Near miss, would I have been liable?

[courty]

Congested traffic. Turning left into a narrow side road. Indicate, check mirrors for filtering cyclists, clear, begin maneuver. Maneuver interrupted for 10-15 seconds due to vehicles arriving at the junction to join the main road and there being only enough room for one vehicle to leave/enter the side road.
Now mid-maneuver, still indicating, turned at 45 degree angle. Not thought to check mirrors again, but even if I had, angle would no longer show filtering cyclist. Over shoulder check not possible because panel van. Traffic emerges from side entrance, now clear to complete maneuver, but collide with filtering cyclist. Would I be liable? Van mid-left turn, interrupted in green, filtering cyclist black arrow.

Edited by courty on Saturday 8th February 14:48

[courty]

Turning left here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1D6AFF9DE1EDkqyz9?g_st=ac

[paddy1970]

In most cases, a turning vehicle that collides with a filtering cyclist would bear the majority of liability. However, given the obstructed view and stationary traffic conditions, a shared liability scenario is possible. A dashcam or witness statements would be crucial in determining how much responsibility each party holds.

[robbyd]

It's always safer, as a cyclist, to filter on the outside of the line, not up the inside. I wouldn't say it's 100% your fault at all.

[cliffords]

In any collision between a cyclist and a car ,the car driver is automatically at fault regardless of the circumstances.

Not seeking a barrage of emotional responses ,this is my understanding.

[timbo999]

cliffords said:

In any collision between a cyclist and a car ,the car driver is automatically at fault regardless of the circumstances.

Not seeking a barrage of emotional responses ,this is my understanding.

That cannot be true… if I ride my bike into the back of a stationary car (parked even!) the driver cannot be ‘at fault’ can he? What a ludicrous thing to say

[LeoSayer]

paddy1970 said:

In most cases, a turning vehicle that collides with a filtering cyclist would bear the majority of liability. However, given the obstructed view and stationary traffic conditions, a shared liability scenario is possible. A dashcam or witness statements would be crucial in determining how much responsibility each party holds.

Agreed, along with the witness view of how the vehicle was driven. The liability will surely be greater if the vehicle was launched from rest compared to edging out given the lack of vision.

[Smollet]

If you’re indicating left and the cyclist ignored it I wouldn’t say you’re 100% yo blame. I’d put a lot of liability with the cyclist unless they were alongside when you started the manoeuvre then you are to blame.

[Alex Z]

cliffords said:

In any collision between a cyclist and a car ,the car driver is automatically at fault regardless of the circumstances.

Not seeking a barrage of emotional responses ,this is my understanding.

You understand incorrectly.
After the recent updates to the Highway Code, the driver of the larger vehicle has most responsibility to avoid a collision, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically at fault.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle-magazine/feature-e...

In the situation the OP describes where they were unable to complete a turn in one go, it’s more akin to the cyclist riding into a van which would be their fault.

The difficulty would be proving that the van hadn’t turned across the bike without an independent witness or footage.

[courty]

My point is that when I began the maneuver I checked it was safe to do so. The maneuver was interrupted once it was partially completed, and from that point it was impossible for a mirror or over the shoulder check. I guess, as this was the case, and the maneuver could not be completed safely, I should have abandoned the maneuver?
For full disclosure, after waiting for the two vehicles to emerge, a pedestrian arrived to cross the side entrance, after eye contact she crossed. This delayed me for a further 2 or 3 seconds. At this point a dark hoodie on an electric scooter shot past my nearside front at, probably 15-20mph. The guy either has a death wish, or no idea of assessing risk. I could so easily have clipped him and sent him flying into something.
I initially said, "cyclist", as hypothetically it could have been one, and also, I think liability has nothing to do with legality? I.e., illegal use/inappropriate speed of scooter would not absolve driver of any liability.
Anyway, 39 years of driving and this was a circumstance never before anticipated. Thankfully I was lucky not to knock the scooter man to possible death.

[courty]

Alex Z said:

cliffords said:

In any collision between a cyclist and a car ,the car driver is automatically at fault regardless of the circumstances.

Not seeking a barrage of emotional responses ,this is my understanding.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle-magazine/feature-explaining-changes-highway-code

In the situation the OP describes where they were unable to complete a turn in one go, it’s more akin to the cyclist riding into a van which would be their fault.

The difficulty would be proving that the van hadn’t turned across the bike without an independent witness or footage.

There were witnesses, as there was a whole line of stationary traffic behind me that the , "cyclist" had passed. I could have found witnesses.

[Alex Z]

courty said:

Alex Z said:

cliffords said:

In any collision between a cyclist and a car ,the car driver is automatically at fault regardless of the circumstances.

Not seeking a barrage of emotional responses ,this is my understanding.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle-magazine/feature-explaining-changes-highway-code

In the situation the OP describes where they were unable to complete a turn in one go, it’s more akin to the cyclist riding into a van which would be their fault.

The difficulty would be proving that the van hadn’t turned across the bike without an independent witness or footage.

There were witnesses, as there was a whole line of stationary traffic behind me that the , "cyclist" had passed. I could have found witnesses.

And if one of those is happy to hang around and say that the cyclist is at fault, you’re in the clear.

Unfortunately they can be unreliable and/or biased so may well have just said you cut the cyclist up and blame you.

[7mike]

More important than fault, what would you do different in a similar situation in the future?

[PhilAsia]

7mike said:

More important than fault, what would you do different in a similar situation in the future?

This!

Finger-pointing does not assist in formulating a solid approach to the next similar situation. Look at yourself and figure out a safer alternative, eg, commit to turn later, when the road is seen to be clear...???

[Pica-Pica]

PhilAsia said:

7mike said:

More important than fault, what would you do different in a similar situation in the future?

This!

Finger-pointing does not assist in formulating a solid approach to the next similar situation. Look at yourself and figure out a safer alternative, eg, commit to turn later, when the road is seen to be clear...???

Agreed. A safer alternative would be to wait with your van facing straight ahead, and not to angle the van while stopped, but wait until the turn can be completed in one movement. Also, if you have a panel van, fit wide-angle mirrors.

[fourthpedal]

When entering the turn: wouldn't it be a good idea to position yourself in such a way that other vehicles (cyclists, whatever) cannot pass on the left?

I realise that doing so is difficult for larger vehicles - and even for smaller vehicles when space is limited. And I'm aware that it's not a legal requirement - I'm just trying to think of ways to reduce the risk. Where I live, it's mandatory to move to the kerb on approach to a turn, but I don't live in the UK so that's not hugely relevant for you.

Getting back to liability: if the nose of your vehicle is clearly within the new road, or even touching the line where the new road starts, then the cyclist can only undertake by swerving around you and into the other road and back, which doesn't seem like a legal manouver?

I gather that these kinds of accidents are common with lorries, and most people like to blame the lorry driver - but if you ask me (I'm a cyclist too) it's absolutely suicidal to go anywhere near a turning lorry regardless of whether they're going left or right, and I gives vans as much space as possible too.

[courty]

PhilAsia said:

7mike said:

More important than fault, what would you do different in a similar situation in the future?

This!

Finger-pointing does not assist in formulating a solid approach to the next similar situation. Look at yourself and figure out a safer alternative, eg, commit to turn later, when the road is seen to be clear...???

Sure, this is basically why I am asking the question.
The entrance has high sided buildings. Because of this, and the narrow entrance, a slight swing to the right, or a road position more central is required in order to get a clear view before making the turn. I don't think I could have been more careful in that regard, but it did mean that my van was positioned in line with the traffic, but skewed at an angle, and therefore anyone filtering up on the nearside would not see my indicator or road position due to being directly in front of the line of traffic, it wasn't towards the the nearside of the road, for the very reason of gaining the best possible view before committing to the turn. However, if a vehicle arrives at the junction from the side turning, it isn't visible until the very last second, but taking a wide angle does prevent the need to reverse back into traffic if this happens.
I guess these scooter riders do "non-normal" actions. They are also uncommon and unexpected. I suppose in future, either the turn must be aborted, or at least a very very slow creep while leaning forward and checking left as much as possible for any filtering bike/scooter. It's not really a natural thing to do once committed to a turn, but obviously, after 10-15 seconds of interruption (2 or 3 seconds even ), any cyclist or scooter-ist could come bombing up the nearside. I cycle a lot myself, and am always careful when filtering, but that doesn't mean every cyclist will be, and certainly a lot of scooterists don't seem to care about basic thoughts of self-preservation, and they are more and more common now on the roads.

[courty]

fourthpedal said:

When entering the turn: wouldn't it be a good idea to position yourself in such a way that other vehicles (cyclists, whatever) cannot pass on the left?

I realise that doing so is difficult for larger vehicles - and even for smaller vehicles when space is limited. And I'm aware that it's not a legal requirement - I'm just trying to think of ways to reduce the risk. Where I live, it's mandatory to move to the kerb on approach to a turn, but I don't live in the UK so that's not hugely relevant for you.

Getting back to liability: if the nose of your vehicle is clearly within the new road, or even touching the line where the new road starts, then the cyclist can only undertake by swerving around you and into the other road and back, which doesn't seem like a legal manouver?

I gather that these kinds of accidents are common with lorries, and most people like to blame the lorry driver - but if you ask me (I'm a cyclist too) it's absolutely suicidal to go anywhere near a turning lorry regardless of whether they're going left or right, and I gives vans as much space as possible too.

Ha, it is a narrow entrance, in order to gain the best view before committing to the turn, a wide arc is needed (see my above post), and also just to make the turn without clipping the kerb. However, yes, this may be the safer option, although a very clumsy way of driving, with possible need to reverse back into traffic if another vehicle arrives at the junction from the side road.
Wide angle mirror no help, due to speed of approaching scooter.

[courty]

PhilAsia said:

This!

Finger-pointing does not assist in formulating a solid approach to the next similar situation. Look at yourself and figure out a safer alternative, eg, commit to turn later, when the road is seen to be clear...???

I hadn't committed to the turn. However, to approach at 90 degrees in order to see if entrance is clear in order to still have use of mirror in case a wait is needed would mean the turn would then be impossible due to the narrow entrance - unless positioned on the opposite carriageway, which obviously is not an option as following traffic would certainly get confused with left indicator combined with driving on the right. I could, however, have aborted the maneuver once it was interrupted. Maybe this was the only safe option?

Edited by courty on Sunday 9th February 17:10

[courty]

Pica-Pica said:

Agreed. A safer alternative would be to wait with your van facing straight ahead, and not to angle the van while stopped, but wait until the turn can be completed in one movement. Also, if you have a panel van, fit wide-angle mirrors.

This is the turn, you can see that even the google camera on the opposite carriageway can't see very far into the side entrance to check for arriving vehicles. It's impossible to approach at 90 degrees and also make the turn from the left hand carriageway. I usually use a bit of the centre hatching in order to gain a view into the side road before committing. This leaves the van at an angle, but not further to the nearside of the road (see sketch in first post) if a vehicle does arrive.

Edited by courty on Sunday 9th February 17:24