Who's At Fault Here? - Car Vs Cyclist (Video)

[LoonR1]

TheBALDpuma said:

Cycled throughout my teen competitively in DH racing, haven't done that for 10 years, but have always had a bike of some kind including DJ, road and XC. Currently a rather nice Stanton Slackline.

Having one hand on the bars is not an excuse! That's like saying it's not my fault I hit the car in front, I was on the phone on cruise control with my legs cross so I didn't notice couldn't brake in time

See above. There is no compulsion on him to have both hands on the bars. There is a compulsion on the driver to yield to any roaduser on the road he is trying to enter. That's the crux of the matter.

[Retroman]

TheBALDpuma said:

Cycled throughout my teen competitively in DH racing, haven't done that for 10 years, but have always had a bike of some kind including DJ, road and XC. Currently a rather nice Stanton Slackline.

Having one hand on the bars is not an excuse! That's like saying it's not my fault I hit the car in front, I was on the phone on cruise control with my legs cross so I didn't notice couldn't brake in time

If we disregard the 1 hand, you still have less than 2 seconds to move both hands to the braking positions, pull on the brakes, slow down and stop.
It's not likely to happen.

You'll know from experience as well that full road bikes with caliper style brakes don't stop the same as a XC set up with rotors.

[TheBALDpuma]

I won't quote or answer everyone above.

Just want to say that I still disagree, and I believe the cyclist is a numpty for not paying attention. That's that really. Each to their own and all!

[CaptainMorgan]

LoonR1 said:

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.

Yeah fair point, I'd be pissed off at that. Car should have edged out more carefully/slowly.

• I've not read the 6 pages that have appeared since my last post.

[flemke]

Retroman said:

TheBALDpuma said:

Cycled throughout my teen competitively in DH racing, haven't done that for 10 years, but have always had a bike of some kind including DJ, road and XC. Currently a rather nice Stanton Slackline.

Having one hand on the bars is not an excuse! That's like saying it's not my fault I hit the car in front, I was on the phone on cruise control with my legs cross so I didn't notice couldn't brake in time

If we disregard the 1 hand, you still have less than 2 seconds to move both hands to the braking positions, pull on the brakes, slow down and stop.
It's not likely to happen.

You'll know from experience as well that full road bikes with caliper style brakes don't stop the same as a XC set up with rotors.

If you start and stop the video, you can see that, definitely after the point where the nose of the car would have been visible to him, the cyclist continued to pedal, for at least a further 1½ revolutions. Surely, if the cyclist had been paying attention, he could have mitigated the impact by altering his course.

Not say that the driver was not primarily to blame, but the piss-poor cycling made it worse than it should have been.

[Retroman]

flemke said:

If you start and stop the video, you can see that, definitely after the point where the nose of the car would have been visible to him, the cyclist continued to pedal, for at least a further 1½ revolutions. Surely, if the cyclist had been paying attention, he could have mitigated the impact by altering his course.

Not say that the driver was not primarily to blame, but the piss-poor cycling made it worse than it should have been.

I agree.

[Johnnytheboy]

LoonR1 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

LoonR1 said:

I don't "love a fight"

Next you'll be claiming not to be an authority on insurance matters!

A question has been asked and I'm giving my views and challenging those with differing views and trying some education via explanation as well. It's not working. That's a world away from fighting.

No, it's a pompous way of describing of describing a fight.

Try imagining saying what you write out loud and see if it sounds like what a normal person would say. If it sounds ok, post it.

[LoonR1]

Johnnytheboy said:

LoonR1 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

LoonR1 said:

I don't "love a fight"

Next you'll be claiming not to be an authority on insurance matters!

A question has been asked and I'm giving my views and challenging those with differing views and trying some education via explanation as well. It's not working. That's a world away from fighting.

No, it's a pompous way of describing of describing a fight.

Try imagining saying what you write out loud and see if it sounds like what a normal person would say. If it sounds ok, post it.

Or you could try reading my posts in a tone like Alan Carr or Kenneth Williams instead of shouting them and you'd see that they're not what you suggest they are.

I might be blunt in my writing style, but that doesn't mean I run around shouting everything. Have a look back Pere317 was the one using "FFS" and other angry phrases, yet you take no issue there.

People dislike my posts because they say things they don't want to hear. As a result it's easier to try to discredit me than accept the painful truth.

[Al U]

LoonR1 said:

pontifiational

Is that even a word?

[Pontoneer]

Retroman said:

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...

Poor positioning on the part of the cyclist : he could and should have been much further from the parked vehicles , allowing for the eventuality of a child running out of a door being opened ; the other side of the road was clear and available so he should have positioned to the right of the centre line .

The car driver cannot be faulted for emerging slowly and carefully , and in fact stopped when the cyclist was sighted : there was nothing else the driver could have done differently .

The collision was caused by the cyclist paying insufficient attention , positioning too close to parked traffic such that he was unable to cope with circumstances which could reasonably be expected to develop . The cyclist's speed was also too high for the circumstances considering his proximity to the other vehicles and evidenced by the fact that he was unable to either avoid the car or stop safely .

[Johnnytheboy]

LoonR1 said:

People dislike my posts because they say things they don't want to hear. As a result it's easier to try to discredit me than accept the painful truth.

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

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.

I made no mention of the cyclist's phone , but let's substitute the cyclist with a car , at the same speed , and clearance from the parked vehicles ; oh , and let's make the car LHD so the driver is in the same position as the cyclist with the same sight lines .

Driving along there with less than a door's width clearance is just too close : you can't see into the gaps ; you're too fast to be able to stop within the length of them ( can't stop within the distance you can see to be clear ) and can't avoid not even wholly unexpected events like a door being opened or a child running out , never mind a vehicle emerging .

What could either party have done differently ?

For the car emerging - not much - use of the horn might have been an idea , but the oncoming driver might be deaf , or have loud music on . The car did emerge slowly and stopped immediately AND BEFORE BEING STRUCK .

The cyclist/oncoming car - he could have done quite a lot to avoid this . Leaving aside the phone which compromised his control of his vehicle ( only one hand on the controls , and only one brake available with attendant lack of full steering control under emergency braking ) his speed and proximity to the parked cars was such that he couldn't have even reacted to anything in the gaps before he passed them . The other side of the road was available : no parked cars , no oncoming vehicles , clear views into the driveways ; no reason not to position further out and give himself a safety margin , danger was only ever going to come from the left , so why skirt along there , inches from the parked cars , at inappropriate speed for the proximity , when he could , and should , have been six feet away from the parked cars , in the centre of the lane on the other side of the road : he'd have been safe from doors opening , pedestrians stepping out , dogs running out , and most importantly , he'd have seen the emerging car sooner , wouldn't have been on collision course with it , and would have made himself more visible to the emerging driver who was already doing everything he could .

In this case , liability of emerging driver , virtually zero , at most 5% for non use of horn before poking nose out .

Cyclist ( or oncoming driver ) 100% : too close , too fast , lack of attention and one hand off controls ; could and should have positioned further out and could easily have avoided this easily foreseeable hazard .

End of .

Oh , and if it was a car rather than a cycle , DWDCA would be a possibility , besides phone offence . Cyclist didn't look wanton or furious ; pity there isn't an offence of CWDCA .

[Pontoneer]

Retroman said:

I make it about 2 seconds from where the car becomes visible to the cyclist hitting it.

An experienced cyclist with good brakes could have probably stopped in time or swerved out the way, but your average commuter cyclist would have no chance.

What Loon is asking though is if you did hit the car pulling out, would you be happy to accept blame?

I wouldn't have hit that emerging car because I'd have adopted the safety position , in that set of circumstances right across on the other side of the road , my speed would have been down , and I'd have been on the horn and the brakes as soon as I'd seen the front bumper of the emerging car , which would have been sooner than the cyclist did , by virtue of my better positioning .

[Retroman]

Pontoneer said:

I wouldn't have hit that emerging car because I'd have adopted the safety position , in that set of circumstances right across on the other side of the road , my speed would have been down , and I'd have been on the horn and the brakes as soon as I'd seen the front bumper of the emerging car , which would have been sooner than the cyclist did , by virtue of my better positioning .

I asked if you hit the car.

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

In conclusion a car joining from a minor entrance onto a more major road is not at fault and the roaduser already established on the more major road has to stop, or be deemed at fault, or at least 50% at fault.

Enjoy your journeys to work tomorrow and remember to stop at every junction and allow all cars waiting in side roads to pull out, or risk being at fault if they pull out on you.

Or is it that the abject hatred of cyclists has overridden all sense of logic on the thread as usual?

This isn't about priority : this is about driving safely and according to the prevalent conditions : the car driver wasn't at fault - he emerged slowly , obviously anticipating and making allowance for the fact that there would be traffic he couldn't see on the road ; the only further thing he could have done was use his horn before pushing his bumper beyond the outside of the van .

Anyone on the road should have been in the correct safety position - if you don't know what this is , take an advanced driving course , and should have been driving at an appropriate speed , recognising that the hazards on that road were all on the left and there was a real possibility of something happening . Skirting along willy-nilly within inches of parked cars at inappropriate speed such that you can't avoid reasonably expected events is irresponsible and culpable .

Loon's hypothesis is a bit like asking something like -

Suppose you were doing 30mph along a crowded , narrow high street , with parked cars inches away on your left , nothing coming the other way , and an old dear on one of those mobility buggies edges out for a look , maybe two car lengths away . You weren't speeding , but who do you think at fault if you hit her ?

Or , you're doing 30 mph past your local primary school , school minibuses , parents , cyclists and children swarming around , and a wheelchair edges out , only to be hit by you ....

Or , you're bowling along a country road and a stray cow wanders out of a farm lane into your path just before you hit it - do you think it's the cow's fault , or could you have done better as a driver .

[Pontoneer]

Retroman said:

I asked if you hit the car.

I wouldn't be happy , but I'd have to accept it since the collision would be my fault .

Just as well I wouldn't get into that situation .

[Pontoneer]

Robert Elise said:

technically, car is joining minor road. fault.
morally, what does he do? real life, he edged out. The other road user failed to react and powered in to him.
As a road user myself i do not drive blind when i have right of way, it is my responsibility to be prepared for many eventualities. on that road i would consider it a distinct possibility that a vehicle, cyclist or child may emerge from behind parked cars. An older wiser man now... i still like to hoon on country roads, but that road has many potential dangers and merits severe caution. With video evidence i would hold the cyclist partially at fault, clearly he wasn't paying attention. Are you saying the law would be black and white despite that video?

Excellent ! Some common sense at last on this thread .

Some here seem to think that rules of priority give carte Blanche to plough on regardless .

EVERY road user has a duty to protect themselves and look out for others ; if another driver does something silly but you could still have avoided it , then you bear at least some responsibility .

Attention , planning and anticipation are essential tools for every driver - even driving along main roads , you should be watching vehicles in side roads , exercising caution and looking to see if the driver has seen you - he may be at fault if he pulls out , but so woukd you be if you could have avoided him , but didn't .

Likewise , junctions around blind bends : if there's a warning sign that there's a junction round the bend , and you press on , to plough into someone who had emerged before you came into sight - do you think it would be their fault because they came out of the minor road ? Of course it wouldn't : they can only proceed on the information available to them and can proceed with care since they can't do anything else , therefore no negligence on their part . The road engineer put the warning sign up around the bend to warn traffic there is a junction round the bend ( and by extension someone might be turning in or out ) therefore it is the responsibility of the driver on the main road to take care - the speed limit may be 60 but that speed may be too fast .

[flemke]

Pontoneer said:

This isn't about priority : this is about driving safely and according to the prevalent conditions : the car driver wasn't at fault - he emerged slowly , obviously anticipating and making allowance for the fact that there would be traffic he couldn't see on the road ; the only further thing he could have done was use his horn before pushing his bumper beyond the outside of the van .

Anyone on the road should have been in the correct safety position - if you don't know what this is , take an advanced driving course , and should have been driving at an appropriate speed , recognising that the hazards on that road were all on the left and there was a real possibility of something happening . Skirting along willy-nilly within inches of parked cars at inappropriate speed such that you can't avoid reasonably expected events is irresponsible and culpable .

Loon's hypothesis is a bit like asking something like -

Suppose you were doing 30mph along a crowded , narrow high street , with parked cars inches away on your left , nothing coming the other way , and an old dear on one of those mobility buggies edges out for a look , maybe two car lengths away . You weren't speeding , but who do you think at fault if you hit her ?

Or , you're doing 30 mph past your local primary school , school minibuses , parents , cyclists and children swarming around , and a wheelchair edges out , only to be hit by you ....

Or , you're bowling along a country road and a stray cow wanders out of a farm lane into your path just before you hit it - do you think it's the cow's fault , or could you have done better as a driver .

In fairness, the car driver definitely could have emerged more slowly from his/her unsighted position.

It appeared that he presumed that he ought not to stop until his perspective would enable him to spot oncoming traffic, which required that the first 5 feet of his car extend into the carriageway, whilst ignoring the fact that any oncoming traffic could have spotted him first if only the first foot or two of his car were extending into the carriageway.

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

However, you are under no legal obligation to have to do this to counter the negligence of others. I often have close shaves, which would have resulted in accidents for many others. I avoided the accident, he but it doesn't mean those who didn't are somehow at fault for the stupidity of others.

Nonsense : by your argument you could run down a child/drunk/blind person you saw step into the road ahead of you with complete impunity . We all have a duty of care to one another and if we can save someone from harm by taking whatever measure of care is in our power then we must do so . To do otherwise would be both negligent and culpable .

LoonR1 said:

I have made my point clear further up the thread. It is the car drivers fault, there may be an argument over contributory negligence, but it would be small even if proven amd certainly nowhere near 50/50, I'd suggest 10% maximum. The car driver is joining the road. His duty of care is to those already on that road. The cyclist was on that road. He put the cyclist into his path and that led to a collision. The driver is at fault. I know you don't want to read this, but it is both technically and pragmatically correct.

There was no negligence on the part of the car driver , nothing further he could have done ( other than not going out that day ) to avoid the incident , therefore no wrong and no liability .

Over simplistic rules cannot be applied to every situation .

On the other hand , the cyclist clearly was negligent , and therefore responsible , for the reasons I have stated in earlier responses and won't type again . It would have been no different for a driver . There were numerous measures he could have taken to avoid the collision , but failed to do , therefore he carries the can .

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

This thread is just unbelievable. Does nobody grasp the basic concept of an established roaduser amd those wishing to join that road?

Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 4th September 00:08

Priority is not the issue here : this is about duty of care and negligence .