Cyclist collision at mini round about

Richard53

reeac wrote: »

I have some sympathy with the OP as one could argue that the cyclist was overtaking at a road junction. I had a near miss at a T junction when a motorist on the main road stopped to let me out but a motorcyclist overtook him and skimmed across my bows. The motorcyclist was hidden on the far side of the stopped car. No amount of lights or hi viz clothing would have helped - there was just no line of sight.

And if you had hit him, you would have been 100% to blame. If you are pulling out into a road, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is safe to do so, and that includes allowing for overtaking vehicles that you may not be able to see. In your own words, "there was no line of sight", so you couldn't be sure and shouldn't have moved out.


As a motorcyclist, I wouldn't ever overtake on the approach to a junction for this very reason (simple self-preservation) but the responsibility is always with the driver pulling out to see that it is clear. A blind spot should always be treated as hiding a vehicle until proved otherwise.

reeac

I think that you're correct ...it would have been seen as being my fault. I doubt if "overtaking at a road junction" takes precedence over "joining main road from a side road" as a law breaker. Pity really as I've always been impressed by the generally cooperative spirit in East Finchley (where this incident took place) in letting people join in from side roads when traffic is dense. I think that it tends to ease or minimise traffic jams overall.

arcon5

You say it doesn't matter what the cyclist did... well a court would disagree if the incident was serious or fatal and the cps considering bringing a case against the op. Contributory negligence and mitigating factors such as it being night time and him having no lights etc would certainly be a valid defence

almillar

That's a matter of semantics and a whole other can o worms

Yes - my point exactly! Some people, including the OP I think, said the cyclist was overtaking - he wasn't, he was filtering, and yes, it's a different can of worms, and by the sounds of things, he was doing it very badly.

Car_54

almillar wrote: »

Yes - my point exactly! Some people, including the OP I think, said the cyclist was overtaking - he wasn't, he was filtering, and yes, it's a different can of worms, and by the sounds of things, he was doing it very badly.

AFAIK "Filtering" isn't mentioned in any legislation. So far as the law is concerned, he was overtaking, as defined:

"Catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction." - Oxford English Dictionary

or in the Zebra Crossing. etc regs: "to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction"

reeac

Let's look at the difference between overtaking and filtering. In both cases the cyclist or other vehicle starts off behind another vehicle and ends up in front of it. Classically, I think, filtering refers to passing between a vehicle and a kerb or between two vehicles e.g. a green filter arrow signs permit traffic to make a turn whilst going straight ahead is banned by a red light and in order to do this the vehicle often has to get past stationary traffic which is forbidden to move. This is rather different from the roundabout situation where there was no formal signal forbidding onward movement and neither was there a green filter arrow. I don't see that filtering in the absence of a green filter arrow confers any automatic right of way.

TBagpuss

The thing is, the cyclist was approaching from your right, so they had piority over *you*. Whether or not they shoul have come past a difernt vehicle may be relavant to whether or not you saw them, but doesn't take away the requirement for you to be aware of traffic.

I agree that if the cyclist was injured oand sought to sue you, the darlk clothing and lack of lights might be seen as reducing your culpability and therfore might afect the level of damages awarded, and if you had been proscuted for dirving without due care and attention would assist your defence, but they don't man that the incident was the cyclist's fault .

JP08

Re filtering and overtaking.

Filtering is carried out when passing other road users who are either stationary or at very low speed in traffic. Generally at low speed yourself.

Overtaking is passing another road user who is travelling freely at speed.

Whatever you do it on/in.

arcon5

Filtering ? lol sure. A term bikers seem to like to use when justifying dangerous manoeuvres.

spadoosh

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

where in the thread have I said it was solely the cyclists fault. its quite simple he did many things that he should not have done which contributing to the fact that i didn't seem him, was he more reckless than i - probably. Was there legitimate reasons for me not seeing him - definitely

Did you cause the accident - Definitely.

Would he have hit you if you did not enter the roundabout? It was your actions that directly caused the accident. The cyclist did have contributing factors to it and you can argue his rights and wrongs all day you did wrong by entering the roundabout when it wasnt clear to do so.

Its unfortunate and you might not have been able to avoid it (no one might have been able to avoid it) but your actions directly led to the cyclist who had right of way hitting you.

Some things you just have to take on the chin. Im guessing you will learn from this (1. some things you have to take on the chin and 2. to expect the unexpected) , put it down to learning and be thankful no one is dead and there wasnt much damage.