Who was at fault in this incident?

[PugwasHDJ80]

Put my 4x4 into a ditch a while ago to avoid a collision with a cyclist. No one injured and only minor dents to my vehicle (which are additions rather than new ones) cyclist totally untouched.

Had a difference of opinion in work about the incident at work today and would appreciate PH input.

So small country lane, single track high sided one side and ditch on other- no passing space.

Came round corner at a reasonable speed (not speeding but not crawling). Found a cyclist (obviously into his biking) coming the other way tucked into the handlebars and effectively with his knee down,

Now I could have stopped in time and come to a complete halt but it was my judgement that he would have hit my bulbar (which was at his head height)- I would have been totally stationary but he would still have been going a fair lick. Figured it was better fir me to dent my truck than for him to dent hs head.

So who's fault? Was I going too fast? I could stop in the distance I could see but if I'd been going slower than he would have had more room too.

This conversation has been bugging me all day......

[AMST09]

If he was that far leaned over he wouldn't of been able to stop in the distance he could see

[XG332]

What did the cyclist do?

[paranoid airbag]

Entirely his, but you'll have difficulty proving that to the insurers .

[ruff'n'smov]

If the incident was your
Car -v- Bike....bikes fault
Car -v- Bus.... Bus fault
Car -v- Truck...Truck fault
etc...etc..
Car -v- me....your fault

simple

[james_gt3rs]

If you could stop in the distance you could see to be clear, you weren't at fault. From the sounds of it he was going too fast.

In fact, as you took avoiding action simply to help him out (as you say you could have just stopped), I think it look favourably on you!

[juliethotel]

It's your fault you put your car in a ditch if you didn't have to :P

Difficult to say without having witnessed it but imo if you could have come to a stop; and he couldn't, then surely its his fault. If anyone hits you while you are stationary how can you be at blame?

Was there no room at all for him to pass?

Sounds bad but I probably would have just slammed on and let him hit me, but then again I am a bit of a selfish womble.

[real4star]

As a former cyclist (until I damaged my knee when I got knocked off by a van coming straight at me on the wrong side of the road)

Assuming he could have passed safely if he was riding upright and you where as far over to the left as you could be.

I'd say it was his [cyclists] fault... he should never have gone round a corner fast enough to put his knee down unless he could SEE the apex and exit was clear.

Neal

Edited by real4star on Tuesday 13th November 21:18

[PugwasHDJ80]

To be clear I actually claimed on the insurance as my fault. Cyclist stopped and we talked but it was entirely my choice to go into the ditch so I won't claim from him.

Chaplin work called me a cock for driving too fast and endangering the cyclist- it got a bit more heated than that and really pissed me off as I effectively wrote the car to remove ANYrisk from Another road user- wondered if maybe I was wrong and he was right

[FisiP1]

Cyclist has to ensure he can stop in the distance he can see as much as any other road user.

That said, I drive on roads like this every day and they really are not the ones you should be using to 'make up for lost time' on a journey, not matter how much a rush you are in. Keep a large margin of caution on them.

[Silver]

Probably 50/50 but as you chose to ditch rather than hit him, I am guessing it's ultimately down to you. It sounds like one of those unfortunate situations where there's no winner.

[Johnnytheboy]

Sorry to be a holier-than-thou PH-er, but:

On a single track road, if you haven't got somewhere to steer to, you should be able to stop in HALF the distance you can see.

Imagine if someone following the same "stop in the distance you can see" principle comes round the corner doing the same thing as you. You are both relying on being able to stop using the whole of the gap between you.

If you were going at a speed where you could have stopped in half the distance that was left when you saw the cyclist, you'd be blameless IMHO.

Equally the cyclist should expect to stop in half the distance they can see unless they are certain they could squeeze past anything that is likely to come round the next bend.

[LoonR1]

If it was car vs another vehicle then it'd probably go 50/50 without independent witnesses.

Car vs bike is likely to be 100% your fault, courts tend to favour them.

As it was you in the ditch and nobody else involved then 100% your fault.

[AyBee]

You had time to think that you could stop, but that the cyclist wouldn't have been able to stop in time so abandoned your truck in the hedge instead? Sounds like you had an awful lot of time to think having just turned a corner to find a cyclist coming at you, something doesn't quite make sense...

[Nigel Worc's]

LoonR1 said:

Car vs bike is likely to be 100% your fault, courts tend to favour them.

As above, even in the one I posted a video of, where a cyclist had cycled through a red light, to be running head on towards me in a tunnel, I was below the speed limit, could easily stop, but the legal bods on here said if a collision had occured, it'd still be my fault.

They appear to be above any law, and always in the right, which is why I guess a lot of us dislike them.

[Mastodon2]

PugwasHDJ80 said:

To be clear I actually claimed on the insurance as my fault. Cyclist stopped and we talked but it was entirely my choice to go into the ditch so I won't claim from him.

It's not really a choice at all though is it, put the car in the ditch or almost inevitably kill the lyrca clad Lance wannabe? As much as these people deserve all the ire they draw to themselves, you couldn't crush one of these divs if you had the chance to avoid it. That said, no way should the cyclist be leaving the scene of the accident without admitting liability - these idiots think they own the road and can do whatever they want, and if innocent people end up out of pocket just to avoid killing these Tour de France fantasists then that is just not right.

[TobyLaRohne]

swerni said:

PugwasHDJ80 said:

Now I could have stopped in time and come to a complete halt but it was my judgement that he would have hit my bulbar (which was at his head height)-

WTF do you drive, A monster truck ?

Or was it one of those cycling midgets.?

If he was leaning into the bend his head would of been lower = bullbar height.

I say totally your fault, but totally understand why you did swerve, I would expect the "propper" thing to do would of been stop in the road and let him hit you.

[GAjon]

Why couldn't you have hit the brakes and the horn to wake him up, rather than ditching it?
If you could stop why couldn't the cyclist?

[vonhosen]

Small single track road is stop in half the distance you can see to be clear, not the distance you can see to be clear.

[Benrad]

Road bikes take ages to stop, much longer than a car from the same speed in my experience. Cyclist should have been riding much more defensively. They endangered themselves, don't feel guilty about that. In fact imagine how guilty you'd feel if he'd have hit you and injured himself (even though it wasn't your fault)... makes the cyclists actions extremely selfish. If I can't see round a corner on my bike then I'm gonna be taking it easy!

Having said that I don't think you'd have been successful claiming against the cyclist for putting your car in a ditch, maybe you would and I'm no lawyer.