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

[JuniorD]

RacerMDR said:

hmmm - 'moron' a bit strong......

Just a very experienced common sense driven very experienced driver, cyclist and motorcyclist..........in one of the most busy cities in the world.

[cay]

2wheelsjimmy said:

Yes, you implied it was my fault. It wasn't. I slowed down as I saw the car indicating and waiting to tun, but just as I passed through the junction it hooked across into me and I was on the bonnet.

Again, I wasn't 'barreling' along, I was doing around 10mph.


I do agree, a car shouldn't have to wait for ever, but it's an issue with the infrastructure provided, not the cyclist or driver. Without traffic lights, or roundabout, it's the cyclists priority, and the drivers issue to wait.

OK, I apologise, in that case definitely the driver's fault as they should have had ample time to see you. As you mention, without the infrastructure in place it's a difficult situation for both cyclist and driver. With lots of high sided vehicles like vans and suv's it can be near impossible for either side to see.

[2wheelsjimmy]

cay said:

OK, I apologise, in that case definitely the driver's fault as they should have had ample time to see you. As you mention, without the infrastructure in place it's a difficult situation for both cyclist and driver. With lots of high sided vehicles like vans and suv's it can be near impossible for either side to see.

Thanks. Yes, it can be impossible, and putting narrow painted cycle lanes up the inside is very unhelpful.

The post above is very well balanced, and makes a good point. Doesn't matter who's right, the cyclist is the one that's dead. But this good point also extends to the driver, having a care of responsibility to the vulnerable road user.

[Vipers]

corozin said:

I'd say that's a 50/50. Undertaking is a no-no, and you need to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be safe. In the cyclist's case, there is a failure of care by undertaking.

Any cyclist will poodle down the inside in standing traffic, undertaking my arse. Agree you should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be safe, but that goes out of the window when a car turns across your path.

Motorists would be at fault if his manouevour resulted in the cyclist colliding with them.

[Car-Matt]

Motorist 100% at fault in the eyes of the law IF there is a collision. However that's no good being morally right and dead.

Cyclist, if a good one, should be looking ahead and planning for the said motorist.



It appears in the OP that the cyclist was exercising caution as there was no collision and the OP must have been exercising a little caution as again, no collision.

So, two road users, going about their business have both had a timely reminder to keep their eyes open and no harm done.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Toltec]

2wheelsjimmy said:

No. The car should not be giving way. Before stopping the car should look in their mirrors (as per highway code), upon noticing said cyclist they would know it's not clear and not give way.

The other car should not be turning across a junction they cannot see.

There is no way it's 50/50 or in any part the cyclists fault.

Your first point could potentially be the first error that lead to the collision if traffic is flowing, however if traffic in front had come to a stop then leaving the junction clear would be the correct action.

The car should not be turning across a lane they cannot see to be clear, however similarly the cyclist should be travelling at a speed that allows them to stop in a distance that they can see to be clear. That does not mean space that is just clear as they approach, but space they can see cannot or is unlikely to be occupied at the same time they need to occupy it.

I'd say 75% driver 25% cyclist, both made the same mistake about the space they were about to occupy, however the driver initiated the action and did not have priority.

[Angrybiker]

Well after 4 pages I think we've cleared that up nicely - we have established that the blame is squarely 100% on the cyclist, 100% on the driver and also various combinations of the two!

[mgv8]

Yep it's the cars fault in the eyes of the law.

[nickydee]

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

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. This clearly distinct from if the car T boned the cyclist i.e the front of the car collided with the side of the cyclist than the driver would be at fault.

To conclude, both the driver and the cyclist need to have an awareness of that this situation can be hazardous and take reasonable care.

Edited by nickydee on Thursday 21st September 17:50

[DonkeyApple]

RacerMDR said:

it's so bad in London now.......particularly as they have halved some of the roads to put a two way cycle lane (but not all of the roads)

I'm pretty paranoid of the situation the OP faced. In a sane world the cyclist would see the cars in front of him stopping or stationary, see the left turn in front of him and make a risk assessment that there is a very good chance a vehicle might be turning right into that side road and may struggle to see the cyclist. And in reality, almost all cyclists do exactly that. It's really quite bad when a van or similar let's you through as you just cannot see what's on the other side and I tend to wave them on as I don't fancy poking my bonnet out until it collects a cyclist. But then you often get the van driver losing his st at his generosity being rejected.

However, picking up on your comment above, there a cycle lanes in London which are two way. Whoever thought that up is a screaming moron or despises cyclists. No driver naturally looks for traffic coming the other way when turning right.

There is an example near UCL as you turn onto Gordon St from the square. I'd been taking that right turn for years, always cautious of cyclists in the cycle lane that run on the other side of the road when one evening I saw a cyclist head down that lane the wrong way. I couldn't believe how bloody stupid he was given that no car turning in front of him would ever look for a bike coming in that direction but when I looked closely at the cycle lane it was clearly marked as two way!!!!

It's the most moronic cycle path design in London I've seen after the Blackfriars Bridge one that deposited cyclists directly under fast moving buses and the Aldgate East one that funnels fast moving cyclists through a pedestrian island and exits them directly into the side of pedestrians on the ped crossing.

[jamei303]

Driver's fault.

Also, I've never been a driver in that situation and been unable to see that the road is clear of oncoming cyclists, provided I move the car forward carefully and move my head to look.

[untakenname]

I used to commute by bike to and from London and there was one junction where I had near misses on a weekly basis, was a cycle lane but cars never used to look out when traffic was heavy, when traffic was light as it's at the bottom of Crystal palace hill it was easy to do 40mph+ and take the middle lane but even then some cars would try and pull out!

Ironically enough I was driving down the same road a couple of years later and came across the aftermath of a moped who had undertook in the cycle lane and gone straight into the side of a car, dunno how that would play out in the eyes of the police/insurers.

Had a look on my channel and have found a clip from a near miss I had when paying attention to the bus and then at the last second noticed that another car hadn't seen me, imo they should engineer the road better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafx4He-S9g

[IanH755]

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)?

[Pica-Pica]

Car driver 100% at fault. The same as if a pedestrian stepped across the minor road.

[Pica-Pica]

hondansx said:

It regularly happens to me with motorcylists - I will be flashed or waved across by a car driver only for me to notice a motorcycle at the last second. it's exacerbated as their closing speed is far higher than a bicycle - they either weren't paying attention or going at an inappropriate speed. I realise the blame would probably still be at my door though.

Hence the reason I never flash. Even if I have checked and there is no cyclist or motorcyclist, I will not flash but leave a gap. If there IS a cyclist, I will CLOSE the gap to discourage the driver from crossing, but if the traffic is virtually-stop start, then I will leave a gap at a side road.

[Toltec]

Pica-Pica said:

Car driver 100% at fault. The same as if a pedestrian stepped across the minor road.

That is a bit rough, if the pedestrian started crossing before the car begins the turn it is the car that is supposed to give way, the ped may be pushing it if they could see the car indicating and still cross, but not really their fault.

[Mr2Mike]

Integroo said:

Suicidal cyclists - you mean cyclists travelling at a normal speed that expect drivers to not pull out in front of them?

No, he means cyclists that are utterly unaware of their surroundings, unable to spot potential hazards and to which "defensive riding" probably means wearing a condom.

If cyclists (or motorcyclists) are travelling down the inside of a queue of stopped traffic at their normal speed (and their normal speed isn't e.g. 5mph) then they are too stupid to be on the road.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Thursday 21st September 18:03

[nickydee]

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.

[Pica-Pica]

Toltec said:

Pica-Pica said:

Car driver 100% at fault. The same as if a pedestrian stepped across the minor road.

That is a bit rough, if the pedestrian started crossing before the car begins the turn it is the car that is supposed to give way, the ped may be pushing it if they could see the car indicating and still cross, but not really their fault.

You mis-read my post. I said the car driver would be 100% at fault if they hit a pedestrian who was crossing the minor road.

[caelite]

mike13 said:

i"d be thinking 50/50.

If it was a motorbike I'd agree,that 50/50 could be a potential ruling, however for a cyclists... I'd imagine any ruling would be wholely against the driver.