Cycling UK Forum

PH wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:Perhaps PH could explain a safer way to take the turn other than crawl out very slowly until you realise you still cannot see much further.

Simple one is not to turn, at a T junction I assume you would have the option to turn left. Do you think you'd have passed a driving test if you'd pulled out when you couldn't see the road to be clear?
How much of the Highway Code do you want, let's start here;
Rule 170
look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.
You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a ‘Stop’ sign and a solid white line across the road. Wait for a safe gap in the traffic before you move off.

If you can't see a gap, then you can't know a safe gap exists, can you?

Yes and you would fail it if you failed to make progress in the way described to deal with such situations.
You are quoting a general rule and expecting it to be obeyed in absolutely all circumstances, which isnt its intention.

Indeed; this crops up in DVLA theory test questions. And the correct answer is to do exactly what TM describes.

karlt wrote:Indeed; this crops up in DVLA theory test questions. And the correct answer is to do exactly what TM describes.

Show me

If I'd turned left I'd have been turning into the path of the cyclist and hit him sooner. I seem to remember the road was a narrow one between the cars such that cars had to pass each slowly. I've seen a jam build up on a similar street near there when a dustbin lorry was trying to drive along.

I'm afraid real life isn't as clean cut as regulations. That junction is one.good example. Whichever way I turned that potential collision would always happen. Well potential or actual.

To give you an idea of the road, I have always driven that section within 20mph at most. I'd not be surprised if that road isn't a 20mph zone now. I've moved away so don't know for sure. If it had been a 20mph zone I reckon the cyclist would have been speeding.

So PH, plan A (slow and very cautious right turn) resulted in a.near collision. Plan B (left turn) would be worse. What other option was there for me?

Whilst I believe.something needs to change for cyclist's safety I do not feel this change in the idea of justice in liability cases is completely fair. It may be needed to change.mindsets. The idea on motorists' minds that a collision with a cyclist will be presumed their fault unless proven otherwise might change driver practises. However I feel it's a cheap solution and potentially unfair or against the principles of British justice (whatever that is). Of course enforcement of existing laws could have a bigger effect but that's beyond the financial means of all police forces.

PH wrote:

karlt wrote:Indeed; this crops up in DVLA theory test questions. And the correct answer is to do exactly what TM describes.

Show me

Q11 here: http://www.safedrivingforlife.info/take ... e-test-one

Assuming the questions come up the same each time.

Screenshots:

karlt wrote:

PH wrote:

karlt wrote:Indeed; this crops up in DVLA theory test questions. And the correct answer is to do exactly what TM describes.

Show me

Q11 here: http://www.safedrivingforlife.info/take ... e-test-one

Assuming the questions come up the same each time.

Screenshots:

CorrectAnswer.jpgQuestion.jpg

First, that's turning Left.
Second, the answer says until you can see more clearly.

Now, have you an example of turning right, where the answer is to still pull out even though you can't see a gap?

PH wrote:

karlt wrote:

PH wrote:Show me

Q11 here: http://www.safedrivingforlife.info/take ... e-test-one

Assuming the questions come up the same each time.

Screenshots:

CorrectAnswer.jpgQuestion.jpg

First, that's turning Left.
Second, the answer says until you can see more clearly.

Now, have you an example of turning right, where the answer is to still pull out even though you can't see a gap?

Firstly, I see no reason why the answer wouldn't be the same if you're turning right.

Secondly, I interpreted TM's description - possibly charitably - as doing exactly what's described here. Edging out slowly until you can see better. Perhaps it'd be as well to let him comment on that? I interpret him as saying he edged out to improve his view, but it was still restricted to a few yards because of the road geometry, so he pulled out quickly at that point so as to be clear of the junction before any vehicle moving at anything like a sensible speed could get from the limit of his sightline to the junction. The point to me here is that if TM couldn't see the cyclist, then the cyclist couldn't see TM, because he was around the bend and therefore should not have been travelling at a speed where he couldn't stop in the space he could see to be clear.

There's a junction a bit like that around my way; a left hand bend just before a side road appears from the left, high hedges. When I'm at that side road, I get to the line, look, edge out to see a bit further, then if it's still clear pull out quickly just in case some nutter is about to hammer around the bend far too fast. This would be the same if you were turning left or right out of the side road; you're at the mercy of people coming along the main road unseen whatever. As I understand what you're saying, no-one should ever pull out of that side road ever.

Tangled Metal wrote:So PH, plan A (slow and very cautious right turn) resulted in a.near collision. Plan B (left turn) would be worse. What other option was there for me?

I'm going to leave it here, just a couple of things before I do.
That's an interesting point above, I don't have an answer to it, possibly the rider being on the other side of the road would change the liability.
The often cited case law for a similar situation dates back to the 60's (I'll find a link) driver turns right through slow moving traffic after a lorry has left a gap and waved them through, collides with a motorcycle that was overtaking. Neither saw each other till it was too late. The courts decided the blame was 80% motorcyclist 20% driver on the basis that the motorcyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
This is where some people struggle to understand the difference between criminal and civil law. In a criminal case, the motorcyclists 80% blame would have seen the motorist acquitted. In a civil case (Which this was) the motorist is still liable, but the award is reduced by 80%. As in your case it would not absolve you of the liability.
None of the above would change with presumed liability, had it been a cyclist. The difference would be the starting point. In the all too common sorry mate I didn't see you, the presumption would be that they should have seen you, rather than needing to demonstrate that. IMO it's entirely right that a road user should have a higher duty of care to a more vulnerable one.

EDIT - Powell Vs Moody link
http://www.motorcyclelawscotland.co.uk/ ... l-v-moody/

It's all about what was possible and foreseeable in the particular circumstances at the time. You cannot be expected to know someone's presence if they are out of sight; this is one reason for the rule about being able to stop in the space you can see to be clear, to avoid coming round a bend so fast you're presented with a situation where a collision is unavoidable. When I worked in motor insurance (and the third party being a cyclist is irrelevant here) our starting point as TM's insurer in a claim as described as TM would be to deny liability on the basis that our party had taken on board the difficult circumstances and was therefore proceeding carefully and slowly, and the cause of the collision was the third party's excessive speed as they rounded the bend. It would not necessarily be easy to defend, without witnesses, or a nice set of skid marks; the severity of the damage would also give evidence of the speed of collision; we'd probably bring in an engineer to estimate the speed of the collision, which would put a lower limit on the speed of the third party as they rounded the bend. If the damage were quite severe, and/or long skidmarks were in evidence, that would usually have been sufficient evidence for us to press our suit, possibly even to court if the TP/TP's insurers wouldn't budge.

Back to the original point, as you say, none of this would change under PL, except that if it went to court the judge's starting point would be that the motorist was liable. Presenting our evidence of excessive speed on the part of the cyclist (based on damage to the cycle and/or TM's car) would be sufficient to rebut that presumption.

andrewk wrote:

MikeF wrote:]How many injuries/damages have been caused by those cyclists you dislike?? Note - I'm not agreeing with their cycling as you describe it..

You are missing the point....its NOT about injuries caused by bad cyclists.
Its about risky/law breaking/stupid cyclists p***ing off motorists and reinforcing their negative opinion of cyclists. Such negative opinions can develop into to negative attitudes and actions....close passes, cars driving straight at you in an attempt to psyche you out and make you give way etc. Yes, a minority of motorists perhaps, but I've been on the receiving end of these manoevres often enough and its not pleasant!
Cyclists are NOT all good and motorists are NOT all bad (in fact most cyclists are also motorists) but the bad apples from both camps ought to be stopped and prosecuted. Passing yet more legislation in absence of effective enforcement would be stupid and pointless. Enforcement requires more traffic cops (especially for cyclists as cameras can't photograph non existant number plates).

Unfortunately the whole premise of that argument is that cyclists should behave like motorists and that is the motorists' way of thinking. Pedestrians do not behave like motorists at all, but that is generally accepted. Prosecution is not the right way to deal with it. As WM Police point out it's an irritation not a danger. But I agree it needs a big culture change in this country as regards cycling, and that is the major problem.

Tangled Metal wrote: If it had been a 20mph zone I reckon the cyclist would have been speeding.

Speed limits do not normally apply to pedal cycles. Exceptions are in Poyal Parks, and roads in home zones where pedal cycle speed limits are defined under the law about homes zones. The latter is not used extensively to create pedal cycle speed limits.

A previous thread.... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81570&p=724884

Vorpal wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote: If it had been a 20mph zone I reckon the cyclist would have been speeding.

Speed limits do not normally apply to pedal cycles. Exceptions are in Poyal Parks, and roads in home zones where pedal cycle speed limits are defined under the law about homes zones. The latter is not used extensively to create pedal cycle speed limits.

A previous thread.... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81570&p=724884

Granted, but it can be evidence of dangerous cycling. Not conclusive and prosecutable in and of itself, but if there's a 20mph speed limit because of limited sightlines, then exceeding it could be dangerous cycling, in a similar way to how a motorist can be guilty of careless driving because of speed even if he's within the limit; e.g. flying around tight bends on a NSL country single-track lane.

Of course it can. But then it would be furious cycling or some such, not speeding.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the cyclist in question wasn't unsafe (sorry about the double negative), just that he probably wasn't speeding.

@PH re-read my posts, I wasn't intending to have a go at you. I think my posts singling you out might have come across like that.

I guess my issues with presumed liability is the potential for the motorist to get screwed over by insurance.companies. Personally my dealings with insurance companies hasn't been the best. Along with family and friends it's our perception there's always a con going on with insurers.

Take the case of a friend who had an accident that was certainly not 50% his fault. His insurers tried to reduce their costs by agreeing behind b the scenes to what was called knock for knock. The fault was provable as being wholly the local council not my friend. It would just have needed the insurer to hold their nerve. My friend rejected the deal and asked to use legal cover. The insurer had to not least because my friend produced a really good set of evidence. It didn't go to court but the council's insurance settled up straight away and fully accepted 100% liability.

I give this because unless there's very good evidence supporting your case there's enough doubt already to settle in the favour of the insurers involved. Add in presumption of liability against you it adds an even steeper uphill struggle,

Perhaps that's being unfair but I think you'll agree there's a high level of distrust of insurance industry already. This change could lead to more unfairness.

Of course if drivers had a change of attitude, enforcement or safer roads/segregated cycleways came into effect then perhaps presumed liability would not be needed. Which would you prefer out of the possible improvements?

People misunderstand "knock for knock".

It has nothing to do with liability. It's an agreement between insurers not to actually pursue recovery of their outlay regardless of liability. The idea is that over time it balances out, and avoids admin. It cannot be applied or not applied on a case by case basis.

But it doesn't mean the insurer is agreeing 50% liability. If costs would have been recovered in the absence of a knock for knock agreement, then the policyholder is treated as if costs had been recovered - i.e. the premium is not increased as for a fault claim, and NCD is retained. If NCD is lost, then it indicates that the insurance company does not believe that, had there been no KfK in place, they would have successfully recovered their costs.