Mick F wrote:............We are all open to making mistakes, and as far as I'm concerned, vulnerable road users need to be looking out for themselves. The cyclist was riding too fast and not paying enough attention. Had be been riding cautiously and keeping an eye out for idiots, he wouldn't have collided and we wouldn't be discussing it........
Exactly! Idiots abound,and in this particular case there were two of them.The vulnerable one,as always,came off worst.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
I'm saying that someone makes a mistake and someone comes off worst. Who's fault was it that the cyclist came off worst? The car went across his path. The car driver's fault. No question of it.
BUT, We are all open to making mistakes, and as far as I'm concerned, vulnerable road users need to be looking out for themselves. The cyclist was riding too fast and not paying enough attention. Had be been riding cautiously and keeping an eye out for idiots, he wouldn't have collided and we wouldn't be discussing it.
We see it with pedestrians too. Many is the time that they have stepped out in front of me. They often don't look or use due care.
I would say there is clear water between the above and representing it as fault.
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.
We could sit in the playground and chant rhymes like Finders keepers, losers weepers and we'd be none the wiser.
Ultimately, the only meaningful analysis would be through the legal system. In neither criminal nor civil cases does the court start by saying "Let's see what we've got here." Somebody has to start and conduct a case.
The criminal side has pretty much given up on prosecutions so the point that both might be guilty of "due care" depending on all the evidence seems academic.
There might well be injuries here so a civil (compo) case might be more likely. For this to be successful, the claimant has to be able to show that the other party owed them a duty of care but was negligent. As well as the obvious requirement to keep a good lookout, both parties have to comply with the lawand the rules - basically the HC. Assuming the cyclist was injured sufficiently for it to be worth going to court, then they would sue the driver for damages for personal injury caused by negligence: perhaps turning across the path of the cyclist either without looking properly or, having seen the cyclist deciding not to let them pass before turning. The driver might defend the claim by denying it altogether, or perhaps more likely, claiming that the rider should have done more to avoid the crash ie contributory negligence, which would reduce the payout. The driver might also counter-claim, eg alleging damage to their car. A rather more sinister aspect was touched on in Martin Porter's blog where a lorry driver who collided with a child was threatening (?) a counter-claim for the post traumatic stress of injuring a child.
I don't claim any particular expertise in civil law, but look at both "contributory negligence" threads I've already linked to.
