What do I do if a pedestrian steps out in front of me and I'm in one of these new cycle lanes?

JamoLew

Nebulous2 said:

I'm not sure it really is legalities. I'm not an expert but - I think it goes like this:-



Cyclists are campaigning for presumed liability which happens in a lot of other countries, which would have a hierarchy of vulnerability Lorry -> Car -> Motorbike -> Cyclist -> Pedestrian -> Child for example. 

That would mean if a car hits a cyclist the car is automatically presumed to be at fault and the onus would be on the driver to prove he wasn't. Presumed liability would also continue down the chain though. If a bike hit a pedestrian under that system, the cyclist would be presumed to be at fault and would be liable unless they could prove they weren't. 

I think judging by driving/cycling standards this would be a VERY dangerous route to take imho
From my observations its very often the the opposite way round if anything as there is an assumption that the Lorry/Car/Bike will see "me" and take necessary avoiding action
Wasn't there a case recently involving a cyclist and pedestrian (distracted on a phone) ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-cyclist-crash-robert-hazeldean-gemma-brushett-london-phone-court-a8972326.html

Nebulous2

JamoLew said:

Nebulous2 said:

I'm not sure it really is legalities. I'm not an expert but - I think it goes like this:-



Cyclists are campaigning for presumed liability which happens in a lot of other countries, which would have a hierarchy of vulnerability Lorry -> Car -> Motorbike -> Cyclist -> Pedestrian -> Child for example. 

That would mean if a car hits a cyclist the car is automatically presumed to be at fault and the onus would be on the driver to prove he wasn't. Presumed liability would also continue down the chain though. If a bike hit a pedestrian under that system, the cyclist would be presumed to be at fault and would be liable unless they could prove they weren't. 

I think judging by driving/cycling standards this would be a VERY dangerous route to take imho
From my observations its very often the the opposite way round if anything as there is an assumption that the Lorry/Car/Bike will see "me" and take necessary avoiding action
Wasn't there a case recently involving a cyclist and pedestrian (distracted on a phone) ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-cyclist-crash-robert-hazeldean-gemma-brushett-london-phone-court-a8972326.html

That's a good article - it gives a break down of presumed liability. It also points out that there are far more cases of cyclists being hit by cars than cyclists hitting pedestrians. 

Presumed liability appears to work well in other countries, but I've often thought although it will give more protection to cyclists, they don't necessarily realise it will put more onus on them to be careful around more vulnerable people. 

The cyclist didn't take legal advice and didn't launch a counterclaim, which is partly why he has landed in such a mess. 

Nebulous2

fred246 said:

A lot of home insurance policies have 'public liability' insurance. This always has a clause 'except for motor vehicle accidents' so you have to buy car insurance. That's supposed to cover cycling incidents. I suppose that would cover pedestrian liability too. Just never heard of a pedestrian being held liable.

Although I have public liability through my home insurance, many cyclists will not have home insurance. British Cycling use specialist solicitors with a background in cycling cases, and in my view it is well worth it.

I engage in some minor competitive events, such as club time trials and my silver membership covers me for that as well, which home insurance wouldn't. For bigger competitive events you can get their gold cover, with a full race licence. 

I can't recall any cases of a pedestrian being held liable - but we had a poster on MSE who was being pursued for damage caused to a car by their dog, which had managed to get loose and was hit by the car. 

[Deleted User]

If a pedestrian steps into a clearly marked bike lane and the rider can prove they were taking care (e.g. GPS data showing they were doing a sensible speed, brakes in good order) then you'd have a good argument to counter any injury claim, but really you need a camera to be 100% proof of what happened - easy to claim the person on the bike was going too fast, swerving, didn't try and stop etc, not so easy when there is video proof they were riding along carefully and the pedestrian just walked out without looking. I had one exactly like this just last week, riding on the road, flatbed truck parked on double yellows blocking the road, went wide as a workman opened the door to get into the cab and nearly hit another guy walking out while carrying some piping or wood or something on his shoulder - the wood came out from the front of the truck first, then the worker who was looking left, not right and had chosen to pass at the front into oncoming traffic that he couldn't see, rather than around the back, I was lucky I could duck in time and avoid being taken out. If we had collided, the video footage would prove he stepped out in a dangerous manner without looking

Chomeur

Just checked the terms of my home insurance policy which states:

"We’ll pay any amount that you or your family are

legally obliged to pay following an accident that

results in someone being ill, injured, or results in

someone’s death.

We’ll also pay amounts that you or your family are

legally obliged to pay if an accident causes damage to

someone else’s property. 

We won’t pay claims that involve motor vehicles,

including their trailers. 

We won’t pay claims for injuries that happen as a

result of playing any sport or using a bicycle outside

the boundary of your home unless there’s no other

insurance you can claim on."
So I'm insured for claims from pedestrians but not if I damage a car. Cover is for £2M vs £15M with British Cycling. I guess there's something to be said for joining British Cycling for this.
Qn: does the exclusion for claims involving motor vehicles exclude liability for injury to people in the car? If so I think I definitely should get British Cycling insurance. People are worth more than cars.

Chomeur

I never really understand all the legalities. "Pedestrians are walking about playing with their phones, not looking where they are going". "OK so the cyclists should get insurance". How about the pedestrians getting insurance? Are pedestrians legally protected so they can do anything and are never liable? They could cause millions of pounds worth of damage causing serious motor vehicle accidents.

Pedestrians could definitely be liable. But I guess that any who have assets and so are worth suing would already have home contents cover that would protect them. But I would think that cyclists are more likely to be sued and they should definitely consider their insurance position.

mark1959

Ring your bell.

[Deleted User]

Not much help if they step out right in front of you is it? You need to brake/swerve while shouting. 
Watch dashcam clip shows, all these morons beeping their horn and getting hit rather than trying to swerve/avoid the accident 

mark1959

It helps me. Of course if you're going quite fast it could be a problem. But i don't as its too dangerous.

[Deleted User]

mark1959 said:

It helps me. Of course if you're going quite fast it could be a problem. But i don't as its too dangerous.

Ringing your bell rather than braking, swerving and shouting a warning is just daft