Has an accident and need to find out if I am at fault.

prcody

I was on my last few kms of my ride today and was in the bus lane coming up the inside of what i thought was just a traffic jam. I came up inside a double decker bus and it blocked my view of a car turning in across my path. I hit the left wing of the car, smacked my head off the bonnet and ended up the other side of the car on my ass. The bus driver cleared off after he gave his details to the car driver. I had a passenger in the car call the police and an ambulance as I have whiplash.
The police attended and gave me the details of the driver and got my details. After getting the details they left the scene.

My bike is now kaput as the frame is cracked on the stem. What I want to know is am I at fault for the whole thing as I need to now replace my bike? I am a bit beat up but feeling like I will recover so wont claim for an injury unless absolutely necessary I am more concerned with replacing the bike.

Can anyone shed any light on this for me as I am sure someone else has had this happen them?

mrdsgs

you undertook a bus in a bus lane .... and are surprised that it obscured your view of the road ahead?

prcody

Thanks for your help. I appreciate your insight.

marcusjb

As ever, difficult to say.

Clearly the driver should have ensured the lane was clear. Rule 183 covers that I think.

However, you can you were on the inside of a bus - presumably that was in the bus lane? Filtering like that is perfectly legal, however, you need to be super cautious at junctions and certainly never approach a turning whilst being obscured by the bus. You put yourself in a very bad position - legal, but that doesn't really matter if you end up dead. You were riding blind in effect. Never going to end well.

Ultimately, it is more on the side of the driver that was at fault. Quite possibly, the bus driver flashed him to proceed (another very good reason to be very aware when approaching a junction - a driver who gets flashed is rarely going to pay extra attention to look out for other vehicles).

So take it forwards and begin the claim. But also learn from it on how to approach junctions when filtering (or even using an empty bus lane). People turning right across the lane in front of you is common enough (certainly here in London!) and is just another thing to be super aware of. Yes, they are in the wrong, but I'd rather scrub a bit of speed and be sure than end up in a hospital bed or a box.

plowmar

If you couldn't see the car could he see you?

You may even have to pay for the car to be repaired. But your insurance will pay for that as well as a new bike, won't it?.

Hope you're feeling better soon though, but whiplash can take a long time to reduce.

prcody

@marcusjb Thanks for that. It was a single lane road with no bus lane. I was in the bike lane and was approaching the entrance to a car park where the car was turning into. I just want to see where I sit legally as I dont want to end up being chased for the dents to the car when I dont believe it was my fault. Bad enough to lose my only bike after I had two stolen recently but to have to pay for the dents would be a bit much.

prcody

@plowmar Both our views were obscured by the bus.

jgsi

I had similar a few weeks ago.. queue of traffic to my right and I riding .. I didnt pay attention to a junction on my left and a car had been 'flashed' thru by a vehicle. it was after work and I was just wanting to get home . luckily that car emergency stopped as I was going across that lh junction... that was my bad.... you have come off 'worse' but we have all hit the tarmac at some point in life... however, you may found liable for the damage you caused by your inattentiveness.. which I got away with.
In effect.. yes you are a contributory factor in this situation.

mrdsgs

From "Cycle Law", advice for cyclists from a firm of solicitors who are "cyclist friendly".

Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘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’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
It is also important to note that it is far more dangerous to filter on the left hand side of a vehicle, or ‘undertake’, than it is to filter on the right hand side, or ‘overtake’, this is the case even where there is a designated cycle lane on the left of the road. This is particularly true where the vehicle in front is a long vehicle, such as a bus or lorry, because cyclists on the left of such vehicles are likely to be in the driver’s blind spot. Being in a driver’s blind spot not only leaves the cyclist at a higher risk of the vehicle turning without warning, but also leaves them at risk even if the vehicle makes a slight movement to the left of the lane. Such situations could have fatal consequences for the cyclist as they will have no space between the vehicle and the kerb to manoeuvre. Filtering on the left hand side should only be done when the traffic is completely stationary and the cyclist is confident that it will remain so until they are safely past the vehicle.

jgsi

mrdsgs wrote:

From "Cycle Law", advice for cyclists from a firm of solicitors who are "cyclist friendly".

Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘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’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
It is also important to note that it is far more dangerous to filter on the left hand side of a vehicle, or ‘undertake’, than it is to filter on the right hand side, or ‘overtake’, this is the case even where there is a designated cycle lane on the left of the road. This is particularly true where the vehicle in front is a long vehicle, such as a bus or lorry, because cyclists on the left of such vehicles are likely to be in the driver’s blind spot. Being in a driver’s blind spot not only leaves the cyclist at a higher risk of the vehicle turning without warning, but also leaves them at risk even if the vehicle makes a slight movement to the left of the lane. Such situations could have fatal consequences for the cyclist as they will have no space between the vehicle and the kerb to manoeuvre. Filtering on the left hand side should only be done when the traffic is completely stationary and the cyclist is confident that it will remain so until they are safely past the vehicle.

so.... having taken 2 paragraphs to explain it might hurt if a car hits a cyclist... is the OP likely to get a letter demanding payment for the damage caused?

londoncommuter

pppp

apreading

Need to see the junction but my guess is that whatever we may thing, the insurance companies will go 50/50, with each party having to claim on their own insurance. They seem to like doing that these days, especially if blame is not 100% clear, because it means both parties lose their no-claims and face higher premiums next year...!

mrdsgs

OP started this thread with "I was on my last few kms of my ride today and was in the bus lane coming up the inside"

OP's 3rd entry, "it was a single lane road with no bus lane. I was in the bike lane..."

This might explain our confusion!

sloppyschleckonds

mrdsgs wrote:

OP started this thread with "I was on my last few kms of my ride today and was in the bus lane coming up the inside"

OP's 3rd entry, "it was a single lane road with no bus lane. I was in the bike lane..."

This might explain our confusion!

He's taken a bang to the head, i suggest he gets that checked out.

prcody

Sorry folks I did write bus lane when it was a actually bike lane. I dont have pictures of the bike lane and google maps doesn't show it correctly. Here are the co-ordinates to give an idea of where it was 51°20'23.2"N 0°06'54.0"W. I was cycling towards Croydon with the church and Russell Hill Place on my left.
I have a friend in legal insurance claims looking into who is liable so we will see what happens.

StillGoing

Your fault. Blind filtering, undertaking. It matters not whether the bus driver did or didn't flash the car driver. The onus on safe passage through the junction is on the driver. They should have allowed for someone undertaking the bus, but equally anyone that did is deserving of a Darwin award and equally blameworthy. If there was little room to drive through the junction, would they have had the chance to stop if they'd seen you anyway? Potentially not. If you have insurance, I don't think they will even attempt to claim damages for you and will be trying not to be paying damages for the car driver. If you don't, I'd be waiting for a claim against you and having to pay out.

adam0bmx0

philthy3 wrote:

Your fault. Blind filtering, undertaking. It matters not whether the bus driver did or didn't flash the car driver. The onus on safe passage through the junction is on the driver. They should have allowed for someone undertaking the bus,

Your reply seems to contradict itself, no?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

My very unlegal hunch is that the car driver is at fault, based on...

You were in a dedicated bike lane near the kerb
It is the responsibility of the car driver to be sure they safely turn to their right, a bus driver flashing their lights is no replacement for seeing things first hand, flashing lights used to be (still is?) supposed to be a warning signal rather than a "after you" signal
If this was the car diver's regular workplace, they should have known about the bike filtering lane
If this was not somewhere the car driver. was it apparent on their approach, that there was a bike filter lane?

Silly Old Hector

What is a 'bike filtering lane' ? I've only heard of bike lanes.

I am with NO above - bike lane, so car driver at fault....

cougie

I don't think he was filtering if he's in a bike lane. His lane is empty. So a car with no visibility crossed his lane.

I'd say the car was at fault. He crossed into the bike lane.

Can you show us the road on Google Street view perhaps?

apreading

I am guessing that this was the approach: http://binged.it/1OH0K4h

prcody

I have a two friends in insurance and in legal looking into it no for me so we will see what they say.

prcody

Yes that is the approach and I collided with the car just past the pub where a lane goes down the side of the pub.

bernithebiker

A car that crosses a line of traffic to turn has the obligation to be 100% sure that nothing, no bicycle, motorbike, pedestrian, whatever is coming.

It is not enough to rely on the guy flashing you through.

mroli

If the car was turning right, I believe (and this is old rusty knowledge!) that the turning car is always in the wrong. The onus is on the car turning across traffic to complete its manoeuvre safely. There may be mitigants, but that is the rule of thumb. Plenty of more up to speed legals on here, so am sure some education will be along soon....

StillGoing

adam0bmx0 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Your fault. Blind filtering, undertaking. It matters not whether the bus driver did or didn't flash the car driver. The onus on safe passage through the junction is on the driver. They should have allowed for someone undertaking the bus,

Your reply seems to contradict itself, no?

Not at all. One act reduces the culpability of the other in degrees. The cyclist is putting themselves in danger by undertaking especially where the view of traffic potentially crossing the path is restricted and maybe non-existent The driver should ensure they are clear to take their course. The bus has stopped leaving a gap for the driver to turn into the side junction. No traffic is crossing the driver's path as they undertake the manoeuvre only for a cyclist committing a dangerous action to ride into the side of them. The cyclists actions reduce the liability of the driver and in my view, the dangerous undertaking is worse than the driver's turning into what would have been a clear junction if the cyclist hadn't have undertaken the bus.

cougie

So Philthy - there's congestion on the road and the cars are almost at a stand still.
I'm in the cycle lane - is it dangerous for me to undertake the cars? Should I stop?

Personally in the original incident I'd have been very wary at junctions and on the brakes but at best that's contributory negligence? It was the cars actions in crossing that was the cause of the accident.

StillGoing

cougie wrote:

So Philthy - there's congestion on the road and the cars are almost at a stand still.
I'm in the cycle lane - is it dangerous for me to undertake the cars? Should I stop?

Personally in the original incident I'd have been very wary at junctions and on the brakes but at best that's contributory negligence? It was the cars actions in crossing that was the cause of the accident.

It will be dual fault and more than likely go as 50/50 but, in my opinion coming from a policing background, the cyclist is more liable. Undertaking is a no, no especially when unsighted. Filtering is permitted at a safe speed being mindful of potential hazards such as at junctions and where there is no clear view. It should have been done at a speed where the cyclist could have stopped and avoided the collision if a vehicle that was unable to see them was trying to turn through the junction. In short, the driver couldn't see the cyclist because of the bus in the way and the cyclist couldn't see the driver because of the bus in the way.

From the Cycle Law website:

Many drivers in the UK, particularly those living in busy cities, will have at some point felt a pang of jealousy towards the cyclists on the road who are able to ride though the traffic to their destination. However, whilst the ability to ride past stationary traffic is one of the many benefits of choosing to cycle, many road users are unsure of whether or not it is technically legal or, for that matter, safe.
In the context of cycling, ‘filtering’ means moving past slow or stationary traffic, either on the left or the right of the traffic ahead. Whilst neither the law, nor the Highway Code definitively state whether or not filtering by cyclists is legal, it can be inferred from the text of the Highway Code that it is acceptable practice, for example:
Rule 160 states that road users should ‘be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic’ and Rule 88, in relation to manoeuvring, states that road users should take care and keep speed low ‘…when filtering in slow-moving traffic’. Furthermore, rule 211 says that ‘it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are filtering through traffic’.
Although Rule 211 states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’ which could be taken to mean that drivers have responsibility for looking for riders before performing a manoeuvre, it is important for cyclists to anticipate the actions of other road users and avoid risks at all times. There is no specific guidance in the Highway Code about when it is or is not safe to filter through traffic, however there are some basic pieces of safety advice that cyclists should have in mind when on the roads.
Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘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’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
It is also important to note that it is far more dangerous to filter on the left hand side of a vehicle, or ‘undertake’, than it is to filter on the right hand side, or ‘overtake’, this is the case even where there is a designated cycle lane on the left of the road. This is particularly true where the vehicle in front is a long vehicle, such as a bus or lorry, because cyclists on the left of such vehicles are likely to be in the driver’s blind spot. Being in a driver’s blind spot not only leaves the cyclist at a higher risk of the vehicle turning without warning, but also leaves them at risk even if the vehicle makes a slight movement to the left of the lane. Such situations could have fatal consequences for the cyclist as they will have no space between the vehicle and the kerb to manoeuvre. Filtering on the left hand side should only be done when the traffic is completely stationary and the cyclist is confident that it will remain so until they are safely past the vehicle.
Once the traffic is moving again cyclists should slot back into the stream of traffic without braking or changing direction suddenly. In order to do this it is recommended that when filtering through traffic cyclists do not go excessively fast as a good deal of foresight will be needed with regard to the rest of the traffic.
Advanced stop lines have been introduced on many roads in the UK. These are areas that are reserved for cyclists at junctions and they allow cyclists to start off first when the traffic starts moving. Often cyclists will need to filter through stopped traffic in order to reach the advanced stop lines, however, it will sometimes be better practice to wait behind other cars at a junction than to squeeze through a precarious space next to the kerb in order to reach the cyclists area. Cyclists should keep in mind that undertaking on the left is dangerous even where vehicles are stationary or where there is a cycle lane on the road.
There is very little case law that deals with situations where cyclists have been injured whilst overtaking or filtering, however, some guidance can be taken from similar situations involving motorcycles. Cases such as Pell v Moseley (2003) and Hillman v Tomkins (1995), both of which concerned a motorcyclist involved in a collision whilst overtaking on the right, demonstrate that the outcome of such cases depends on the particular facts of each case; this is likely to be the case in situations involving bicycles as well. In both of these cases the judge found that the rider and driver were equally to blame, because, they both should have anticipated the actions of the other. Whether or not a driver or rider is to blame for any accident whilst filtering seems to depend on factors such as the speed of the vehicles and the bicycle, the parties’ knowledge of the local area and the location of the accident, e.g., was it near a junction? Although it is legal to filter on a bicycle, it can be inferred from the motorcyclist cases that where cyclists are found to have been filtering in a way deemed to be ‘bad practice’ when a collision takes place, there is strong chance of a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist.
Where there is a finding of split liability, the driver will only have to pay a percentage of the damages, which will correspond with their percentage of the liability for the accident. The cyclist may also be awarded their legal costs for bringing the case, but that is always at the discretion of the judge.
Clearly there are dangers surrounding the practice of filtering by cyclists and there is as yet little guidance from the courts as to what is expected of cyclists in this regard. What does seem reasonably certain is that in the event of a collision, the success of a claim for damages would depend on the manner in which each party was driving or riding. Where a cyclist was riding in an unsafe manner it is likely that they will be held at least partly responsible for the accident, despite the Highway Code placing a duty on drivers to look out for riders who may be filtering through traffic. It would be highly beneficial for some definitive legal and practical guidance to be produced in this area because as it stands, the uncertainty surrounding the practice of filtering only causes confusion.

fenix

That's a bit more like I would think. Nothing wrong as such in riding down the bike lane - but I'd be on my guard where there's a gap in the traffic at the junction.

Much better to not get hit at all than have to argue the legal position.

rolf_f

philthy3 wrote:

cougie wrote:

So Philthy - there's congestion on the road and the cars are almost at a stand still.
I'm in the cycle lane - is it dangerous for me to undertake the cars? Should I stop?

Personally in the original incident I'd have been very wary at junctions and on the brakes but at best that's contributory negligence? It was the cars actions in crossing that was the cause of the accident.

It will be dual fault and more than likely go as 50/50 but, in my opinion coming from a policing background, the cyclist is more liable. Undertaking is a no, no especially when unsighted. Filtering is permitted at a safe speed being mindful of potential hazards such as at junctions and where there is no clear view.

He's not filtering though - he's riding in a specific and defined empty lane which the car driver has crossed without checking whether or not it is safe to do so. I don't think anything in your post is strictly relevant here. There is obviously a bit of a common sense failure - if you are passing slow moving traffic whilst in a cycle lane and there is a turning on the left, if you can't see that there is no gap for right turning traffic to access it then you shouldn't assume that there isn't one - but it's not really a filtering issue. It's more a "driver assuming that the cycle lane is empty without any logical reason to do so" issue. Or a "driver oblivious that cycle lanes exist" issue.

What is the point of a cycle lane if you are expected to travel no faster than the gridlock to your right?

lesfirth

Rolf F wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

cougie wrote:

So Philthy - there's congestion on the road and the cars are almost at a stand still.
I'm in the cycle lane - is it dangerous for me to undertake the cars? Should I stop?

Personally in the original incident I'd have been very wary at junctions and on the brakes but at best that's contributory negligence? It was the cars actions in crossing that was the cause of the accident.

It will be dual fault and more than likely go as 50/50 but, in my opinion coming from a policing background, the cyclist is more liable. Undertaking is a no, no especially when unsighted. Filtering is permitted at a safe speed being mindful of potential hazards such as at junctions and where there is no clear view.

He's not filtering though - he's riding in a specific and defined empty lane which the car driver has crossed without checking whether or not it is safe to do so. I don't think anything in your post is strictly relevant here. There is obviously a bit of a common sense failure - if you are passing slow moving traffic whilst in a cycle lane and there is a turning on the left, if you can't see that there is no gap for right turning traffic to access it then you shouldn't assume that there isn't one - but it's not really a filtering issue. It's more a "driver assuming that the cycle lane is empty without any logical reason to do so" issue. Or a "driver oblivious that cycle lanes exist" issue.

What is the point of a cycle lane if you are expected to travel no faster than the gridlock to your right?

I agree entirely.