The finger of blame?

JustAnotherSaver

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

Car_54

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

If you read the Highway Code instead of relying on 2nd-hand reports you’d know that NO-ONE has “right of way”.

JustAnotherSaver

Car_54 said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

If you read the Highway Code instead of relying on 2nd-hand reports you’d know that NO-ONE has “right of way”.

Knowing is irrelevant. Thinking is what goes on in the real world.

And every man on his dog thinks that they have right of way so proceed based on that - and then accidents happen.

Anyway, I've just noticed - where's AdrianC gone?

If i'm not allowed to ask about that then scratch that i guess.

[Deleted User]

Vulnerable users sometimes have to effectively take right of way e.g. a cyclist in primary while riding or at junctions 

Knowing there is no right of way but assuming others think they have it is a good way to avoid accidents

Car_54

JustAnotherSaver said:

Car_54 said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I get more upset by drivers surrounded by tonnes of vehicle playing with their phones rather than looking where they are going. Much more dangerous than an e-scooter.

All these machines are not dangerous I think you'll find.

It's the person operating them that makes them dangerous.

e-scooters generally operated by snot nosed kids with a chip on their shoulder which brings me on to....

So I don't particularly keep an eye on the news. I generally catch it 3rd hand.

So I was told about a change in law on right of way - such as cyclists now having to give way to pedestrians on cycle paths for example.

As soon as I was told that I thought what a stupid recipe for disaster. You're going to have snot nosed kids dressed in their all black with hoods up now lined up across a cycle path refusing to move for a cyclist because THEY have "right of way".

And so it was - we've recently had a local incident in where a young cyclist went and got themselves injured because they decided to just cycle out to cross the road as they said cars should stop for them because they're on a bike.

Knew as soon as I heard it that kids were going to wind up getting hurt because they're just too smart/clever for their own good.

The kid isn't dead but still, got what they deserved for being clever. Play with fire & get burned. Simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't want to be playing let's see who's still standing bike-vs-car.

If you read the Highway Code instead of relying on 2nd-hand reports you’d know that NO-ONE has “right of way”.

Knowing is irrelevant. Thinking is what goes on in the real world.

And every man on his dog thinks that they have right of way so proceed based on that - and then accidents happen.

You're underestimating the dog. A guide dog has a better grasp of the rules than most human pedestrians.

Richard53

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.

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.

There is a programme on BBC Wales called 'Crash Detectives' which looks at incidents in the Gwent traffic area and the procedures the police use. In one recent case, a lorry driving on a 2-lane rural road hit a cyclist from behind (cyclist had life-changing injuries but survived, from memory). Police assumed the usual careless driving from the lorry driver, but his dashcam footage showed the cyclist turning across his path to go down a side-road without looking. Analysis of the braking marks against the evidence of the dashcam showed that the driver slammed his full anchors on as soon as the cyclist moved, as the cyclist was only a few metres ahead of the lorry when he turned across its path. The attitude of the police was that the driver had done everything he could and was in no way to blame. He was neither arrested nor charged (the right course of action, in my opinion). That was in the middle of the day with good visibility. Add night time conditions, dark clothing on the cyclist, no lights etc and I would imagine they would be even more sympathetic to the driver.

There used to be a legal phrase 'the author of one's own misfortune'. I'm not sure if it is still valid, but it seems that was behind the police's thinking in this case.

Jenni_D

I guess that's one I'd need to see ... I can't visualise how the cyclist could turn across the lorry's path (without looking) to go into a side road, and then be hit from behind? (Coming out of a side road - yes, but not to go into one).

Grumpy_chap

Jenni_D said:

I guess that's one I'd need to see ... I can't visualise how the cyclist could turn across the lorry's path (without looking) to go into a side road, and then be hit from behind? (Coming out of a side road - yes, but not to go into one).

I can imagine how it is a quiet country lane, so the cyclist is meandering along at their own leisurely pace, not expecting any other vehicles in the track and wearing headphones so entirely oblivious to a wagon slowly crawling along behind and respecting the cyclists space (possibly with no option to pass in a narrow track, hedges, twists and turns) so when the right hand exit comes along, the cyclist simply swerves slowly right to exit and the wagon cannot stop.

Unlike you, I don't really want to see it as it sounds messy

Sandtree

Richard53 said:
There used to be a legal phrase 'the author of one's own misfortune'. I'm not sure if it is still valid, but it seems that was behind the police's thinking in this case.

It is more commonly used in contributory negligence than primary liability... so for example if you rear end someone and the driver of the other vehicle wasnt wearing a seatbelt and sustained significant injuries. You still have primary liability for the accident however not wearing a seatbelt normally results in a 25% contributory negligence. Net result is you can claim nothing off them but they only get 75% of their damages.

Even before these rule changes many accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists etc were settled with contributory negligence rather than primary liability... a work colleague ran out into the road drunk without looking and was hit by a car, he was considered 50% contributory negligence. 

Jenni_D

Grumpy_chap said:

Jenni_D said:

I guess that's one I'd need to see ... I can't visualise how the cyclist could turn across the lorry's path (without looking) to go into a side road, and then be hit from behind? (Coming out of a side road - yes, but not to go into one).

Unlike you, I don't really want to see it as it sounds messy

I was meaning figuratively - but I'm sure you knew that.  

However your description still doesn't make things any clearer - what you've described would have the truck already behind the cyclist, so whether the cyclist turned right or not should be immaterial.

If you meant the truck was coming the other way and the cyclist turned across, then how did the truck hit the cyclist from behind?