Hyperthetical question - pulling in to the path of a cyclist

Strider590

arcon5 wrote: »

@strider, 10 seconds is a long time to be stationary in the other lane.

Is 10 seconds not worth a human life?

SLITHER99

Retrogamer wrote: »

Unless you were illegally parked, or opened the door into the cyclists path i'm a little skeptical of this.

Can you divulge more details, as it seems a little vague?

Would rather not for identity reasons, however I was parked legally, turned on the car to get it warmed up, was waiting for someone else and a cyclist ran across my bonnet.

Judge ruled in favor simply as I was in charge of a motor vehicle and not paying due care.

dacouch

smashingyour... wrote: »

There won't be any case law unless someone has tested it in court.

There's case law out there for motorcyclists in the same situation

maninthestreet

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Would rather not for identity reasons, however I was parked legally, turned on the car to get it warmed up, was waiting for someone else and a cyclist ran across my bonnet.

Judge ruled in favor simply as I was in charge of a motor vehicle and not paying due care.

Eh? The cyclist ran into a stationary object, and the stationary object was to blame?

arcon5

Strider590 wrote: »

Is 10 seconds not worth a human life?

I'm saying 10 seconds is unrealistic. One of two things will happen

You remain still for 10 seconds when a vehicle is making a gap for you, by which point the vehicle has reached you and decides to not let you through after all. Even the lane of traffic does come to a halt surely you still run the same risk if a cyclist is catching up during the 10 seconds.

Or

You start the turn but stop for 10 seconds in the path of oncoming traffic. The whole lane comes to a stand still but none the less you wait then proceed. Only problem is at some point you have to turn an still run the same risk because you can't fully see past the van and a cyclist still may be coming up on the n/s at speed.


Surely some times these situations require a duty of care from all parties? Including the cyclist to be aware of people not being able to see them when undertaking? Going back to my original question, can the cyclist be held jointly responible or does all the blame fall on to the driver?

arcon5

SLITHER99 wrote: »

Would rather not for identity reasons, however I was parked legally, turned on the car to get it warmed up, was waiting for someone else and a cyclist ran across my bonnet.

Judge ruled in favor simply as I was in charge of a motor vehicle and not paying due care.

Sorry but I don't believe that for a second. Your not telling the full facts here

arcon5

dacouch wrote: »

There's case law out there for motorcyclists in the same situation

What is the general consensus with regards to motorcyclists and joint liability? Could this be equally applied to cyclists or is it not as simple as that with cyclists not being a motor vehicle?

Aretnap

Summary of some of the case law as it applies to motorcycles here.

http://www.markthompsonlaw.com/motorcycle-filtering-through-traffic/accident-and-personal-injury-case-examples/

Motorcyclists have been found 50% or even 100% liable in some apparently similar situations, however a couple of points to note are that

(1) Most of the cases seem to involve motorbikes overtaking on the outside of the stationary van, where they would have been completely hidden from the driver who was pulling out. A cyclist coming up the inside of the van is likely to be more visible.
(2) Excessive speed on the part of the motorcyclist is a big factor in many of the cases - a cyclist will generally be going much more slowly

So I reckon there would be less, if any, blame attached to the cyclist in your situation than to most of the motorcyclists in those cases.

alastairq

Highway Code, rule 130. If the lines are broken it is a should not, if the lines are solid it is a must not - and gives the relevant legislation.

The reference to chevrons, with solid lines [boundaries] is for motorways and dual carriageways...the 'chevrons'.

What is being discussed here are the hatched 'separation' markings down the centre of a carriageway.

And in that example, there is only one road marking listed in the Highway Code [#130]...and that is, the hatched road marking with broken line [boundary].

The similar marking, with 'solid' line boundary,was deleted a couple of years ago, as it was in fact not covered by any[lawful] regulation....and nobody realised!

Therefore, it was 'unenforceable!'

To rectify the matter without too much re-painting, Local Authorities simply created a double solid continuous line, which isn't a 'boundary' marking, but of course, means...'do not cross', except, etc etc.....if the LA did not wish vehicles to enter the diagonal striped area under any circumstances [apart from an emergency]

ILW

arcon5 wrote: »

Surely some times these situations require a duty of care from all parties? Including the cyclist to be aware of people not being able to see them when undertaking? Going back to my original question, can the cyclist be held jointly responible or does all the blame fall on to the driver?

All the blame falls on the driver as the cyclist has a clear right of way.