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

[Pontoneer]

flemke said:

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.

I just watched the video again , several times , IMO the car did emerge reasonably slowly , and even from the perspective of the camera car , was clearly visible when the cyclist was passing the second car behind the van - so he had at minimum three car lengths to see the car emerging and either give warning of his approach ( which he didn't - some cyclists have loud air horns , and if he's going to ride around like that he needs one ) or avoid the car .

He certainly had no right or excuse to run right into it ( could it be a crash for cash scam I wonder ) ...

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

Thanks for the snip, so it sort of looks out of context and helping us move from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Do you think I should be legally compelled to swerve if someone jumps out in front of me and if I fail to do so then the accident becomes my fault? Do you think I should be legally forced to stop if someone pulls out in front of me and if I fail to do so, then the accident this my fault?

That's the point I was making. I, and most other road users, will try to avoid an accident, but if we fail to then the ensuing accident isn't legally our fault. There is no legal compulsion on us to avoid an accident.

Do you see my point now? If you can't just join the others and blame the cyclist and move on.

The answer to both of these questions is yes .

Of course you are legally required to take whatever evasive action you can - if you knock a pedestrian down and kill or seriously injure them it will almost certainly end up in court and all the evidence will be examined - they will look at your speed , your health , eyesight , fitness to drive , sobriety , the condition of your car , tyres , brakes , lights , road surface , weather , lighting , obstructions , the pedestrian's state of mind , health , eyesight , sobriety , apparel ( visibility to you ) and a host of other things .

Similarly with the car pulling out in front of you , to look only at priority is over simplistic . For example , you might have been driving at night without lights and that is why the other driver didn't see you coming - who's fault then ? Or suppose you came round a bend well over the speed limit ( or just too fast for the circumstances even if within the limit ) and hit someone already coming out of an entrance ?

It most certainly won't be a case of ' I had priority , so I'm in the clear ' .

In fairness , the court might decide there was nothing you could have done to avoid the collision , and you would be exonerated ( this exactly happened to a friend of mine who knocked down and killed a five year old boy who ran out between two parked cars ) but it won't be a simple matter . Similarly , the driver of the car in the video could be held blameless if it was decided there was nothing he could be reasonably expected to have done better this would be the test in law .

Edited by Pontoneer on Saturday 5th September 01:57

Edited by Pontoneer on Saturday 5th September 01:59

[Pontoneer]

Retroman said:

I guess the cyclist must be at fault here as well, even though he swerved to avoid the vehicle and rammed on the brakes.

https://youtu.be/4MC5NTVBUo4

That incident is entirely different because the emerging vehicle had a clear view down the road and could have seen the approaching cyclist , had he looked properly .

Although the camera picked up the emerging car from quite a distance , and it was clear to me there was a danger of it emerging , the cyclist didn't adjust his speed at all for the hazard , so I wonder if he was actually looking where he was going , or just pedalling furiously and staring down somewhere in the region of his front wheel ...

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

It's not a valid point. The car is joining the road amd the bike is established on it. The car has to give way to the bike.

The reference to "due care and attention" is moot (putting aside that it's not an offence on a bike), the DWDC&A element is a motoring offence and doesn't alter liability. If I'm pissed in my car and you crash into me, it's still your fault, ditto if I'm uninsured, ditto if I'm parked on a double yellow and so on. My offence does not cancel out your negligence.

We know that there is no offence of CWDCA , but the other poster's point was that a motorist who fails to exercise due care and hits a car waiting to emerge , when with due care he could have avoided , IS blameworthy .

And if you're pissed in your car and hit anything , you're lisble as well as guilty of a specific offence .

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

Who's at fault here?

http://youtu.be/Vb8WfHE2T-s

Differemt view as it's from the driver edging out. He's edging out and then the car on the main road hits him.

Happens from around 35 seconds in.

On the face of it , the White car drove into the side of the black car and was probably at fault .

Very limited view from the dash cam though .

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

And if he had attempted to swerve and gone into a car coming the other way (I know there isn't one but we are taking theoretically)? Whose fault then?

You see it as having plenty of time. I don't. Our views are subjective. What is objective is that a car joining a road has hit an established road user. That's the crux of the matter.

Whatever yours or anyone else's views, the car drivers insurance will be paying for the repairs to the cycle and potentially any injury.

Given that the bike had plenty of time to stop safely , and should have been looking where he was going , if he swerved into another car instead of stopping safely on his own side of the road , then of course it would have been his fault .

The car didn't hit the cyclist : the car was stopped and the cyclist hit the car .

The cyclist should be paying for damage to car , and if the driver took him to court the court could award him the damages . If I were the driver in that position , with the video evidence , I would win .

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

There is no law saying you can't use a phone whilst cycling. There is no test to assess competence to ride a bike. There is no way to gauge good or bad cycling and so it's highly unlikely that any blame could be put on the cyclist. If you were lucky enough to manage it is suggest it'd be no more than 10% at best. Which would make zero difference to the driver overall

According to at least one other poster there is .

You haven't heard of the National Cycling Proficiency Test ?

Gauging good or bad cycling is just the same as evaluating good or bad driving .

Your opinion is flawed .

[Pontoneer]

LoonR1 said:

In liability matters there is little reference to legality, it is a matter of negligence. There is nothing illegal
About joining a road. There is clear negligence if in doing so I cause a collision with an established road user

Thank you !

In that post you have conceded my points .

Since the car driver , in emerging slowly , exercised utmost care and due diligence , stopping at the earliest opportunity , no negligence and therefore no liability can be attached to him .

On the other hand , I have already illustrated multiple aspects of the cyclist's failure to exercise due care and that he was negligent in several areas , therefore he is entirely liable for damages sustained by the motorist .

As such , and with the video evidence , the driver should have little difficulty obtaining judgement against the cyclist .

[Boshly]

Pontoneer said:

LoonR1 said:

In liability matters there is little reference to legality, it is a matter of negligence. There is nothing illegal
About joining a road. There is clear negligence if in doing so I cause a collision with an established road user

Thank you !

In that post you have conceded my points .

Since the car driver , in emerging slowly , exercised utmost care and due diligence , stopping at the earliest opportunity , no negligence and therefore no liability can be attached to him .

On the other hand , I have already illustrated multiple aspects of the cyclist's failure to exercise due care and that he was negligent in several areas , therefore he is entirely liable for damages sustained by the motorist .

As such , and with the video evidence , the driver should have little difficulty obtaining judgement against the cyclist .

Dear Pontoneer, thank you for saying (in all you posts) everything I've been thinking

[Boshly]

swerni said:

Just means you're both wrong

Oh no it doesn't

[flemke]

Pontoneer said:

flemke said:

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.

I just watched the video again , several times , IMO the car did emerge reasonably slowly , and even from the perspective of the camera car , was clearly visible when the cyclist was passing the second car behind the van - so he had at minimum three car lengths to see the car emerging and either give warning of his approach ( which he didn't - some cyclists have loud air horns , and if he's going to ride around like that he needs one ) or avoid the car .

He certainly had no right or excuse to run right into it ( could it be a crash for cash scam I wonder ) ...

As I have said above, the cyclist's riding was quite poor.

Nonetheless, the driver could and should have done more.

- The driver did not use the horn, which one ought to do whenever one is approaching a blind perspective and there is risk of another road user being there.

- The driver did not use the right indicator, which potentially could have caught the eye of the cyclist whose attention was on his phone call.

Yes, the driver was proceeding slowly, but he/she could have gone more slowly. Especially because his view was blocked by the van, the driver simply had no idea what might be coming across his front from the right. He should have inched his way out, stopping at least after the first couple of feet of his car were exposed, before he could see oncoming traffic, in order to give oncoming traffic the chance to see him.

This situation is much the same as the recent thread here about "Bicycle/taxi interface":
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

If you are moving onto a through road from a "lesser" position, it is your job to make sure that your way is clear. That chore may take some time, it may be a PITA, but you need to figure out a way to do it. Either that, or you have to be lucky.

[Pontoneer]

I agree about use of the horn ; I mentioned it in an earlier post , but it can't be relied on because other road users might be deaf or otherwise unable to hear ( albeit for anyone other than deaf drivers there is a duty to be able to hear audible warnings , so you could be held liable if your stereo is too loud or wearing headphones ) . I have attended one RTC involving an emergency vehicle , on a call using blues and twos , which struck a car after it turned right across its path and it turned out that the turning driver was profoundly deaf hence didn't hear the sirens , I also know of another instance where a deaf driver was killed by an emergency vehicle when he didn't hear the sirens - so these things do happen because there are deaf people around , hence audible warnings can't be relied on . Both emergency drivers , as far as I am aware , were held at fault in these two cases ( because a higher standard and greater level of caution is expected of them than of 'normal' drivers ; the training when on blue light runs is always to look for a positive response from other vehicles , that they have seen you and will yield , before proceeding ) .

Yes , the car driver could have come out more slowly , or just shown the front of his car before proceeding further ( I would have ) but the law is about what is expected of a reasonable person , or a careful and competent driver - I don't think the manner of the car emerging was unreasonably fast , but I do think he had a reasonable expectation that traffic passing the parked vehicles would be exercising reasonable care in case a door opened , a child stepped out or something emerged from a gap .

While I see what you are saying about the indicator , I don't agree on that point : we don't know that the driver was turning right , nor that he was not being followed ; giving a misleading signal could cause other problems . He could perhaps have used his hazard lights , and certainly after dark flashing headlamps across the road would have given warning of approach .

I still think the driver met the standard of a careful and competent driver , and that the cyclist fell far below the standard of cycling which should be expected of a careful and competent cyclist ( I was not previously aware of the offence of careless cycling , but would expect it to apply here ) .

Edited by Pontoneer on Saturday 5th September 10:10

[anonymous-user]

Although the car driver could have emerged more cautiously up to the point where his view improved, this sort of incident might still happen. Drivers and cyclists alike will often try to squeeze through even a closing gap with gay abandon.

"But I had right of way!" could no doubt be an epitaph on many a headstone. Constant observation (including along the pavement and road margins), correct positioning, good anticipation, and a willingness to concede 'right of way' seem in short supply on our roads

[ORD]

Pontoneer is either a wanna-be lawyer or, even worse, a woeful lawyer. The car driver would definitely be liable in a negligence action. Anyone who thinks otherwise is getting distracted by the contributory fault of the cyclist. He could be riding along with eyes closed and it wouldn't affect the point that the driver was negligent in blasting out without taking any precautions.

[Pontoneer]

Negligence can only occur if you fail to do something that you could and should have done . The driver in the video clearly did not 'blast out' : he edged out cautiously for a look , which was all he could possibly do , therefore he cannot be negligent .

The car driver exercised due care and could have done no more , nor could he be expected to have done so . The cyclist was grossly negligent in several aspects of his conduct , and is entirely liable . As others have stated , priority is irrelevant - duty of care and due diligence is everything .

I am no lawyer , but I am a trained crash investigator , emergency response driver and a former advanced driving instructor , so I do have some knowledge of what I say .

Edited by Pontoneer on Saturday 5th September 13:39

[ORD]

Pontoneer said:

Negligence can only occur if you fail to do something that you could and should have done . The driver in the video clearly did not 'blast out' : he edged out cautiously for a look , which was all he could possibly do , therefore he cannot be negligent .

The car driver exercised due care and could have done no more , nor could he be expected to have done so . The cyclist was grossly negligent in several aspects of his conduct , and is entirely liable . As others have stated , priority is irrelevant - duty of care and due diligence is everything .

I am no lawyer , but I am a trained crash investigator , emergency response driver and a former advanced driving instructor , so I do have some knowledge of what I say .

Edited by Pontoneer on Saturday 5th September 13:39

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

The car driver did not exercise reasonable care and skill. He came out faster than was appropriate. In fact, if he could not see the road to be clear, he shouldn't have have 'crept out' in that way at all. You are conflating normal driving (which his might be) and driving that is so faultless that there is no liability even if you enter a road that isn't clear and are hit by a vehicle established on that road (which it isn't).

He is prima facie liable on the most basic facts and would never be able to persuade anyone that another outcome is justified. He couldn't see the road to be clear; he entered it; a vehicle established on the road hit him. Pretty much game over there.

[Pete317]

The reason for "edging forward" into a road when you cannot see what's coming is to make vehicles on that road aware of your presence so that they can avoid you.
But that is to no avail if, as in this case, they're not looking where they're going.
As the cyclist was not looking at the road ahead, it would have made little difference whether the car had appeared in a fraction of a second, or had been standing there for several seconds or longer.

[Retroman]

Pontoneer said:

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 .

Nothing more the car driver could have done?
I already said earlier he could have inched out a few inches at 1/4 that speed. Stopped, waited a few moments, then repeated. This gives traffic he can't see ample time to react to them joining the road. That's what i do when i'm driving.
Surely if you can't see if the road you are joining is clear this is a better method to joining it than simple rolling a large part of your vehicle into the road and hope it's clear?

Pontoneer said:

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 .

As Loon already mentioned. The cyclist is already on the road. It's up to people joining the road to make sure it's clear when doing so. Traffic on the road has right of way so when you pull out of a minor road or driveway and cause an accident due to hitting traffic that has right of way, you have evidently failed to give way.

Pontoneer said:

I just watched the video again , several times , IMO the car did emerge reasonably slowly , and even from the perspective of the camera car , was clearly visible when the cyclist was passing the second car behind the van - so he had at minimum three car lengths to see the car emerging and either give warning of his approach ( which he didn't - some cyclists have loud air horns , and if he's going to ride around like that he needs one ) or avoid the car .

So now we're onto assuming the cyclist is more at fault for not using hardware that he probably doesn't have?
If you time it, there's less than 2 seconds from the vehicle emerging to the cyclist hitting it. That's not much time to do anything when you're cycling with one hand.

Pontoneer said:

He certainly had no right or excuse to run right into it ( could it be a crash for cash scam I wonder ) ...

Come on now. I don't know any cyclists myself, and i know a few that would risk wrecking their bike, risk breaking some bones just so they can haggle with insurance companies and do without said bike for several months to try and get some compo. Cyclists who use the type of bike the rider was using normally cycle to get fit. Having injuries and no bicycle for months is likely to be detrimental towards that goal.

Pontoneer said:

Given that the bike had plenty of time to stop safely , and should have been looking where he was going , if he swerved into another car instead of stopping safely on his own side of the road , then of course it would have been his fault .

I don't think less than 2 seconds whilst cycling one handed is plenty of time to stop safely.
If you had both hands on the bars (which the cyclist did not) and were covering the brakes (which the cyclist wasn't) and had a good brake set up (which is unlikely as it's a full road bike) then you might have a chance. But in the circumstances in the video, the cyclist had no chance of stopping.
If you don't believe me, try riding a mountain bike with bull bars, cycle one handed with the hand on the bull bar then tell me if you can move that hand to the default position, ram on the rear brake, one handed then come to a stop in less than 2 seconds without falling off.

Pontoneer said:

The car didn't hit the cyclist : the car was stopped and the cyclist hit the car .

The cyclist should be paying for damage to car , and if the driver took him to court the court could award him the damages . If I were the driver in that position , with the video evidence , I would win .

You're wrong. If you looked at civil court claims or insurance disputes where people have tried to do what you are suggesting, it doesn't happen like that.