SMIDSY??

13

Comments

  • farrina
    farrina Posts: 360
    heneghj wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    Do you mean that she pulled out from a side road on the left doing a right turn?
    That was probably a much easier way of explaining it yes. haha

    If that was the case I would have thought it was game, set and match to you (provided you have a witness)

    Highway code
    172
    The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
    Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25
    Regards
    Alan
  • Guanajuato
    Guanajuato Posts: 399
    CookeeeMonster wrote:
    Basically keep your speed down, watch for gaps in traffic and in buildings (as this indicates there may be a side road) and be prepared to brake
    What he said. Use it as a learning experience. Maybe she should have been paying more attention. But realistically, she saw a stationary line of traffic, get waved out by the vehicle right by here. She inches out, looking to her left as that's where the moving traffic is coming from. Perfectly understandable to have the majority of concentration to the left. But that's not to she shouldn't be looking right as well, just in case there's somehting coming up the side.
    You also should be prepared to stop. Technically, she might be to blame, but this is probably one that could genuinely be put down as an accident. Sometimes, there really is no Blame to be assigned. So much 'Health and Safety' nonsense is not H&S but Blame avoidance.
    My driving instructor gave me the following advice years ago:
    Assume the other driver is going to do something stupid. That way you're ready when he does.
    It works. Always assume the driver hasn't seen you.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    farrina wrote:
    heneghj wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    Do you mean that she pulled out from a side road on the left doing a right turn?
    That was probably a much easier way of explaining it yes. haha

    If that was the case I would have thought it was game, set and match to you (provided you have a witness)

    Highway code
    172
    The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
    Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

    I take that to mean giving way to the car or whatever in its own lane on the carriageway, not the bike sneaking past on the outside.

    That rule is more to do with the approach to the junction than driving through it. The car would have already given way. Its the unseen bike that has caused the problem.

    Sure the car should look and negotiate the junction carefully, but I just don't see how you can be expected to see every bike in every situation.
  • gubber12345
    gubber12345 Posts: 493
    Gozzy wrote:
    Raffles wrote:

    Women drivers spend more time natterring on the phones and checking makeup than actually watching what is going on around them and drivers should really pay full attention to any driver on the road and always expect some really shoddy driving before it occurs.


    Sexist much?[/quote]
    prob but hes right about the women drivers...some men aint that hot of drivers either :P :!:
    Lapierre Aircode 300
    Merida
  • thegibdog
    thegibdog Posts: 2,106
    Carbonator wrote:
    farrina wrote:
    heneghj wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    Do you mean that she pulled out from a side road on the left doing a right turn?
    That was probably a much easier way of explaining it yes. haha

    If that was the case I would have thought it was game, set and match to you (provided you have a witness)

    Highway code
    172
    The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
    Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25
    I take that to mean giving way to the car or whatever in its own lane on the carriageway, not the bike sneaking past on the outside.

    That rule is more to do with the approach to the junction than driving through it. The car would have already given way. Its the unseen bike that has caused the problem.

    Sure the car should look and negotiate the junction carefully, but I just don't see how you can be expected to see every bike in every situation.
    Eh? What if they pulled out when a car was approaching from the left - on the correct side of the road - and hit it because they couldn't see it? The onus is on the road user emerging on the main road to ensure the road is clear before pulling out. If they can't emerge on to the main road safely then they shouldn't pull out at all.

    Obviously road users should also exercise caution when filtering past slow moving traffic, particularly around junctions. This doesn't mean they're at fault, just that they should be on the lookout for drivers pulling out and trusting to blind luck.
    https://gibworth.mypixieset.com
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    thegibdog wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    farrina wrote:
    heneghj wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    Do you mean that she pulled out from a side road on the left doing a right turn?
    That was probably a much easier way of explaining it yes. haha

    If that was the case I would have thought it was game, set and match to you (provided you have a witness)

    Highway code
    172
    The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
    Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25
    I take that to mean giving way to the car or whatever in its own lane on the carriageway, not the bike sneaking past on the outside.

    That rule is more to do with the approach to the junction than driving through it. The car would have already given way. Its the unseen bike that has caused the problem.

    Sure the car should look and negotiate the junction carefully, but I just don't see how you can be expected to see every bike in every situation.
    Eh? What if they pulled out when a car was approaching from the left - on the correct side of the road - and hit it because they couldn't see it? The onus is on the road user emerging on the main road to ensure the road is clear before pulling out. If they can't emerge on to the main road safely then they shouldn't pull out at all.

    Obviously road users should also exercise caution when filtering past slow moving traffic, particularly around junctions. This doesn't mean they're at fault, just that they should be on the lookout for drivers pulling out and trusting to blind luck.

    I do not get what you mean by car on left thing, but sticking with the scenario we have I just do not see how a car driver turning right can be responsible for a bike shooting down the outside of a stationary van at 30 mph, when they may only have 3 foot of visible space that the cyclist would emerge from.

    Sure they could edge out really, really slow to 'show' any looney cyclist the front of the car, but they would still have to drive forward to actually see if there was a bike there. At that point the bonnet would be in front of the bike and the bike would have already hit it!

    What if the cyclist was not paying attention or going even faster?
    I cannot see its legal to overtake a vehicle on a bike, at a junction anyway. A bicycle is often squeezing through a gap that a motorbike or car would not. i.e. within the lane of the car it is passing, and not out to the right like a car would have to.
    Would have thought its illegal in a car anyway.
  • cookeeemonster
    cookeeemonster Posts: 1,991
    Carbonator wrote:
    thegibdog wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    farrina wrote:
    heneghj wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    Do you mean that she pulled out from a side road on the left doing a right turn?
    That was probably a much easier way of explaining it yes. haha

    If that was the case I would have thought it was game, set and match to you (provided you have a witness)

    Highway code
    172
    The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
    Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25
    I take that to mean giving way to the car or whatever in its own lane on the carriageway, not the bike sneaking past on the outside.

    That rule is more to do with the approach to the junction than driving through it. The car would have already given way. Its the unseen bike that has caused the problem.

    Sure the car should look and negotiate the junction carefully, but I just don't see how you can be expected to see every bike in every situation.
    Eh? What if they pulled out when a car was approaching from the left - on the correct side of the road - and hit it because they couldn't see it? The onus is on the road user emerging on the main road to ensure the road is clear before pulling out. If they can't emerge on to the main road safely then they shouldn't pull out at all.

    Obviously road users should also exercise caution when filtering past slow moving traffic, particularly around junctions. This doesn't mean they're at fault, just that they should be on the lookout for drivers pulling out and trusting to blind luck.

    I do not get what you mean by car on left thing, but sticking with the scenario we have I just do not see how a car driver turning right can be responsible for a bike shooting down the outside of a stationary van at 30 mph, when they may only have 3 foot of visible space that the cyclist would emerge from.

    Sure they could edge out really, really slow to 'show' any looney cyclist the front of the car, but they would still have to drive forward to actually see if there was a bike there. At that point the bonnet would be in front of the bike and the bike would have already hit it!

    What if the cyclist was not paying attention or going even faster?
    I cannot see its legal to overtake a vehicle on a bike, at a junction anyway. A bicycle is often squeezing through a gap that a motorbike or car would not. i.e. within the lane of the car it is passing, and not out to the right like a car would have to.
    Would have thought its illegal in a car anyway.

    Everything you say is wrong :)

    If the drivers visibilty is compromised by a van/bus/lorry etc then they shouldn't pull out...it's not rocket science - would you pull out onto a road you couldn't see?

    And 30mph? I cant be bothered reading the thread back but i'm sure he wasn't even doing 20mph.
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    edited April 2013
    CookeeeMonster wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    I cannot see its legal to overtake a vehicle on a bike, at a junction anyway. A bicycle is often squeezing through a gap that a motorbike or car would not. i.e. within the lane of the car it is passing, and not out to the right like a car would have to.
    Would have thought its illegal in a car anyway.

    Everything you say is wrong :)

    TBF @carbonator does make a good point that the HWC does state that any road user should not overtake at or approaching a junction, except a legal overtake on the left where a vehicle is turning right.

    EDIT: Just to add I am no having a go at the OP with what I am saying above. I know what being involved in an RTA whilst on the bike is like & the OP asking for help probably feels that a few people have been overly harsh in their responses.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    CookeeeMonster wrote:

    Everything you say is wrong :)

    If the drivers visibilty is compromised by a van/bus/lorry etc then they shouldn't pull out...it's not rocket science - would you pull out onto a road you couldn't see?

    And 30mph? I cant be bothered reading the thread back but i'm sure he wasn't even doing 20mph.

    So what does the driver pulling out do? Not pull out until a transparent vehicle in the que is letting him/her out so they can see through it? Wait until all the traffic has gone? Turn around (at a junction!) and go home? They will never be able to see if its safe in a situation where the cyclist being unsafe (illegal?).

    In the example the driver is pulling out onto a road they can see, with a stationary vehicle they can see. Its the guy on the bike shooting down the outside that they not only cannot see, but has no real hope of seeing!

    The 30mph was in a made up scenario, not the OP's actual incident.
    The reason it was made up was that people kept saying they needed the facts, so making up an example gave them all the facts to make comment on.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Danlikesbikes wrote:
    CookeeeMonster wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    I cannot see its legal to overtake a vehicle on a bike, at a junction anyway. A bicycle is often squeezing through a gap that a motorbike or car would not. i.e. within the lane of the car it is passing, and not out to the right like a car would have to.
    Would have thought its illegal in a car anyway.

    Everything you say is wrong :)

    TBF @carbonator does make a good point that the HWC does state that any road user should not overtake at or approaching a junction, except a legal overtake on the left where a vehicle is turning right.

    EDIT: Just to add I am no having a go at the OP with what I am saying above. I know what being involved in an RTA whilst on the bike is like & the OP asking for help probably feels that a few people have been overly harsh in their responses.

    Guess thats me then :shock:

    Hey, I (as I said before) am not meaning to have a go at the OP or add to his grief.
    I just want the roads to be a safer and fairer place for us all.
    The OP brought up a saftey issue, and part of the reason I made up a scenario was to debate that and not his incident.

    I am no expert on road law but am pretty sure you do not overtake a vehicle unless in a different lane or crossing over to the other side of the carriageway and you do not do it at a junction anyway.

    To say its OK to overtake a van (in the same lane as the van) that has stopped to let another vehicle out, cycling at 30mph on a bike, when the car will have 3 foot to see you, and it will be the car drivers fault if you hit it....... is a joke :roll:
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    Carbonator wrote:
    Guess thats me then :shock:

    Hey, I (as I said before) am not meaning to have a go at the OP or add to his grief.
    I just want the roads to be a safer and fairer place for us all.
    The OP brought up a saftey issue, and part of the reason I made up a scenario was to debate that and not his incident.

    I am no expert on road law but am pretty sure you do not overtake a vehicle unless in a different lane or crossing over to the other side of the carriageway and you do not do it at a junction anyway.

    To say its OK to overtake a van (in the same lane as the van) that has stopped to let another vehicle out, cycling at 30mph, on a bike, when the car will have 3 foot to see you, and it will be the car drivers fault if you hit it is a joke :roll:

    No wasn't pointing out anyone as I too have suggested that it would probably end up as 50/50 both road users were in the wrong but the onus lays more with the car driver as joining the main road from a side road so right of way needs to be given.

    Just felt that I needed to point out that I was not having a go at the OP as do feel he has come in for some stick when all he was looking for was advice & probably support from his fellow cyclists following a squeaky bum moment that could have ended very differently.

    FWIW I do think that most of your points have been well put over & not SHOUTY, AGGRESSIVE or RUDE which does seem to be common on BR for people to slate or even flame an OP. I'm all for open debate as long as its not made personal etc
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Nice of you to say Dan ;-)
    I try to word things correctly.

    Its difficult to get the balance right on a forum.
    Things are often taken the wrong way/misunderstood, especially in a long, multi quoted thread.

    I think if any topic is worth the effort and possible upset over, its a road safety one. Especially as we are the most vulnerable road user, and that we might have children on those roads too.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Carbonator wrote:
    To say its OK to overtake a van (in the same lane as the van) that has stopped to let another vehicle out, cycling at 30mph, on a bike, when the car will have 3 foot to see you, and it will be the car drivers fault if you hit it....... is a joke :roll:

    A vehicle stopping to let someone out doesn't confer any actual right to that person to pull out. Probably people in large panel vans ought not to be stopping to let people out if the visibility is in question but, either way, the person pulling out is responsible for their own actions. It can't be any other way and it isn't ambiguous.
    Carbonator wrote:
    So what does the driver pulling out do? Not pull out until a transparent vehicle in the que is letting him/her out so they can see through it? Wait until all the traffic has gone? Turn around (at a junction!) and go home? They will never be able to see if its safe in a situation where the cyclist being unsafe (illegal?).

    As I said before - they inch out very carefully so that anyone coming has plenty of time to see them and react. But, ultimately, if you are driving across a lane which you do not have priority to do, and someone who has priority hits you, it's your fault whether or not the person who hits you was being as defensive as they could have been.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Agree about the van driver needing to play a part ;-)

    So you think all this even if the cyclist is acting illegally and should not be there?

    I would say sure, be aware of the possibility and do your best to avoid, but not prosecute/punish the driver if the cyclist behaviour was unreasonable/illegal!
  • cookeeemonster
    cookeeemonster Posts: 1,991
    Carbonator wrote:
    CookeeeMonster wrote:

    Everything you say is wrong :)

    If the drivers visibilty is compromised by a van/bus/lorry etc then they shouldn't pull out...it's not rocket science - would you pull out onto a road you couldn't see?

    And 30mph? I cant be bothered reading the thread back but i'm sure he wasn't even doing 20mph.

    So what does the driver pulling out do? Not pull out until a transparent vehicle in the que is letting him/her out so they can see through it? Wait until all the traffic has gone? Turn around (at a junction!) and go home? They will never be able to see if its safe in a situation where the cyclist being unsafe (illegal?).

    In the example the driver is pulling out onto a road they can see, with a stationary vehicle they can see. Its the guy on the bike shooting down the outside that they not only cannot see, but has no real hope of seeing!

    The 30mph was in a made up scenario, not the OP's actual incident.
    The reason it was made up was that people kept saying they needed the facts, so making up an example gave them all the facts to make comment on.

    The driver waits until the van/lorry/bus is not blocking their view, then inches out and looks both ways

    It seems to me they didnt look both ways, therefore they are at fault.

    And although you shouldn't overtake approaching a junction, I got the impression that the junction wasn't so near as this should be a consideration (I may be wrong here).

    Ultimately the OP was filtering which is perfectly legal for cyclists and motorbikes to do. They got hit by someone who pulled out without looking properly, and thats the only relevant bit as far as I'm concerned
  • graeme_s-2
    graeme_s-2 Posts: 3,382
    I saw the aftermath of a very similar crash recently while cycling to work. In this case it was someone pulling out of their driveway through a line of standing traffic who hit a moped rider who was filtering down the right of the line of traffic.

    My sympathies were with the moped rider, particularly as the front of the emerging vehicle struck the side of the moped with enough force to propel the moped and rider across the whole width of the other carriageway and onto the cycle path (I saw this happen from a distance).

    Having said that, I didn't witness the speed of either party and I think that would play a big part in where I felt the blame would lie. If the moped rider had been going very quickly and the driver creeping & peeping (as my driving instructor referred to it) then I would probably say the moped rider would shoulder more of the blame. Had that been the case the moped would have struck the front right wing of the emerging vehicle, and it didn't.
  • Pituophis
    Pituophis Posts: 1,025
    By coincidence, a friend of mine had exactly the same accident last week, except he took a trip over the bonnet injuring his shoulder. He said "it was my own fault for overtaking standing traffic and not expecting something stupid to happen" :shock:

    If someone did this in a car, and not on a bike, travelling down the outside of, and overtaking a stationary/slow moving line of traffic that you (we/me) were sitting in, patiently waiting our turn, you (we/me) would think he was an impatient, reckless individual.
    In that case, we might form a low opinion of his ability as a car driver.
    But when it happens to a fellow cyclist, and we all experience "near misses" or worse, we are inclined to jump to his defence.

    Personally I think it is one of those unfortunate 50/50 accidents, with no one party completely at fault. :cry:
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    I skimmed the thread so may have missed bits, most of it was uninformed boll** anyway. ;):D

    She emerged from a side road and turned right across your path hitting you?
    - First requirements is that she stop and when requested to do so exchange details - you are not required to do the same.
    did she do this? - if not report the accident to the police and they will do her for failing to stop/leaving the scene/failing to report. Do not feel bad you should do this, sooner or later she will report the accident.

    Safety hat (motorcyclist) on - Filtering queuing cars next to side roads is a no no, you are almost guaranteed to get someone emerge in to your path that you cannot see. You have to do it at walking pace max.

    Sounds like Harding v Hinchcliffe (1964) - 100% driver to blame. Your situation may differ. In any case you are highly unlikely to have anything more than 50% liability, which means you'll get half what the injury is worth.

    There is another case of Worsfold v Howie (1980) and Woodham v Turner 2012 which is 50/50, but here the speed of the filtering bike/emerging car was a factor. So it depends how fast you were both going.

    This site has some good diagrams http://www.motorcyclecompensation.co.uk
    though not 100% up to date and missing a couple of cases.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Tedious and tiresome thread IMO
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Carbonator wrote:
    Do you mean that she pulled out from a side road on the left doing a right turn?

    If so I would have thought she would have only had to give way to the vehicle and not a bike shooting down the outside?

    Glad you are OK though ;-)

    No, she should have been checking for other road users in both direction full stop. Yes, if you are overtaking you need to be aware that these sorts of things may happen (the classic one is some 'kind soul' letting someone out of / into a side road without any consideration to anyone filtering alongside them) but the person emerging from the side road has a legal requirement to give way to traffic on the through route. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a cyclist or motorcyclist to be passing a queue of traffic.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Carbonator wrote:
    Agree about the van driver needing to play a part ;-)

    So you think all this even if the cyclist is acting illegally and should not be there?

    I would say sure, be aware of the possibility and do your best to avoid, but not prosecute/punish the driver if the cyclist behaviour was unreasonable/illegal!

    I think the thing is that there doesn't seem to be any illegality over what the cyclist was doing. But I think I agree with your last point. It's a difficult situation and both parties ought to be considering the potential presence of the other and going slowly enough to avoid collision. After all, a car pulling through a grid lock isn't going to inconvenience the car letting him out by taking longer to do it and you don't have to go so much more slowly in filtering to spot someone pulling out before you hit them.

    And the same, in practice, applies to use of cycle lanes when passing gridlock. I've been hit by someone assuming a cycle lane would be empty by default so even where we very clearly have the priority we are still vulnerable. I've actually changed one of my routes now to avoid a cycle lane that is commonly aside a gridlock (where I was hit!).
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    diy wrote:

    Sounds like Harding v Hinchcliffe (1964) - 100% driver to blame. Your situation may differ. In any case you are highly unlikely to have anything more than 50% liability, which means you'll get half what the injury is worth.

    1964! lol

    Question about the 'half what the injury is worth' bit. How would that work?
    Would the car drivers insurance pay it or would it come from some sort of fund?

    If the cyclist was not insured and it was (if it was) 50/50, who pays for the car drivers repairs?

    Are you saying the cyclist would get compensation but the car driver would not?

    I thought 50/50 meant you sorted your own repairs.
  • thegibdog
    thegibdog Posts: 2,106
    Carbonator wrote:
    thegibdog wrote:
    What if they pulled out when a car was approaching from the left - on the correct side of the road - and hit it because they couldn't see it? The onus is on the road user emerging on the main road to ensure the road is clear before pulling out. If they can't emerge on to the main road safely then they shouldn't pull out at all.
    I do not get what you mean by car on left thing
    The driver is emerging from a side road, the traffic in the lane approaching the junction from the drivers right is stopped, obscuring the driver's view. A car could be approaching from the driver's left and the emerging driver would cause an accident by pulling out without being able to see properly. By your reasoning the emerging driver wouldn't be at fault because they can't be expected to see everything!
    Carbonator wrote:
    If the cyclist was not insured and it was (if it was) 50/50, who pays for the car drivers repairs?

    Are you saying the cyclist would get compensation but the car driver would not?
    Insurance doesn't determine who gets compensation, it is the people involved that are liable for the cost of their actions. They take out insurance to mitigate this.
    https://gibworth.mypixieset.com
  • K0Power
    K0Power Posts: 30
    There is no question here, the driver is completely at fault for not checking its clear.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Carbonator wrote:
    diy wrote:

    Sounds like Harding v Hinchcliffe (1964) - 100% driver to blame. Your situation may differ. In any case you are highly unlikely to have anything more than 50% liability, which means you'll get half what the injury is worth.

    1964! lol

    That's how Civil cases work. A case sets a precedent and other cases refer to that precedent unless there are fundamental differences in the circumstances. Someone driving out of a side road without checking properly was the same in 1964 as it is today. If the cyclist was doing something careless or reckless that contributed then this will be taken into account when blame is apportioned so for example if the cyclist was doing 30mph, in the dark, with no lights and wearing dark clothes they may be found 90% liable due to their negligence. In this instance it sounds like the OP was riding in a reasonable manner. A bike loses its value as a form of urban transport if you can't make use of its ability to overcome queues and delays that affect other road users.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    Yep - basically what happens if it goes the distance is the legals argue over which case this is closest to. If they can show that this is pretty similar to another decided case then the judge must come to the same conclusion.

    There are two parts to the claim: Damages (repair) and personal injury. Its very rare for a cyclist to be found liable for damages* and its uncommon for the driver to suffer personal injury. So ruling of 50/50 for cause of injury results in a reduction of payout for the personal injury of 50%. This is why as a vulnerable road user, even if you think you are partially at fault, you should seek advice as you may be walking away from a valid claim. The other aspect is that injury complications don't always manifest themselves immediately.

    *I have had this argument on here before and it went pages and pages due to a debate with what appeared to be a rather anal ex-junior solicitor who felt that my use of "duty of care" which I was using to convey in layman's terms the difference between driver and rider obligations to others/each other.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    Pross wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    diy wrote:

    Sounds like Harding v Hinchcliffe (1964) - 100% driver to blame. Your situation may differ. In any case you are highly unlikely to have anything more than 50% liability, which means you'll get half what the injury is worth.

    1964! lol

    That's how Civil cases work. A case sets a precedent and other cases refer to that precedent unless there are fundamental differences in the circumstances. Someone driving out of a side road without checking properly was the same in 1964 as it is today. If the cyclist was doing something careless or reckless that contributed then this will be taken into account when blame is apportioned so for example if the cyclist was doing 30mph, in the dark, with no lights and wearing dark clothes they may be found 90% liable due to their negligence. In this instance it sounds like the OP was riding in a reasonable manner. A bike loses its value as a form of urban transport if you can't make use of its ability to overcome queues and delays that affect other road users.

    Just to add some balance though Pross & I'm not saying that I disagree with you & think were are all grown up enough to know that none of us were there apart from the OP. But could you not look at it another way;

    The OP chose to overtake the line of vehicles close enough to at left hand junction, which is a no no in the highway code, and with enough speed that he could not stop or avoid the car.

    Now I have just re-read the OP's comments 'Rightly or Wrongly I chose to go with the latter.

    Further down the road I was continuing past the traffic when a People Carrier appeared in front of me to turn the way I had just come from and as you can imagine I went straight into the side of it." So looks like both were in the wrong the cyclist for making an overtake approaching a side junction (hence the rule to not do it as it is more dangerous as you might be unsighted of any vehicles pulling out) & the car driver for not checking enough/well/at all (add your your version) when moving from the side junction onto the main road basically not giving way.

    I'm not having a go at the OP as I readily agree that with out knowing the road, position of vehicles and speeds of both the car & bike it is never that easy to judge. You could argue that the cyclist should not have attempted the move & once committed was not in proper control & you could argue that the motor vehicle driver should not have pulled out or done so more safely.

    I do feel for the OP as I'm sure that we have had enough squeaky bum moments on the bike and afterwards can get into the what if scenario which is never good & I do wish him well and as I suggested to him has family who can advise him on whats best to do to protect himself in case in a month or so's time the TP claims that he rode into them.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    Look at the cases there are different rulings for different scenarios for basically the same layouts. Speed of both drivers will be a factor.

    Filtering on side roads is a no no for me from a safety point of view. But that does not make it your fault if you are hit. It just means you should have expected it.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    diy wrote:
    Look at the cases there are different rulings for different scenarios for basically the same layouts. Speed of both drivers will be a factor.

    Filtering on side roads is a no no for me from a safety point of view. But that does not make it your fault if you are hit. It just means you should have expected it.

    The OP states that he hit the car on its side, not that the emerging car hit him & knocked him off. Think that speed and road layout, positioning of car & bike and witness statements would/will factor into this if it goes any further.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • thegibdog
    thegibdog Posts: 2,106
    A few relevant bits of the Highway Code:

    151 In slow-moving traffic. You should...
    * be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

    167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

    170 Take extra care at junctions. You should
    * watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind ...
    * look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.

    172The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

    Turning Right
    180 Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

    Interestingly only one MUST in there, so I guess if there's no broken white lines it's more of a grey area.
    https://gibworth.mypixieset.com

Categories