The finger of blame?

JustAnotherSaver

I don't know how accurate it is but from reading the odd who's to blame post over the years, it appears to be (from what I've read) a flow chart based on size. Example...

cyclist vs car - car at fault, regardless.

pedestrian vs cyclist - cyclist at fault, regardless.

car vs van - van at fault, regardless

van vs hgv - hgv at fault, regardless.

Couple questions for you to satisfy nothing other than my curiosity.

Question 1:

My wife came home tonight telling me about some young lad on a scooter & how she nearly whacked him as she didn't see him until quite late. I pulled the dash cam card to watch back.

Now in this case, this young lad who looks about very early teens, is on one of them electrical scooter things. He's a young lad so you know straight away he's wearing all black with his black hood up in the dark. Genius.

Now I did see the scooter in the clip but was it because I was given advance notice? Would i have seen it early in real time? Not sure.

I don't know if the kid had a light up front or whether it was a reflective disc or something because it didn't look too good & looked like it was about the size of my little fingernail.

And the best bit .... he was scootering the wrong way down a 1 way.

Now the question is if she'd have clipped him, legally speaking where is the finger of blame?

I know there's variables, so to try and make it a bit easier to answer, i'm not talking about if the dashcam showed her doing 40 in a 20, going off centre aiming for him.

I'm talking about being within the speed limit, driving normally, the camera showing you see him last second, showing him in all black, no visibles, crappy light/reflector, you try and get out of the way but instead of missing him you still hit him as it's too late.

Question 2:

Meant to ask this one the other week so the timing of the above works out well.

I saw a very near miss a few week ago. On an unlit road, this cyclist who like the kid above wasn't wearing hi vis and also didn't have lights front or rear nearly got wiped out by a car in front of me as the cyclist was pulling out from the side of the road. Car clearly saw him last second & swerved to avoid but it was pretty damn close.

What happens there in the event of a collision? Car driver still has to pay out to the cyclist because he should have godly like detection skills? Common sense to me would dictate that the cyclist could and should get done for damage to the car in that situation .... but it's 2022 and the world has been getting steadily madder as each year passes, which is why i ask.

jimjames

If someone is using a vehicle/device on the road illegally I can't see that the blame would be with anyone other than them. I had a very similar experience a few months ago and like you say they were almost impossible to see when wearing black with no lights which is probably why they are not allowed on roads.

marlot

This case will be interesting ...

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/106335/man-injured-illegal-e-scooter-makes-insurance-claim-landmark-case

Grumpy_chap

JustAnotherSaver said:

I don't know how accurate it is but from reading the odd who's to blame post over the years, it appears to be (from what I've read) a flow chart based on size. Example...

cyclist vs car - car at fault, regardless.

pedestrian vs cyclist - cyclist at fault, regardless.

car vs van - van at fault, regardless

van vs hgv - hgv at fault, regardless.

I think it is broadly "steam gives way to sail"

jimjames said:

If someone is using a vehicle/device on the road illegally I can't see that the blame would be with anyone other than them. 

Just because...  Two wrongs don't make a right.  If someone parks foolishly on a blind bend with double yellow lines and you hit them, it's still your fault.

Marvel1

marlot said:

This case will be interesting ...

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/106335/man-injured-illegal-e-scooter-makes-insurance-claim-landmark-case

" when a bus went to overtake him and allegedly struck him with its mirror."

The bus driver knew he was there to overtake.


Back to OP:

Q1: Tough one

Q2: I would say cyclist for pulling out, no different but a motorbike pulling out, but knowing insurance etc - the car driver.

daveyjp

If someone in 1.5+ tonnes of car hits someone and injures them the car driver will probably get arrested and be charged with either careless or dangerous driving.

The careless or illegal actions of the other party will be considered, but it won't mean the car driver escapes with no charge,

How it then pans out depends on police approach, CPS, evidence, lawyers and if it gets that far a jury.

theoretica

In may situations there is more than one person at fault, and neither completely blame free.  But how much did the scooter make a difference?  if it had been a pedestrian in black - or even someone already fallen and lying on the road would they have been seen more easily?

Sandtree

In law there is the concept of vulnerable road users... there is no case where its always one persons fault but its certainly much more likely to be a pedestrian that isnt found at fault because they are vulnerable. A car owes them a much greater duty of care because of the reality of what will happen if the two collide. 

Contributory negligence does come up fairly often though, a colleague ran into the road drunk and was struck by a car, whilst the car was found at fault for the accident there was a 50% contributory negligence put on our colleague and so he only got half the damages for the brain injury he sustained... was never the same again.

Because the other party is doing something illegal or stupid etc isnt an absolution of your own actions either. When doing liability training the final example given was a case where some stupid roadworks had been done resulting in a lamppost being about 4' into the road. A person drove up the hill in a 30 at circa 15mph in the early morning/low sun and hit the lamppost. They sued the council saying it shouldnt have been there and the council counter sued saying you shouldnt hit a static object, it was there to be seen and avoided.

From memory it went 80/20 against the motorist as if he was driving in such a way he couldnt see a 12' lamppost he was not driving safely even at 15 mph. However a council as a higher duty of care than the layman and shouldnt have left the lamppost there and hnce the token liability.

Liability, before court, is always a negotiation but in both cases of motorised vehicle -v- young vulnerable road user quoted are almost without doubt going to have the vehicle carrying at least some of th eblame. 

Grey_Critic

The scooters are a menace - illegal, no insurance, riders underage and no licence and has been said wearing black and no lights.

What chance has the motorist? In Briggate (which is pedestrianised) Leeds a couple of months ago I saw several of them being ridden and ignored by the police. I note that questions have been asked in Parliament but nothing is being done about the situation.

Only a matter of time before we start to see multiple accidents and deaths.

wolvoman

Grumpy_chap said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

I don't know how accurate it is but from reading the odd who's to blame post over the years, it appears to be (from what I've read) a flow chart based on size. Example...

cyclist vs car - car at fault, regardless.

pedestrian vs cyclist - cyclist at fault, regardless.

car vs van - van at fault, regardless

van vs hgv - hgv at fault, regardless.

I think it is broadly "steam gives way to sail"

jimjames said:

If someone is using a vehicle/device on the road illegally I can't see that the blame would be with anyone other than them. 

Just because...  Two wrongs don't make a right.  If someone parks foolishly on a blind bend with double yellow lines and you hit them, it's still your fault.

Much like rules of the air.
Balloons yield to no-one.
Gliders yield to balloons.
Airships yield to gliders and balloons.
Powered aircraft yield to airships, gliders and balloons.

That's ultimately based on ability to take evasive action though.

On the road, it's not about manoeuvrability but more vulnerability. And it's not written in statute, or indeed guidance (in the UK). 

Car_54

daveyjp said:

If someone in 1.5+ tonnes of car hits someone and injures them the car driver will probably get arrested and be charged with either careless or dangerous driving.

Why would they be arrested?