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

bernithebiker

Me too. It's not that complicated. I cycled in London every day for 12 years, and had to avoid this kind of accident about 3 times a day, simply because the car driver assumed that the guy waving him through is guaranteeing him safe passage.

thomasmorris

The first post makes it sound like you were filtering on the inside of a bus lane, but the second makes clear you were just in a clear bike lane with stationary traffic in the main vehicle lane. In which case I think the car is at fault... but I'm not a lawyer!

This is a very common issue with bike lanes in busy areas though, I've had quite a few incidents like this on my commute. A driver going slowly or stopped waves oncoming traffic through to make a right turn in to a minor road or even on to a drive. The driver making the turn then nips across, and either doesn't check the cycle lane they are crossing, or can't see it due to a high sided vehicle (like your bus).

If there is no cycle lane, as the traffic slows I'd move out to take the lane, then if it stops and I feel there's enough space, I'd filter down the middle, then cars turning right can see me and I can see them. Filtering down the inside would be a big no-no. However, when there's a free bike lane on the left I feel obliged to use it, even though the road position it puts you in isn't very dissimilar to filtering on the inside! I tend to just be extra weary, especially near high sided vehicles.

johnmiosh

Something similar happened to me about twenty years ago. I was in the dotted bike lane going slightly faster than the traffic to my right. On this road, I was always careful approaching junctions to my left, but generally able to move forward faster than the traffic. One day I was taken by surprise when a bus to the right opened its doors and let someone jump off into the bike lane just in front of me. I hit her, knocking her to the ground and then falling on top of her.

The bus driver checked she wasn't under his wheels, got back in his bus, pulled forward twenty yards to the bus stop and parked within a mm of the kerb.

When the police arrived, they saw the layout of the accident, and were obviously interested in securing a prosecution of the cyclist who was must have been riding recklessly on the pavement. After five minutes discussion, it became more obvious to them that the bus driver had been stopped in the middle of the road and had opened his doors 20 yds before the bus stop. The police lost interest in me and focused on the driver. This suggests that I was travelling in accordance with the Highway Code and their expectations of use of a bike lane.

I called the bus company next day. Apparently the drivers original story over the radio was that he stopped at the bus stop and a cyclist travelling at 30 mph on the path had run into his passenger. This then changed several times over their investigation the next day.

The bus company told me they would take appropriate action, but I never heard anything further from them. I assume that as I was not asked to give a written statement, there was no prosecution.

MikeBrew

Legal liability aside, your first responsibility to your self as a cyclist is trying to stay alive. Common sense and self preservation has to come into play, and you put yourself at risk by carrying straight through when you couldn't see it was safe to do so. That said, the bus driver could have checked his inside mirror before waving the driver across, but hey bus drivers aren't known for their cycling sensibility's.
Suppose it had been just a traffic jam as you thought - then it could just as easily been a pedestrian that emerged from behind the [front of the] bus into your path. Realistically if somethings obscuring your view that close to you and you don't pass it with caution you're taking a huge leap of faith. Even if the car driver is legally at fault it's academic to the greater degree, as even if you get your expenses covered, next time you pass something blind the resulting collision might kill you.
Not trying to say anything other than ride defensively - so what if it's your right of way and the driver transgresses, you can't argue from a morgue even if you were "in the right".

MikeBrew

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 bus when I can't see past it? Should I stop ? .

You've missed th e most pertinent part of the puzzle here, so I've penned it in, in red for you.

The answer to your question is yes. It's extremely dangerous not to stop . By not stopping you're emerging blindly and literally taking your life in your hands.....Did you really even need to ask. Have to say, it's nice to see that it's not only me that you try to start illogical, unnecessary arguments with.

StillGoing

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?

Read it again. It is still undertaking/filtering in a dangerous situation. The cyclist has been culpable in creating their own collision. It makes not one jot of difference whether there is a marked cycle lane or not. If the OP is successful in winning a claim I will be shocked. If he/she receives a claim against them, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

rolf_f

philthy3 wrote:

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?

Read it again. It is still undertaking/filtering in a dangerous situation. The cyclist has been culpable in creating their own collision. It makes not one jot of difference whether there is a marked cycle lane or not. If the OP is successful in winning a claim I will be shocked. If he/she receives a claim against them, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I did and it makes no difference. By your logic, if I am driving down the left hand lane of a motorway (perhaps approaching an exit) and the two right hand lanes are stationary because of some roadworks ahead, then it's a 50/50 blame if someone in the middle lane pulls left into my lane without looking and hits me because they are bored with being stuck in a queue?

Coming from a Police background, you'll no doubt remember what the Highway Code says on the matter - "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left" (Rule 163). How clear is that?

cougie

Has the OP gone and got legal representation? Bikeline maybe?

If not I think he should.

bernithebiker

cougie wrote:

Has the OP gone and got legal representation? Bikeline maybe?

If not I think he should.

When you can get free, contradictory legal advice right here?!

prcody

I have legal representation working on this for me so I will see what happens.

The fun part is now I have an Ultegra groupset with a destroyed frame so I will be looking for something shiny. I have a Focus Izalco Ergoride and am looking into their frame replacement warranty. Does anyone have a Cayo and would they recommend it?

kleinstroker

Some really strange comments on here. A bike lane is just like any other lane of traffic, being a cyclist makes zero difference. You are a legal road user, riding in a designated lane, the car driver is 100% at fault legally, but op is a very silly boy for not stopping at the junction. Riding safely should be number 1 concern at all times.

svetty

kleinstroker wrote:

Some really strange comments on here. A bike lane is just like any other lane of traffic, being a cyclist makes zero difference. You are a legal road user, riding in a designated lane, the car driver is 100% at fault legally, but op is a very silly boy for not stopping at the junction. Riding safely should be number 1 concern at all times.

I think this is what most cyclists intrinsically feel. There seems little point in cycle lanes if cyclists cannot pass along them without having to give way at each and every intersecting turning, driveway or entrance just in case a car emerges from or crosses into them.

Blasting along cycle lanes across junctions completely unsighted is a slightly different matter......

jgsi

I still think the OP will have a fight on his hand for compo.. I still stand that as a rider you proceed with caution whatever the barrack room boys on here say.
It will be interesting what pans out here... working for an accident management company myself who have just recently acquired a 'bicycle' division.

ColeMetcalfe

Go for some advice to a cyclist support service and they can give you insights into what they can do for you. From reading what you've put id say your not at fault.

MikeBrew

RolfF wrote:

I did and it makes no difference. By your logic, if I am driving down the left hand lane of a motorway (perhaps approaching an exit) and the two right hand lanes are stationary because of some roadworks ahead, then it's a 50/50 blame if someone in the middle lane pulls left into my lane without looking and hits me because they are bored with being stuck in a queue?

Coming from a Police background, you'll no doubt remember what the Highway Code says on the matter - "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left" (Rule 163). How clear is that?

To be fair though, you don't get too many cycle lanes, cyclists, or buses flashing oncoming traffic across the front of them on motorways.

StillGoing

Rolf F wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

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?

Read it again. It is still undertaking/filtering in a dangerous situation. The cyclist has been culpable in creating their own collision. It makes not one jot of difference whether there is a marked cycle lane or not. If the OP is successful in winning a claim I will be shocked. If he/she receives a claim against them, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I did and it makes no difference. By your logic, if I am driving down the left hand lane of a motorway (perhaps approaching an exit) and the two right hand lanes are stationary because of some roadworks ahead, then it's a 50/50 blame if someone in the middle lane pulls left into my lane without looking and hits me because they are bored with being stuck in a queue?

Coming from a Police background, you'll no doubt remember what the Highway Code says on the matter - "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left" (Rule 163). How clear is that?

What a strange comment? What you describe is completely different. 3 lanes of traffic all moving in the same direction with nobody crossing their path. But, I refuse to explain any further for you as it would appear I am wasting my time.

OP good luck, as I think you're going to need it.

rolf_f

philthy3 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

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?

Read it again. It is still undertaking/filtering in a dangerous situation. The cyclist has been culpable in creating their own collision. It makes not one jot of difference whether there is a marked cycle lane or not. If the OP is successful in winning a claim I will be shocked. If he/she receives a claim against them, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I did and it makes no difference. By your logic, if I am driving down the left hand lane of a motorway (perhaps approaching an exit) and the two right hand lanes are stationary because of some roadworks ahead, then it's a 50/50 blame if someone in the middle lane pulls left into my lane without looking and hits me because they are bored with being stuck in a queue?

Coming from a Police background, you'll no doubt remember what the Highway Code says on the matter - "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left" (Rule 163). How clear is that?

What a strange comment? What you describe is completely different. 3 lanes of traffic all moving in the same direction with nobody crossing their path. But, I refuse to explain any further for you as it would appear I am wasting my time.

OP good luck, as I think you're going to need it.

It doesn't matter very much what I say - what matters is what the highway code says and I quoted that.

I guess this is what we expect from the Police. The Policeman comes up with a theory. When a reasonably thoughtful amateur provides clear evidence to the Policeman that his theory is wrong and that his theory is contradictory to the law, does he take the evidence and use it to re-assess his own interpretation of the facts, or does he use his experience to come up with a legitimate compelling counter argument that the thoughtful amateur has misunderstood the situation? No, he does nothing of the sort and just says it would be wasting his time to explain things!

Kind of sums up all that is wrong with the Police doesn't it? I thought you'd have done better than this to be honest.

JesseD

Unless I am missing something here I believe that this will go 50/50 or even may go against the OP (if he's unlucky) as that the dedicated bike lane as I see it in the picture in the link below (if the pub is the pear tree and if I am looking at the right junction) starts after the turning and not before so the OP was not riding in a dedicated bike lane but was about to join one after the junction.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33970 ... 312!8i6656

MikeBrew

JesseD wrote:

Unless I am missing something here I believe that this will go 50/50 or even may go against the OP (if he's unlucky) as that the dedicated bike lane as I see it in the picture in the link below (if the pub is the pear tree and if I am looking at the right junction) starts after the turning and not before so the OP was not riding in a dedicated bike lane but was about to join one after the junction.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33970 ... 312!8i6656

Assuming this the same junction, it depends which is the more up to date image http://binged.it/1OH0K4h The pub names changes as do the cycle lane marking between the two.

I think some cyclists misinterpret cycle lanes. Primarily they're there to give you you're own part of the road while faster traffic passes. Of course you can still over take that traffic when it has slowed or is stationary, but they don't give or imply Carte Blanche to blast up the inside with complete impunity. They don't cocoon one from harm or give absolute right of way at all times. One still needs to exercise common sense and judgement.
Cycle lane or no cycle lane, overtaking on the inside is intrinsically dangerous. All motor vehicles have blind spots, especially large ones like lorries and buses, which often even have written warnings of such on the back, for those lacking the ability to work this out for themselves.

StillGoing

Rolf F wrote:

It doesn't matter very much what I say - what matters is what the highway code says and I quoted that.

I guess this is what we expect from the Police. The Policeman comes up with a theory. When a reasonably thoughtful amateur provides clear evidence to the Policeman that his theory is wrong and that his theory is contradictory to the law, does he take the evidence and use it to re-assess his own interpretation of the facts, or does he use his experience to come up with a legitimate compelling counter argument that the thoughtful amateur has misunderstood the situation? No, he does nothing of the sort and just says it would be wasting his time to explain things!

Kind of sums up all that is wrong with the Police doesn't it? I thought you'd have done better than this to be honest.

Come off it, you've been given ample example of why insurers will probably decide to go knock for knock. You just choose to ignore it and then come out with the insults to my past career. Way to go. Put it this way; you're driving along and choose to ignore what is happening in front of you and plough straight into the side of a car that was turning right into a junction across you. Do you think the insurers will just say it was the fault of the driving turning into the junction? Or do you think they would say that you weren't looking for hazards and contributed to the collision yourself? That is exactly what the OP has done. They failed to ensure their path was clear and could have prevented the collision had they given due regard to the potential hazard of undertaking a stationary vehicle, unaware of what might be emerging from the front of it. Now take it further and say it wasn't a car but a child crossing the road that the bus had stopped for and the cyclist slams into them causing life changing injuries. Still totally side with the cyclist or is this a bike v car agenda that you usually get on here?

JesseD

Cant open the link Mikebrew, am on work laptop so may be our firewall or version of Microsoft?

I am presuming it shows an extended bike path which spans the junction?

Used to work in motor claims so have a bit of knowledge on liability and if the bike path does extend past the junction then it will be the fault of the car turning across the lane. The defending insurers would have to prove negligence on behalf of the OP who was proceeding correctly which will be hard to do given he was in a bike lane correctly proceeding in the right direction etc. Not being able to see or having an obstructed view is nit a defence.

Now I haven't worked in motor claims for a good few years so things may have changed and I may be rusty but this in my take on it

MikeBrew

Yes it did extend across the junction, however, I think you're link may well be more recent. No idea why it won't open - it's working fine this end

EDIT : your link is OCT 2015 view. The other link, that I transcribed from earlier in the thread, is from AUG 2011. So unless the cycle lane has been extended since October last year, it only starts after the junction - as you pointed out.

JesseD

Would be good for the OP to provide photo's of the junction and extent of cycle path which would help assess this point.

At best he will not be at fault if the cycle path does extend past the junction, at worst it will go split liability or knock for knock if it doesn't as there still would be a duty of care for the car to ensure the passage was clear before turning, but as others have pointed out also the OP should have take more care before pulling up the inside of a stationary bus in traffic and not slowing to ensure the path was clear.

Good luck to the OP, glad the injuries weren't more serious, bikes can be repaired or replaced easily, broken limbs or even worse head injuries can be more problematic.

paul2718

The problem is that the situation may be an impasse for the driver. They cannot check the lane is clear without sticking their nose into it. There may be no visible indication that there is a lane at all, from the position of the driver. And it would be a rare driver who wouldn't turn into a gap deliberately left by another vehicle, especially if we can assume that the right turning car is holding up the traffic in its lane.

So the driver may be at fault, but it doesn't seem, on the facts as presented, as though they were negligent or incautious. whereas the cyclist rode into a space they couldn't see was clear and had an accident.

It will be interesting to hear what the professionals think.

Paul

JesseD

I would argue that the bike was proceeding correctly in its lane and the car crossed its path out of its lane, having an obstructed view is not a defence, if you can't see don’t make the turn.

This is all if/buts/maybe though as nobody knows the real circumstances and I dare say the insurers wont either. it will all come down to id there are witnesses and if they are prepared to submit statements as without them the car is at fault.

My guess is that if the bus driver was the only witness then a statement will not be forthcoming as the bus company will not allow him/her to complete one (used to get this issue all the time when I worked in claims), so it comes down to what can be proved, which is as I see it a bicycle was correctly proceeding along its lane and a car turned across its path causing the accident (that’s if the cycle lane was extending past the turning).

Same as a stationary bus in the outside lane of a 2 lane road and a car in its own lane undertakes the stationary bus only to have a car cut across its path, the car turning is at fault as it is unreasonable to expect the car undertaking to slow to a stop if his path is clear.

The TPI may try to argue speed or negligence on behalf of the cyclist here but unless they can prove either (which is doubtful) then the car is at fault.

That said I am rusty as have been out of motor claims for some time, so all the above maybe boll0cks

fenix

I guess we'll just have to see what happens in real life for this.

MikeBrew

I would argue that the bike was proceeding correctly in its lane

This can't be so, if he'd been proceeding correctly he would anticipated the potential danger of passing a large vehicle that closely un-sighted, and would have been proceeding cautiously at a speed that would of meant he could of stopped in time.
Simply being in a cycle lane isn't reason to turn off your anticipation and self preservation skills. It's not a tunnel that no one can wander into from the side, riders still have to think. If the bus had been simply stopped in a jam (as the OP believed) that car could have just as easily been a pedestrian crossing the road.

ajwcyclist

From what I can make out of the situation from the description giving in the original post and it had being myself riding and hit the car on the left wing I would honestly feel partly to blame as it was me who ran into the car not the other way around which would getting side swiped. If I'd being riding in that situation and had seen the bus stopping before the junction on the left because of heavy traffic, the first thought in my head is why is the bus stopping before the junction. Is there someone coming the opposite direction wanting to or going to turn right. The next thing is can they see me or aware of my presence on the road. Now depending on where the bus stopped in relation to where I am to it ideally I would prefer to pass on the right for a very simple reason I can see far clearer of any danger than I can on the left side of the bus and also the driver has a better chance of seeing me than if I hid on the left. Simple rules if I can't see them they can't see me. Now if if I was already on the left when the bus stopped before the junction I would at least ease off and try to look through the bus windows and front window and see if I can spot any danger of say a car or pedestrian maybe and if a danger springs up can I stop or can I evasive action either stop quick enough or do I have an exit route to take. At the end of the day I view myself as a road user not a cyclist. It doesn't matter whether I'm on the bike or driving.

JesseD

I think there is a difference between sensible self preservation skills and what who is at fault in a motor accident.
it all boils down to what can be proven.

What we do know (if we are to accept the cycle path extended past the junction) is that the OP was cycling in a designated cycle path, a vehicle turned across that path and the 2 of them collided.

Right of way exists for the cyclist as he was using the designated lane, the onus is on the motorist to ensure it is safe to complete the turn, and in this case it was not, hence the collision.

I am all for self preservation, and the arguments above make perfect sense, however they do not IMO detract from the facts as I have stated above.

Hope the OP comes back with more details and possibly and photo of the junction so we can see the cycle path.

drlodge

I'm not convinced the cycle lane as actually relevant, would it change matters if it didn't exist. The cycle path does give "right of way" or even "priority" in this situation, is more a designation of where to position yourself on the road in the same way as dotted lines do for cars on a Motorway.

What JesseD says still stands though - the OP was cycling [in an appropriate position of his lane/carriageway), a vehicle turned across that path and the 2 of them collided.

I'd say its the cars fault for turning in front of moving traffic i.e. the cyclist. The cyclist should be using some caution if undertaking...just how much caution is up for debate I guess and whether sufficient caution should be applied in order to see cars turning in front of them. However that would make it near impossible to proceed at any speed.