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

JesseD · May 2016

drlodge wrote:

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.

This

Put more eloquently than I could manage

MikeBrew · May 2016

drlodge wrote:

However that would make it near impossible to proceed safely at speed.

I hope you don't mind me adding the word safely in there. After all it's a basic precept of road safety that you're travelling at a speed where you are able to "stop safely in the distance that you can see clear."

For instance you wouldn't go enter a blind bend at 70mph in a car or on a motorbike, without anticipating that an obstruction in the road around the bend, immediately beyond field of vision would possibly render it impossible to stop by the time you saw it.
Similarly with the cycle lane, having something 2 feet away from your obscuring you view of the road renders it unsafe to proceed at any speed - even if you are in a hurry!
People do cross roads, buses and cars do flash other vehicles across in from of them, not only can you not see from behind a bus but people can't see you either. Everybody knows theses things, carrying on at an unsafe speed on relying of your "right of way" as if that will protect you, is just irresponsible - and actually more than a little bit pigheaded.
Any court would apply the reasonable man test to an accident. Would a reasonable man have been able to anticipate danger in that given circumstance; would a reasonable man have carried on at a speed where he couldn't -in an emergency- stop in the distance that he could see clear .
The answers to those two questions are , I think, are yes and no, respectively.
At the exact moment you emerge blindly from behind that bus you're effective reaction time is zero, as is your braking distance. Hence you hit the car, pedestrian, child, dog, elephant or whatever else only drifts into your consciousness at the very same time as it crosses your path.
Granted some of these things are more foreseeable than others, but what is always foreseeable is that your couldn't even hope to stop the distance that you're allowing yourself by passing blind and close.

drlodge · May 2016

MikeBrew wrote:

drlodge wrote:

However that would make it near impossible to proceed safely at any speed.

I hope you don't mind me adding the word safely in there. After all it's a basic precept of road safety that you're travelling at a speed where you are able to "stop safely in the distance that you can see clear."

Yes that's a good point, fair comment. I think you're arguments are fairly sound, but I might compare it with another scenario which challenges it.

So you're travelling by car along a country road, two way, with some tight corners that are "blind". I think it would be quite reasonable to expect someone to drive at a speed so they can stop in the distance they can see, so slowing on corners. However this won't prevent an accident if a car coming the other way is out of their own lane and into yours.

In the same way, I would expect the cyclist to be travelling at a speed so they can stop "within a safe distance", given what is in front of them. However anticipating a car moving out of their own lane into yours is something I might not anticipate, given that it may seem reasonable that any car moving out of their own lane should first check to ensure the passage is clear. This places to onus back onto the car driver.

Doing a quick google I found this page http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-an ... st-cycling Its not clear cut having read this, and any outcome would depend on the particular circumstances. Probably 50/50 in this case.

MikeBrew · May 2016

drlodge wrote:

So you're travelling by car along a country road, two way, with some tight corners that are "blind". I think it would be quite reasonable to expect someone to drive at a speed so they can stop in the distance they can see, so slowing on corners. However this won't prevent an accident if a car coming the other way is out of their own lane and into yours.

Well in this scenario even if you did stop,{and you may not as the combined closing speed is not wholly under you're control} the other car may indeed still hit you, as he's coming head on. In the case of this cyclist though, he hit the car. Had he stopped it would have passed harmlessly across the front of him.

Overall, I agree that it's probably 50/50 as far as legal blame goes. As far as the cyclist's responsibility to keeping himself safe though, I'd say that he got it 100 % wrong, and really that's the more important metric. But hey, we all make mistakes. Just glad his injuries weren't more serious.

drlodge wrote:

In the same way, I would expect the cyclist to be travelling at a speed so they can stop "within a safe distance", given what is in front of them. However anticipating a car moving out of their own lane into yours is something I might not anticipate, given that it may seem reasonable that any car moving out of their own lane should first check to ensure the passage is clear. This places to onus back onto the car driver.

This part I don't agree with for the reasons already outlined in my previous post ie

MikeBrew wrote:

People do cross roads, buses and cars do flash other vehicles across in front of them, not only can you not see from behind a bus but people can't see you either. Everybody knows theses things, carrying on at an unsafe speed on relying of your "right of way" as if that will protect you, is just irresponsible - and actually more than a little bit pigheaded.Any court would apply the reasonable man test to an accident. Would a reasonable man have been able to anticipate danger in that given circumstance; would a reasonable man have carried on at a speed where he couldn't -in an emergency- stop in the distance that he could see clear .
The answers to those two questions are , I think, are yes and no, respectively.
At the exact moment you emerge blindly from behind that bus you're effective reaction time is zero, as is your braking distance. Hence you hit the car, pedestrian, child, dog, elephant or whatever else only drifts into your consciousness at the very same time as it crosses your path.
Granted some of these things are more foreseeable than others, but what is always foreseeable is that your couldn't even hope to stop the distance that you're allowing yourself by passing blind and close.

Think of the bus as a high building 2 feet(or less) to your right(still not a great analogy as the bus could enter the cycle lane, whereas the building probably won't :shock: .) However...... as long as the building is there you can go fast as you like secure in the knowledge that nothing is going to suddenly appear from your right. The building ends abruptly 100 metres ahead and there's a car park entrance to your left, directly opposite the end of the building. Lets suppose that you have right of way over traffic wanting to enter the car park from your right but you know that, due to the building, you can't see them and they can't see you till the last second.
What would you say was a safe speed at which to pass the end of that building ?

diplodicus · May 2016

MikeBrew wrote:

However...... as long as the building is there you can go fast as you like secure in the knowledge that nothing is going to suddenly appear from your right. The building ends abruptly 100 metres ahead and there's a car park entrance to your left, directly opposite the end of the building. Lets suppose that you have right of way over traffic wanting to enter the car park from your right but you know that, due to the building, you can't see them and they can't see you till the last second.
What would you say was a safe speed at which to pass the end of that building ?

25mph in the aerobars while staring at my garmin showing max heart rate?

MikeBrew · May 2016

diplodicus wrote:

MikeBrew wrote:

However...... as long as the building is there you can go fast as you like secure in the knowledge that nothing is going to suddenly appear from your right. The building ends abruptly 100 metres ahead and there's a car park entrance to your left, directly opposite the end of the building. Lets suppose that you have right of way over traffic wanting to enter the car park from your right but you know that, due to the building, you can't see them and they can't see you till the last second.
What would you say was a safe speed at which to pass the end of that building ?

25mph in the aerobars while staring at my garmin showing max heart rate?

Well diplodicus, that's fine for you as with that much neck you can no doubt see over the top. Love to know who builds your frames for you though, Harland and Wolff maybe ?.

NameTaken · May 2016

Where abouts on the road? streetview shows the cycle lane coming and going?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33984 ... 312!8i6656

Car was turning across your route so I'd say his fault - especially if you were in a bike lane, but even if not in a bike lane he is still turning across your path

prcody · May 2016

Just back at the pub where a lane runs down the side of it. Have it with a legal and they are waiting on the driver to accept liability. They wouldnt take it on unless they were going to win so I am hoping for my sake they get something for me as I cant afford a new bike atm.

MikeBrew · May 2016

prcody wrote:

Just back at the pub where a lane runs down the side of it. Have it with a legal and they are waiting on the driver to accept liability. They wouldnt take it on unless they were going to win so I am hoping for my sake they get something for me as I cant afford a new bike atm.

According to this image https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33970 ... 312!8i6656 the cycle lane starts after that junction, which essentially means that your were simply filtering up the inside.

apreading · May 2016

MikeBrew wrote:

prcody wrote:

Just back at the pub where a lane runs down the side of it. Have it with a legal and they are waiting on the driver to accept liability. They wouldnt take it on unless they were going to win so I am hoping for my sake they get something for me as I cant afford a new bike atm.

According to this image https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33970 ... 312!8i6656 the cycle lane starts after that junction, which essentially means that your were simply filtering up the inside.

Hence why OP didnt post the google images - they are out of date and not correct. Hence, why I used Bing maps in the link I posted on page 2 - http://binged.it/1P0tS6D See they have extended the cycle lane since the google images.

The lane still only starts a short way before the junction though: http://binged.it/1P0uQQc

StillGoing · May 2016

prcody wrote:

Just back at the pub where a lane runs down the side of it. Have it with a legal and they are waiting on the driver to accept liability. They wouldnt take it on unless they were going to win so I am hoping for my sake they get something for me as I cant afford a new bike atm.

An often repeated phrase from ambulance chasers. Good luck with that.

JesseD · May 2016

Looking at the map apreading has posted with the extended cycle path, I would say the car turning is at fault, its his responsibility to ensure the lane is clear to turn across, the OP is simply riding correctly in a bike lane.

I know there are arguments to say the OP should have slowed down or stopped to ensure the coast was clear but if this were to be contested and to go to court who is to say OP didn't do that?

The case will be decided on the facts that can actually be proven which is the OP was correctly proceeding in a cycle path on his side of the road past stationary traffic when a car pulled across his path.

thomasmorris · May 2016

Some really stupid stuff in here. If your proceeding in a clear lane and someone pulls across you within your stopping distance it is their fault.

Year sure, you proceed at speed where you can stop for anything in sight. Which means slowing for blind bends... after all there may be a stopped car just around the corner. However if your lane is clear ahead you proceed as you were within the speed limit, otherwise you'd never get anywhere!

1) you're driving in a residential area with parked cars on your left, doing 29 in a 30. The road ahead is totally clear. Then suddenly, 10 meters ahead a pedestrian steps out from between parks car. You emergency brake but still hit them. Are you to blame? Of course not. The pedestrian should make sure the way is clear before they cross.

2) driving along a street with driveways on the left, again within the speed limit. The road is clear ahead. Then someone pulls out of a drive in to your path 10 meters ahead... you brake but still hit the person pulling out? Are you to blame? No, the person pulling out is.

At the end of the day, if some one is crossing or pulling out in to a lane, they should yield. If they can't see the way is clear, they shouldn't pull out or across a lane. After all it's reasonable to expect a bike or car travelling in that clear lane to be proceeding as normal .

I think the only unclear thing here would be if there was no bike lane, then then the car pulling across could say that they could see the lane was stopped and their way clear to cross. But that's why when filtering you should take extra care, and where possible ride on the outside of the traffic.

MikeBrew · May 2016

JesseD wrote:

Looking at the map apreading has posted with the extended cycle path, I would say the car turning is at fault, its his responsibility to ensure the lane is clear to turn across, the OP is simply riding correctly in a bike lane.

I know there are arguments to say the OP should have slowed down or stopped to ensure the coast was clear but if this were to be contested and to go to court who is to say OP didn't do that?

The case will be decided on the facts that can actually be proven which is the OP was correctly proceeding in a cycle path on his side of the road past stationary traffic when a car pulled across his path.

If you look at the links that Aspreading posted the images are clearly dated (in the top right hand corner of the image) being as from 2011. Whereas in the link that you yourself posted the images are dated 2015 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.33970 ... 312!8i6656 with the cycle lane starting only once he's passed the pub-lane junction where the collison happen.

MikeBrew · May 2016

If your proceeding in a clear lane and someone pulls across you within your stopping distance it is their fault.

Year sure, you proceed at speed where you can stop for anything in sight. Which means slowing for blind bends... after all there may be a stopped car just around the corner. However if your lane is clear ahead you proceed as you were within the speed limit, otherwise you'd never get anywhere!

1) you're driving in a residential area with parked cars on your left, doing 29 in a 30. The road ahead is totally clear. Then suddenly, 10 meters ahead a pedestrian steps out from between parks car. You emergency brake but still hit them. Are you to blame? Of course not. The pedestrian should make sure the way is clear before they cross.

2) driving along a street with driveways on the left, again within the speed limit. The road is clear ahead. Then someone pulls out of a drive in to your path 10 meters ahead... you brake but still hit the person pulling out? Are you to blame? No, the person pulling out is.

At the end of the day, if some one is crossing or pulling out in to a lane, they should yield. If they can't see the way is clear, they shouldn't pull out or across a lane. After all it's reasonable to expect a bike or car travelling in that clear lane to be proceeding as normal .

I think the only unclear thing here would be if there was no bike lane, then then the car pulling across could say that they could see the lane was stopped and their way clear to cross. But that's why when filtering you should take extra care, and where possible ride on the outside of the traffic.

thomasmorris wrote:

Some really stupid stuff in here.

Amen to that - see the above, which basically suggests that being in cycle lane implys absolute right of way and removes the idea that the rider needs to exercise caution or his thinking furniture...Cold comfort from a hospital bed or a mortuary slab. Very typical of many bolshie, bullet-proof bicyclists that give the rest of us a bad name though - unfortunately.

thomasmorris · May 2016

No, being in a cycle lane doesn't mean you have absolute right of way, and no where have I said that.

If the way is clear, and someone pulls out in to you, they are at fault?

I get what you're saying, it's best not to end up on a slab, or in hospital bed. And if you read my post earlier in the thread I said I would take extra care in a cycle lane in that situation... but ultimately, the person pulling across the lane should make sure said lane is clear.

MikeBrew · May 2016

thomasmorris wrote:

If the way is clear, and someone pulls out in to you, they are at fault?

ultimately, the person pulling across the lane should make sure said lane is clear.
.

And do you think that when you're undertaking a bus you can say with any confidence that your path is clear. The fact is that you have a very narrow field of vision and need, for your own safety, to proceed with extreme caution. I'm not sure that what others "should" do, or who's at "fault" are really the most important issues here.

JesseD · May 2016

This is the link apreading I used which I cannot see a date on, that said it may be out of date/may not?

http://binged.it/1P0uQQc

I think the only way we will know is if the OP posts a picture of the junction/cycle land, OP??

@Mike - don't get me wrong I completely agree with all that has been said about common sense etc, I have been knocked off enough times to be very sensible in traffic and not take un-ness risks, trust me I am not as you put it a "bolshie, bullet-proof bicyclist", I am far from it as when you have been hit from behind whilst turning right by a motorist trying to overtake you on a junction you tend to adopt a different attitude to cycling safety. I am however simply looking at it from a liability perspective and what will or will not be taken into account should liability be disputed.

It will all boil down to what can or cannot be proven, which to me with my claims manager head on is that a car pulled across the OPs path and caused the accident.

Yes the OP was emerging from behind a bus but can we prove he was riding at a speed to fast for the circumstances, I would argue not, can we prove he hadn't already slowed down, I would say no, so we have to go on the facts which are clearly laid out above.

Plus as has been said the OP was proceeding correctly in his lane, it was the car that pulled into it.

It would be the same argument if there were 2 lanes of traffic in each direction and the oter lane had stationary traffic and the inner lane was free, the vehicle proceeding in the inner lane would have right of way to any vehicle turning across its path (as the car has done here).

There would also be an argument to say the driver was not paying due care and attention as he was crossing a cycle lane so therefore he should have assumed that as he could not see there might have been a bicycle proceeding (as there was).

MikeBrew · May 2016

Date is in the top right hand corner - just above the street name, in very small text.

JesseD · May 2016

MikeBrew wrote:

Date is in the top right hand corner - just above the street name, in very small text.

Some reason I don't have that on mine???

My work browser may need updating though.

thomasmorris · May 2016

MikeBrew wrote:

thomasmorris wrote:

If the way is clear, and someone pulls out in to you, they are at fault?

ultimately, the person pulling across the lane should make sure said lane is clear.
.

And do you think that when you're undertaking a bus you can say with any confidence that your path is clear. The fact is that you have a very narrow field of vision and need, for your own safety, to proceed with extreme caution. I'm not sure that what others "should" do, or who's at "fault" are really the most important issues here.

Yes, I can say with absolute certainty that my path is clear... because I can see it and it's clear.

What you mean I think is that due to the narrow field of vision there may be stuff outside of your path / lane, about to move in to it, unbeknownst to yourself. And as a cyclist, for your own sake it would be prudent to take extra care... reducing your speed shortens your stopping distance, and lowers the stakes should you come off (i think that's what your saying, and I would agree this is very good advice to any cyclist)... but the OP is asking who is at fault and I think fundamentally it's the responsibly of the person pulling across to make sure their way is clear.

MikeBrew · May 2016

thomasmorris wrote:

What you mean I think is that due to the narrow field of vision there may be stuff outside of your path / lane, about to move in to it, unbeknownst to yourself. And as a cyclist, for your own sake it would be prudent to take extra care... reducing your speed shortens your stopping distance, and lowers the stakes should you come off (i think that's what your saying, and I would agree this is very good advice to any cyclist)... but the OP is asking who is at fault and I think fundamentally it's the responsibly of the person pulling across to make sure their way is clear.

Essentially what you've said here is that, as a cyclist, you're taking a risk in this situation by not taking extra care . Any court court will take into account any risk they determine that the cyclist has taken in the given circumstances, along with a any risk that they feel that the driver of the car took . Were there a cycle lane there, my feeling is that the liability would go somewhere around 50/50.
The fact that the more recent Google images seem to show that there was no cycle lane at the point of the collision would, in my view, make it likely to rule 100% against the cyclist for undertaking . If the driver could not see a cycle lane marking across the junction, why on earth would he expect a bike to be overtaking the bus on the inside ?

JesseD · June 2016

I think what is being confused here is common sense approach to navigating safely along a road and a court will actually take into consideration.

I agree with all the comments here stating that the OP should have slowed, stopped etc as he emerged past the bus, however this is different to where the blame/liability lays.

My experience in working in motor claims, specifically around liability for many year has proven that what the average Joe Public think and what a court will think are completely different.

A court will only look at what can be proven and what is fact, speed is not something that can be proven in this case so saying the OP should have slowed down as he passed the bus is irrelevant in this case, who was to say he was travelling too fast for the circumstances? I may have missed something but I see no evidence he was, and colliding with a car is not evidence of this.

To say the OP should have stopped is also incorrect, there was not a give way sign as he approached and there is no junction to show that he should stop, it was his right of way, there is however lines to indicate the cycle path (depending on which map is more up to date) which the driver of the car could see, this is an indication to the driver that there is a cycle path and it has right of way over him. The driver chose to either ignore this or thought it safe to move forward.

It’s the same as someone pulling out of a side road into traffic, they do not have right of way and can only do so if it is safe/clear, their ability to see oncoming traffic is not a mitigating factor, if they pull out and cannot see and collide with a correctly proceeding vehicle, they are at fault regardless. If they pull out and state that the other car was speeding again the court/insurance company will say prove it which in 99% of cases they cannot, again this is the fault of the car pulling into the path of correctly proceeding traffic.

All of this hinges on whether or not the cycle lane extends over the turning or not, if yes then the OP is not at fault in my book, the onus is on the driver to ensure the coast is clear before completing his manoeuvre, if there is not a cycle path that extends past the turning then this is more difficult as the cyclist has the right to filter through traffic either to the left or to the right of the stationary vehicle, however in that instance I would say they insurers would be more confident of a split liability claim.

I believe there is previous case law to prove both of the above scenarios though I can’t be arsed to find it.

Again I am rusty but I can’t believe that case law and precedents have moved on too much from when I was in motor claims, however am happy to be proved wrong.

Prcody – any chance you can post up recent pics of the junction?

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

Comments

Categories