Exit driveway and hit cyclist on path

icebergiceberg

When I drive out of my driveway I do so very slowly as cyclists sometimes whizz down past me on the path. I understand no mater how slowly and carefully I do this if the cyclists hits my car and injures himself I am liable. Is that true. I could not exit any more slowly so it seems a bit unfair.

How about if I exit very carefully and the cyclists sees me and avoids me by moving onto the road but hits either a parked car and injures himself and damages the car or worse still he hits an oncoming car and injures himself and damages that car as he avoided me by turning into the lane where approaching traffic is coming.

Who is liable?

Paulw

A cyclist shouldn't be on the path in the first place.

I saw a similar accident before. Car exiting a petrol station. Driver looking for traffic on the right, checked left for pedestrians due to the blind corner couldn't see further left, slowly moved forward, and suddenly a cyclist hits the front corner of the car. The cyclist was doing some speed. He would have had to cycle out on to the busy road to avoid the car.

To me, the cyclist was totally in the wrong, and the driver couldn't have done any more to avoid the incident.

No idea what the legal situation is with your accident. It should definitely be reported to the Gardai though.

The Sidewards Man

Has the foot path a cycle lane on it?

gizmo555

icebergiceberg wrote: »

When I drive out of my driveway I do so very slowly as cyclists sometimes whizz down past me on the path. I understand no mater how slowly and carefully I do this if the cyclists hits my car and injures himself I am liable. Is that true. I could not exit any more slowly so it seems a bit unfair.

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths and it is also illegal to cycle "without reasonable consideration", which would surely include "whizzing" down a footpath on your bike. I'd have thought the cyclist would be at least partly liable.

RustyNut

Paulw wrote: »

A cyclist shouldn't be on the path in the first place.

Just for the sake of debate, say the cyclists are kids on the way to school. Should the op not be sure that it is safe to pull out before doing so. If visabilaty is obstructed then a mirror or something else should be used to ensure there are no cyclists on the path rather than just chance it when cyclists are expected on that particular stretch of path.

ectoraige

Are you driving out, or reversing out?

stampydmonkey

RustyNut wrote: »

Just for the sake of debate, say the cyclists are kids on the way to school. Should the op not be sure that it is safe to pull out before doing so. If visabilaty is obstructed then a mirror or something else should be used to ensure there are no cyclists on the path rather than just chance it when cyclists are expected on that particular stretch of path.

Mirrors Make sense although not aesthetically pleasing. How about stop prior to nudging out, hop out and have a quick look left and right....or get any passenger to do the same. I get its hassle but regardless of who is at fault, for the sake of a 15sec check, you could save someone a nasty injury.

CarrickMcJoe

It's because of incidents like this that I think cyclists should have some sort of insurance.

Sam Kade

icebergiceberg wrote: »

When I drive out of my driveway I do so very slowly as cyclists sometimes whizz down past me on the path. I understand no mater how slowly and carefully I do this if the cyclists hits my car and injures himself I am liable. Is that true. I could not exit any more slowly so it seems a bit unfair.

How about if I exit very carefully and the cyclists sees me and avoids me by moving onto the road but hits either a parked car and injures himself and damages the car or worse still he hits an oncoming car and injures himself and damages that car as he avoided me by turning into the lane where approaching traffic is coming.

Who is liable?

So, did you or didn't you hit a cyclist?

billie227

Yeah it's illegal to cycle on footpaths, frankly cyclists shouldn't be going that speed on such a potentially dangerous spot anyway

wtlltw

it's a tough one. It doesn't matter how vigilant you are, some road users (or footpath users), don't seem to aware of their surroundings. Checking ahead before getting in the vehicle doesn't work either as someone could come along as you get back in the vehicle.

I had a similar problem with a drive to my old home. Nudge forward slowly across the footpath (pedestrians walked around the front of the car scolding me lol) enter the road and cars would go across the front of the car and up on the opposite pavement (road was only big enough for one car but is a major traffic route) to get past me.

Good luck

T-Maxx

Whether the cyclist wa in the wrong or not, you still have a care of duty as driver.

icebergiceberg

Just to clarify: There was no accident. I am just putting the case. I always drive slowly out. Never reverse.I think that's illegal. A mirror is out of the question. I know it's wrong (illegal?) for a cyclist to use path. No it's just a path for pedestrians. No cycle lane.

Despite it being wrong for the cyclist to whizz past and I hit him am I liable?
Also, as above, the cyclists sees me edging out and twists to avoid me but hits or damages a parked car or injures himself or damaged an oncoming car.

My very basic understanding is this: I am responsible if he hits me even though he was on path but if the cyclists avoids me and has pretty bad accident with parked empty car or oncoming car then he is responsible. Does anyone have experience of this?

RustyNut

So replace cyclist with skateboarder or Rollerbladers

The Sidewards Man

T-Maxx wrote: »

Whether the cyclist wa in the wrong or not, you still have a care of duty as driver.

The op clearly stated that they have.

Paulw

Sam Kade wrote: »

So, did you or didn't you hit a cyclist?

Or you could ask - did the cyclist hit your car or didn't the cyclist hit your car?

Cyclist is in the wrong, cycling on the path, "without reasonable consideration".

VincePP

I don't think its "illegal" to cycle on the footpath. - If so, every 5 year old kid on their bike would be up before the courts.

Also, this was taken out of the proposed fine system last year.

A cyclist can be charged with riding recklessly and that would be used if necessary.

As for the op - if you take extreme care and hoot the horn then I can't see the issue if a cyclist took evasive action and hit a parked car.

If there are regular cyclists possibly look at reversing into the driveway.

RustyNut

Paulw wrote: »

Or you could ask - did the cyclist hit your car or didn't the cyclist hit your car?

Cyclist is in the wrong, cycling on the path, "without reasonable consideration".

The other argument would be that the OP pulled out when it wasn't safe to do so.

Paulw

VincePP wrote: »

I don't think its "illegal" to cycle on the footpath. - If so, every 5 year old kid on their bike would be up before the courts.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driving_offences/cycling_offences.html

Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property.

VincePP wrote: »

If there are regular cyclists possibly look at reversing into the driveway.

Op already stated they were driving out, and not reversing out.

Sleeper12

icebergiceberg wrote: »

When I drive out of my driveway I do so very slowly as cyclists sometimes whizz down past me on the path. I understand no mater how slowly and carefully I do this if the cyclists hits my car and injures himself I am liable. Is that true. I could not exit any more slowly so it seems a bit unfair.

How about if I exit very carefully and the cyclists sees me and avoids me by moving onto the road but hits either a parked car and injures himself and damages the car or worse still he hits an oncoming car and injures himself and damages that car as he avoided me by turning into the lane where approaching traffic is coming.

Who is liable?

Are you reversing out? Though I do this myself I think it is illegal. It''s the same as reversing from a minor to major road IMO.

EDTID: Sorry I didn't read that op wasn't reversing

micar

You have a care of duty exiting your driveway.

While a cyclist should not be on the footpath (provided there isn't a cycle path there), they still have right of way.

If a cyclists is coming towards you on the footpath, they wouldn't just leap onto the road. Manners prevailing, there would be an expectation that you reverse and allow the cyclist to pass you or for the cyclist to slow down and allow you to pull out.

If there's a cycle lane on the footpath and if you have the front of the car over the cycle path then I would expect you to reverse off it. Naturally I would show my appreciation with a thanks.

micar

VincePP wrote: »

If there are regular cyclists possibly look at reversing into the driveway.

Worst thong you can do.

I cycle up the N11 past ucd each day around 7 am.

Person reverses our of her driveway each morning. Got to be so careful.

What's mad is that her driveway is large enough turn her car around so she wouldn't need to reverse out.

K.Flyer

Is visibility so restricted that not only can you not see pedestrians (or cyclists), but can they not see you either?
Regardless of a cyclist, who shouldn't be on the footpath, unless there is a cycle lane, what about young children?
What is the cause of the restricted visibility and why can that not be changed?

Paulw

Here is the image of where I saw the accident.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4145103,-6.2390392,3a,60y,330.9h,71.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUfSGCAV0Y3ourk8ZblMH7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Coming out from Great Gas petrol station, you cannot see left, due to sign and vehicles parked in the parking lot. You can just see the path.

So, you have bare visibility. You would be concentrated on looking right, for vehicles coming along the road (60kph zone). You look left, check for pedestrians, and slowly edge out. Looking right to check for cars, buses before pulling out.

The accident I saw, the car driver did what any driver would do. Slowly edge on to the exit. Check left and then looking right. The cyclist was on the bath and obviously wasn't paying proper attention and was going too fast for the path. The cyclist hit the car.

4 witnesses all agreed that the driver couldn't have done anything more.

Sometimes there are barriers blocking vision, that are outside of your own control.

The law is fairly clear - it is illegal for a cyclist to use the path.

gizmo555

VincePP wrote: »

I don't think its "illegal" to cycle on the footpath. - If so, every 5 year old kid on their bike would be up before the courts.

Cycling on footpaths is already illegal in Ireland (expect shared use paths marked with signs, as pictured above) –, however changes are soon expected to allow offenders to be fined with on-the-spot fines . . .

. . . Fines had not expected to apply to children under 12, as younger children are currently generally exempted from criminal responsibility, including minor

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/21/no-exemption-for-children-cycling-on-footpaths-says-minister-ahead-of-new-fines/

wtlltw

T-Maxx wrote: »

Whether the cyclist wa in the wrong or not, you still have a care of duty as driver.

But surely everyone has a duty of care.

I've seen some people do some very strange things over the years.

iguana

gizmo555 wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2015/01/21/no-exemption-for-children-cycling-on-footpaths-says-minister-ahead-of-new-fines/

The minister back-pedalled on that one and didn't include it in the fines due to the fact that it's too dangerous to force children to cycle on the road.

gizmo555

iguana wrote: »

The minister back-pedalled on that one and didn't include it in the fines due to the fact that it's too dangerous to force children to cycle on the road.

He didn't include it in the on-the-spot fines, but as the article explains, it remains illegal to cycle on footpaths, regardless of your age.

icebergiceberg

VincePP wrote: »

I don't think its "illegal" to cycle on the footpath. - If so, every 5 year old kid on their bike would be up before the courts.

Also, this was taken out of the proposed fine system last year.

A cyclist can be charged with riding recklessly and that would be used if necessary.

As for the op - if you take extreme care and hoot the horn then I can't see the issue if a cyclist took evasive action and hit a parked car.

If there are regular cyclists possibly look at reversing into the driveway.

Is it legal to hoot horn under these circumstances?

I edge out slowly because I can not see what is coming down the footpath until I drive out slowly. I can not take any more care in doing this. I can not go any slower. If I went out fast then a cyclist would have no chance to take evasive action. By going slowly a cyclist could see a car nosing out slowly thus giving him choices. I would expect a cyclist to sue me for injuries/damages if he crashed into me.

The empty car parked however is another issue or the cyclist in an accident with an oncoming car in his effort to avoid me and the damages ensuing. Again, the cyclist , it seems to me, even though he is 100% wrong could successfully sue again. What do you think?

iguana

gizmo555 wrote: »

He didn't include it in the on-the-spot fines, but as the article explains, it remains illegal to cycle on footpaths, regardless of your age.

And yet the RSA specifically recommends that children below the age of 12 cycle don't cycle on the footpath. And the minister specified that Gardaí are to use their discretion in terms of cycling on the footpath because it is not safe for children to cycle in traffic.

At the end of the day, the car driver is the person who is driving something that very easily has the potential to be a lethal weapon and has a duty of care because of that. Law aside, if the OP hit a cyclist and the result was that the cyclist died or suffered a life altering injury, the OP would feel like crap forever. Regardless of fault or the fact that cyclist would come off worse, it's something that the OP will always have to live with. Or as has been pointed out by a previous poster, it could just as easily be a roller-blader or skateboarder. The best thing to do is develop a strategy of coming out very slowly and if there is a blindspot for either pavement users or the driver, sound the horn in good time as a warning.

RustyNut

What is obstructing your view of the foot path?

gizmo555

iguana wrote: »

And yet the RSA specifically recommends that children below the age of 12 cycle don't cycle on the footpath. And the minister specified that Gardaí are to use their discretion in terms of cycling on the footpath because it is not safe for children to cycle in traffic.

I'm not sure what your point is, but I think we agree that it is illegal for anyone, including children to cycle on footpaths and as the minister said "I do not believe that a change in the law to allow some cyclists to use footpaths is an appropriate response. This would take some cyclists off the road, but at the price of creating more risk for pedestrians."

icebergiceberg

12Phase wrote: »

If the cyclist is going so fast that they hit a reversing car side on, then surely they're cycling in a manner that they're not actually in control of their vehicle?

What if a child runs across the footpath in front of them?

I stepped out of a shop in Patrick's St in Cork, which for anyone unfamiliar is a busy shipping streetwith, big brands and huge foot fall

A cyclist whizzing along nearly hit me, I lost balance and dropped my bags and he told me to 'watch where you're f ing going' ...

The car, as has been mentioned numerous times is not reversing out of a driveway.

Phil.x

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths.

No it's not.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cyclists-who-use-footpaths-will-not-be-fined-31342974.html

icebergiceberg

T-Maxx wrote: »

Whether the cyclist wa in the wrong or not, you still have a care of duty as driver.

Yes. That is correct. All road users have a duty of care.

Edging out slowly, very very slowly (and not reversing) and using the horn as a warning, I think I have fulfilled my duty of care. How else could I improve on it?

How else are people who want to be careful of cyclists cycling on paths outside their houses supposed to exit?

The very bottom line is I am afraid for car users is that no matter if the cyclist is 100% wrong he has got no insurance and the car user has and is therefore very liable.

I have never heard of any case where the motorist was held innocent in the above scenario.

Paulownia

Phil.x wrote: »

No it's not.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cyclists-who-use-footpaths-will-not-be-fined-31342974.html

This is an interesting one, if you were driving out and the cyclist hit you on the side of your car they were cycling without due care and if it went to court it wouldn't stand a chance , on the other hand a motor insurance policy would probably just pay out on a claim. Do report it to the gardai if you haven't already.
I'm a cyclist and every time I'm on the road I see cyclists blatantly breaking the law. For instance even though cycle lanes break at intersections cyclists regularly cycle past cars indicating turning left as if they had a right of way and as for cycling through red lights!

gizmo555

Phil.x wrote: »

No it's not.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cyclists-who-use-footpaths-will-not-be-fined-31342974.html

You have misunderstood the article, which is understandable because the headline is misleading.

What it says is that cycling on footpaths is not one of the offences for which Gardaí will be able to issue fixed penalty notices. This doesn't mean it's not still an offence for which you could be prosecuted and fined in a court.

Paulw

Phil.x wrote: »

No it's not.

Yes, it is.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en..._offences.html

Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

If the cyclist were to hit your car, on its side. Then he is at fault, if you hit him with the rear of your car, I'd imagine more blame a would go to you.

He shouldn't cycle on a footpath anyway, as pointed out.

If he took evasive action & hit something else, I can't see how you would be in anyway to blame for that

icebergiceberg

icebergiceberg wrote: »

Is it legal to hoot horn under these circumstances?

I edge out slowly because I can not see what is coming down the footpath until I drive out slowly. I can not take any more care in doing this. I can not go any slower. If I went out fast then a cyclist would have no chance to take evasive action. By going slowly a cyclist could see a car nosing out slowly thus giving him choices. I would expect a cyclist to sue me for injuries/damages if he crashed into me.

The empty car parked however is another issue or the cyclist in an accident with an oncoming car in his effort to avoid me and the damages ensuing. Again, the cyclist , it seems to me, even though he is 100% wrong could successfully sue again. What do you think?

As far as I am aware, you can cause an accident, and be 'sued' as such, without actually physically hitting another road user. If you pull a handbrake turn on the M50 and cause a pile up, you can't just wander off as if you never did anything, because the cars all hit into each other and not you.

You can indeed use your horn in this instance, except at certain hours (which I don't know off the top of my head, but I think it's between 11pm-7am). A horn is legally used to alert other road users of your presence, so you'd be using it for it's intended use, word for word.

I'm assuming the issue here is you're exiting a drive with walls either side and have a relatively large bonnet on the car, so that the car bonnet is covering the entire path before you, yourself, can actually see either side.


If it was me, I'd do a tiny little toot of the horn after you've passed the walls (no point beeping if no one can see you as they won't know who's beeping), then slowly nose out with your dipped lights, fog lights and hazard lights on.

The chances of you hitting anyone in the first place are fairly slim (unless it's a very busy pathway) and if you've taken due car then it can't be your fault. Cyclist goes into the side of you at enough impact to do any kind of damage and he's at fault.

An optional (over the top) extra could be to get a dashcam on the car, so if it ever does happen, you can show that you were slow and steady.

icebergiceberg

Deleted User wrote: »

As far as I am aware, you can cause an accident, and be 'sued' as such, without actually physically hitting another road user. If you pull a handbrake turn on the M50 and cause a pile up, you can't just wander off as if you never did anything, because the cars all hit into each other and not you.

You can indeed use your horn in this instance, except at certain hours (which I don't know off the top of my head, but I think it's between 11pm-7am). A horn is legally used to alert other road users of your presence, so you'd be using it for it's intended use, word for word.

I'm assuming the issue here is you're exiting a drive with walls either side and have a relatively large bonnet on the car, so that the car bonnet is covering the entire path before you, yourself, can actually see either side.


If it was me, I'd do a tiny little toot of the horn after you've passed the walls (no point beeping if no one can see you as they won't know who's beeping), then slowly nose out with your dipped lights, fog lights and hazard lights on.

The chances of you hitting anyone in the first place are fairly slim (unless it's a very busy pathway) and if you've taken due car then it can't be your fault. Cyclist goes into the side of you at enough impact to do any kind of damage and he's at fault.

An optional (over the top) extra could be to get a dashcam on the car, so if it ever does happen, you can show that you were slow and steady.

Yes this is more or less correct. The bonnet edges out first and I can not see anything coming down the path until I myself am past the wall and on the path. It doesn't have to be a big bonnet at all as a cyclist can slam into a bonnet big or small.

The dashcam is an interesting point but useless because as far as I know the cyclist may be at fault but not liable.

As numerous posters have said, the cyclist is at fault. But does fault matter? Does it matter that he was the one who caused damage to my car, his bicycle or his own self?

The question is who is liable. And as I have stated above I suppose the motorist is liable even though he was not at fault.

Do motorists win any cases where a cyclist has been in a collision with them?

trixychic

So I am imagining the op lives on a busy main road, house is on a bend/corner, possibly with bushes in neighbouring gardens obstructing the view of the footpaths to a certain extent.

My understanding is also that this person drives (not reverses) slowly and nudgingly out of their driveway across the footpath to get onto the road.

I would imagine that you are being as careful as you can and if a cyclists came along who was obeying the rules of the road they would have sufficent warning, space and time to either stop or avoid being hit or hitting you. If however they were booting it and hit your car from the side I can only imagine it would be them who's liable.

If you hit them with the front of your car however you could be liable. Everyone (regardless of method of travelling ie car, bike, skateboard, etc) should never be travelling so fast in built up areas so as they can not stop in case of emergency. Although that's my opinion... not sure of the law.

wtlltw

Dashcams are handy if they can film 360 (I was shocked at the cyclist cycling into the back of stationary driving instructor - I wonder how that would have panned out if there wasn't video footage).

There seems to be no right or wrong sadly

icebergiceberg

trixychic wrote: »

So I am imagining the op lives on a busy main road, house is on a bend/corner, possibly with bushes in neighbouring gardens obstructing the view of the footpaths to a certain extent.

My understanding is also that this person drives (not reverses) slowly and nudgingly out of their driveway across the footpath to get onto the road.

I would imagine that you are being as careful as you can and if a cyclists came along who was obeying the rules of the road they would have sufficent warning, space and time to either stop or avoid being hit or hitting you. If however they were booting it and hit your car from the side I can only imagine it would be them who's liable.

If you hit them with the front of your car however you could be liable. Everyone (regardless of method of travelling ie car, bike, skateboard, etc) should never be travelling so fast in built up areas so as they can not stop in case of emergency. Although that's my opinion... not sure of the law.

Yeah. That's more or less it. However exiting a driveway all impact will be made from the side and not the front. And the cyclist would be hitting me not me hitting the cyclist. At the time of impact for example I could very well be stationary. In fact I would be exiting so slowly as to be hardly moving at all. The path, by the way, outside my property is on a hill and all the more reason why cyclists whizz past me and all the more reason i exit like a snail.

Sam Kade

Paulw wrote: »

Or you could ask - did the cyclist hit your car or didn't the cyclist hit your car?

Cyclist is in the wrong, cycling on the path, "without reasonable consideration".

RustyNut wrote: »

The other argument would be that the OP pulled out when it wasn't safe to do so.

You don't get it,the op says in his heading about hitting a cyclist on the footpath and in his post he never mentions hitting a cyclist only enquiring what if

RustyNut

Sam Kade wrote: »

Paulw wrote: »

Or you could ask - did the cyclist hit your car or didn't the cyclist hit your car?

Cyclist is in the wrong, cycling on the path, "without reasonable consideration".

RustyNut wrote: »

The other argument would be that the OP pulled out when it wasn't safe to do so.

You don't get it,the op says in his heading about hitting a cyclist on the footpath and in his post he never mentions hitting a cyclist only enquiring what if

I think what you quoted are hypothetical awnsers to a what if question.

icebergiceberg

Folks. Thanks for all responses thus far.

Just to reiterate. This never happened. I am only wondering about :

1. the legal consequences and the question of liability if a cyclist crashed into the side of my car as he was whizzing down the path outside my property.

2 the legal consequences and liability if the cyclist swerved to avoid me and he crashed into empty pared car or crashed into oncoming car and seriously injured himself. (Would the owner of the parked car have any comeback on the damage caused by the cyclist smashing into him?)

I want to stress that I am ultra careful exiting my property. Ultra slow. A snail would go faster.

ectoraige

micar wrote: »

Worst thong you can do.

I cycle up the N11 past ucd each day around 7 am.

Person reverses our of her driveway each morning. Got to be so careful.

What's mad is that her driveway is large enough turn her car around so she wouldn't need to reverse out.

I think he suggested reversing in, not reversing out. It for drive me mad the number of cars you see reversing out of their driveways in residential areas.

ectoraige

VincePP wrote: »

I don't think its "illegal" to cycle on the footpath. - If so, every 5 year old kid on their bike would be up before the courts.

Also, this was taken out of the proposed fine system last year.

A cyclist can be charged with riding recklessly and that would be used if necessary.

My understanding of it is that, basically, it's illegal to cycle on the footpath. However, there are no sanctions for children so even if charges were brought and a conviction obtained, there's no punishment to then be handed down. So in effect, a blind eye is turned to children on footpaths, but adults do risk prosecution.

4ensic15

icebergiceberg wrote: »

Folks. Thanks for all responses thus far.

Just to reiterate. This never happened. I am only wondering about :

1. the legal consequences and the question of liability if a cyclist crashed into the side of my car as he was whizzing down the path outside my property.

2 the legal consequences and liability if the cyclist swerved to avoid me and he crashed into empty pared car or crashed into oncoming car and seriously injured himself. (Would the owner of the parked car have any comeback on the damage caused by the cyclist smashing into him?)

I want to stress that I am ultra careful exiting my property. Ultra slow. A snail would go faster.

The legal consequences are that you are likely to get a letter from a solicitor acting on behalf of his client the cyclist. You will be obliged to pass this letter on to your motor insurance underwriter as required by the terms of the policy. the underwriter reserves the right to decide how to deal with the claim. Most likely the cyclist will be offered compensation as he will not be a mark if he loses the case. The irony is that the more seriously the cyclist is injured the less likely the insurer will be to settle since they will decide the cost of the defence is reasonable in proportion to the liability.
It will not matter if the cyclist hits you or is taking evasive action at the time. the same thing will happen.
Even at a theoretical level, you are the person exiting onto a public road and it is up to you to see that your path is clear. The fact that there is a wall or parked car in the way doesn't alter that. You could, for example get someone to stand on the road and signal to you that your way is clear.
the cyclist might have a high degree of contributory negligence but you could well be paying out.

icebergiceberg

4ensic15 wrote: »

The legal consequences are that you are likely to get a letter from a solicitor acting on behalf of his client the cyclist. You will be obliged to pass this letter on to your motor insurance underwriter as required by the terms of the policy. the underwriter reserves the right to decide how to deal with the claim. Most likely the cyclist will be offered compensation as he will not be a mark if he loses the case. The irony is that the more seriously the cyclist is injured the less likely the insurer will be to settle since they will decide the cost of the defence is reasonable in proportion to the liability.
It will not matter if the cyclist hits you or is taking evasive action at the time. the same thing will happen.
Even at a theoretical level, you are the person exiting onto a public road and it is up to you to see that your path is clear. The fact that there is a wall or parked car in the way doesn't alter that. You could, for example get someone to stand on the road and signal to you that your way is clear.
the cyclist might have a high degree of contributory negligence but you could well be paying out.

Yeah. These are the hard, cold and unwelcome facts that very well may apply. My gut feeling is that despite the cyclist being wrong to cycle on the path and at speed, the fact that I am in a car makes me liable.