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

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

Author
Discussion

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
I love the fact that the anti-cyclist lost are trying to claim tha the car driver edged out really s-l-o-w-l-y and oh so carefully.
Of course it didn't. It just pulled out at full speed until he/she could see instead of edging out to give anyone on the road time to avoid them whilst they couldn't see.

I fking hate cyclists. More than is healthy or logical, but I would have to be mentally ill to blame that accident on the cyclist in any way, shape or form.

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
mikeveal said:
If the car joining has no visibility, he has no choice but to edge slowly and carefully out until he gets to a point where he can see.
If someone hits the car whilst is is edging out, then liability is shared.
Indeed.
But in this case he was very far from "edging slowly and carefully out".

mikeveal

4,559 posts

249 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
walm said:
Indeed.
But in this case he was very far from "edging slowly and carefully out".
Yup. Agree. Please see the last eight words of my post.

MrBarry123

6,025 posts

120 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
The thread asked who, in our own individual opinion, is at fault in this incident.

Some people say the car driver is at fault. I believe the cyclist is at fault. Not because he is a cyclist but because:
a. If the cyclist was not on his phone, the incident would not have happened.
b. The driver did nothing illegal and appears to have taken every precaution possible to avoid an accident.

That doesn't make me, or anyone who believes the same as me, close-minded, it just means that we attribute greater blame to someone not concentrating properly to someone who is trying to do the correct thing.

Additionally, just because people attribute the cause of something to the action of a cyclist, does not mean they dislike cyclists. rolleyes

Retroman

Original Poster:

961 posts

132 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
I'm a driver and a cyclist myself as well.

If i was pulling out in that scenario, i'd have been leaning as far forward as i can and pulling out about 1/4 of the speed that car did and doing it in small increments so if anything was coming that i couldn't see, they'd have a better chance of seeing me.

If i were to switch positions...

I'd consider myself an experienced cyclist with most of it doing mountain biking and BMXing so i could have possibly reacted and tried to stop a bit faster as i'm used to that kind of thing.
If we ignore the cyclist is on his phone and switch it to he was taking a drink from his drinks bottle, then i doubt i could have avoided the accident either, even with my experience. You can't brake hard or swerve quickly with one hand as you'd end up coming off similar to how the cyclist did in the video even if you never hit the car.

blindswelledrat

25,257 posts

231 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
To put it another way, in a scenario where one driver causes another to take emergency evasive action to avoid an accident, if that drivers skills/attention aren't quite up to the job then they can hardly be blamed. Put a pensioner on that bike without a phone and the pensioner would definitely have hit the car.

walm

10,609 posts

201 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
MrBarry123 said:
b. The driver did nothing illegal and appears to have taken every precaution possible to avoid an accident.
"illegal" isn't in question.
And he clearly hasn't taken every precaution possible.
He could have pulled out a LOT slower.

D1ckie

739 posts

189 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
The van parked causing the driver to have to edge out to see what is coming.

You see this a lot in residential areas which drivers who park with zero consideration for other road users. How is the car supposed to see what is coming without edging out?


Retroman

Original Poster:

961 posts

132 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
D1ckie said:
The van parked causing the driver to have to edge out to see what is coming.

You see this a lot in residential areas which drivers who park with zero consideration for other road users. How is the car supposed to see what is coming without edging out?
It's difficult to say, but i don't think pulling out and hoping someone isn't there is ideal.

Edge out a few inches, then stop for a few seconds and repeat perhaps.
At least that way you're giving other road users ample opportunity to see you, if you can't see them.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Retroman said:
I'm a driver and a cyclist myself as well.

If i was pulling out in that scenario, i'd have been leaning as far forward as i can and pulling out about 1/4 of the speed that car did and doing it in small increments so if anything was coming that i couldn't see, they'd have a better chance of seeing me.

If i were to switch positions...

I'd consider myself an experienced cyclist with most of it doing mountain biking and BMXing so i could have possibly reacted and tried to stop a bit faster as i'm used to that kind of thing.
If we ignore the cyclist is on his phone and switch it to he was taking a drink from his drinks bottle, then i doubt i could have avoided the accident either, even with my experience. You can't brake hard or swerve quickly with one hand as you'd end up coming off similar to how the cyclist did in the video even if you never hit the car.
But then, being a sensible chap, you would probably wait until you were on a stretch where you weren't likely to have to brake or swerve, before taking a swig from your drinks bottle.

jbsportstech

5,069 posts

178 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Is it just me who would not have been tight on a row of parked cars when I did cycling proficiency when I was bout 10 I was taught not to ride tight and since you didn't want or need the car to pass why so tight to the cars.

Not sure what else the car driver could of done moved out a little slower but the cyclist was not concentrating on the task of riding and riding so tight to parked cars that's if a door had opened he would be done for.

Edited by jbsportstech on Friday 4th September 15:47

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Pete317 said:
You've made the whole thread about simple liability assessments!
Given that the thread title is who's at fault here?", then what the heck else could it be about?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
mikeveal said:
Devil2575 said:
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.
This thread should have ended with this post because it hits the nail on the head.
Dunno why you'd think that, but then Loons post doesn't appear well worded. If the car joining has no visibility, he has no choice but to edge slowly and carefully out until he gets to a point where he can see.
If someone hits the car whilst is is edging out, then liability is shared.

So yes, I agree with Loons first paragraph. I'd be happy with split liability, although I expect he'd say that is disagreeing with him.

I also partially agree with his second paragraph. If the driver of the car edging out has done everything in his (ain't I sexist?) power to mitigate the risk, then his liability may be close to zero even though he is joining a major road from a minor.

Everything in his power would mean winding down the window to listen and edging out very very slowly, quite unlike the driver in the first vid.
You've twisted my words. I've said that with a lot of arguing, you might some contributory nelgeligemce, which would be no more than 10% even if you're successful in arguing it. My offering of a 50/50 split was only if people swapped places with the cyclist and were in their car and asking if they'd take full or some liability.

Pretty well everyone on the thread has avoided answering this question which speaks volumes IMO. They'll argue against the cyclist until they're blue in the face, but if they had the same accident as the cyclist in their car, they'd argue the opposite.

TheBALDpuma

5,842 posts

167 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
You lot do love to go on! PH loves a good car vs cyclist debate!

I think the situation is pretty clear to be honest. The chap on the bike is quite clearly not paying attention. I can see the car pull out when he is over two car lengths away - the cyclist is probably doing 10-12mph. He could very easily have stopped, or moved to the right had he been paying better attention.

The car driver edges out - it takes 2 seconds for him to move about 1 meter into the road. Beacause the cyclist is a narrow object, travelling relatively close to the line of parked cars he will not be seen till very late, and the car does have to pull out at some point and IMO does with due care. I have to pull out of my road in similar circumstances and there really is no other option.

The "if it was your car" argument is moot, as a car is much wider, would have been 50% on the otherside of the road, and been much more visable and would have been seen much sooner by the car pulling out.

If it was me on my bike, I would have missed the car. Easily.

Legally I don't know how this pans out, but if that was me on the bike, I'd be blaming myself. Saw the car way too late as I was on the phone, and couldn't deal with the situation because I was only holding on with hand.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
You've made the whole thread about simple liability assessments!
Given that the thread title is who's at fault here?", then what the heck else could it be about?
Oh come on! You came into this thread with the firm position that the cyclist could not have been anything other than 100% blameless, and simply continued to assert said position.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
You've made the whole thread about simple liability assessments!
Given that the thread title is who's at fault here?", then what the heck else could it be about?
Oh come on! You came into this thread with the firm position that the cyclist could not have been anything other than 100% blameless, and simply continued to assert said position.
Because that's the reality of the situation. You don't agree and that's your choice, but it wouldn't pan out in real life. The car driver's insurance will be paying for the car & bike repairs amd possibly a small injury claim for a few scrapes and bruises.

You might not like that morally, you may try to claim the high ground, but I'll guarantee if you were in a car driving down a road amd someone edged out in front of you and you collided, that you will argue tooth and nail that it's their fault.

Forget the phone , it's a red herring, forget that he could've swerved, it's a red herring, forget that he might have been able to stop, it's a red herring.

A car pulls out amd the cyclist hits it. It's the car driver's fault.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
You've made the whole thread about simple liability assessments!
Given that the thread title is who's at fault here?", then what the heck else could it be about?
Oh come on! You came into this thread with the firm position that the cyclist could not have been anything other than 100% blameless, and simply continued to assert said position.
Because that's the reality of the situation. You don't agree and that's your choice, but it wouldn't pan out in real life. The car driver's insurance will be paying for the car & bike repairs amd possibly a small injury claim for a few scrapes and bruises.

You might not like that morally, you may try to claim the high ground, but I'll guarantee if you were in a car driving down a road amd someone edged out in front of you and you collided, that you will argue tooth and nail that it's their fault.

Forget the phone , it's a red herring, forget that he could've swerved, it's a red herring, forget that he might have been able to stop, it's a red herring.

A car pulls out amd the cyclist hits it. It's the car driver's fault.
Indeed. It really is that simple.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
You've made the whole thread about simple liability assessments!
Given that the thread title is who's at fault here?", then what the heck else could it be about?
Oh come on! You came into this thread with the firm position that the cyclist could not have been anything other than 100% blameless, and simply continued to assert said position.
Because that's the reality of the situation. You don't agree and that's your choice, but it wouldn't pan out in real life. The car driver's insurance will be paying for the car & bike repairs amd possibly a small injury claim for a few scrapes and bruises.

You might not like that morally, you may try to claim the high ground, but I'll guarantee if you were in a car driving down a road amd someone edged out in front of you and you collided, that you will argue tooth and nail that it's their fault.

Forget the phone , it's a red herring, forget that he could've swerved, it's a red herring, forget that he might have been able to stop, it's a red herring.

A car pulls out amd the cyclist hits it. It's the car driver's fault.
Which bit of my previous comment did you not get?

I 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!
You're so entrenched in your prejudices that you won't even see anything which suggests the contrary, even if you're looking directly at it.

Retroman

Original Poster:

961 posts

132 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
To be a complete pedant, i watched it again and timed from when the car appeared to the cyclist hitting it and it's less than 2 seconds.

The bike is a full road bike as well with dropped bars. There's 3 positions you can normally put your hands on these types of bars when cycling and the brakes can only be used in 2 of those positions.
From the posture the cyclist was using, his hands looked to be in the position you can't pull the brakes with.

So less than 2 seconds to move your hands position on handlebars, pull the brakes, slow down and stop.
Not going to happen.

The being on the phone is a moot point (as mentioned) because if they were scratching their face, wiping their nose, rubbing their eye, or even hand signalling then the result would be the same as you'd be cycling one handled.

With the way the bars and forks are set up on a full road bike, i wouldn't fancy my chances of trying to do a violent one handed swerve without falling off

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
Pete317 said:
You've made the whole thread about simple liability assessments!
Given that the thread title is who's at fault here?", then what the heck else could it be about?
Oh come on! You came into this thread with the firm position that the cyclist could not have been anything other than 100% blameless, and simply continued to assert said position.
Because that's the reality of the situation. You don't agree and that's your choice, but it wouldn't pan out in real life. The car driver's insurance will be paying for the car & bike repairs amd possibly a small injury claim for a few scrapes and bruises.

You might not like that morally, you may try to claim the high ground, but I'll guarantee if you were in a car driving down a road amd someone edged out in front of you and you collided, that you will argue tooth and nail that it's their fault.

Forget the phone , it's a red herring, forget that he could've swerved, it's a red herring, forget that he might have been able to stop, it's a red herring.

A car pulls out amd the cyclist hits it. It's the car driver's fault.
Which bit of my previous comment did you not get?

I 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!
You're so entrenched in your prejudices that you won't even see anything which suggests the contrary, even if you're looking directly at it.
Physician heal thyself.

I keep saying you've got an opinion, you believe it's right. I've got an opinion based on a lot of experience on who would be held liable. I have no particular like or dislike for cyclists or drivers. I have no skin in this game. I know what matters and what doesn't when assessing liability (or fault to use another word that means exactly the same) and I know how an insurer would settle. I'm pretty certain I know how a court would find too, but that's never 100% certain.

You can shout me down as much as you like it won't make you right. I can do the same to you amd it won't change your mind. Let's just leave it, as there's no way I will change my mind based on decades of experience.

Sure the cyclist could've done more to avoid it, but that doesn't mean he's at fault.