Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17205
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby Vorpal » 3 Jul 2017, 9:19am

jgurney wrote:A cycle path forming part of a road should not be constructed in such a way that "a speed matching conditions, hazards and stopping distances" on it is any lower than the speed a cyclist could maintain had they remained on the adjacent carriageway. The OP does appear to have ridden without due care, but they should not have been put in the position of encoutering that hazard.

Be that as it may, it is not the fault of the driver. The driver behaved reasonably in the circumstances.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

PH
Posts: 7495
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby PH » 3 Jul 2017, 9:31am

rparussel wrote:a car driver who exits out of a remote car park with obscured visibility onto a cycle path without checking for cyclists.

I see nothing on the road to indicate there's a cycle path on it. it looks to me like the path ends at the kerb and restarts on the other side. Except in rare circumstances this is how it is in the UK and where it isn't it's clearly marked. There is no indication of any sort that I can see that would lead a driver to think they were driving across a cycle path, there are a few clues to any user of the shared path that they're crossing a road, though it could be argued there should be more - signage, give way markings - absence of these could lead to a complaint/claim against the relevant authority.
If there were no clear priority and the space in which the collision took place was both road and path, both users should have been slowing down in anticipation of needing to stop, despite being familiar with the junction you don't appear to have done that.
And I'll ask this again - if a car traveling in the same direction as you had been turning into the road, do you think you would have had priority over them? It doesn't seem you checked behind to look.
I had a motor accident on a crossroads where a car hit the rear of the van I was driving, no road markings, no clear priority, the insurance was settled in my favour on the basis that I'd arrived in that space first and the car had run into me rather than me into the car.

EDIT - You may like to sign the BC petition for Highway Code changes to simplify junctions, it would have given you clear priority there
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campa ... e-change-0

Though some on this forum object to the idea
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111036

old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby old_windbag » 3 Jul 2017, 9:50am

I may be wrong in my thinking but all the indications on the path point to the standard idea that the cycle path "ends" at the point it meets the minor road. It then starts again over the other side. In between is the minor road which has priority over crossing pedestrians, cyclists. There is no imaginary carriageway running perpendicular to the minor road that is the cycle path..... the cyclist is crossing a road. It doesn't matter that it only feeds a car park a couple of hundred yards along it, its a road for use by many vehicles beyond cars, including human powered transport. At the junction for the car vehicles entering would give way to crossing peds etc, the highway code.

We all agree there could be improvements made but even in it's current state it's a workable alternative for those who don't wish to cycle a busy road. But it has to be realised it is a "path" and as such the same rules apply when crossing minor roads as would as a pedestrian. In most cases if cyclists did approach slowly and a car driver sees them( the car wasn't driving fast ), I'm sure most would let them cross as we do with peds at refuges. Just good manners, but at the speed he was travelling the car driver didn't stand a chance.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9565
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby horizon » 3 Jul 2017, 11:03am

A few points:

1. AIUI the carriageway begins at its outermost boundary. You can test this by parking the "other side" of yellow lines such as on a grass verge. The cycle lane AIUI legally forms part of the carriageway.
2. The entrance to the car park isn't AIUI a road, but I'd welcome further comment on this.
3. The yellow paving slabs don't necessarily indicate a junction. They might be common at junctions but they don't legally indicate one. The junction exists in our minds not in reality.
4. The yellow lines might have no legal validity - we don't know. They certainly don't indicate priority.
5. There is no speed limit on the cycle path except that governing speed on the adjacent highway. If that itself isn't the case then there is simply no speed limit at all AFAIK.
6. If any of the above is correct, the driver was absolutely at fault for crossing the carriageway without checking for oncomimg traffic.

I say all this because there was an accident (and because I will be cycling this route next week). An intelligent, capable cyclist made a series of assumptions about this route:
1. That such an ingress of traffic was unlikely on a fast road and cycle path.
2. That should it happen, it would be well signposted and clear.
3. That the cycle path was a safe and fast alternative to the road.
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

wjhall
Posts: 57
Joined: 1 Sep 2014, 8:46am

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby wjhall » 3 Jul 2017, 11:21am

I shall mostly ignore the actual dispute and just comment on the junction.

It has the markings you would expect for a footpath crossing a road, in which case HC rule 59 and subsequent appear to apply (1). This does require drivers not to run into people using the footway, however nothing allowing people on the footway to run into the side of cars. The equivalent advice for cyclists appears to be rule 62, and for drivers rule 170, the latter referring to giving way to pedestrians, but not cyclists.

The underlying issue is the marking of the junction, which does not take account of the existence of the cycle track, which logically does require a give way line marking along its course, because cycles go faster than people on foot, this being the purpose of a bicycle. As usual the local authority has filed the marking question under the too difficult box.

I believe the pedestrian priority arises from the underlying fact that pedestrians are traffic on the major road, and so have priority over minor road traffic, the qualification 'if they have started to cross', reflecting the basic rule in the highway code that anyone already using a piece of road has priority over anyone arriving later and wanting to use it.

I think there could be an argument that irrespective of the markings drivers should be aware that they are crossing a cycle track and allow for the greater speed of cyclists, including observation left and right.

There is a similar lack of markings on the Portway cycle track in Bristol, where it is crossed by an exit from a football ground, and the sightlines are much worse.

Personally I would have cycled up to the junction with considerable caution, the ambiguity from mssing markings is an obvious source of danger, and it is always prudent to prepare for what people might do, not what they should do.



(1) http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html

(2) http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists.html

(3) http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/170

pete75
Posts: 11719
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby pete75 » 3 Jul 2017, 11:30am

Highway code rules on turning left

Turning left

182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

183
When turning

keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby meic » 3 Jul 2017, 11:35am

I think there could be an argument that irrespective of the markings drivers should be aware that they are crossing a cycle track and allow for the greater speed of cyclists, including observation left and right.


This is true and the motorist didnt go rushing in to the "danger zone" hitting a cyclist on the track.
It was the cyclist who was crossing a road who should have been aware they were crossing a road and allow for the fact there may be a car driving along it which they may ride into.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9565
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby horizon » 3 Jul 2017, 11:37am

pete75 wrote:give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.


Thank you pete75. And if look at the video at around 48 secs in, you will see that the driver had every opportunity to do just that. He/she was after all driving slowly as everyone reminds us. What we don't know is whether the driver chose not to look or chose not to stop.
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9565
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby horizon » 3 Jul 2017, 11:38am

meic wrote:This is true and the motorist didnt go rushing in to the "danger zone" hitting a cyclist on the track.
It was the cyclist who was crossing a road who should have been aware they were crossing a road and allow for the fact there may be a car driving along it which they may ride into.


AIUI, the car was crossing a road, the cyclist was already on it.
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby meic » 3 Jul 2017, 11:39am

There is not a cycle lane across the road.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9565
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby horizon » 3 Jul 2017, 11:42am

There is.
I have two doctors, my left leg and my right leg. (G. M. Trevelyan)
PS I always wondered why the YHA HQ was called Trevelyan House. :)

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby meic » 3 Jul 2017, 11:48am

Despite the double yellow lines going across its theoretical path and the halt lines being the other side of its theoretical path? These lines invite motorists to stop blocking the theoretical carriageway while waiting to enter the real one.
I would imagine your chances of finding a civil court judge who rules in accordance with your interpretation to be very, very low.
Yma o Hyd

pete75
Posts: 11719
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby pete75 » 3 Jul 2017, 11:50am

horizon wrote:There is.


The salient fact is the highway code says when turning left give way to any vehicles using a cycle lane. When the driver, assuming she looked left, would have first seen OP he was most definitely on a cycle lane therefore she should have given way to him.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16896
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 3 Jul 2017, 11:55am

horizon wrote:
pete75 wrote:give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.


Thank you pete75. And if look at the video at around 48 secs in, you will see that the driver had every opportunity to do just that. He/she was after all driving slowly as everyone reminds us. What we don't know is whether the driver chose not to look or chose not to stop.


IANAL:

It's not a cycle lane, it's a shared use path.

A lane is painted on the road IIRC.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Dramatic bicycle and car crash .. but who had priority?

Postby meic » 3 Jul 2017, 12:06pm

I once pushed my luck here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.81241 ... 312!8i6656
I was cycling along the shared use path and there was a car (with others behind) waiting to turn right into the carpark. I wasnt going to ride into the car if it made the turn but I did carry on my happy way asserting my priority, just because I feel occasionally we should ride as if we have a right to be here.
If there had been double yellow lines and a broken white stop line, I would certainly not have done so.
Even as it is I was on dodgy enough ground and would have expected any Judge to decide along the lines in PH's earlier comment that it was the vehicle which drove into the other which was at fault.
So if I rode into the turning car its my fault and if he turns and drives into me its his fault.
Yma o Hyd