really are on their last chance then they are expected that they will drive even more carefully than someone on no points.....

Simon

bails87

The Beginner wrote:

I would say the most likely reason he's driving on 39 points is if all were amassed together in one court hearing (say the same speed camera 13 days in a row) and thus exceptional hardship had to be argued just once.

Good thinking. I think you can only plead one set of exceptional hardship circumstances once. So if you say "I know I was doing 50 in a 30 zone, but I need my car to take my elderly mother to hospital", you can't just keep breaking the law and use the same excuse again and again.

39 points though! I'm surprised he/she can afford to insure the car!

SteppenHerring

bails87 wrote:

...

39 points though! I'm surprised he/she can afford to insure the car!

What makes you think they insure the car?