Hit by car in cycle path, National Route 2

[dataist]

A couple weeks ago I was hit by car while cycling on the cycle path on Hove seafront (National Route 2). This path is separated from the main road by a pavement, but there are dropped kerbs to allow car access to beach pavements (these are shared vehicle/pedestrian access ways). The car driver was heading west on the A259 and turned left into the pavement/cycle path to reach the access pavement.

He apparently did so without looking left along the cycle path, assuming he had right of way. I was also travelling west, on the cycle path, at about 20mph. I saw him start his turn and braked, but did not have time to fully stop, and he hit me side on with the front of his car. The impact destroyed both my wheels, cassette and chain, and left me with several injuries which will keep me off the bike for a few more weeks.

The police are not going to charge the driver with careless driving, as the attending officer has said that the broken white "give way" lines on the cycle path implied that I should be slowing down and/or stopping each time there is a dropped kerb to my right, even though the path was completely clear prior to the driver starting his turn (and he also had a give way line). I think this is likely a very warped view of priority on the officer's part, given the physical evidence.

I've got a solicitor, but I really want to pursue this with the police as well as this is such a blatantly obvious case of careless driving. Any advice on how to go about the complaint to actually get them to do anything about it?

I've also contacted Cycling UK and my council road safety unit, but have yet to hear anything from either.

[meic]

What should have been a done deal by the Police will probably be a long slog for you with no guarantee of success. Keep the forum posted for moral support and occasional pointers. You have a solicitor and obviously listen to them primarily.
Most times the struggle is just in getting your money for the expense you incur, with little chance of actually getting the driver prosecuted unless that is what the Police have already decided they want to do.

Some possibly depressing background reading here,
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/

[Bez]

Can you give a Google Maps link to the location? I just took a quick stroll along the seafront on Streetview but although I can spot a few junctions with dropped kerbs, I can't spot one which has a give way line for traffic approaching from the road.

[dataist]

Bez - I was wrong about the give way line. There was a zig zag parking line on the road and the standard dashed line on the cycle path. Does this imply the driver can turn into oncoming cycle traffic though?

Location is https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.82588 ... 865704,20z

[thirdcrank]

I assume that this is the junction or a similar one (ie same markings at each junction.)

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.82608 ... 312!8i6656

My own interpretation of the road markings there is a two-way cycle track and riders are required to give way to vehicles crossing the track. (Double broken lines.)

Bizarrely, all vehicles except pedal cycles are allowed to access the adjacent premises.

[Bez]

Ah, thanks. Thought that was the most plausible one that I saw, but wasn't sure.

Hm. Fundamentally, it's a classic [asterisks-a-go-go] useless design of junction where not only is this sort of collision is practically inevitable, but the complete lack of clarity about responsibility after the event is equally inevitable. Anyone riding in accordance with the markings might as well walk, anyone who doesn't risks getting hit, and anyone taking the carriageway risks abuse for doing so. It would be so simple for the council to fix this just by moving the give-way lines 90 degrees, but hey, we all know that.

My over-riding thought is that you should probably focus more on a civil case than a criminal one. The latter is probably a bit tricky without video evidence. I'm inclined to think the police don't realistically have much choice here.

As a side note, it's faintly ridiculous that the side road prohibits bicycles but allows motor vehicles.

Edit: yeah, what thirdcrank said ^^^ while I was typing

[Vorpal]

It's good that you are taking legal advice. Personally, I would not have thought that the fault lies entirely with you, however you have a couple of things against you. One is that you had give way markings. The other is that 20 mph could easily be considered excessive for a cycle path.

It's really poor design, but that's not the fault of the driver.

You are correct that the driver should have looked, and likely could have avoided the crash. But the poor design puts the onus on you to give way to cars turning in. IMO, the best you can hope for is partial compensation, and even that is somewhat unlikely. There is almost no chance of a prosecution. The driver would be unlikely to face prosecution even if there were give way markings for vehicles turning in.

[eileithyia]

20mph:- I would not be on a cycle route of that type of design. Infact at 12-17mph I would not be on a cycle way of that design and would only likely to be using when taking out the junior cycle club... cos that is what they do.... any other time I would be on the road.
Any cycle route that has give way markings for the cyclist giving priority to the vehicle turning off the carriageway is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot to me.... as I would be starting and stopping far too frequently when trying to complete my journey.

Give way markings, imho speak for themselves..... regardless of what we think of the design of these cycle routes, there is a give way marking implying you are supposed to give way to any vehicle crossing the cycle route... that alone implies the fault is yours.... though as a motorist i would also be on the look out for what was on the cycle route as I approach that turn off to ensure they were aware i was turning and whether or not they were going to respect the give way.... and I apply that to all situations where I am turning off a main road into a side road, regardless of whether there might be cyclists or pedestrians likely to cross my route....

On the continent the cyclist would have priority, and as already said I would not ride on that sort of cycle route in this country.

You might be lucky with a private prosecution, but not sure i would hold out much hope.

until we get the design and mindset of motorists changed we are probably saddled with these and should be suitably cautious.

[dataist]

Thanks for the replies...

Bez - I've been trying to get Brighton and Hove road safety to respond about the junction design. It is a weird situation because that beach access path is actually primarily meant for pedestrians (hence the no cycling marking), but cars are allowed to use it for access to the restaurant off the path and utility access to the promenade.

Vorpal - The driver turned in at speed into a busy pedestrian/cycle area, so I still think it's a pretty blatant case of careless driving as it could almost as easily have been someone on foot as me. I understand that the police will be unwilling to pursue it because of the junction design, but the physical evidence and witness statements are very clear as to who is at fault. I also didn't mention the driver left the scene immediately, and not in the direction he was originally headed. He did leave his details with a witness, but I had the impression he did not want to be there when the police showed up.

Are there guidelines for speeds on cycle paths? I've always assumed 20 on that long flat track by the beach is safe, as I've never had an issue with pedestrians or vehicles before as the visibility is completely clear on that section. The only one I've ever heard of is the 18mph guideline/rule for parks.

[old_windbag]

This is like deja vu from the other thread in "does anybody know" bike crash on cycle path. The difference here is that you have clear give way lines, hence you should have been able to stop from the speed you were going. Particularly for cars coming from the beach as they seem a little more invisible than from the cycle path, looks like a wall there. This may be even more good reason for the give way. But i feel in this case the driver does have some responsibility in that entering a junction he should give way to any person/bike/wheelchair that is crossing. So i feel he also is accountable in that he should have seen you travelling at speed and likely not about to stop. This is similar to in a car seeing another car approaching a side junction too fast, we prepare to let them out and lower our speed. Or we get the crash you had, it appears if he hit most of you side onthen you were well into the crossing. So i think there is blame on both sides, you ignored give way at speed, he did not use highway code rule when entering junction to give way to others crossing. He should have made a judgement on your speed and deferred to you to avoid crash..... But you may have been in his a-pillar blind spot too until last minute. That does happen when speeds and angles conspire against us.

[dataist]

Not sure what to make of the responses about fault. There wasn't any question from the police or witnesses at the time about who was primarily to blame - the driver didn't look at all and turned straight in without signalling, and I had no opportunity to give way. The distance between the parallel road (A259) the driver was travelling on and the cycle path is only about 2 meters, giving me very little time to react once he started his turn. He overtook me from behind and to the right, and so I should have been visible to him from the road well before his turn. He was extremely apologetic, but then left the scene in a rush. The only question was about my speed, the officer implying he couldn't charge the driver as the cycle path give way lines implied I should be slowing down at each pavement crossing, no matter if there is a vehicle/pedestrian there at all. I think that logic is pretty skewed, but the poor junction design makes it ambiguous.

old_windbag - visibility on those side paths coming off the beach is very good from the cycle path, everything from cars to small children. The only issue I've ever had was with a small unleashed dog coming out from behind one of the little walls causing me to swerve.

My point in posting this up was to get some advice in dealing with the police. The officer seemed pretty sheepish about not charging the driver, and I wanted to get some advice on possibly encouraging them to do the right thing, including potentially filing a complaint, going to councillors, MPs, pressure groups, etc. It is clear the opinion here is that they won't charge due to the junction design, even though the evidence is extremely clear about what happened. I get that, but I still want to do something about it.

[meic]

I think of solicitors as people who are paid to tell you what you dont want to hear.

You may not like those give way lines being painted there and neither do the rest of us, they may make a mockery of the cycle track forcing cyclists to slow down and prepare for any possible vehicle but they are there.
If the driver had bothered to indicate you may not have a leg to stand on but you have a solicitor let them tell you what is what, rather than us on the forum. Looking at your last post, I dont share your confidence in the assumption that you had priority or the right to proceed as if you had priority.

[thirdcrank]

... My point in posting this up was to get some advice in dealing with the police. ...

Going from your description of the events, I think you can take it that the police investigation is closed, unless a check of the driver's documents reveals something like driving without a licence etc. The general point is that the police no longer routinely carry out a detailed investigation into crashes unless somebody is killed or seriously injured ("seriously injured" increasingly being interpreted as "likely to die.") That's the national situation and it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

The only way to take this further IMO is some form of complaint. Anything informal such as a chat with the officer's supervision is likely to receive more explanations why this isn't going further. A formal complaint should result in everything being looked at in more detail. One inescapable point from your own account is that you seem to have committed the offence of failing to conform with a traffic sign under s 36 of the RTA 1988. (Those GIVE WAY lines across the cycle track are "diagram 1003" in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.)

[gaz]

Are there guidelines for speeds on cycle paths? I've always assumed 20 on that long flat track by the beach is safe, as I've never had an issue with pedestrians or vehicles before as the visibility is completely clear on that section. The only one I've ever heard of is the 18mph guideline/rule for parks.

The source for the 18mph maximum recommendation is here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... icefor1688

Like many other posters commenting on this thread I'd doubt that you can persuade the police to pursue the matter further and I'd expect any complaint you make about them not doing so will be given short shrift. FWIW if you are determined to pursue a prosecution this thread might have some useful pointers.

[eileithyia]

Self preservation dictates that i assume the unexpected. We have a similar style cycle lane along a footpath alongside the A6 / London rd route into Preston. It is uphill, so not much chance of doing 20mph up it... even so slowing, stopping and re-starting on a hill is not my preferred way of tackling the journey into Preston....
I have on an odd occasion had to use..... (stationary traffic on the A6) I NEVER assume traffic on the A6 is not turning, and would double check over my shoulder... regardless of indication or not..... oh yes of course indication... that optional extra many drivers don't bother to have fitted..