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

[Retroman]

Mr GrimNasty said:

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!

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?

[LoonR1]

roofer said:

If you answer mine, you're a cyclist ?

Not since I was a kid about 30 years ago.

[LoonR1]

eldar said:

LoonR1 said:

Is anyone going to answer my question?

Which one? Difficult to differentiate between question and pontifiational rhetoric, at times.

The first paragraph, one question in the second sentence. It's easy to spot, it's got a question mark at the end of it. The rest was just to clarify to everyone what they might be agreeing to.

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.

[Robert Elise]

LoonR1 said:

Is anyone going to answer my question?

from the comfort of my armchair i'd venture i'd blame myself, yes.
Van awkwardly parked, true.
it's a crowded street, you have to drive less than 20 there
the car was visible for a while, in fact the cyclist was still peddling on impact!
Insurance would judge it 50:50, no? and that's probably fair. s**t happens unfortunately.

[roofer]

Sorry Loon, the cyclist had ample Time to react. He's not carrying the energy of a car, your question has no comparison.

[peter tdci]

Car driver to blame. Who had right of way?

Is it the responsibility of the other party (cyclist or car - or whatever) to take evasive action?

This shouldn't apply to crashing into stationary vehicles but, in the video, the car had only just pulled out.

[Blaster72]

In the video you can see the nose of the car edging out when the cyclist is a van plus a car length away.

He keeps on pedalling right into it!

Cyclist at fault in my opinion.

[LoonR1]

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?

[roofer]

To be honest, yes, I hate cyclists, but the fat fella in the vid could have avoided that, I know it.....and so do you.

[Robert Elise]

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?

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?

[bearman68]

Actually if you look at it the black car has partially pulled out of the junction when the cyclist is opposite the black van. (About 4.5 seconds in) He collides with the car at about 8 seconds. So 3.5 seconds to react to the car.
I think there is little the car could have done different and the cyclist is in the wrong - essentially he cycled into a stationary vehicle

[Pete317]

I have often been in similar situations, but in my car and not on a bike, and had I been in that situation I'm confident that I would have easily avoided hitting that car.

[freddytin]

Dopey individual on the bicycle needs a lesson or two in self preservation. Ample time to react..Little wonder he wears a helmet .

Should invest in full body armour too if that example of awareness is anything to go by

Edit... Blame is almost irrelevant ...He is likely to get himself seriously injured...Being technically right is little comfort when you're seriously hurt ..Prevention better than cure

Edited by freddytin on Thursday 3rd September 23:22

[LoonR1]

Robert Elise said:

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?

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?

Read what I wrote. I did not say it was a major road, I said it was a more major road than the one the car was joining form ie driveway onto minor road, still means the minor road is more major.

Edging or not is subjective. Some on here say he edged, others say he didn't. I don't have a view either way. He has a duty to the established roaduser, he failed in that duty.

You're probably right in that you are aware of others and what they might do and that's good self preservation. 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.

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.

[Robert Elise]

bearman68 said:

Actually if you look at it the black car has partially pulled out of the junction when the cyclist is opposite the black van. (About 4.5 seconds in) He collides with the car at about 8 seconds. So 3.5 seconds to react to the car.
I think there is little the car could have done different and the cyclist is in the wrong - essentially he cycled into a stationary vehicle

Loon's gone to bed with his horlicks.... but he raises a fair point about minor road and priority. These days we have video evidence and i'd like him to answer what impact that has. Legally coming from a minor road you have to take full responsibility and not just shove your nose out... the car probably should have indicated and edged out more slowly. with video i still judge fat lycra boy more at fault!

[LoonR1]

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.

[Robert Elise]

LoonR1 said:

Read what I wrote. I did not say it was a major road, I said it was a more major road than the one the car was joining form ie driveway onto minor road, still means the minor road is more major.

Edging or not is subjective. Some on here say he edged, others say he didn't. I don't have a view either way. He has a duty to the established roaduser, he failed in that duty.

You're probably right in that you are aware of others and what they might do and that's good self preservation. 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.

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.

i do really hear what you say. or read wot u 'rote.
cyclist is the established road user, i get it though i reckon 90% of the driving public wouldn't understand that or even agree. Though as you say, "it is both technically and pragmatically correct.".
can i argue over contributory negligence though? i'd like to propose 50/50
I'd settle on 35/65 were it not for those shorts.
Anyhow,

[robemcdonald]

It's really the van drivers fault. If you apply the letter of the Highway Code.

[bearman68]

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.

No, it look to me like he hit the car on the main road, by edging out too early, and before the car had passed.
However, this view only shows straight ahead, and it's not possible to see the view of the driver. It's very clear on your posted vid that more information would need to be gathered before arriving at a conclusion.

In the cyclist vid, I personally think there is enough evidence to say the cyclist has the greater degree of responsibility, because he is not behaving in a reasonable manner, whereas the car driver is.

[Robert Elise]

robemcdonald said:

It's really the van drivers fault. If you apply the letter of the Highway Code.

but HC is not the law. Van may have committed an offence (separately), but that doesn't excuse the emerging car driver.