Out walking last night at about 8:30pm I was nearly part of an accident. A young cyclist was making quick progress along the pavement behind me. His bike was unlit as one would expect. The cyclist and I were next to the main road and I stopped at a minor road leading off the main road for a look round before crossing. On the main road a Citroen Picasso with sidelights on was coming towards me and the cyclist. Instinct prevented me from setting off across the minor road; there was no reason for me to wait, the Citroen wasn't indicating and should have passed me to my left going straight on. But, as the cyclist launched himself off the kerb next to me, the Citroen turned left into the road I was waiting to cross, narrowly missing the cyclist who at this point was directly in front of the Citroen. How would you apportion blame? The unlit cyclist on the pavement or the barely-lit car driver turning without warning?
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
I would say the Citroen driver as he should have been aware of yourself and the cyclist and should have shown caution to what both of you were going to do next.
Maybe he did not see either of you with his lights down.
|
|
last night was the most likeliest night of the year for drivers to have been drinking at parties apparently,so if you add in the fact that the citroen driver only had candles on,then its a fair bet he cant even remember driving home?
|
|
|
cyclist.
Antine who leaves the pavement an enters the road at an unmarked crossing is responsible for not getting run over.
I dont drive on your pavement, dont walk in my road.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Are you sure TVM? I seem to remember reading (many years ago) that pedestrians actually have priority over cars turning into a minor road, if the pedestrian is continuing along the "main road pavement" (not talking about cyclists here since they shouldn't be on the pavement).
I'm not arguing by the way! Just asking very politely!
Phil
|
|
Yes, you're correct, Rule 146 of highway code states this. The Citroen driver was at fault.
|
Rightly or wrongly, I would say the cyclist was the blame.
Not only was he completely unlit (lets not forget the Citroen was at least partially lit) but he was riding on the pavement unlike the Citreon driver.
Hawkeye realised what could happen and stopped. The cyclist having no lights should have been far more aware than usual and anticipated that the Citroen could have turned without indication because lets be honest, how many cars do you see turning without indicating?
It's all well and good being able to quote a highway code rule but that's doesn't help if you're dead.
|
|
Take your point about the cyclist not having lights but don't think it's relevant here. Firstly the Citroen driver didn't indicate (Fault number 1) and secondly, whenever you turn into a junction you as the driver of your vehicle are responsible for ensuring you are not about to flatten anyone who just happens to be in the way, ie crossing the road. It doesn't matter who is there, a child, old lady, person in wheelchair, you, as the driver have responsibilities for other road users too!
|
To a certain extent it would depend upon the speed the cyclist was doing when he started going across the carriagway. I suppose in theory he was then just as bad the Citroen driver in using the vehicle on the road with no lights, having just ridden the vehicle illegally on the pavement.
Pedestrians have right of way in these situations, but he wasn't a pedestrian.
Regardless of who has right of way or not, it is always stupid to put yourself in danger by poor observation.
I am coming to the conclusion, having read several cyclist/pavement/red lights threads that it is time for some sort of test/insurance/law application/better regulation of cyclists. The main shopping street of our town is one way. Irresponsible cyclists riding the wrong way/on and off pavements are a menace to both pedestrians and motorists.
|
|
|
|
|
Surely an unlit cyclist must take some responsibility for any accident they are involved in.I cannot understand why anyone would take the chance,I've seen sets of bike lights at £6.
|
|
|
It brings to mind the concept of "contributory negligence", which has been brought to bear in court in the past.
Last Thursday late afternoon I was heading west along the B563 between Wheathampstead and Batford (Harpenden). It was dark; the road has two lanes (single carriageway) but is narrow enough for buses and large trucks to slow down when passing each other. Traffic slowed down in front of me and I couldn't see why, until I found two lunatic teenagers riding without lights and with no reflective clothing (they were in school uniform). If they got home unscathed, they were downright lucky.
Contributory negligence? You bet. But you can also bet that, in any collision involving cyclist or pedestrian, the motorist will be the first to be blamed. Nevertheless, in the instance that started this thread, if I had been the motorist I would take every opportunity to draw the law's attention to reckless and illegal use of the bicycle, not only because of riding on the pedestrian footway but also because, had a collision occurred, the bicycle would have been in use on the carriageway without lights.
The behaviour of responsible cyclists notwithstanding, it seems that there is no more common unpredictable random factor on the roads (and pavements) today than the cyclist. Hence, drivers of motor vehicles need to be ever more vigilant and to operate on the assumption that nothing the cyclist does can be trusted as a predictor of what will happen next (just like motorists' signalling, or not, at roundabouts). So, that's something else to think about, along with speed cameras, changes in speed limits, tailgaters, road humps, . . .
|
|
|
|
|
cyclist.
The cyclist was clearly illegal, and deserves a suitable punishment ... though so was the car for being lit only by sidelights and npot indicating as it turned. Frankly, I wouldn't want to apportion blame between the car driver and cyclist - they are both idiots and they are both a menace to themselves and to others, and if I was a magistrate I'd send them both off with a punishment and a good dressing down.
Antine who leaves the pavement an enters the road at an unmarked crossing is responsible for not getting run over.
TVM, you are making a very good case for compulsory retesting of drivers, in this case the theory section :)
Can you find anything in the Highway Code which supports that view?
I'd fail you on your theory test -- see rule 182 of the Highay Code: "give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning"
I dont drive on your pavement, dont walk in my road.
The only thing I can find in the Highway Code which tells pedstrains not to walk on the road which comes remotely close to that is rule 6: Motorways. You MUST NOT walk on motorways or slip roads except in an emergency (see Rule 249) ... and noe that even that is not an absolute ban.
You are labouring once again under the mistaken idea that the roads are only for motorised vehicles. They ain't, and I hope you take time to learn the rules before someone gets hurt.
I haven't seen you driving, but if you do drive as badly as your post suggests, then you are a menace.
|
"I haven't seen you driving, but if you do drive as badly as your post suggests, then you are a menace.
No wheels, much as I love you, - get a life.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
"I haven't seen you driving, but if you do drive as badly as your post suggests, then you are a menace. No wheels, much as I love you, - get a life.
I'll get a life if you get a copy of The Highway Code and at least try to read and understand it. Deal? :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
HC Rule 146 states that pedestrians have priority if they have started to cross; I hadn't. It also encourages road users to "watch out for cyclists". In the event, I would criticise the car driver for not using enough lights to see with, for not seeing or sensing the cyclist, for turning without thought or warning and, most importantly, not using his age and experience to cope with random hazards. Children will be irresponsible; adults should be less so.
Incidentally, if the driver had swerved to avoid the cyclist rather than braked, as he did, the Picasso would probably have a kerb-shaped dent in the wheel rim and possibly a Hawkeye-shaped dent on the bonnet.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
Citroen was in the wrong for not signalling properly. Forget about the lights bit, he's perfectly within his right to just use sidelights on a residential well lit road.
Re grilling the driver about not seeing the cyclist. Well for starters the cyclist had no lights, and don't forget the driver's only human. I had the misfortune last week to witness a wheel and tyre (about R14/15), travelling at slow speed, emergy from a side road to my left in broad daylight. I slowed down, as you would, and waited for it to cross. Needless to say I had stopped by the time it crossed my path, but that didn't stop a car coming the other way being completely oblivious to the wheel and carrying on past at full speed, missing it by a couple of inches.
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
Citroen was in the wrong for not signalling properly. Forget about the lights bit, he's perfectly within his right to just use sidelights on a residential well lit road.
Not entirely. See the Highway Code:
93: You MUST
* use headlights at night, except on restricted roads (those with street lights not more than 185 metres (600 feet) apart and which are generally subject to a speed limit of 30 mph)
95: You should also
* use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
The second bit seems to fall under this para of the intro to the Highway Code, which explains follows explanation of the "MUST/MUST NOT" rules: "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability."
Quite agree that the cyclist was an idiot, a danger to self and to others. As Hawkeye pointed out, he could have ended up mulched despite being the only one of the three to exercise due caution.
Even so, the Citroen driver would have had a better chance of spotting the silly cyclist if he'd had headlights, and there is warning to watch out for vulnerable road users:
Road users requiring extra care
180: The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, elderly and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.
|
|
|
|
'sensing the cyclist'
in what way?Criticising a driver for not having ESP seems a bit unfair.
'not using his age and experience'
how were you aware of his age and experience?
I still think the cyclist would be largely responsible in the event of an accident.Had he been on the road and the car had turned across him it would have been the cyclists fault for having no lights.It seems that,because he was riding on the pavement,the car driver is deemed to be at fault.It makes no difference.Pedestrians are not expected to use lights when they have to venture onto the road,bikes are,the difference being that bikes move more quickly and can change direction rapidly and without warning.As for the driver not seeing the cyclist due to only having sidelights on,no,in a built up area street lights illuminate more than headlights,besides which he was still complying with the law even if running on s/lights is inadvisable.
Incidentally,I speak as a motorist and cyclist.
|
As far as I know, cyclists are not permitted on the pavement and must use the carriageway. However I see lots of bicyles in our area on the pavement at night because they do not have any lights. In my opinion they are simply a menace and any accident involving a cycle at night without lights must have some amount of contributory negligence applied to the cyclist.
In this case, the Citroen should have indicated, but assuming the cyclist was going much faster than Hawkeye, then had there been an accident, the cyclist should be rounded condemned for a) riding on the footpath and b) showing no lights and c) not stopping at a junction to check for traffic.
Incidently, even pedestrians have a duty to be aware of their surroundings. No-one has a right of way, simply a priority of travel. A green light at traffic lights, does not mean go whatever, but go if it safe to do so. Therefore even a pedestrian must stop at a kerbside to check to danger and if he does not is similarly at fault.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
No-one has a right of way, simply a priority of travel.
Espada, that's probably the single most useful thing anyone has said in this thread. Everyone has a duty to avoid an accident.
|
|
But your Honour on the night in question it was a full moon so any driver with normal eyesight would have been able to see the cyclist and pedestrian on the pavement and should have been signalling his intent to manouver.
|
|
|
No-one has a right of way, simply a priority of travel.
>Espada, that's probably the single most useful thing anyone has said in this thread. Everyone has a duty to avoid an accident.
I think that means "dont walk in my road."
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
That's not quite how I would put it, because pedestrians always have priority even on roads; as long as they have taken the sensible precautions - they can't just step out into the carriageway.
Cyclists have less 'rights' than a pedestrian and should therefore take even more care - even though they don't.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
|
I think that means "dont walk in my road."
And which road exactly is "your road"?
|
where are you walking?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
where are you walking?
If I want to meet TVM, it looks like I should walk across Wheflibdipwiacidal * Street ;)
Wheflibdipwiac = Wannabe Hardman Enjoys Feeling Less Inadequate By Dreaming of Intimidating People When In A Car, If
Doors Are Locked
|
Cant quite seem to find that on my sat nav NW.
Is that where you left your car?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Cant quite seem to find that on my sat nav NW.
Don't worry, I believe that some satnavs may not get a fix when the car is switched off and parked at home :P
Is that where you left your car?
No, mine's squeezed in with the majority of other cars, on Iletrathc Street. ;D
Iletrathc = I'm Literate Enough To Read All the Highway Code
|
|
I think the red-herring here is the argument about pedestrians (or any on-going traffic) having priority over a car turning left. That is true, but that doesn't give a pedestrian (or illegal cyclist) the right to launch himself across a junction and expect anything turning to stop in time.
The cyclist was primarily at fault for not stopping at a junction, and secondarily at fault for riding on the pavement and not having any lights. The citroen driver I think would have been partly to blame too, for failing to slow adequately at a junction in preparedness for possibly having to give way to anyone ALREADY CROSSING, and for failing to indicate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
