Who was in the wrong ?

Morlar

I saw an incident last night where a cyclist was almost wiped out by a black bmw z3.

Cyclist=Red Dot
BMW =Green dot



The cyclist stood in the yellow box outside trinity (red dot) he was on foot holding his bicycle upright as if to walk into Trinity via the road that the car (greendot) was coming out of. He was stationery inside the yellow box and hadn't moved for about 20 seconds before the accident (I saw this evolve and had a feeling it was going to happen).

The cyclist had no light on his bike, no reflective clothing and that stretch of road in the evening is surprisingly dark for a city centre road.

The bmw (greendot) was leaving trinity, the driver was looking out for road traffic did not notice the cyclist, driver saw a gap in traffic and went for it. Accelerating out from trinity. She broke hard but still managed to send the bicycle flying backwards with considerable force. The cyclist (Polish) stepped sideways screaming at the driver. After the bike was sent flying he began screaming at the driver ran over and started thumping on the window etc.

Who was in the wrong here ? I would have thought the cyclist was mostly in the wrong, but interested in other opinions on this.

Alanstrainor

Why the hell was yer man just standing in the middle of the road though? Seems bizarre to me, standing in the middle of a street, dressed in dark clothing at night with poor weather has to be one of the stupidest things you could possibly do.

Hermy

I would say off the top of my head the driver of the BMW was in the wrong for proceeding when it was not safe to do so.

Morlar

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Why the hell was yer man just standing in the middle of the road though? Seems bizarre to me, standing in the middle of a street, dressed in dark clothing at night with poor weather has to be one of the stupidest things you could possibly do.

I'd agree. I think the driver should have noticed him but to be honest you don't really expect darkly clothed men standing in the middle of yellow boxes on rainy evenings. She was totally focused on road traffic coming from her right. He must have presumed that she knew he was there.

If she had hit him he'd have gotten broken bones at the least, he could also have been knocked flying backwards into other traffic if he'd been really unlucky. Either way he had a close shave but seemed to place full blame on the motorist who was in shock at that stage & apologising profusely.

Junior

Things that are wrong with the scenario -

1) Cyclist not lit up
2) Cyclist in a Yellow Box
3) Motorist not noticing said Cyclist

Culpability lies on both parties - I would say it was 50/50.

Morlar

Hermy wrote: »

I would say off the top of my head the driver of the BMW was in the wrong for proceeding when it was not safe to do so.

Thing about that is when the driver drove forward to place herself in a position to exit trinity the box was clear, she was then focused on road traffic from her right. In the meantime the cyclist walked into the yellow box and stood there. This really is a surprisingly dark stretch of road. In fairness I would not place full blame on the motorist. Once you check a yellow box and then observe the road looking for a break in traffic you are also in this case bound to notice anything which could legally enter the box. You'd normally be safe to assume you are ok as regards anything in the yellow box - no ?

seamus

If he was walking wheeling his bike across the road as if crossing, then lights, hi-vis, etc are completely irrelevant as they are not required - he's a pedestrian, not a cyclist. That's what I'm gathering from your description.

So whether he is permitted to cross there is also irrelevant. The driver, as she was turning from one road to another, is require to give way to pedestrians crossing the road. She failed to spot the pedestrian crossing and proceeded when the way was not clear.

His reaction is of course something else entirely. You only go mental at the other person if they start acting like an asshat.

Edit: Just saw your last post

In the meantime the cyclist walked into the yellow box and stood there.

He's a pedestrian then, definitely. Why he stopped is another question, but the driver is obliged to yield to him regardless. 100% her fault.

trad

S.I. No. 182/1997 — Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997




Yielding Right of Way

8. (1) Save as otherwise indicated by a traffic sign in respect of which an article in these Regulations refers, a vehicle shall yield right of way where a provision of this article applies.


(2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.


(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.


(4) A driver of a vehicle entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians proceeding in either direction along the public road.


(5) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, notwithstanding that there is no traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the major road.


(6) A driver approaching a road junction to which sub-article (5) does not apply shall yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians approaching the junction from the right by another road.


(7) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through or turn left at the junction.


(8) A driver shall not drive from one traffic lane to another without yielding the right of way to traffic in that other lane.




See No 2 and 4 above

07Lapierre

Its Dark, a cyclist standing in the middle of the road (which has a big Yellow box on the road too). Wearing dark clothes and no lights.

Mmmm, I'll have to think about this one before I can make a judgement.:rolleyes:*


* The Cyclist was at fault

fro9etb8j5qsl2

The amount of eastern Europeans I know that venture out cycling in the pitch dark without so much as a reflector on the bike is crazy :eek: wtf is wrong with these people??? You could easily pick up a set of lights for a tenner....

DeepBlue

^^ Racist. Darren Scully is that you? :pac:

The law would probably say she's at fault but from a common sense point of view the cyclist is 90% to blame imo.

nukin_futs

In an entirely legal sense, as posted by trad, the motorist is in the wrong.
From a common sense/personal responsibility point of view it's shared.

Possibly having no lights or reflective clothing he was doing the right thing and walking, not cycling.
As it looks like both were crossing the road they were both looking in the same direction to see if traffic was flowing. In this scenario I would lean towards 60/40 for the motorist, as seeing that one direction is clear you should still check all around you before moving. A pedestrian could easily have come walking along the path across the gates of Trinity and ended up under the car as motorist didn't check both sides.

Beasty

Alison Juicy Carrot wrote: »

The amount of eastern Europeans I know that venture out cycling in the pitch dark without so much as a reflector on the bike is crazy :eek: wtf is wrong with these people??? You could easily pick up a set of lights for a tenner....

You know the cyclist in question?

Further generic statements like this aimed at particular sections of the community will land you a ban

seamus

If anyone thinks the cyclist is significantly to blame;

Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him as he was crossing the road. Who's at fault?

Beasty

seamus wrote: »

If anyone thinks the cyclist is even significantly to blame;

Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him. Who's at fault?

I would say a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road like that has to accept some element of blame - pedestrians are also required to cross when (and where) it is safe to do so (and show some common sense)

Morlar

Beasty wrote: »

You know the cyclist in question?

Further generic statements like this aimed at particular sections of the community will land you a ban

As an FYI the reason I mentioned the nationality of the cyclist is that they may have different road rules in Poland (to be honest could have been other east europe apart from Poland - I didn't ask the guy but he seemed to have a Polish accent). Also drive on different side of road, safety levels re bicycles etc. Possibly this could be a factor.

HivemindXX

Find 'cyclist' replace with 'pedestrian'. There is no particular reason to call this person a cyclist, or address this question to other cyclists. We don't go around calling everyone we see a motorist and asking the population of the motors forum what they think of them. Every adult we see is more likely to own a car than not after all.

As far as assigning blame the pedestrian was damn stupid to stand in the middle of the road with a car directly facing him. Despite being dangerous it's relatively common for pedestrians to stand between lanes when crossing a busy road and I imagine the vast majority of the time it is done without incident. This means the main foolishness was picking a bad spot to do this sort of thing, that being directly opposite an exit from Trinity.

Motorists should be expected to see people who are standing directly in front of their cars though. It is quite dark there but cars have headlights specifically to allow them to see what it directly in front of them. The motorist is certainly not blameless in this.

The thread starter didn't say initially how long the car took to make this maneuver. I've certainly seen people pull a few feet out of an exit with their necks craned to the right and then floor it after less than a second because they think they see a gap. This is dangerous driving and if that was the case the pedestrian (though stupid) would be entitled to feel aggrieved.

A follow up post indicated that the pedestrian had been standing in the junction for 20 seconds and the car had been in place before that. In this case while the motorist was pretty unobservant (you'd think they would have glanced forward at least once in 20+ seconds) the vast majority of the blame goes to the pedestrian chose to walk in to the middle of the road directly in front of a car. One that is clearly waiting for a gap in traffic that they will want to move in to, the same gap that the pedestrian is waiting for. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out this might end in tears, and even if the motorist sees you (as they should) it's still damn rude to block their way like that. The pedestrian could have chosen to walk in to the middle of the road 5m to the left and avoided all conflict.

07Lapierre

seamus wrote: »

If anyone thinks the cyclist is significantly to blame;

Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him as he was crossing the road. Who's at fault?

Good point...A Pedestrian, wearing dark clothes, standing in the middle of a (busy), dark road....

Sorry, its a no brainer to me.

BTW, yes the driver is most likely to blame, as far as the Law is concerned, but even pedestrians have to take some responsibility for their own well being.

BostonB

Dumb guy with the bike. But wouldn't they be in the headlights of the BMW?

Corruptable

A perfect case of contributory negligence if you were taking it from a Tort law perspective, I would say.

50/50
60/40

Morlar

BostonB wrote: »

Dumb guy with the bike. But wouldn't they be in the headlights of the BMW?

No, he was not perfeclty aligned in the headlights of the car as it waited to turn.

He would have been slightly to the left of the headlights irrc. I believe they were xenon lights btw.

seamus

Beasty wrote: »

I would say a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road like that has to accept some element of blame - pedestrians are also required to cross when (and where) it is safe to do so (and show some common sense)

Agreed, but from what we can tell, the pedestrian did cross when and where it was safe to do so. He probably stopped in the middle of the road to have a look and see if any busses were coming down the bus lane. When he crossed, the traffic was stopped and there was nobody moving or approaching. Sounds safe to me

"Dark Road" is probably putting it a bit drastically. This wasn't a country boreen where he was standing in the middle of a pitch black road on a blind bend. The corner is illuminated by street lights and the vehicles' lights. There would be no question that the driver would have seen the pedestrian if she had looked properly instead of just looking right and moving off.

Morlar

This was not a pedestrian, this was a cyclist who momentarily stepped off his bicycle when he knew he would be there awhile. He continued to move (slightly) on the road on foot to position himself better inside the yellow box (as far as he was concerned) but he was categorically a cyclist. Unless a cyclist instantly becomes a pedestrian if he steps off his bicycle while waiting in traffic ?

I believe (this part is an assumption) that when the car moved forward he was not as quick as the motorist in pulling out ( as they both noticed the gap in traffic at the same time ) because he was about to get back on his bicycle. He noticed the car moving forward and realised he was directly in her path hence he did not have time to remount the bicycle in order to proceed.

As stated he appeared to be planning on entering Trinity via this entrance so he had not reached his final destination at the point when this all happened.

This road is a dark road for a city centre road, surprisingly so. Particularly at the exact location where this occurred. As stated he was not in the beam of the motorists headlights, also it was rainy and dark last evening.

DePurpereWolf

I'm sad to say that the driver was at fault.
The cyclist was standing still, so was not at fault.
The cyclist was at fault for not having lights on, but not for causing the accident.
If the cyclist was moving it might have been a different story.

Wouldn't the cyclist be in the headlight of the car behind him? The tail lights of the car in front of him?

seamus

Morlar wrote: »

This was not a pedestrian, this was a cyclist who momentarily stepped off his bicycle when he knew he would be there awhile.
...
Unless a cyclist instantly becomes a pedestrian if he steps off his bicycle while waiting in traffic ?

That does muddy the waters somewhat because there is no provision in traffic law which covers the transition from cyclist to pedestrian in the same way that nothing covers the transition from driver to pedestrian.
When the person steps off the bike, they are insatnly a pedestrian. That much is obvious. Their method of locomotion is by walking, not cycling, therefore they are a pedestrian.

But obviously there is a question there as to whether it is appropriate for a cyclist to dismount in the middle of the road. I would say not, they should go to the side of the road, dismount and then cross.

However, IMO this is a side debate and not all that relevant. There is functionally no difference between him having dismounted in the middle of the road and having dismounted at the side and walked to that point in the road. In both cases, he's a pedestrian standing in the road and the driver is obliged to yield.

HivemindXX

If you hit something with your car, at some point that thing was illuminated by your headlights. If you were stopped only a few metres away you should be able to stop before hitting that thing very easily provided you are paying enough attention. Once you start to move forward you should be looking forward. Some would pedantically say that you should look forware before you start to move forward. The road might be darker than a lot of city centre roads, but it as Seamus said this is not an unlit country lane, anyone should easily be able to see a person standing only a few metres in front of them.

Can you clarify the exact time line of events Morlar. You previously stated that the pedestrian was in the middle of the junction for at least 20 seconds and the motorist had been waiting this entire time so the motorist arrived first and the pedestrian afterwards. Both parties waited a long time by traffic standards and so had plenty of time to see each other. Is this correct?

I'm also confused by the idea that the person tried to cross the road by cycling in to the middle of it and then getting off to become a pedestrian. It seems frankly bizarre. Where did they start from? Did they actually cycle along the road and try to cross the inside lane to enter Trinity and fail? Something I've seen cars get stuck doing as well when the inside lane refuses to yield to them. If this was the case their main mistake was getting off the bike in my opinion.

Morlar

It was approx between 15 & 20 seconds I would rate.

The direction the cyclist came from was I believe the opposite direction to the flow of traffic. I am not 100% clear on that to be honest but I believe he had been cycling (not taking the bike for a walk but cycling) the wrong way either on the footpath or on the road prior to this. This is a dark & ill-lit stretch of road and it was rainy at the time.

I saw him but to be honest did not entirely register/pay attention until he was at the edge of the box where he dismounted and moved slightly further into the yellow box.

At that point I paid more attention as I knew that he was an idiot and that an accident was about to happen. He had effectively ninja-like snuck into the inevitable path of the car waiting to leave through the yellow box. While wearing dark clothes and on/with a bike that had no lights/reflectors.

coolbeans

I would have thought, and I may be wrong, that a cyclist once dismounted is considered a pedestrian. If we want this thread to work it's pretty crucial that we define what a dismounted cyclist actually is in the eyes of the law. For me, as previously stated, once you're wheeling the bike you're a ped and that's why you're legally allowed to wheel a bike on a footpath but not cycle on same.

check_six

Driver looked out right window.
Driver did not look out rear window.
Driver did not look out left window.
Driver did not look out front window.

Cars don't crab sideways so the driver should be looking where they are going through their front windscreen when they start moving. "That wasn't there the last time I looked" is not a valid excuse for running into something in front of you, especially when the last time you looked was a while ago. A while ago could be anywhere from a few seconds to yesterday to last year, but it's not good enough when you're moving in traffic in control of a vehicle.

Also, coming out of a side road onto a main road does not give you any rights over the people already on the road. If there was something coming the wrong way down the road from Westland Row I would still give them priority over someone coming out of a side road, even though the wrong way fellow was also 'in the wrong'.

I don't care how long the side road guy is waiting, they have to wait till the main road is clear, not just spot a gap, put the foot down, and hope for the best.

nigel2

seamus wrote: »

If anyone thinks the cyclist is significantly to blame;

Imagine that he wasn't pushing a bike and she hit him as he was crossing the road. Who's at fault?

Not saying the driver shouldn't be paying more attention, but you still shouldn't be standing in the middle of the road, and if your on a bike at night you should have lights. Also that is a one way there so she wouldn't have been expecting anything coming from her left.

seamus

nigel2 wrote: »

Also that is a one way there so she wouldn't have been expecting anything coming from her left.

Pedestrians are not subject to one-way rules. You should never assume anything and always expect anything to come from any direction in reality.

BostonB

Drivers have to look out at 360 all at the same instant they pull out. That its physically impossible is irrelevant.


Is there not a pedestrian crossing a few meters in either direction. So choosing to cross dressed like a ninja at a junction is very stupid.

Rules for Pedestrians
46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

nigel2

seamus wrote: »

Pedestrians are not subject to one-way rules. You should never assume anything and always expect anything to come from any direction in reality.

As should the cyclist/pedestrian

nigel2

BostonB wrote: »

Drivers have to look out at 360 all at the same instant they pull out. That its physically impossible is irrelevant.


Is there not a pedestrian crossing a few meters in either direction. So choosing to cross dressed like a ninja at a junction is very stupid.

Exactly!

check_six

nigel2 wrote: »

As should the cyclist/pedestrian

Main road has priority over side road. Do not enter main road unless it is clear. Main road was not clear. Area in front of the car was not checked to be clear.

If I was walking down the footpath from Westland Row along Lincoln Place past the Trinity Entrance when the driver saw the gap to their right was open, I would not have been seen by the driver. Nothing was seen by the driver other than the gap to their right, the rest was just guesswork.

To not be aware of what is in front of you when setting off is indefensible.

HivemindXX

Morlar wrote: »

It was approx between 15 & 20 seconds I would rate.

The direction the cyclist came from was I believe the opposite direction to the flow of traffic. I am not 100% clear on that to be honest but I believe he had been cycling (not taking the bike for a walk but cycling) the wrong way either on the footpath or on the road prior to this. This is a dark & ill-lit stretch of road and it was rainy at the time.

Based on this the story is the cyclist came the wrong way and dismounted in the junction directly in front of a car that was waiting to enter the junction. So some blame to the motorist for not watching where they were going but the cyclist/pedestrian was outrageously stupid and rude in what he did.

nigel2

check_six wrote: »

Main road has priority over side road. Do not enter main road unless it is clear. .............
To not be aware of what is in front of you when setting off is indefensible.

First, it's a yellow box so he shouldn't be in it, second he is traveling against the traffic, in the dark with no lights.

I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and the prevailing attitude towards drivers is they are out to get cyclists when the simple truth is in poor visibility cyclists are hard to see. If it was raining as i suspect it was, his dark silhouette could easily get lost within the glare of brake lights.

If he had lights on or tried to cross at the correct junction, or at least not crossed against the traffic, would the accident have happened?

DePurpereWolf

nigel2 wrote: »

First, it's a yellow box so he shouldn't be in it, second he is traveling against the traffic, in the dark with no lights.

I'm a driver as well as a cyclist and the prevailing attitude towards drivers is they are out to get cyclists when the simple truth is in poor visibility cyclists are hard to see. If it was raining as i suspect it was, his dark silhouette could easily get lost within the glare of brake lights.

If he had lights on or tried to cross at the correct junction, or at least not crossed against the traffic, would the accident have happened?

They are two different things.
Yes, the cyclist/pedestrian was wrong in being in the yellow box having no lights in the dark.
Yes, the car was in the wrong by entering the road and knocking over a pedestrian/cyclist standing still.

The one doesn't rule out the other.

If you see someone biking without lights tonight it doesn't give you the right to knock him over, I'm sorry.

The cyclist was wrong for being in the yellow box and having no lights.
The car driver was wrong for knocking the cyclist over.

Can everybody stop saying cyclist? He was on foot and as such was quite clearly a pedestrian. There is no legal requirements for pedestrians to have lights, so from a legal perspective, there being no lights on the bike is completley irrelevant.

DePurpereWolf

It really doesn't matter in my perspective.
He was not moving. So if he is a cyclist or a pedestrian, or a driver, he is not at fault for causing the accident.

DeepBlue

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

He was not moving. So if he is a cyclist or a pedestrian, or a driver, he is not at fault for causing the accident.

I could sit down in the middle of a busy intersection with a cup of coffee and a danish in the dark wearing black clothes and not be at fault for causing any possible accident?

Going by your logic - No, because I'm a non-moving pedestrian.

HeidiHeidi

No-one has mentioned jaywalking in this thread so far. If the "cyclist" was actually on foot, and so deemed to be a "pedestrian", then with pedestrian crossings nearby in both directions could he not be deemed to have been jaywalking?

I agree though that there was fault on both sides - car shouldn't have pulled out without checking that the way was clear - which obviously it wasn't.

kenmc

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

No-one has mentioned jaywalking in this thread so far. If the "cyclist" was actually on foot, and so deemed to be a "pedestrian", then with pedestrian crossings nearby in both directions could he not be deemed to have been jaywalking?

I agree though that there was fault on both sides - car shouldn't have pulled out without checking that the way was clear - which obviously it wasn't.

AFAIK there is no such thing as jaywalking under irish statute. The pedestrian was already on the road when the driver entered the roadway. Ergo the driver was entirely at fault, in a court of law. How the pedestrian got there is not important either; they were there when the driver started the manouver.

That the pedestrian was dressed in dark clothing and crossing at a pretty ill-chosen place adds to the problem for sure, they certainly didn't do themselves any favours, but they may not have seen the car coming from Trinity, or they may have assumed that the car was parked there waiting to pickup a passenger or any other of possible scenarios. But then we're getting into what-ifs and maybes.

BostonB

Theres this...

Rules for Pedestrians
46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

and

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

kenmc

I'd say the dot on the map is more than 15 metres from either ped crossing, at least from my memory I'd that bit of road, so that would probably rule out any issue with the second quote. as for reasonable care.. who can judge that ?

BostonB

use Google maps and its well over 15 for the crossing either side of it. But then the other law applies, "reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger".

They were both in the wrong.

But for me as a cyclist and a driver, the cyclist was best placed to prevent this from happening in the first place. Everyone assumes drivers can see them. Thats just fundamentally flawed.

HeidiHeidi

But for me as a cyclist and a driver, the cyclist was best placed to prevent this from happening in the first place. Everyone assumes drivers can see them. Thats just fundamentally flawed.

+1

Hermy

BostonB wrote: »

Everyone assumes drivers can see them.

If the driver wasn't able to see the pedestrian then the driver was at fualt.

blorg

The driver was entirely at fault IMO. It really sounds like she just didn't look before flooring it. I had someone do this to me a few years ago in the middle of the day; I was stopped in a bike box and when the light changed he just didn't look and drove straight into me.

Thankfully Mr Pedestrian Cyclist was not injured, his bike I am sure can be fixed/replaced for not a lot in the scheme of things.

BostonB

Hermy wrote: »

If the driver wasn't able to see the pedestrian then the driver was at fualt.

That must be a great relief to people who get knocked down. You have to have a bit of common sense. Drivers have loads of blind spots, and can't look all directions at the same time. So dressing like a ninja and crossing in the middle of junction, on a dark evening, standing at a spot where drivers won't be expecting you is just lunacy. Certainly a driver shouldn't move forward without looking in the direction they are moving, but the pedestrian who does something dangerous stupid isn't blame free either.

Lumen

Jesus these threads are stupid.

Almost all accidents are avoidable.

Every road user has a duty of care to themselves and others and is therefore "at fault" to some degree if they don't act act in such a way as to minimise the risk of an accident.

Drivers should look where they are going and not crash into stationary objects.

Cyclists should make themselves acceptably visible at night.

If you want a legal opinion post in a legal forum and if you want a legal decision take it to court.