Retitled - Collision: whose fault?

[pwa]

What if it'd been a bus in a bus lane? Or a pedestrian on the footway? Would those blaming the cyclist feel the same?
My interpretation is that the cyclist was using the cycle lane as intended and the motorist should only have crossed it when it was clear to do so.
The cyclist might have done better at predicting that possibility, but it doesn't IMO put them in the wrong. I'd like to say I would have, but I don't always ride as well as I some think they do.

I broadly agree with this, but I like to think that if it had been me on the bike I would have been taking care of the things that I would have had direct control over, and I would have seen that indicator as a warning to proceed only with extreme caution. The cyclist showed no anticipation of what was unfolding. Poor survival skills. Possibly due to inexperience. Saying that the cyclist got something wrong does not mean that you have to say the driver did nothing wrong. The driver should have stayed out of the cycle lane until it was clear, and they cocked that up. So on reflection I suppose the driver's error was the primary cause of the mishap, and the cyclist (essentially the victim) could have saved himself the fall if he had showed better anticipation. That latter point matters because it is a survival skill that we should all cultivate for our own benefit, not to let anyone else off the hook.

[Mick F]

What if it'd been a bus in a bus lane? Or a pedestrian on the footway? Would those blaming the cyclist feel the same?

The bus wouldn't/couldn't be in a lane so vulnerable.
Pedestrians - even in that lane - would have been walking or perhaps running. Either way, the ped wouldn't have been going so fast and been able to hop out of the way.

Just coz YOU know the law, and YOU obey it, it doesn't mean that everyyone else will do so.
If you are vulnerable, you need to be careful.

The cyclist wasn't "asking for it" but he wasn't taking into account the actions of other road users.
The cyclist was the instrument of his own demise no matter what the (vague) legalities of the issue.

[freiston]

A look at Google Streetview shows that the lane the car was in had an arrow painted in it more or less where the car was - one for going straight on and for turning left. Immediately past the police station, there is a traffic-light controlled junction with a left turn. It is not unreasonable to expect a car turning left at the junction to be indicating in the same position as the car in the video. In my opinion this changes nothing with regards to culpability but does make it more difficult for the cyclist to anticipate a poor manoeuvre (i.e. turning when it is not clear/safe to do so). It also makes it more understandable why the cyclist might not have reacted to the indicator.

[thirdcrank]

We did have another contributory negligence thread where a van driver failed to give way to a cyclist, who was found to have contributed 20% to the crash by not acting to avoid it. (There was an allegation that the rider had been riding "head down and not looking.)
viewtopic.php?p=1100473#p1100473
This from the Cycling Silk:

A tough lesson that even in the heat of competition a cyclist must be alert and ready to respond to the carelessness of other road users.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... -2017.html

IMO the value to the current discussion of both these "contributory negligence" threads is that they originated with links to a court judgment with a detailed explanation of the court's finding.
===========================================

freiston makes an excellent point IMO and it's the sort of thing a court would take into consideration if it was raised at the hearing.

[Mick F]

For what it's worth, I showed Mrs Mick F the video without giving her any heads-up about it or any info at all. Just asked her to watch it and give me an opinion. She can physically ride a bike, but she's no cyclist at all. Not turned a pedal for maybe three years.

She said that the cyclist was to blame. He had no thought for what could have happened to him at a junction and ploughed on through regardless.

[Si]

We have to remember that there is a difference between blame and doing all you can to prevent something happening to you.

For instance: if I swing a punch at you, it would be a good idea for you to duck. But if you didn't duck that wouldn't make it your fault I hit you in the face!

[reohn2]

I'll stick my neck out.
Cyclist's fault.

Whizzing at speed down the inside knowing that the car COULD be turning left.

There's no "COULD" about it,the car was clearly indicating left.
What the cyclist was thinking I've no idea

There's some things some cyclists need to learn.
a)hitting any other vehicle on the road or them hitting you hurts,so avoid at all costs.
b)never go down the inside of traffic unless you're absolutely sure it won't move anytime soon,more so when they're indicating left.
c)always expect the unexpected,because everyone else on the road are potential idiots and can't be trusted.

[Mick F]

Thank you R2.
We're singing from the same hymn sheet.

BTW, Mrs Mick F agrees too, and it's what she was told when she first learned to drive. Treat everyone as idiots. Better safe, than sorry.

I still stand by my opinion.
The cyclist was at fault and the instrument of his own demise.

[reohn2]

Thank you R2.
We're singing from the same hymn sheet.

BTW, Mrs Mick F agrees too, and it's what she was told when she first learned to drive. Treat everyone as idiots. Better safe, than sorry.

I still stand by my opinion.
The cyclist was at fault and the instrument of his own demise.

We've just been for a ride (in the car) up Rivington for some lunch and a bit of a walk.I don't usually go out on the roads on Bank Holidays,but made an exception today as the weather was so nice.
Never seen as many idiots in 32 miles of driving.
To quote a Steely Dan song:-
Clowns to the left of me,jokers to the right,
Hear I am stuck in the middle with you.

It was like Bedlam

[reohn2]

What if it'd been a bus in a bus lane? Or a pedestrian on the footway? Would those blaming the cyclist feel the same?
My interpretation is that the cyclist was using the cycle lane as intended and the motorist should only have crossed it when it was clear to do so.
The cyclist might have done better at predicting that possibility, but it doesn't IMO put them in the wrong. I'd like to say I would have, but I don't always ride as well as I some think they do.

It puts the cyclist in the wrong because he the one who's sore and with a damaged bike.
What's being argued is the if's but's and maybe's.
When what really happened was the cyclist didn't care enough for his own wellbeing,whatever the law says.
It's that simple,the kinetic energy is in the car's favour every time,whether the law is in the cyclists favour or not.
Put another way,compensation in six months time,is no use to someone needing time off work or in a wheelchair,or worse.
I'll bet if you could ask the cyclist involved would he do the same again he'd say no.

[Vantage]

I'm in agreement with Mick and reohn on this. Cyclist is an idiot.
As many of us know all too well, there are people out there who don't know their a*** from their elbow when it comes to highway rights and wrongs and so ploughing down the left hand side of stationary or slow moving traffic is stupid as stupid gets. Especially when a vehicle ahead of the cyclist is indicating to turn left. I mean, duh!

[reohn2]

Driver to blame, I doubt the law would be different from any other European country.
Highway Code Rule 151
In slow-moving traffic. You should....
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

Edit to add..
Rule 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.

You can have all the rules and laws in the world as protection for cyclists but unless they're adhered to they're useless.
In the UK we're at the 'no one gives a monkey's' end of the spectrum and the reason for that is that there's no one enforcing the law.
So the law is an ass and a useless ass at that.Therefore until the law is enforced it doesn't exist,and because of that the individual has to lookout for themselves.
As I posted before it's like Bedlam on the roads with most people sane and a significant minority of lunatics,the problem is we can't tell which is which until they do lunatic manoeuvres.
But once you've trusted them all to be sane,I'll garrantee,such as in the OP's link, insane things will happen to you,and due to our choice of transport -the vulnerable and comparably slow bicycle- it could be fatal.
That's the fact of the matter,my assessment of the situation is one of logic,common sense and self preservation.

[freiston]

I'm in agreement that the cyclist could have cycled more safely but the driver should make sure it is safe to make his left-turn manoeuvre. The fact that the cyclist hit him (whether he could have avoided it or not) means that it was not safe for the driver to make the left turn. As it is, the driver turned into the path of the cyclist and did not complete his manoeuvre in time to clear the cyclist. The cyclist's fault was not being able to stop in time when he was effectively cut up - there might be some contributory negligence because of that but how can you say that the collision is the cyclist's fault because whilst having priority, he didn't react quickly enough to the driver's unsafe manoeuvre?

[reohn2]

I'm in agreement that the cyclist could have cycled more safely but the driver should make sure it is safe to make his left-turn manoeuvre. The fact that the cyclist hit him (whether he could have avoided it or not) means that it was not safe for the driver to make the left turn. As it is, the driver turned into the path of the cyclist and did not complete his manoeuvre in time to clear the cyclist. The cyclist's fault was not being able to stop in time when he was effectively cut up - there might be some contributory negligence because of that but how can you say that the collision is the cyclist's fault because whilst having priority, he didn't react quickly enough to the driver's unsafe manoeuvre?

So what about the rule(can't be bothered looking it up for a number in HC):- "always give way to traffic merging from the right"?

[Cyril Haearn]

Driver to blame, I doubt the law would be different from any other European country.
Highway Code Rule 151
In slow-moving traffic. You should....
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

Edit to add..
Rule 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.

I rather like the way the HC is written, I mean it seems good English
A lot of the rules are good too