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

[LoonR1]

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

[Pete317]

LoonR1 said:

However, you are under no legal obligation to have to do this to counter the negligence of others.

Just as long as you've fulfilled your legal obligation, all is right with the world

[LoonR1]

Pete317 said:

LoonR1 said:

However, you are under no legal obligation to have to do this to counter the negligence of others.

Just as long as you've fulfilled your legal obligation, all is right with the world

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.

[ging84]

LoonR1 said:

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

Yeah but if one of those road users doesn't pay road tax obviously entirely his fault for not being able to claim moral ownership of the road

[Retroman]

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

[Boshly]

Forgetting about legal blame and more real world scenarios what could the car have done to avoid the collision? Appeared to me to edge out slowly then get a look down the road and see it clear except the bike was very close in to the parked cars so wasn't seen.

Point being, to be able to have a view along the parked cars the bonnet would have been well out and the divvy on the bike riding very close to potential hazards whilst distracted would have hit the car anyway?

The pedant in me also would ask was the car actually on that particular road before the bike joined it? And if so, who has right of way? Difficult to judge from the film and maybe pedantic but is it a valid point??

And Lastly why do some people jump straight onto the 'they're only criticising the cyclist because they're anti-bike'? Give it a rest! One road user was in a difficult situation trying to make progress, another road user was distracted and I guess progressing without due care and attention. Its irrelevant (somewhat) who was on/in what vehicle. Morally I think most agree with that scenario. So just give over with the sarcastic "I suppose this is the cyclists fault as well" comments.

[LoonR1]

Boshly said:

Forgetting about legal blame and more real world scenarios what could the car have done to avoid the collision? Appeared to me to edge out slowly then get a look down the road and see it clear except the bike was very close in to the parked cars so wasn't seen.

Point being, to be able to have a view along the parked cars the bonnet would have been well out and the divvy on the bike riding very close to potential hazards whilst distracted would have hit the car anyway?

The pedant in me also would ask was the car actually on that particular road before the bike joined it? And if so, who has right of way? Difficult to judge from the film and maybe pedantic but is it a valid point??

And Lastly why do some people jump straight onto the 'they're only criticising the cyclist because they're anti-bike'? Give it a rest! One road user was in a difficult situation trying to make progress, another road user was distracted and I guess progressing without due care and attention. Its irrelevant (somewhat) who was on/in what vehicle. Morally I think most agree with that scenario. So just give over with the sarcastic "I suppose this is the cyclists fault as well" comments.

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.

[ORD]

bearman68 said:

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.

You are kidding, right? The camera car just pulled out into a car that was passing the junction! About the most obvious case of the cammer being at fault.

[LoonR1]

ORD said:

You are kidding, right? The camera car just pulled out into a car that was passing the junction! About the most obvious case of the cammer being at fault.

Thank you, at last some sense on this thread. Had I posted that video in isolation then nobody would've questioned that the vp camera car was at fault, but because it's on this thread we get bizarre comments about it.

I see few have answered or even attempted to answer whether they'd happily take the blame for a car pulling out on them amd the ensuing insurance premium impact.

[anonymous-user]

LoonR1 said:

ORD said:

You are kidding, right? The camera car just pulled out into a car that was passing the junction! About the most obvious case of the cammer being at fault.

Thank you, at last some sense on this thread. Had I posted that video in isolation then nobody would've questioned that the vp camera car was at fault, but because it's on this thread we get bizarre comments about it.

I see few have answered or even attempted to answer whether they'd happily take the blame for a car pulling out on them amd the ensuing insurance premium impact.

It's alarming that's the responses in this thread to the OP mirror those on FB: it's all the cyclist's fault, because, well, he's a cyclist, see?

These people appear not to know how to drive.

[Pete317]

LoonR1 said:

Pete317 said:

LoonR1 said:

However, you are under no legal obligation to have to do this to counter the negligence of others.

Just as long as you've fulfilled your legal obligation, all is right with the world

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.

With reference to the bold bit above - the big difference is that the cyclist did absolutely nothing to avoid the accident, despite having had ample opportunity to do so.

No, you shouldn't be legally compelled to avoid an accident, but at the same time you shouldn't rely on the law to save your skin.

Consider what if, in that incident, the roles of bike and the car had been reversed - that the bike had pulled out and the car had hit him.

[Djtemeka]

Van driver for parking illegally.


Car driver was fine and as cautious as can be given the circumstances.

Cyclist did nothing wrong apart from using his phone and being distracted. He should be positioning himself a lot better on the road too.

[LoonR1]

Pete317 said:

LoonR1 said:

Pete317 said:

LoonR1 said:

However, you are under no legal obligation to have to do this to counter the negligence of others.

Just as long as you've fulfilled your legal obligation, all is right with the world

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.

With reference to the bold bit above - the big difference is that the cyclist did absolutely nothing to avoid the accident, despite having had ample opportunity to do so.

No, you shouldn't be legally compelled to avoid an accident, but at the same time you shouldn't rely on the law to save your skin.

Consider what if, in that incident, the roles of bike and the car had been reversed - that the bike had pulled out and the car had hit him.

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.

[KingNothing]

The fact that the cyclists was still peddling away when the car first edged into view puts some responsibility on the cyclist as well as the driver in my opinion, he should have stopped peddaling (even though legally he doesn't have to as he has right of way etc. etc.) but it's just common sense. He wasn't very observant. That on top of cycling using a phone is stupid as well.

[LoonR1]

KingNothing said:

The fact that the cyclists was still peddling away when the car first edged into view puts some responsibility on the cyclist as well as the driver in my opinion, he should have stopped peddaling (even though legally he doesn't have to as he has right of way etc. etc.) but it's just common sense. He wasn't very observant. That on top of cycling using a phone is stupid as well.

And the driver of the Peugeot? Should they have stopped or accept the blame here?

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.

[MrBarry123]

In the funny world of insurance, the car driver is at fault.

In the real world, where people have to be culpable for their actions, it is 100% the cyclists fault.

And to be clear, I don't feel the cyclist is deserving of what happened - it's just an unfortunate accident.

ETA: LoonR1 - if I was the cyclist in that situation and hit a car, yes, I would have shouldered the blame. However, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever use my phone whilst either driving or cycling so, in theory, that situation should never arise.

Edited by MrBarry123 on Friday 4th September 09:26

[walm]

Pete317 said:

Consider what if, in that incident, the roles of bike and the car had been reversed - that the bike had pulled out and the car had hit him.

I 100% guarantee you the thread would be full of people congratulating the driver on ridding the world of one of those pesky lycra-clad non-road-tax payers.

[walm]

MrBarry123 said:

In the real world, where people have to be culpable for their actions, it is 100% the cyclists fault.

I see your point about the phone but I genuinely believe that even if he had both hands covering the brakes and slammed on as soon as he saw the car, he would still have come a cropper.
Better off than he was but still a crash.

[LoonR1]

MrBarry123 said:

In the funny world of insurance, the car driver is at fault.

In the real world, where people have to be culpable for their actions, it is 100% the cyclists fault.

And to be clear, I don't feel the cyclist is deserving of what happened - it's just an unfortunate accident.

ETA: LoonR1 - if I was the cyclist in that situation and hit a car, yes, I would have shouldered the blame. However, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever use my phone whilst either driving or cycling so, in theory, that situation should never arise.

Edited by MrBarry123 on Friday 4th September 09:26

I didn't ask if you were the cyclist. Unasked if you were driving down that road and that accident happened I.e. You and an emerging car crashed would
You accept the blame?

No pretending the accident wouldn't have happened because you would drive faster Thant he cyclist could ride
So
Would be 10 minutes down the road, no I don't use my phone, no too good a driver to ever be caught out by this. I want to know whether you would accept liability if your car is now embedded in the other one.

[KingNothing]

LoonR1 said:

KingNothing said:

The fact that the cyclists was still peddling away when the car first edged into view puts some responsibility on the cyclist as well as the driver in my opinion, he should have stopped peddaling (even though legally he doesn't have to as he has right of way etc. etc.) but it's just common sense. He wasn't very observant. That on top of cycling using a phone is stupid as well.

And the driver of the Peugeot? Should they have stopped or accept the blame here?

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.

Why? The camera car clearly pulled out on the Peugeot who had right of way.

If you read my post you notice I say "SOME responsibility on the cyclist AS WELL as the driver" what I said isn't applicable as the cyclist has right of way obviously, and what I've said is a personal opinion, but due to the poor cycling portrayed in the video it doesn't absolve the cyclist of having a part in causing the accident which could have been avoided if he's been more foccused on cycling