Whose fault is it if a cyclist "T-bones" you at a T-junction

[dazwalsh]

A tricky one. I would say a bit of common sense by the cyclist rather than ploughing through junctions. using the theory "if you can't see me I can't see you" and to slow down appropriately. A cyclist will never stop and gesture for you to go like a car will in my experience so you have to be very cautious and edge the car into their path in the hope they see you.

[Vipers]

cb1965 said:

kambites said:

A cyclist would be a complete and utter idiot to get him/herself into a situation where that can happen

A lot are, that's the problem!

Unlike driving gods. I was cycling the other week, almost zero traffic, approached a junction, car who was waiting to pull out, decided to do it as I was almost at the junction, their excuse, "Oh I didn't see you", daylight, and I have my hi viz yellow top on.

But yes, there are some loons on our roads, two wheels, three wheels, four or more, don't matter.

Edited by Vipers on Friday 22 September 09:54

Edited by Vipers on Friday 22 September 09:54

Edited by Vipers on Friday 22 September 09:59

[WinstonWolf]

cb1965 said:

kambites said:

A cyclist would be a complete and utter idiot to get him/herself into a situation where that can happen

A lot are, that's the problem!

And some of us realise that despite the HC saying it's the driver's responsibility to check the coast is clear *before* proceeding we still have to make allowances for them.

It's not the form of transport, it's the person using it.

[swanny200]

This happened to me about 15 years ago, late evening, waiting at a T junction, 2 cars ahead of me, as the first one pulls out of the junction, I edge forward, loud bang on my driver side front wing and I see a guy go straight over my bonnet (I was a lanky skinny early 20's, this was a hulking mid 30s guy). He immediately comes up and gets aggressive, car behind me sees everything and says it was cyclists fault, cyclist starts shouting that apparently I had apologised and said I hadn't seen him so I had admitted blame blah blah, when what I actually said was where the hell did you come from, you must have been going some. Police come out as it was an accident and basically told the cyclist to claim off my insurance as thats what you apparently do. No damage to my car luckily and thought no more of it until a week later, cue his insurance then getting hold of me and claiming physical injury etc... then for personal effects like a new helmet, music player, damage to a £900 bike that is his only mode of transport to and fro work etc...

I had an insurance assessor come to see me, it transpired from his workings out and pictures taken on the evening with the polaroid camera I had in my bag, that instead of riding along the dedicated cycle lane at the side of the road, he was actually riding along the pavement and shot straight across the road when he should have stopped (had he been in the cycle lane it would have been a different story).

Cue his insurance company backing down, the cyclist didn't though, he managed to get hold of my address and started sending letters for money (this was when it emerged that the police had told him to claim off me) cue a phone call to said police and he was told to stop threatening me as some of the letters were pretty harsh.

Had he been in the cycle lane, it would have been my fault straight off or so I was told, but then I was a car length from the junction and the cycle lane so he would have hit the car in front. Needless to say I never heard anything after that.

[Hungrymc]

WinstonWolf said:

And some of us realise that despite the HC saying it's the driver's responsibility to check the coast is clear *before* proceeding we still have to make allowances for them.

It's not the form of transport, it's the person using it.

And you shouldn't overtake at or near junctions.

Your final comment, 100%, who could argue with that.

And in the OP, it sounds like the driver and cyclist just about did what they needed to, a little more caution would help.

[nickfrog]

cb1965 said:

kambites said:

A cyclist would be a complete and utter idiot to get him/herself into a situation where that can happen

A lot are, that's the problem!

That's OK as there are only a very very few complete and utter idiots driving cars.

[IanH755]

nickydee said:

IanH755 said:

nickydee said:

I took that mean that the car had made the turn and Cyclist hit the side of the car. It's an important but subtle distinction.

If so then surely the cyclist is at fault as he traveling too fast bearing in mind the road conditions as he should be able to stop if an obstacle is across his path.

So in exactly the same situation, if you are driving down a road in a car and I am waiting to turn into a side street (per the diagram in the OP) and when you are 10ft from me, I pull out infront of you so you hit me in the side, then you are saying you are to blame for the accident (the person driving down the street), not me (the person cutting across your path)?

That's not exactly the same situation. The car driving down the road would be visible to car turning right. Clearly the car turning right would be at blame. Would you not agree if you rearended a stationary car on a blind bend this would be your fault. That's the same situation as a cyclist hitting a car who had already made the turn.

I really wonder about the safety of people around you when you drive if you think that it is! The highway code (quoted numerous times above), the police and the law all disagree with you. They all state that the vehicle "turning" must only do so if clear, if a bike/motorbike/car is coming down the road you can not pull across it, at all, ever, yet you seem to think the blame only lies on where the impact occurs on the car illegally turning across another, which is unbeliveable

[Brads67]

Mr2Mike said:

You appear to be a little hard of reading. The OP explicitly stated " Despite the fact that I was leaning forward in my seat looking down the lane of traffic of in order to try to avoid this exact situation"

You appear to be a little hard of thinking.
The question was "what if" he collided with a bike,. Something he avoided by " leaning forward in my seat looking down the lane of traffic of in order to try to avoid this exact situation"

If he had collided with a bike my statement is fact.

[Toltec]

gazza285 said:

How would you define the distance seen to be clear, and is that before or after an inattentive car driver has cut across your path?

It isn't so much the distance seen to be clear as being always able to stop in the distance to a space that could be contended.

By contended I mean that from your current position you cannot see that it is not possible (or at least very unlikely) for another road user to try and occupy the same space at the same time.

Sometimes this is not possible to a satisfactory level of probability which is where having an escape plan and trying to mitigate the effects of a collision come in.

[anonymous-user]

Vipers said:

Unlike driving gods. I was cycling the other week, almost zero traffic, approached a junction, car who was waiting to pull out, decided to do it as I was almost at the junction, their excuse, "Oh I didn't see you", daylight, and I have my hi viz yellow top on.

But yes, there are some loons on our roads, two wheels, three wheels, four or more, don't matter.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 September 09:54

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 September 09:54

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 22 September 09:59

Not getting into it again as many of you are in denial but spend a few days in central London. Yes there are some complete idiots in cars, vans etc., but there is a far higher percentage of cyclists who are utter morons... it's a wonder more aren't killed frankly!

[Hungrymc]

Brads67 said:

If he had collided with a bike my statement is fact.

I'm sure your statement is fact in a fair percentage of these incidents.

But do you think there is literally no behaviour from the cyclist that could make them partially responsible?

[Mr2Mike]

Brads67 said:

You appear to be a little hard of thinking.
The question was "what if" he collided with a bike,. Something he avoided by " leaning forward in my seat looking down the lane of traffic of in order to try to avoid this exact situation"

If he had collided with a bike my statement is fact.

Not me who's hard of thinking. The OP did look for cyclists but due to limited visibility had a near miss, and asked who's fault it would be if there was an actual collision. Your answer, his because he didn't look for cyclists. Duh.

[Car-Matt]

cb1965 said:

but there is a far higher percentage of cyclists who are utter morons...

No data to support that view and as a cycle hating moron your opinion on the subject is best ignored

There are 610,000 cycle journeys per day in London and 6,200,000 car journeys per day ( excluding commercial vehicles ) so for there to be more cyclists than car drivers disobeying the HC (loose definition of moron) then even if only10% of car drivers are morons, even if 100% of cyclists are is still not enough to be more.

Edited by Car-Matt on Friday 22 September 12:10

[hairyben]

My view is when you move to pass a vehicle, you need to take that vehicles intentions, so far as possible, into account. If a car is slowing and indicating to turn right you would be in the wrong to attempt to overtake on the right. Similarly if you pass on the nearside when a car is slower or stopped to allow another car to proceed across and conflict, then you've failed due care, to assess what the car in front of you is doing before passing. So you could say it wasn't a safe pass.

Legally though it tends to go 100% motorist who is of course not without blame - although at certain times you need to slow to practically nothing just in case of a wiggins wannabe which can be far from ideal for other reasons.

The cyclist in this case is similar in mentality to the motorists who approach blind side roads with too much speed confident they have "right of way" over unsighted cars emerging.

[loggo]

Probably not helpful but if the cyclist was going ahead he was not filtering he was overtaking on the inside.

[Vipers]

cb1965 said:

Vipers said:

Unlike driving gods. I was cycling the other week, almost zero traffic, approached a junction, car who was waiting to pull out, decided to do it as I was almost at the junction, their excuse, "Oh I didn't see you", daylight, and I have my hi viz yellow top on.

But yes, there are some loons on our roads, two wheels, three wheels, four or more, don't matter.

Not getting into it again as many of you are in denial but spend a few days in central London. Yes there are some complete idiots in cars, vans etc., but there is a far higher percentage of cyclists who are utter morons... it's a wonder more aren't killed frankly!

Have to agree about London, fortunately I live many miles away, but your right about London.

[nickfrog]

Vipers said:

cb1965 said:

Vipers said:

Unlike driving gods. I was cycling the other week, almost zero traffic, approached a junction, car who was waiting to pull out, decided to do it as I was almost at the junction, their excuse, "Oh I didn't see you", daylight, and I have my hi viz yellow top on.

But yes, there are some loons on our roads, two wheels, three wheels, four or more, don't matter.

Not getting into it again as many of you are in denial but spend a few days in central London. Yes there are some complete idiots in cars, vans etc., but there is a far higher percentage of cyclists who are utter morons... it's a wonder more aren't killed frankly!

Have to agree about London, fortunately I live many miles away, but your right about London.

When I am in London, my non-statistical observation tells me the proportion of morons is similar irrespective of vehicle.

[nickfrog]

loggo said:

Probably not helpful but if the cyclist was going ahead he was not filtering he was overtaking on the inside.

I tend to agree but I don't know if that's legal or not.

[nickydee]

IanH755 said:

nickydee said:

IanH755 said:

nickydee said:

I took that mean that the car had made the turn and Cyclist hit the side of the car. It's an important but subtle distinction.

If so then surely the cyclist is at fault as he traveling too fast bearing in mind the road conditions as he should be able to stop if an obstacle is across his path.

So in exactly the same situation, if you are driving down a road in a car and I am waiting to turn into a side street (per the diagram in the OP) and when you are 10ft from me, I pull out infront of you so you hit me in the side, then you are saying you are to blame for the accident (the person driving down the street), not me (the person cutting across your path)?

That's not exactly the same situation. The car driving down the road would be visible to car turning right. Clearly the car turning right would be at blame. Would you not agree if you rearended a stationary car on a blind bend this would be your fault. That's the same situation as a cyclist hitting a car who had already made the turn.

I really wonder about the safety of people around you when you drive if you think that it is! The highway code (quoted numerous times above), the police and the law all disagree with you. They all state that the vehicle "turning" must only do so if clear, if a bike/motorbike/car is coming down the road you can not pull across it, at all, ever, yet you seem to think the blame only lies on where the impact occurs on the car illegally turning across another, which is unbeliveable

I did not suggest that you pull across in front of any bike/motorbike/car. My point is simply if you take reasonable care and when you started the manoeuvre it was safe to do so, then if collision then occurs due to an oncoming vehicle traveling at an inappropriate speed or not paying attention to the road ahead then it is not 100% your fault. Where the impact occurs is a good indicator of circumstances leading to the accident. Furthermore to say that you should never pull across in front of oncoming vehicle ever, presumably waiting until there no traffic at all even in the distance is a ridiculous statement.

[julian64]

2wheelsjimmy said:

julian64 said:

At least that was the decision I had from my insurance company when I was T Boned by a car pulling out of a junction and I was filtering along the main road on a motorcycle.

Motorcycle is not bicycle, so you can't base your case history on a decision.

I think I can, the highway code doesn't make a distinction in its advice for traffic lights, road junction etc depending on the vehicle, so why should I