Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 4:39 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 4Thanks
    emmasaunders
    Cyclist collision at mini round about
    • #1
    • 18th Oct 16, 4:39 PM
    Cyclist collision at mini round about 18th Oct 16 at 4:39 PM
    Hi advice on whose at fault. Last night at around sunset, a cyclist hit me at a mini round about drivers front wing. I pulled up at mini round about and saw the car to my right stationary so proceeded to enter the round about. I then hear a thud and a cyclist has collided with my rhs near the mini round about. I didn't see him, I imagine when I pulled off he was at the right side of the car at my right so I had no clear view of him, plus he was wearing all black, no pedal reflectors and no front light, just a back light, no helmet. I wish I took a photo of the fact he had no front light on at the scene. He didn't require and ambulance but was hit from bike. Any ideas how this may unfold? He stated that he saw a learner to his right and thought he could make it in time and probably didn't look infront. I understand traffic to the right has right of way but when a car to my right has stopped to give way to me it necessitates that I should have entered the round about, I imagine the cyclist didn't come to a stop at the give way sign and was just concentrating on beating traffic to his right
Page 3
    • Strider590
    • By Strider590 18th Oct 16, 8:10 PM
    • 10,461 Posts
    • 5,779 Thanks
    Strider590
    His lack of a helmet is irrelevant to your argument. It is not a legal requirement and is still (surprisingly) a matter of choice, thank goodness.
    Originally posted by Richard53
    Of course it is, but the OP is trying appeal to us on an emotional/social level, kind of like "he wasn't wearing a helmet, therefore he's a bad person and deserves no sympathy".
    In much the same way that some years ago one man tried to explain away killing a biker (by pushing him into oncoming traffic) by accusing him of "queue jumping" and then later changing his statement to something like "I was trying to stop him getting hurt".

    The lack of lights is relevant, but if this was a car not a bicycle, this would be a 50/50 at best.
    Having the last word isn't the same as being right.......

    "Never confuse education with intelligence"
    • boliston
    • By boliston 18th Oct 16, 8:10 PM
    • 1,744 Posts
    • 1,293 Thanks
    boliston
    It sounds unlucky, but can't see how it won't be deemed your fault.

    If you were being prosecuted, having no lights would form part of your defence. In this case your insurer could argue, but I can't imagine they'd bother.

    There's no requirement to wear a helmet, so that's irrelevant. That said, there was a case recently (I think it was a death) where the judge indicated there was some fault on the cyclist for not wearing a helmet.
    Originally posted by theEnd
    Unless the cyclist was claiming for some sort of head injury it would be totally irrelevant, and more people suffer head injury while in a car than on a bike so it would make sense for all vehicle occupants to wear a helmet.
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 18th Oct 16, 8:28 PM
    • 3,661 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    [...] Fast approaches and quick observations feel like good driving until the day they let you down...
    Originally posted by lister
    And that neatly sums up so much that goes wrong on our roads! People simply can't process information as fast as they often think they can.

    Most of the time they get away with it, and every close call convinces them how good their reaction to the "unforseeable" event was. Then, one day, they don't - at which point it was clearly unavoidable because of all the ones they've brilliantly avoided in the past.

    Personally, I almost missed an HGV in my blind spot as I was joining a dual carriageway last week (nasty slip road but I know it is so no excuse there). As I became aware of it (apparently before the HGV driver became aware of me), made the right choice and accelerated out of trouble brilliantly. Then gave myself a good slap for being such a !!!! in the first place
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 8:37 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    Hi

    Its impossible I was going at any great speed, as the round about is just after a set of lights, I all but stopped and probably was going no more than 5mph in my opinnion. I understand your take, I did look Assess, decide and act, and it involved me seeing a stationary vehicle and decided to move out and not seing the cyclist with no lights probably thundering down the inside. How is it possible to see at a junction if a bike is behind a car?
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 18th Oct 16, 8:42 PM
    • 3,661 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    Hi
    How is it possible to see at a junction if a bike is behind a car?
    Originally posted by emmasaunders

    By being aware that bikes (pedal and motor) often filter past cars so keeping an extra awareness for them?

    If that little gem had passed you by up until now, no doubt you'll remember it next time - and just be thankful there isn't a dead bike rider in your past to keep that thought extra fresh in your mind.
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 8:49 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    filtering and undertaking at a junction with no lights at speed and not looking at traffic in-front of you are two different things.

    The majority of the forum seem to think its acceptable to cycle in the dark with no lights

    Can you all put your hand on your heart and say that this couldn't have happened to one of you?
    • Fat Walt
    • By Fat Walt 18th Oct 16, 8:49 PM
    • 602 Posts
    • 327 Thanks
    Fat Walt
    The Road Traffic Act 1991, s.42; The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.

    is. As soon as the sun drops behind the horizon bicycle lights should be switched on even if there may be plenty of light left to see by on a clear evening. Failure to have the correct lights or reflectors can result in being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice where the maximum is £30[6] or you can be subject to a maximum fine of £1000 in the courts.
    Originally posted by emmasaunders
    Since you're so hot on the law have you reported this collision?

    Not having lights on a bike won't get him points where as failing to report will get you some.
    • lister
    • By lister 18th Oct 16, 8:52 PM
    • 171 Posts
    • 191 Thanks
    lister
    By being aware that bikes (pedal and motor) often filter past cars so keeping an extra awareness for them?

    If that little gem had passed you by up until now, no doubt you'll remember it next time - and just be thankful there isn't a dead bike rider in your past to keep that thought extra fresh in your mind.
    Originally posted by Joe Horner
    Exactly. It almost doesn't matter long term who was at fault and who wasn't (obviously it does in terms of sorting out damage, injuries, prosecutions etc. after accidents). What matters is what you learn from it.

    If I failed to see a cyclist in these circumstances, whether we collided or nearly did, whether lit or unlit, in broad daylight or darkest night and pouring with rain, I am going to be giving myself such a telling off.

    We all know that cyclists aren't always well lit, we all know that they filter down the outside. You might almost wonder why we have the 'Think Bike' campaigns...
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 8:54 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    just got off the phone to insurance company

    there is no failure to report - I stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 8:59 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    Furthermore, rule 211 says that ‘it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are filtering through traffic’

    Although Rule 211 states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’ which could be taken to mean that drivers have responsibility for looking for riders before performing a manoeuvre, it is important for cyclists to anticipate the actions of other road users and avoid risks at all times. There is no specific guidance in the Highway Code about when it is or is not safe to filter through traffic, however there are some basic pieces of safety advice that cyclists should have in mind when on the roads.
    Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction.
    Last edited by emmasaunders; 18-10-2016 at 9:02 PM.
    • Fat Walt
    • By Fat Walt 18th Oct 16, 9:08 PM
    • 602 Posts
    • 327 Thanks
    Fat Walt
    just got off the phone to insurance company

    there is no failure to report - I stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist
    Originally posted by emmasaunders

    So you're certain he's not injured?

    Good luck.
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 9:12 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    At the scene he said he was fine and didnt want an ambulance called
    • Strider590
    • By Strider590 18th Oct 16, 9:19 PM
    • 10,461 Posts
    • 5,779 Thanks
    Strider590
    This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’.
    Originally posted by emmasaunders
    So basically don't ever overtake? Because in this country 90% of the time, overtaking causes conflict.
    Having the last word isn't the same as being right.......

    "Never confuse education with intelligence"
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 9:21 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    particularly at a junction with no lights at dusk wearing black?
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 18th Oct 16, 9:21 PM
    • 3,661 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    [a whole load of blame shifting]
    Originally posted by emmasaunders
    Look, it doesn't matter what the cyclist did, or didn't, or should, or shouldn't, have done.

    The fact is that you failed to see a cyclist until he actually hit you. Stop finding excuses and LEARN FROM IT.
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 9:28 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    cant you realise that by analysing the situation I am LEARNING FROM IT

    The cyclist was wrong - he broke the law - he didn't pay attention and I'm the person who will suffer because a car is bigger than a bike

    May happen to you one day, wonder what yoru response will be then
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 18th Oct 16, 9:38 PM
    • 3,661 Posts
    • 3,031 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    cant you realise that by analysing the situation I am LEARNING FROM IT

    The cyclist was wrong - he broke the law - he didn't pay attention and I'm the person who will suffer because a car is bigger than a bike

    May happen to you one day, wonder what yoru response will be then
    Originally posted by emmasaunders

    No, you're "learning" entirely the wrong thing. You're trying to find every reason you can to show that it was the cyclist's fault and that you were blameless. You're "learning" how to excuse yourself.


    What you should be doing is thinking about and learning what you could do to avoid the next time regardless of what the other person is doing / not doing.

    Take it from me - not from personal experience but I've known 2 or 3 it's happened to - when there's a dead and badly broken body in the road it really won't matter who was "in the wrong":
    • You will live with the guilt for a very long time indeed.
    • You will have nightmares about it that won't go away.
    • You likely will lose the freedom that driving gives because you won't be able to get behind the wheel.

    If you don't suffer those effects if it ever happens then you're probably too psychopathic to be anywhere near a set of car keys.
    • emmasaunders
    • By emmasaunders 18th Oct 16, 9:43 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    emmasaunders
    I already feel those things, but fail to believe that my driving fell below the standards of being a competent motorist, there is culpability on the cyclists part
    • Fat Walt
    • By Fat Walt 18th Oct 16, 9:45 PM
    • 602 Posts
    • 327 Thanks
    Fat Walt
    At the scene he said he was fine and didnt want an ambulance called
    Originally posted by emmasaunders
    You're avoiding the issue. The RTA makes no mention of ambulance.

    I'll bet he has an injury so you should report it.
    • Fat Walt
    • By Fat Walt 18th Oct 16, 9:45 PM
    • 602 Posts
    • 327 Thanks
    Fat Walt
    I already feel those things, but fail to believe that my driving fell below the standards of being a competent motorist, there is culpability on the cyclists part
    Originally posted by emmasaunders
    And on you.

    Would you have passed your test had this happened then?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,742Posts Today

5,849Users online

Martin's Twitter