Witnessed: Cyclist crashing into turning car. Who's at fault?

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

Driving yesterday and witnessed an incident which both parties have since contacted me about and asked me to act as a witness on their behalf.

Obviously I can only relay what I saw and won't be "taking sides" but I'm genuinely curious as to who the Garda/Courts would find at fault.

Line of traffic, stationary with nobody moving, I'm at the top of the second part of the queue as I'm stopped at the entrance to a yellow box outside a petrol station.

Oncoming car approaches the box, pauses a second, sees we're stationary, and proceeds to turn into the box and into the petrol station. As his front wheels cross the 'ramp' into the station a cyclist comes up at speed and crashes directly into the cars rear passenger-side window causing it to smash as well as some light scratches to the rear passenger-side door.

I've attached a crude drawing to help illustrate the situation!



Cyclist was able to get up and didn't seem to be injured (he cycled away). Both cyclist and driver intimated that the other was at fault, swapped details, and gathered my details.

Both have contacted me today and the impression I get is that the cyclist is looking for compensation for their bicycle and some physiotherapy. The driver is content to repair their own window and seems to think the issue is resolved.

So, Boards Motorers, who was at fault?

ScouseMouse

Was cyclist coming up the inside of the stationary traffic, or overtaking.

In my opinion, its the car driver for crossing the cyclists path, although there may be some contributory liability if the cyclist was undertaking and flying.

This happened to me away back on a motorcycle, but I was passing on the right.

Timmyctc

Cyclist.

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

superscouse wrote: »

Was cyclist coming up the inside of the stationary traffic, or overtaking.

In my opinion, its the car driver for crossing the cyclists path, although there may be some contributory liability if the cyclist was undertaking and flying.

This happened to me away back on a motorcycle, but I was passing on the right.

The cyclist was getting ahead of cars on the left hand side (between the car and the path) but I'm not sure if this is "undertaking" or just where cyclists are meant to stay!

patrickc

maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if the car passed the stationary traffic and hit the oncoming bike, then the car without doubt, cyclist had right of way on his side of the road and car crossed in front of him.

antodeco

patrickc wrote: »

maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if the car passed the stationary traffic and hit the oncoming bike, then the car without doubt, cyclist had right of way on his side of the road and car crossed in front of him.

That would be my thinking aswell. Now, was there a cycle lane where it happened?

Pretzill

patrickc wrote: »

maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if the car passed the stationary traffic and hit the oncoming bike, then the car without doubt, cyclist had right of way on his side of the road and car crossed in front of him.

Shouldn't the cyclist have stopped before the box?

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

antodeco wrote: »

That would be my thinking aswell. Now, was there a cycle lane where it happened?

No cycle lane. A regular two-lane road separated by a broken white line.

corktina

bad observation on the car drivers part...

Alanstrainor

Motorist at fault 100%.

Cycle lane, or no cycle lane the cyclist had a clear path through and had no reason to stop. How the motorist would even contend this is beyond me.

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

Thanks for the replies guys. Sounds like the consensus is that the driver was at fault.

Must admit, I've probably often crossed a yellow box into a petrol station or turning right having seen stationary traffic but without knowing if there's a cyclist flying up on the far side of the traffic.

In terms of observation - bloody hard to see a cyclist that might be four or five cars back when you commit to the turn (but makes up that distance by the time you're turning) - especially at night. I'll be triply-cautious next time having seen this incident!

monkeypants

Seems a common problem; have had at least one very similar thread on this from the driver involved.

BMJD

Ezekiel Defeated Music wrote: »

Oncoming car approaches the box, pauses a second, sees we're stationary, and proceeds to turn into the box and into the petrol station.

I think the cyclist has to accept some responsibility. From your description, it sounds like the driver did all he could to check that there was no cyclists approaching and proceeded to enter the station.

As his front wheels cross the 'ramp' into the station a cyclist comes up at speed and crashes directly into the cars rear passenger-side window causing it to smash as well as some light scratches to the rear passenger-side door.

He must have hit it a fair whack to do that kind of damage imo i.e. cycling at some speed (as you stated). Doing this whilst passing stationary traffic is obviously dangerous and careless.

Having said that, the law seems to be stacked against the driver and he will probably have to take the blame.

mangledbadgers

Driver's fault.

Even though the driver didn't see cyclist when they started to turn, they should have continued to look out for hazards from left while turning.

monkeypants

BMJD wrote: »

it sounds like the driver did all he could to check that there was no cyclists approaching

Such as? He failed at the first step, checking to see that his way was clear.

RachWatch

Agree - driver's fault - should have proceeded with extreme caution...luckily no-one hurt - could have been a lot worse!

Fey!

As most people have already said, driver is at fault for crossing the path of the cyclist.

With stationary traffic the cyclist should, imo, have been exercising a bit more caution (hitting the car toward the rear and with enough force to break a window indicates a pretty big impact), but is is up to the driver to ensure that the way is clear.

fletch

I understand that the driver was at fault...however being a commuting cyclist myself, the cyclist should not really have allowed this to happen. While cycling and passing cars on the inside, I keep a constant eye for cars turning into the traffic or crossing my path (looking under cars and through their windows), and I would be covering my brakes at all times. I think the fact that the cyclist impacted with the rear of the car also indicates that they may have been travelling too fast for the situation.

monkeypants

fletch wrote: »

While cycling and passing cars on the inside, I keep a constant eye for cars turning into the traffic or crossing my path (looking under cars and through their windows), and I would be covering my brakes at all times.

Agreed. Passing cars on the inside is something to be avoided when possible and I'd be especially wary when approaching the entrance to a petrol station.

Alanstrainor

fletch wrote: »

I understand that the driver was at fault...however being a commuting cyclist myself, the cyclist should not really have allowed this to happen. While cycling and passing cars on the inside, I keep a constant eye for cars turning into the traffic or crossing my path (looking under cars and through their windows), and I would be covering my brakes at all times. I think the fact that the cyclist impacted with the rear of the car also indicates that they may have been travelling too fast for the situation.

Yup. Painful lesson for the cyclist for definite.

hardCopy

fletch wrote: »

I understand that the driver was at fault...however being a commuting cyclist myself, the cyclist should not really have allowed this to happen. While cycling and passing cars on the inside, I keep a constant eye for cars turning into the traffic or crossing my path (looking under cars and through their windows), and I would be covering my brakes at all times. I think the fact that the cyclist impacted with the rear of the car also indicates that they may have been travelling too fast for the situation.

A good spot to stand up on the pedals.

Still the drivers fault though IMO.

fletch

monkeypants wrote: »

Agreed. Passing cars on the inside is something to be avoided when possible and I'd be especially wary when approaching the entrance to a petrol station.

Although in the cyclists defense, if they didn't know the road, sometimes due to the angle of vision as you cycle so close to cars, you may only spot the small gap in the traffic at the very last second.

visual

monkeypants wrote: »

Such as? He failed at the first step, checking to see that his way was clear.

In fairness its very unlikely from drivers seat to spot a cyclist as line of sight would be blocked by cars especially if cyclists traveling quickly

Sam Russell

Was the car moving at the time of impact? In other words was the driver of the car aware of the bicycle prior to the accident? If not, driver probably 100%.

Did the cyclist take avoiding action? Did he swerve or brake prior to the accident? If not, he should take some blame as he did not see the car.

The accident happened because the driver was not aware of the possibility of a cyclist and did not see the cyclist, irrespective of the cyclist's actions. If both answers are no, I would give the driver 80% blame, cyclist 20% blame.

fletch

fletch wrote: »

I understand that the driver was at fault...however being a commuting cyclist myself, the cyclist should not really have allowed this to happen. While cycling and passing cars on the inside, I keep a constant eye for cars turning into the traffic or crossing my path (looking under cars and through their windows), and I would be covering my brakes at all times. I think the fact that the cyclist impacted with the rear of the car also indicates that they may have been travelling too fast for the situation.

I agree 100% !

It's kind of like what you see at roundabouts where people put the foot down and never allow you to get onto the roundabout or accelerate when they see you coming out of frustration because you got out in front of them and they "will" hit you because they know "you will be blamed"

IMO both people "should" be held accountable and I'm a cyclist and a driver so I am aware of all situations.

If I was the cyclist I'd be thinking to myself "hmmmm this might hurt me, better slow down" The cyclist was an idiot and the car driver probably half in a daze.

Another example I see a lot is if I'm behind a string of traffic and someone pulls out to over take and there is a car coming from the other direction, the car coming from the other direction won't pull in and would rather have an accident, all because he's not in the wrong.

If someone is over taking in the opposite direction, I'll always pull in , I mean it's better than dying, maybe because I was in a head on a few years ago, but it seriously makes me never want to feel that kind of impact again.

I guess is what I'm saying in the usual mad lad long way is that I'll always try to avoid having an accident even if I'm going to be in the wrong or not, I don't even think about it, it's common sense !

fletch

As a driver, when crossing a line of traffic as described, I literally crawl across and stare down the gaps looking for (motor)cyclists. I think everyone should have to spend some time in busy traffic for a couple of weeks on a bike/motorbike.

fletch

Deleted User wrote: »

Another example I see a lot is if I'm behind a string of traffic and someone pulls out to over take and there is a car coming from the other direction, the car coming from the other direction won't pull in and would rather have an accident, all because he's not in the wrong.

This always baffles me...they flash their lights, gesture from their car but refuse to change their position on the road....like just get over it, move in a bit and continue on with your journey!

johnam

fletch wrote: »

I understand that the driver was at fault...however being a commuting cyclist myself, the cyclist should not really have allowed this to happen. While cycling and passing cars on the inside, I keep a constant eye for cars turning into the traffic or crossing my path (looking under cars and through their windows), and I would be covering my brakes at all times. I think the fact that the cyclist impacted with the rear of the car also indicates that they may have been travelling too fast for the situation.

I agree with this. I would always be wary when cycling up the inside of line of traffic. This is highlighted on the road safety authority's website on the rules of the road, "When cycling alongside traffic stopped in line, be aware of gaps in the traffic to allow other vehicles to turn across the stationary lane. The view of the car that is turning may be blocked due to the traffic build-up." There is no such section that I can find on the same website warning cars of the same danger. I cycle, and think if it was me I would be mad as hell, but I don't see what else the driver could have done.



How about for "Sh!ts and Giggles" you stick this up on the cycling forum to see what response you get there.

johnam

johnam wrote: »

I agree with this. I would always be wary when cycling up the inside of line of traffic. This is highlighted on the road safety authority's website on the rules of the road, "When cycling alongside traffic stopped in line, be aware of gaps in the traffic to allow other vehicles to turn across the stationary lane. The view of the car that is turning may be blocked due to the traffic build-up." There is no such section that I can find on the same website warning cars of the same danger. I cycle, and think if it was me I would be mad as hell, but I don't see what else the driver could have done.



How about for "Sh!ts and Giggles" you stick this up on the cycling forum to see what response you get there.

Well the driver has eyes, surely he/she could have judged if they would make it or not, but it's all about one besting the other these days. "I'll show him " attitude!

fletch

fletch wrote: »

This always baffles me...they flash their lights, gesture from their car but refuse to change their position on the road....like just get over it, move in a bit and continue on with your journey!

Yes indeed, but I can tell you that it will only ever take one head on crash and if you survive you won't do it again !!! People don't think though, they don't realise that having a head on hurts, and can kill you.

That cyclist may learn his lesson maybe not, but I think he will go on believing that he was right and the driver wrong, when in fact both were wrong, next time could be his last!

00833827

Driver will be in fault here i think, u gotta be aware of anything coming against you -

That said when riding up inside of cars u cant go full gas, car doors opening, pedestrians stepping out, prams and buggies - u kinda need to expect the unexpected - you always need to make eye contact with driver before barreling thru the yellow box, roundabouts, merging lanes etc - so you know you that you have been observed - if you dont get this, then hang back, stop if u need to -

thats my Tuesday Top Tip*!

*TTT

johnam

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the driver has eyes, surely he/she could have judged if they would make it or not, but it's all about one besting the other these days. "I'll show him " attitude!

Did you read my post? The Rules of the Road warn cyclists to beware of gaps in traffic as a motorist crossing the traffic may have their view blocked. So yes the driver has eyes, but a fat lot of good they will be if the view of the cyclist is blocked by other cars. There is nothing to say either Driver or Cyclist had an "I'll show him attitude" as you state. The driver could have pulled out slower, but that would probably resulted in his bonnet getting hit as against his back window....same result really. The cyclist should have been aware of his surroundings, that is the only way this accident could have been avoided.

When I'm cycling in traffic and I'm cycling up the inside I always slow down, if I'm in a rush, I go to the right of the cars. There are two reasons for this, 1) people are less likely to open the door of a car on the right hand side than they are on the left and if I'm going fast the chances are I will hit the door. 2) in a situation like this, when cycling on the left you are invisible until it is too late, also cars turning right, tend to indicate so oncoming cars are aware of their plans, while cars turning left tend to just pull in without warning.

Yakuza

Hold on a second, if the driver's front wheels were already on the dished path of the entrance to the petrol station (almost done with his maneuver) and the bike hit the *rear* passenger window - the cyclist musn't have been paying attention to what was in front of him. I would attribute some contributory negligence on their part too. It's not like the driver hit him with the front of his bumper. He must have been barrelling down the road at a fair lick to break glass, and if so, he was a fair bit away when the driver started to turn, probably too far to have been seen the cyclist.

When I cycle, I always allow for cars that might turn into my path when I'm coming up the inside of a lane of cars - both hands on the brakes and looking in front of me.

scamalert

id say both are even,although driver has to look out for pedestrians,bikes etc,but op mentioned that driver stopped for a second and since there was no bike lane and there was traffic most would do just that.And if bike driver didn't see the car how would person in the car could see someone flying towards them as visibility vise someone on a bike has much wider angle then someone staring through the windscreen.id feel bad if something happened to me like that and probably would let go of it, fix damages on the car,but now it seems cyclist just wants cash.amount of times ive seen cyclists passing through red lights at the traffic,without any bother to look if theres cars coming is beyond amazing hows theres no more accident or worse situations like that.I do ride bike myself sometimes and every time i pass an estate,station,entrance id slow down to bare minimum speed wise,to see if theres any traffic coming in or out,but as this case proves bike driver didn't give any thought,so if one wants to be part of traffic should act as one.But some people feel they are right. not to mention in smaller towns where people have this immortality feeling while crawling through the street pretending like theres no cars around :rolleyes:

aloyisious

I'm minded to agree with fletch. Whilst the driver should technically have made sure there was nothing coming on the opposite side of the road before going onto the junction box, the odd's of him/her seeing the oncoming cyclist was probably small, vision limited by height/size & car-obstruction. The cyclist is better positioned (by height off road) to see traffic moving in front of him/her.

The car seem's to have more than 50% off the road when the cyclist hit it's back door so I'd imagine the cyclist (if driving with due care and attention to other road users) should have seen the car and avoided a collision. Being a cyclist, when I approach petrol stations, I move with caution so's I don't get hit by a car like above, as there's a likely chance to be one turning off the road.

On an aside (which might not apply) peculiarly there could be a factor of entering a junction box while it was occupied by another vehicle (the car). The rule might apply to cyclists as well as motor vehicles drivers.

johnam

johnam wrote: »

Did you read my post?

The driver could have pulled out slower, but that would probably resulted in his bonnet getting hit as against his back window....same result really. The cyclist should have been aware of his surroundings, that is the only way this accident could have been avoided.

I did, but I read it again and now I get ye!

visual

Does it really matter who was at fault as only one has insurance when claim time comes.
Driver of the car should have taken his wheel brace out and beaten the cyclist into submission.

If nothing else it would make cyclist realise there is consequences to being a idiot in traffic.

tin79

People are overcomplicating this.

The cyclist had right of way. Cars being stopped, hitting rear passenger window, cyclist not slowing down to look - none of it matters.

There is no speed limit for cyclists. They are entitled to proceed up the inside of stationary cars. Cyclist had right of way. Driver is liable.

IMO:)

Tragedy

Legally? A thoroughly grey area.
From a common sense point of view? 100% cyclist. Undertaking, hidden from traffic, travelling at a dangerous speed, not paying due care and attention.

Alanstrainor

Tragedy wrote: »

Legally? A thoroughly grey area.
From a common sense point of view? 100% cyclist. Undertaking, hidden from traffic, travelling at a dangerous speed, not paying due care and attention.

Undertaking slow moving traffic is perfectly legal, for both cars and cyclists.

Dangerous speed?

Due care and attention is arguable, if there was a helmet camera on his head we could see what really happened.

Colonel Panic

There's plenty of blame to go around I think. Undertaking stationary traffic is risky business and the cyclist should be looking out for cars turning in like that. I've certainly avoided collisions in the past by keeping an eye out for cars in this situation...

Similarly when I'm driving and turning right through a gap in stationary cars, I sure as hell look down on the inside because some cyclists are quite happy to undertake.

Legally, I'd say the driver's insurance will pay out anyway. Does that make him at fault? I suppose so...

johnam

Tragedy wrote: »

Legally? A thoroughly grey area.
From a common sense point of view? 100% cyclist. Undertaking, hidden from traffic, travelling at a dangerous speed, not paying due care and attention.

Cyclists are allowed to undertake. In fact reading the rules of the road it seems to be overtaking that is frowned upon for cyclists. They must keep to the left hand side of the lane. Even when turning right they are told to keep to the left of the turning lane.

The Law and Common Sense are not always on the same page.

Fey!

aloyisious wrote: »

On an aside (which might not apply) peculiarly there could be a factor of entering a junction box while it was occupied by another vehicle (the car). The rule might apply to cyclists as well as motor vehicles drivers.

This is a very valid point which I overlooked earlier. The rules of the road apply to ALL road users.

OP; what was visibility like? If it was getting dark, did both the car and bike have lights on?

Caliden

Tragedy wrote: »

Legally? A thoroughly grey area.
From a common sense point of view? 100% cyclist. Undertaking, hidden from traffic, travelling at a dangerous speed, not paying due care and attention.

I partially agree. If the cyclist hit the rear passenger window then that means that over 50% of the car had crossed in front of them before impact.

What speed was the cyclist going in order for him to have seen the car, applied his brakes, hit the car and STILL break a window?

Even if the car in question crawled passed the yellow box checking for cyclists who were undertaking stationary traffic at speed WITHOUT a cycle lane (previously mentioned), this accident still would have happened.

Tragedy

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Undertaking slow moving traffic is perfectly legal, for both cars and cyclists.

Some people seem to be taking the naive view that X, Y or Z being legal means that they are unequivocally legal no matter what the circumstances.

Dangerous speed?

He ploughed into the rear passenger window of a car hard enough to break the window.

Due care and attention is arguable, if there was a helmet camera on his head we could see what really happened.

If he was cycling with due care and attention he wouldn't have ploughed into the rear passenger window of a car. It isn't complex.

Stark

Well ask yourself if you were turning right against oncoming traffic and a car came "flying towards you out of nowhere", who would be in the wrong?

Oh this thread will go on and on and ..................................

BostonB

Tragedy wrote: »

...If he was cycling with due care and attention he wouldn't have ploughed into the rear passenger window of a car. It isn't complex.

You're theory is based on a false premise. You can't stop instantly (regardless bike or car). If someone pull across in front of your path without warning, you may end hitting them, even if you are not going very fast. You're talking of seconds reaction time here.

I certainly have had the experience of a car hitting me (doing an illegal U turn) and even though I was going at a slow pace, and watching the car, I couldn't react quickly enough to avoid hitting them.

Certainly the cyclist may have been speeding, or they may not have. Without a camera how can you prove that, unless they left skid marks on the road. if their speed was excessive its irresponsible/dangerous. its far from uncommon.

Tragedy

Am I incorrect that cyclists are governed by the same legislation as other vehicles?

Idbatterim

I had this situation in ranelagh village before, exactly as you describe in diagram, unfortunately for me and the cyclist, there was a panel van just behind the yellow box, I drive into it, stop car briefy to try and get line of sight behind van, then bang cyclist hits front of car, was pretty slow and he was fine. Ultimately the car driver is probably at fault, but Im not the one who is going to be seriously injured etc, so when they are coming up to junctions or entrances or behind vans etc that would obscure visibility, they should have their wits about them... From what you describe OP, seems like the car driver is at fault...

Tragedy

BostonB wrote: »

You're theory is based on a false premise. You can't stop instantly (regardless bike or car). If someone pull across in front of your path without warning, you may end hitting them, even if you are not going very fast. You're talking of seconds reaction time here.

I certainly have had the experience of a car hitting me (doing an illegal U turn) and even though I was going at a slow pace, and watching the car, I couldn't react quickly enough to avoid hitting them.

Certainly the cyclist may have been speeding, or they may not have. Without a camera how can you prove that, unless they left skid marks on the road. if their speed was excessive its irresponsible/dangerous. its far from uncommon.

Poor reaction times and/or not paying attention are hardly an acceptable reason in any collision.