Driving Without Due Care & Attention - Plea advice
Discussion
Gavia said:
Your mate has received professional, expert advice on this and still the PH Hardy Boys want to try to prove his innocence
He has and has acted upon it. I'm not trying to provoke a response saying he's innocent by continuing to reply; I'm a cyclist and driver, his experiences will change my behaviour the next time I find myself in similar circumstances. Hopefully answering the questions will do the same for others.
skwdenyer said:
I'm asking questions in the hope of understanding for myself, not proving innocence or guilt.
If one cannot see that there is a cycle lane, how should one be sure one has to look out for cyclists? If the traffic in lane "1" is tall, how do I know that that is a cycle lane and not just a shoulder?
Some years ago, I had a different experience where, when turning right through stopped traffic (entering from a side turning), my car was struck by a motorcyclists overtaking stationary traffic, over solid double white lines, over a blind crest on "my side" and at speed.
The question was whether I was under an obligation to have anticipated the presence of a motorcycle I could not see travelling in that place where no markings indicated that he could/should/might be. The Highway Code said then much as it does now.
In my case there was NFA, but I remain interested in where the line (figurative) is drawn.
Then it’s very simple. The Highway Code is clear as quoted previously on this thread that you should always be on the look out for other road users, especially cyclists. It is that simple. The fact you’re expecting them to only be allowed on the road if there’s a cycle lane and a clear lane at that, shows extreme naïveté at best. If one cannot see that there is a cycle lane, how should one be sure one has to look out for cyclists? If the traffic in lane "1" is tall, how do I know that that is a cycle lane and not just a shoulder?
Some years ago, I had a different experience where, when turning right through stopped traffic (entering from a side turning), my car was struck by a motorcyclists overtaking stationary traffic, over solid double white lines, over a blind crest on "my side" and at speed.
The question was whether I was under an obligation to have anticipated the presence of a motorcycle I could not see travelling in that place where no markings indicated that he could/should/might be. The Highway Code said then much as it does now.
In my case there was NFA, but I remain interested in where the line (figurative) is drawn.
Your description of the motorbike incident is one that’s used a lot in insurance as case law has been set for that, but not for the (motoring) criminal matter.
Be aware of other road users at all times amd expect the unexpected is what seems to work well. There will always be that one whacky scenario where you have a crash, but you still have to be driving poorly to end up being prosecuted / being found guilty.
Gavia said:
Then it’s very simple. The Highway Code is clear as quoted previously on this thread that you should always be on the look out for other road users, especially cyclists. It is that simple. The fact you’re expecting them to only be allowed on the road if there’s a cycle lane and a clear lane at that, shows extreme naïveté at best.
I don't disagree, and I didn't (intend to) suggest that I was only expecting them in a certain lane.More that, if my view is obscured so that I cannot see that there is a cycle lane, and cannot see that there is a cyclist, where is the bar set for my duty of care?
If you consider the photo provided, and remove the cycle lane (leaving a wide shoulder), and place tall vehicles in lane 1, I can imagine a great many road users being "surprised" by a cycle emerging from behind tall vehicles, and that there would be little or no time to react.
It also begs the question whether a cyclist in such a situation (behind taller vehicles, therefore with an obstructed view, and seeing a break in the cycle lane ahead at a junction) should also exercise caution, slow down, and anticipate the presence of other vehicles?
Where is the line drawn in reality?
skwdenyer said:
I don't disagree, and I didn't (intend to) suggest that I was only expecting them in a certain lane.
More that, if my view is obscured so that I cannot see that there is a cycle lane, and cannot see that there is a cyclist, where is the bar set for my duty of care?
If you consider the photo provided, and remove the cycle lane (leaving a wide shoulder), and place tall vehicles in lane 1, I can imagine a great many road users being "surprised" by a cycle emerging from behind tall vehicles, and that there would be little or no time to react.
It also begs the question whether a cyclist in such a situation (behind taller vehicles, therefore with an obstructed view, and seeing a break in the cycle lane ahead at a junction) should also exercise caution, slow down, and anticipate the presence of other vehicles?
Where is the line drawn in reality?
Yes, they should slow down, but that doesn’t make them at fault if they don’t. The duty of care is on you. That’s the line. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to drive across on the basis that a cyclist is unlikely then that’s fine. Most of us do it every day. That doesn’t make it right though and on the one occasion where it goes wrong, then you’re on the receiving end of the legal system. More that, if my view is obscured so that I cannot see that there is a cycle lane, and cannot see that there is a cyclist, where is the bar set for my duty of care?
If you consider the photo provided, and remove the cycle lane (leaving a wide shoulder), and place tall vehicles in lane 1, I can imagine a great many road users being "surprised" by a cycle emerging from behind tall vehicles, and that there would be little or no time to react.
It also begs the question whether a cyclist in such a situation (behind taller vehicles, therefore with an obstructed view, and seeing a break in the cycle lane ahead at a junction) should also exercise caution, slow down, and anticipate the presence of other vehicles?
Where is the line drawn in reality?
You seem to be trying to place fault with the cyclist, because you’re not prepared to be a bit more careful. It doesn’t work like that. .
Gavia said:
You seem to be trying to place fault with the cyclist, because you’re not prepared to be a bit more careful. It doesn’t work like that.
I'm not. I'm trying to establish where the line is between crawling across every junction because a cycle might be there and taking a reasonable stance as to the likelihood of a cycle being there. As you rightly point out, most of us do the latter every day, in which case the law is just waiting to punish us for something we don't pay enough heed to.So I'd like to try to learn more!
As to the speed of cyclist / blame, I think if I were driving at speed (relative to the next lane) whilst filtering, towards a junction, with traffic on my right obstructing my view, I would expect to be held partly to blame if a vehicle came across my path in a predictable (due to road markings) place - because I was driving faster than my visibility allowed. Maybe that isn't so, and I can filter at speed with impunity? And if it is not so, presumably the same duty applies to the cyclist?
Again, just so we're clear, I'm not trying to push blame around here, at all. I'm trying to learn a little more about a scenario that many don't really give a thought to, but which is an oh-so-common occurrence.
skwdenyer said:
I'm not. I'm trying to establish where the line is between crawling across every junction because a cycle might be there and taking a reasonable stance as to the likelihood of a cycle being there. As you rightly point out, most of us do the latter every day, in which case the law is just waiting to punish us for something we don't pay enough heed to.
So I'd like to try to learn more!
As to the speed of cyclist / blame, I think if I were driving at speed (relative to the next lane) whilst filtering, towards a junction, with traffic on my right obstructing my view, I would expect to be held partly to blame if a vehicle came across my path in a predictable (due to road markings) place - because I was driving faster than my visibility allowed. Maybe that isn't so, and I can filter at speed with impunity? And if it is not so, presumably the same duty applies to the cyclist?
Again, just so we're clear, I'm not trying to push blame around here, at all. I'm trying to learn a little more about a scenario that many don't really give a thought to, but which is an oh-so-common occurrence.
You’ll never get a definitive line though, it’s all shades of grey. So I'd like to try to learn more!
As to the speed of cyclist / blame, I think if I were driving at speed (relative to the next lane) whilst filtering, towards a junction, with traffic on my right obstructing my view, I would expect to be held partly to blame if a vehicle came across my path in a predictable (due to road markings) place - because I was driving faster than my visibility allowed. Maybe that isn't so, and I can filter at speed with impunity? And if it is not so, presumably the same duty applies to the cyclist?
Again, just so we're clear, I'm not trying to push blame around here, at all. I'm trying to learn a little more about a scenario that many don't really give a thought to, but which is an oh-so-common occurrence.
I really doubt you’d consider yourself partially to blame for the crash in the situation you describe. I certainly wouldn’t be happy to accept any blame if someone turns right across my path. I’d be even more angry if their defence was that their line of sight was partially obscured, somthey just went and hoped it’d be OK.
I’m applying the above to me being in any of the van, car, motorbike, or cycle that I use on the roads.
Mojooo said:
No - he only knew the cyclist was being reckless when he did his checks and *the cyclist came out of nowhere*
If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then that does create some doubt as to whether he was not DWDCA. I would expect the Police to bottom that out as part of their investigation.
Its not clear whether the OPs mate was interviewed and given a chance to put forward such a suggestion - if he did I am sure the Police would have refuted it.
Things don't come out of nowhere (it's a physical impossibility). You can either see that it is clear, see that it isn't clear, or can't see and should not proceed.If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then that does create some doubt as to whether he was not DWDCA. I would expect the Police to bottom that out as part of their investigation.
Its not clear whether the OPs mate was interviewed and given a chance to put forward such a suggestion - if he did I am sure the Police would have refuted it.
When something "comes out of nowhere" it means that you weren't giving "due care and attention".
BMWBen said:
Things don't come out of nowhere (it's a physical impossibility).
TBF, there is a distance that you can realistically expect to look at to be clear. If something's coming too fast, you won't see it in that distance in a reasonable time.I wonder what speed this cyclist is alleged to have been doing through stationary traffic? 10mph? That's about a car length per second...
BMWBen said:
You can either see that it is clear, see that it isn't clear, or can't see and should not proceed.
That's a bit disingenuous. It's still got to be clear when you've completed the manoeuvre, and that requires an assessment of what *might* be beyond your line of sight, and how fast they might be travelling - as well as how long it will take to complete the crossing. We base the required "clear" distance on traffic conditions, speed limits, and other visual cues. No matter who's legally right or wrong, I'd consider anything on two wheels filtering through stationary traffic at much over walking pace to be putting themselves at unnecessary risk.
TooMany2cvs said:
TBF, there is a distance that you can realistically expect to look at to be clear. If something's coming too fast, you won't see it in that distance in a reasonable time.
I wonder what speed this cyclist is alleged to have been doing through stationary traffic? 10mph? That's about a car length per second...
And if the car crossing is doing 10mph the driver will only need to look one second up the road.....I wonder what speed this cyclist is alleged to have been doing through stationary traffic? 10mph? That's about a car length per second...
gazza285 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I wonder what speed this cyclist is alleged to have been doing through stationary traffic? 10mph? That's about a car length per second...
Is this another cyclist? Because the one that was in the collision wasn't riding through stationary traffic...From the very first post...
HughG said:
The 2 oncoming lanes were queuing with solid traffic. It was evening rush hour after dark. He is given a gap by the 2 oncoming cars, so edges across the 2 lanes, and as he crosses the gap between the verge and lane 1 a cyclist strikes the front left of his car and is thrown over the bonnet.
If those cars weren't stationary, how come they didn't hit him as well?For reference, I drive a lot in London, where bicycles regularly "filter" at "max attack" speeds. Down the sides of tall goods vehicles and so on. Whether or not there is a cycle lane.
As I also said, I've been involved in a related accident many years ago involving a motorbike, so I'm already pretty cautious.
My questions are due only to the very "absolute" way in which some posters have in effect said that any car in that situation coming into contact with a bicycle must automatically be at fault. There have been no end of times in London when I've seen situations in which it would be in round terms impossible, or almost impossible, to avoid a collision.
So I'm interested in where the line is - not a black and white line (which is of course not possible), but merely the rough outline of the shade of grey.
The London "cycle superhighway" approach of colouring the road blue is a good one, because it makes it very clear that there is at least a cycle lane. Failing that, proper marking of cycle lanes is a very important visual cue, such as:
In the absence of such a cue (and indeed of such a lane, as in the OP's case, since lane peters-out and is not visible in the OP's scenario), the car-driver has to assess the likelihood of a bicycle being present in the space at the margin of the road.
Modern vehicles are tall. It isn't just vans / trucks that obscure cyclists:
for a visual comparison.
Here's an example of a cyclist in just such a situation (filtering down the side of vehicles large enough to obscure him) being hit by a car:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
As I also said, I've been involved in a related accident many years ago involving a motorbike, so I'm already pretty cautious.
My questions are due only to the very "absolute" way in which some posters have in effect said that any car in that situation coming into contact with a bicycle must automatically be at fault. There have been no end of times in London when I've seen situations in which it would be in round terms impossible, or almost impossible, to avoid a collision.
So I'm interested in where the line is - not a black and white line (which is of course not possible), but merely the rough outline of the shade of grey.
The London "cycle superhighway" approach of colouring the road blue is a good one, because it makes it very clear that there is at least a cycle lane. Failing that, proper marking of cycle lanes is a very important visual cue, such as:
In the absence of such a cue (and indeed of such a lane, as in the OP's case, since lane peters-out and is not visible in the OP's scenario), the car-driver has to assess the likelihood of a bicycle being present in the space at the margin of the road.
Modern vehicles are tall. It isn't just vans / trucks that obscure cyclists:
for a visual comparison.Here's an example of a cyclist in just such a situation (filtering down the side of vehicles large enough to obscure him) being hit by a car:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
skwdenyer said:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
The big difference there appears to be that the cyclist hit the rear wing of the Clio, versus the front wing in the OP's ("friend's") scenario.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
TooMany2cvs said:
skwdenyer said:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
The big difference there appears to be that the cyclist hit the rear wing of the Clio, versus the front wing in the OP's ("friend's") scenario.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
TooMany2cvs said:
gazza285 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I wonder what speed this cyclist is alleged to have been doing through stationary traffic? 10mph? That's about a car length per second...
Is this another cyclist? Because the one that was in the collision wasn't riding through stationary traffic...From the very first post...
HughG said:
The 2 oncoming lanes were queuing with solid traffic. It was evening rush hour after dark. He is given a gap by the 2 oncoming cars, so edges across the 2 lanes, and as he crosses the gap between the verge and lane 1 a cyclist strikes the front left of his car and is thrown over the bonnet.
If those cars weren't stationary, how come they didn't hit him as well?skwdenyer said:
TooMany2cvs said:
skwdenyer said:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
The big difference there appears to be that the cyclist hit the rear wing of the Clio, versus the front wing in the OP's ("friend's") scenario.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
skwdenyer said:
For reference, I drive a lot in London, where bicycles regularly "filter" at "max attack" speeds. Down the sides of tall goods vehicles and so on. Whether or not there is a cycle lane.
As I also said, I've been involved in a related accident many years ago involving a motorbike, so I'm already pretty cautious.
My questions are due only to the very "absolute" way in which some posters have in effect said that any car in that situation coming into contact with a bicycle must automatically be at fault. There have been no end of times in London when I've seen situations in which it would be in round terms impossible, or almost impossible, to avoid a collision.
So I'm interested in where the line is - not a black and white line (which is of course not possible), but merely the rough outline of the shade of grey.
The London "cycle superhighway" approach of colouring the road blue is a good one, because it makes it very clear that there is at least a cycle lane. Failing that, proper marking of cycle lanes is a very important visual cue, such as:
In the absence of such a cue (and indeed of such a lane, as in the OP's case, since lane peters-out and is not visible in the OP's scenario), the car-driver has to assess the likelihood of a bicycle being present in the space at the margin of the road.
Modern vehicles are tall. It isn't just vans / trucks that obscure cyclists:
for a visual comparison.
Here's an example of a cyclist in just such a situation (filtering down the side of vehicles large enough to obscure him) being hit by a car:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
You’re mixing things up. You’re now trying to bring blame into it compared to the initial topic being DWDCA. As I also said, I've been involved in a related accident many years ago involving a motorbike, so I'm already pretty cautious.
My questions are due only to the very "absolute" way in which some posters have in effect said that any car in that situation coming into contact with a bicycle must automatically be at fault. There have been no end of times in London when I've seen situations in which it would be in round terms impossible, or almost impossible, to avoid a collision.
So I'm interested in where the line is - not a black and white line (which is of course not possible), but merely the rough outline of the shade of grey.
The London "cycle superhighway" approach of colouring the road blue is a good one, because it makes it very clear that there is at least a cycle lane. Failing that, proper marking of cycle lanes is a very important visual cue, such as:
In the absence of such a cue (and indeed of such a lane, as in the OP's case, since lane peters-out and is not visible in the OP's scenario), the car-driver has to assess the likelihood of a bicycle being present in the space at the margin of the road.
Modern vehicles are tall. It isn't just vans / trucks that obscure cyclists:
for a visual comparison.Here's an example of a cyclist in just such a situation (filtering down the side of vehicles large enough to obscure him) being hit by a car:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
Blame is a predominantly an insurance issue. You’re nearly always going to be to blame / at fault with a bike in a crash from an insurance perspective.
Will you be prosecuted for DWDCA? More often than not, probably not. The OP’s friend has given us his version of events, there is another side from the cyclist and then there are the witnesses versions too.
BMWBen said:
skwdenyer said:
TooMany2cvs said:
skwdenyer said:
If you'll forgive the tabloid link, the story of that accident is here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
The big difference there appears to be that the cyclist hit the rear wing of the Clio, versus the front wing in the OP's ("friend's") scenario.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-flun...
On the face of it, since in the OP's friend's case the cycle lane markings would not be visible through a gap in stationary traffic, is there in fact any marked difference between the two scenarios? And is the driver of the Clio in the latter one to blame or not?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff