Who's At Fault Here? - Car Vs Cyclist (Video)
Discussion
Seen this doing the rounds on a Facebook page i follow.
Not involved in any way myself but curious, especially as all the armchair experts in the comments would put the blame 100% on the cyclist.
Edit: Cyclist was on the phone at the time of the accident.
https://www.facebook.com/143233165824638/videos/56...
Not involved in any way myself but curious, especially as all the armchair experts in the comments would put the blame 100% on the cyclist.
Edit: Cyclist was on the phone at the time of the accident.
https://www.facebook.com/143233165824638/videos/56...
Car driver. End of thread.
The use of a mobile phone isn't banned on a bike and even it were, it would be a "motoring" offence and have no bearing on the liability outcome. It might be possible to argue some contributory negligence, but it would be very small and quite unlikely given the way the car emerges.
The use of a mobile phone isn't banned on a bike and even it were, it would be a "motoring" offence and have no bearing on the liability outcome. It might be possible to argue some contributory negligence, but it would be very small and quite unlikely given the way the car emerges.
As always - forget it's a cyclist and assume it was a car - a car driving down that road at a sensible speed would never stop in time as the car pulls out - the driver should be well aware that the front of his car is visible to oncoming traffic when pulling out long before he can see - he should therefore edge out t give oncoming traffic a chance.
Driver at fault - cyclist a tool for not being 100% in control - use of mobile phones and headphones on a bike should be a criminal offence
Edit - watching it carefully frame by frame - it's difficult to see - but the car does edge out as I described above - cyclist is equally at fault for not paying attention and braking or taking any avoiding action.
Driver at fault - cyclist a tool for not being 100% in control - use of mobile phones and headphones on a bike should be a criminal offence
Edit - watching it carefully frame by frame - it's difficult to see - but the car does edge out as I described above - cyclist is equally at fault for not paying attention and braking or taking any avoiding action.
Edited by G-Rich on Thursday 3rd September 20:09
Edited by G-Rich on Thursday 3rd September 20:10
I was thinking the same thing. If it was another car that hit the car pulling out, no one would question who was at fault but because it's a cyclist and a lot of motorists dislike cyclists they will try and find ways to blame them for what happened.
Car failed to give way to traffic already on the road. An experienced cyclist who wasn't on the phone might have been able to dodge it or stop in time but the average cyclist would have no chance.
Car failed to give way to traffic already on the road. An experienced cyclist who wasn't on the phone might have been able to dodge it or stop in time but the average cyclist would have no chance.
Let's take the cyclist out and replace him with you in your car (aka everyone on here's pride and joy). Now tell me how many of you are happy to be held at fault fully or partially for the accident? You can even be on your phone too if you like.
Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
The cyclist is at fault, he should have been driving a car, the other driver would probably have seen him, and if not, he wouldn't have needed to take a tumble and suffer actual injuries to get his £5k personal injury compensation. Although probably wouldn't matter, he'd have been parked up at home not even needing a shower, 15 minutes before that car actually pulled out.
tapereel said:
Cyclist!
The car driver was taking just about all of the care he coud in that situation.
cyclists don't help themselves even if they are vulnerable. Saw one yesterday cycle straight through a t-junction in Bath with the lights set of red for him. he didn't seem to care a jot.
Two wrong answers and an irrelevant don't make you right. The car driver was taking just about all of the care he coud in that situation.
cyclists don't help themselves even if they are vulnerable. Saw one yesterday cycle straight through a t-junction in Bath with the lights set of red for him. he didn't seem to care a jot.
G-Rich said:
As always - forget it's a cyclist and assume it was a car - a car driving down that road at a sensible speed would never stop in time as the car pulls out - the driver should be well aware that the front of his car is visible to oncoming traffic when pulling out long before he can see - he should therefore edge out t give oncoming traffic a chance.
Utter tosh. A car would have stopped no problem whatsoever, assuming the driver wasn't looking at his phone.The cyclist would have had no problem stopping/steering either, if he had been cycling with due care.
It's like a cliche driving test hazard perception incident!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff