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

[LoonR1]

KingNothing said:

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

How do we know the Peugeot driver wasn't a poor driver too? Maybe it was a 90 year old granny who can't see more than two feet in front of her, drives by looking through the steering wheel and focussed on the end of her bonnet. Even if all that were true the car pulling out would still be 100% at fault.

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

[MrBarry123]

walm - I partly agree however I reckon the cyclist had almost 5 seconds to react to the car appearing onto the road i.e. plenty of time. If he can't react in that time, I hope the cyclist doesn't have a driving licence!

Loon - it's a completely different scenario. The first video shows a line of cars populating the side of a road, meaning visibility to the right for the Peugeot driver is almost non-existent. As such, the driver does the correct thing and edges out into the road VERY cautiously over a period of 3-4 seconds to check to see whether it is clear for him to continue his journey. Because the cyclist is on the phone and therefore not concentrating on what is going on around him, he fails to realise the car (now stationary) who is now positioned partially in the road. As such, the cyclist ploughs straight into the car. I can't see anything that the car did which was incorrect and/or illegal and it was purely down to the cyclist's stupidity that the incident was caused.

The second video, from the looks of it, shows a car edging out into a busy road with the assumption that the other car will stop. From what we can see, the driver of the car that edges out in the second video is not doing so with the purpose of checking what is around him however is doing so, presumably, because he's been waiting a while at that junction and wants to continue on his way. As such, the car that edges out in the second video is completely at fault and therefore, no, I wouldn't be prepared to accept any liability if I was the other driver.

ETA: I'd be amazed if the cyclist didn't qualify for a charge of careless cycling based on the below.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q604.htm

Edited by MrBarry123 on Friday 4th September 09:49

[LoonR1]

MrBarry123 said:

walm - I partly agree however I reckon the cyclist had almost 5 seconds to react to the car appearing onto the road i.e. plenty of time. If he can't react in that time, I hope the cyclist doesn't have a driving licence!

Loon - it's a completely different scenario. The first video shows a line of cars populating the side of a road, meaning visibility to the right for the Peugeot driver is almost non-existent. As such, the driver does the correct thing and edges out into the road VERY cautiously over a period of 3-4 seconds to check to see whether it is clear for him to continue his journey. Because the cyclist is on the phone and therefore not concentrating on what is going on around him, he fails to realise the car (now stationary) who is now positioned partially in the road. As such, the cyclist ploughs straight into the car. I can't see anything that the car did which was incorrect and/or illegal and it was purely down to the cyclist's stupidity that the incident was caused.

The second video, from the looks of it, shows a car edging out into a busy road with the assumption that the other car will stop. From what we can see, the driver of the car that edges out in the second video is not doing so with the purpose of checking what is around him however is doing so, presumably, because he's been waiting a while at that junction and wants to continue on his way. As such, the car that edges out in the second video is completely at fault and therefore, no, I wouldn't be prepared to accept any liability if I was the other driver.

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

Finally how many times can people not
Answer the question that I'm asking!

The question does not relate to the second video. It relates to the first and specifically is

If you swap the cyclist for you in your car and you have collided with the emerging car, would you accept liability?


And no smug comments about not being in the phone / being too good a driver and so on.

[walm]

MrBarry123 said:

walm - I partly agree however I reckon the cyclist had almost 5 seconds to react to the car appearing onto the road i.e. plenty of time. If he can't react in that time, I hope the cyclist doesn't have a driving licence!

The problem as I see it is that when you first see the car emerging you don't instantly slam on the anchors.
The first thing you naturally assume is "ok that COULD be a problem but I am not 100% sure because he MAY just be nudging out".
It's just human nature because 100 times out of 100 before THIS time, the guy in the car would have been slower and you could just ease round him.

Honestly, in a car I would have moved my foot to hover over the brake - at best - rather than instantly assuming it meant trouble.

That's why ADAS braking works so well - it knows before you do that emergency braking is necessary.

[Pete317]

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

Finally how many times can people not
Answer the question that I'm asking!

The question does not relate to the second video. It relates to the first and specifically is

If you swap the cyclist for you in your car and you have collided with the emerging car, would you accept liability?


And no smug comments about not being in the phone / being too good a driver and so on.

FWIW:

I would not accept liability if I had collided with the car despite my reasonable efforts to avoid it.
But if I didn't avoid it due to inattentiveness on my part then I would have been driving without due care.

[Robert Elise]

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

Finally how many times can people not
Answer the question that I'm asking!

The question does not relate to the second video. It relates to the first and specifically is

If you swap the cyclist for you in your car and you have collided with the emerging car, would you accept liability?


And no smug comments about not being in the phone / being too good a driver and so on.

Im up for a "yes"
Might be tempted to say silent and use the law if emerging driver was an arse tho!

[Robert Elise]

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

Finally how many times can people not
Answer the question that I'm asking!

The question does not relate to the second video. It relates to the first and specifically is

If you swap the cyclist for you in your car and you have collided with the emerging car, would you accept liability?


And no smug comments about not being in the phone / being too good a driver and so on.

Im up for a "yes"
Might be tempted to say silent and use the law if emerging driver was an arse tho!

[LoonR1]

Pete317 said:

FWIW:

I would not accept liability if I had collided with the car despite my reasonable efforts to avoid it.
But if I didn't avoid it due to inattentiveness on my part then I would have been driving without due care.

So you'll argue that it's the cyclists fault, but refuse to accept liability if you were in exactly the same position in your car.

How many times do I have to say that the DWDCA is completely irrelevant? That is a motoring offence the negligence is a civil matter and two wrongs do not make a right

[Pete317]

walm said:

The problem as I see it is that when you first see the car emerging you don't instantly slam on the anchors.
The first thing you naturally assume is "ok that COULD be a problem but I am not 100% sure because he MAY just be nudging out".
It's just human nature because 100 times out of 100 before THIS time, the guy in the car would have been slower and you could just ease round him.

Honestly, in a car I would have moved my foot to hover over the brake - at best - rather than instantly assuming it meant trouble.

That's why ADAS braking works so well - it knows before you do that emergency braking is necessary.

I would have slowed down and tried to ascertain that the driver had seen me - I don't know why that doesn't seem to occur to some.

Edited by Pete317 on Friday 4th September 10:27

[LoonR1]

Robert Elise said:

Im up for a "yes"
Might be tempted to say silent and use the law if emerging driver was an arse tho!

You wouldn't. If you would then that's brilliantly daft. Would you accept liability in the second video that I posted too if you were the car on the main road?

[Pete317]

LoonR1 said:

Pete317 said:

FWIW:

I would not accept liability if I had collided with the car despite my reasonable efforts to avoid it.
But if I didn't avoid it due to inattentiveness on my part then I would have been driving without due care.

So you'll argue that it's the cyclists fault, but refuse to accept liability if you were in exactly the same position in your car.

How many times do I have to say that the DWDCA is completely irrelevant? That is a motoring offence the negligence is a civil matter and two wrongs do not make a right

Oh FFS, The cyclist did absolutely nothing to avoid the collision, despite ample opportunity, and if that were me in a car then I would have blamed myself - end of!

Edited by Pete317 on Friday 4th September 10:23

[anonymous-user]

MrBarry123 said:

walm - I partly agree however I reckon the cyclist had almost 5 seconds to react to the car appearing onto the road

bks he did.

The nose of the car appears a6 6 seconds in the video and the impact is at 8 seconds.

Just so we are clear, 8-6=2. Not 5.

The right thing for the car driver to do was to stick a tiny bit of the bonnet out so that it is visible to traffic in the road, then wait for 5 seconds, then edge out *very* slowly. The wrong thing to do, as this driver did, was to stick half the car into the carriageway that it was trying to join so that the driver could see whether anything was coming.

[LoonR1]

Pete317 said:

Oh FFS, The cyclist did absolutely nothing to avoid the collision, despite ample opportunity, and if that were me in a car then I would have blamed myself - end of!

Edited by Pete317 on Friday 4th September 10:23

As stated above 2 seconds is not "plenty of time". The cyclist does not have to avoid the collision. They should try to, but there is no compulsion to do so. I've said this several times, but you seem incapable of understanding this.

A court will not say "Did you try to avoid the car? No? Oh well it's completely your fault then, pay for all the repairs".

Until you grasp this then you're wasting your time with your argument because you're wrong.

[AA999]

Cyclist more at fault IMO.

Like to see what a judge would decide.

[AndyNetwork]

LoonR1 said:

What is objective is that a car joining a road has hit an established road user. That's the crux of the matter.

If the car had hit the cyclist side on, as in the link you posted, of the car hitting the black peugeot, then yes, I would agree with you. However, the cyclist hit the car, not the car hitting the cyclist. The car was stopped, and therefore could not have hit the cyclist, as objects without momentum cannot hit anything.

Whilst I have no doubt on the legal position, does not make things morally right.

Let's change the situation a little, as you yourself have done, and say that the car is not a car, but a 5 year old who ran out of the driveway. Would the 5 year old be held responsible for hitting the cyclist, or would the cyclist be responsible for hitting the kid?

The road user (be it a car, van, lorry, bus, bike, unicycle) has a responsibility to be able to stop in the distance they see to be clear. In the situation of the video that is less than the distance of the van, as anything or anyone could run out between the parked vehicles. Also we are always being told that car drivers should give more room to cyclists, well, the reverse is also true, that they should be giving sufficient space for doors opening, and things appearing from between the parked vehicles.

Would you also defend a cyclist who got knocked off their bike because they were going 30mph down a 20mph limit road? (This law also does not appy to cyclists https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits )

[KingNothing]

LoonR1 said:

How do we know the Peugeot driver wasn't a poor driver too? Maybe it was a 90 year old granny who can't see more than two feet in front of her, drives by looking through the steering wheel and focussed on the end of her bonnet.

Don't see what relevance that hyperbole has in that situation. Regardless the Peugeot was established on the road and had the right of way, the camera car pulled out precisely into the side of the Peugeot, it draws no comparison to the initial video which shows a car pulling out on a cyclist and the cyclist continuing to pedal into the front drivers headlight of the car, had the cyclist been perpendicular to the car and the car ploughed out of the side street into the cyclist you could draw comparisons between the two videos, but they're not the same situations.

In my view as a driver, motorcyclist, and a cyclist, the cyclist had time to react in some way to the presenting hazard. He's still peddaling when's he's paralell to the blue citroen when the car has emerged from behind the van and continues to pedal up until the point of impact, wether or not slamming on the brakes or swerving at the point of noticing the emerging car would have changed the outcome, maybe it would have, but most likely it wouldn't have, but it's no excuse to not try.

LoonR1 said:

Even if all that were true the car pulling out would still be 100% at fault.

I didn't and wouldn't dispute that. I don't think anyone has tried to argue that the Peugeot was at fault so I don't see the point you're trying to make?

LoonR1 said:

There is no law saying you can't use a phone whilst cycling.

Didn't say there was, but regardless, it's still bad practice.

LoonR1 said:

There is no test to assess competence to ride a bike.

Again, didn't say there was, but that doesn't give people carte blanche to ignore obvious hazzards being created by being absorbed in something else (using a phone) and subsequently not having full attention on controlling the vehicle that they're riding on/driving in.

LoonR1 said:

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.

You're right there isn't a way to gauge it as it is subjective, but there is an ability to have an opinion on it, and in my opinion that was poor cycling. And again, I didn't say put the total blame on the cyclist, the blame for the collision is on the driver obviously, but blame for escalating the incident from a potential near miss to an incident falls on both parties in my opinion, either jointly or whatever percentage you want to chose. The car driver had no option but to come out of the side street to look for oncoming traffic, he can't exactly sit there indefinately or until the drivers of the parked cars return and move their vehicles hours later can he now? So the expectation is, that he has to come out to be able to get a view, which they did, but as discovered it's a double edged sword and there is traffic which has right of way to contend with.

LoonR1 said:

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

Exactly, that's why I said both share a responsibilty, not even an equal responsibility to avoid the accident but not the accident itself, rather than just going "100% cyclists" fault or going; "blah blah blah, road tax, blah blah etc." which some people on here and on the facebook post have chosen to post.

Edited by KingNothing on Friday 4th September 11:00

[Pete317]

LoonR1 said:

Pete317 said:

Oh FFS, The cyclist did absolutely nothing to avoid the collision, despite ample opportunity, and if that were me in a car then I would have blamed myself - end of!

Edited by Pete317 on Friday 4th September 10:23

As stated above 2 seconds is not "plenty of time". The cyclist does not have to avoid the collision. They should try to, but there is no compulsion to do so. I've said this several times, but you seem incapable of understanding this.

A court will not say "Did you try to avoid the car? No? Oh well it's completely your fault then, pay for all the repairs".

Until you grasp this then you're wasting your time with your argument because you're wrong.

Oh I grasped it a long time ago - what you're doing is framing the argument within your own terms and fighting off anyone who goes outside those narrow terms.

[LoonR1]

ad much as I'd like to continue to debate this, I'm wasting my time. The cyclist is not at fault

Someone asked about a child running out which is a different subject, courts tend to side with children, especially as they can not be deemed negligent as they are below the legal age of reponsibility.

Someone else mentioned stopping in the distance you can see to be clear, I wondered how long it would take for this to come out. Do you stop before a large puddle and check the depth before driving through it?

[walm]

AndyNetwork said:

Let's change the situation a little, as you yourself have done, and say that the car is not a car, but a 5 year old who ran out of the driveway. Would the 5 year old be held responsible for hitting the cyclist, or would the cyclist be responsible for hitting the kid?

5-year-olds aren't responsible for anything because they are 5 years old.

But if you are driving along in a 20 or 30 within the limit and a 5-year-old runs out in front of you and you can't avoid him then you aren't responsible for hitting him. That's obvious.

So the (moral/ethical) question is whether the cyclist could have / should have avoided the car.
And I still don't think that's possible.
He might have been able to slow a little but not much.

And since the driver is most likely over 5 years old - he is responsible.

[Countdown]

AndyNetwork said:

Let's change the situation a little, as you yourself have done, and say that the car is not a car, but a 5 year old who ran out of the driveway. Would the 5 year old be held responsible for hitting the cyclist, or would the cyclist be responsible for hitting the kid?

I'm not sure what your point is. If a kid (or anybody) stepped out onto the road in front of a moving vehicle, resulting in them being hit by the vehicle, it would be their own fault.