[Closed] Head on crash with car caused by jogger

Isnt this a bit like the old "driver behind is liable regardless of what happens ahead?". So the onus is on the cyclist to be in such control of his own speed that he can react safely to the surrounding environment. So the cyclist is liable to the motorist i suspect.

But this being STW I imagine i will be told i am wrong very soon.

I'm not sure your mate's decision to swerve onto the wrong side of the road is really the jogger's fault tbh.

@Blackflag no, I agree with that. If the cyclist's swerve has taken him onto the wrong side of the road, that's a BIG swerve (or the jogger was moving REALLY fast) So yeah, keep an eye out for hazards (same as in a car), adjust riding accordingly

Cyclists aren't insured so the default is the van claims on theirs and, if the insurance company want to pursue the cyclist, so be it.

The cyclist could of course pay up out of a sense of decency but it wasn't their fault either, and have quite a bit of expense, so might think it's 50/50.

Lastly, why couldn't the van stop?

Isnt this a bit like the old “driver behind is liable regardless of what happens ahead?”. So the onus is on the cyclist to be in such control of his own speed that he can react safely to the surrounding environment. So the cyclist is liable to the motorist i suspect.

Possibly. But then you could extend that to the van driver, or he should have been driving slowly enough around a corner to be able to stop should he have encountered anything out of sight, ie the cyclist?

Cyclists aren’t insured

The cyclist could of course pay up out of a sense of decency but it wasn’t their fault either, and have quite a bit of expense, so might think it’s 50/50.

If you're not prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with operating ANY vehicle on a road, you shouldn't be on the road, end of.

I'm genuinely fascinated to see the 'official' answer to this. If the cyclist was replaced by a car driver, ped. or jogger steps out in front, driver swerves to avoid and damages parked car, building, other road user are they liable? If the answer is yes, wouldn't that tend to encourage them to simply hit the pedestrian? Like the advice about not swerving to avoid animals in the road unless it's a moose?

If this was a tale of a car driving swerving to avoid a jogger and hitting a cyclist in the process the pitchforks would be out.

This is the cyclist's fault and he needs to pony up. No insurance? Tough.

What would a self driving car do in this situation? Hit the jogger or hit a third party head on? 😉

The jogger is a complete knob whether he stopped or ‘fled the scene’ but the fault for this road accident lies solely with the cyclist sadly. He needs to either pay up out of his own pocket or have his insurance pay up.

The line of insurance would be van driver claims against cyclist, cyclist claims against jogger, unfortunately for them the joggers done a runner - any chance they were on a regular run and can be spotted on another day?

What if the jogger was being chased by a dog and that’s why they ran out?

"What would a self driving car do in this situation? Hit the jogger or hit a third party head on? 😉"

Anticipated the jogger might move onto the road and change to an appropriate speed, likely brake sufficiently to avoid injury, or swerve only as much as required, communicate with the self driving white van heading in the other direction to make sure they slow down too.
Or if we just get a self driving jogger then the whole situation could have been completely avoided....

I’m not convinced cyclist could claim off jogger. Cyclist was the road user and wasn’t riding appropriately to stop in time.

Cyclist certainly had balls though to ride into a van rather than hit a pedestrian

Please tell me there were no conveyor belts?! We can't deal with that level of complexity.

Can the jogger claim from the dog?

What if the dog was only loose because it’s lead snapped due to a manufacturing fault?

The jogger was the dogs neighbour, last seen with a pack of frozen sausages 😳

Cyclists aren’t insured

Pretty much anyone with home insurance is covered for third party liability while cycling. Check your policy, most if not all have liability cover specifically excluding certain activities such as the use of motor vehicles.

Anyway… does sound like the chap on the bike is liable, the awkward reality being that he can’t claim off the jogger because there’s no equivalent of the MIB which exists to pay claims against unidentifiable third parties. But, as above: home insurance, unless he’d rather settle it himself.

Obviously the jogger is at fault

Obvious troll is obvious.

The legal question is was the cyclist negligent - would the man on the Clapham omnibus think what he did was reasonable?

If there was a witness to back up the cyclists version of events, I'd be fairly comfortable arguing that his instinctive reaction to avoid the obvious hazard of the jogger was not negligent, despite him swerving into a van that appears to have come round a corner.

My view is not clouded by having a frame written off earlier this year after a pedestrian stepped out in front of me. 🤣

The line of insurance would be van driver claims against cyclist, cyclist claims against jogger

No, you claim against the negligent party. If the cyclist wasn't negligent, the van driver claims directly from the jogger.

I don't believe that a claim in tort would be anything else except between directly affected parties.

What Bez said - home insurance covers you for something like £1million in liability costs for such occurences.

I don’t believe that a claim in tort would be anything else except between directly affected parties.

I fear you are mistaken. If you are stationary in traffic and hit from behind into the car in front of you, the guy in fronts claim is against the person who was negligent ie the guy who hit you from behind.

If the van driver took legal action against the cyclist, the cyclist could join the jogger to the action as part of his defence (if the jogger was known)

Obviously, with no details for the jogger and no witnesses, the cyclist doesn't stand a chance of a successful defence, one person's word against another.

Joggers should have licence plates

So the moral of the story, should this ever happen to you, is to chin the driver steal his van, hunt down and run over the jogger, escape to the south of France, burn the van, leave your clothes in a pile on the beach to look like suicide and go live free and naked in the warm Mediterranean hills just as nature intended.

I’d say the cyclist bears some responsibility, better choice of line or speed might have helped, all hard to judge without actually knowing the facts & layout of the event. He should probably have been able to change his line or slow down without needing the other side of the road.

However...

Lastly, why couldn’t the van stop?

This.

[smug hat on] You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

Yes, most people don’t drive this way. It means slowing for a corner, often. I admit I often don’t do this.

But it is what should be done. And if you go round a corner and can’t stop, it’s down to you. [/smug].

Yes, I sound like a arse saying that. But it’s the way it is.

What’s always puzzled me is what about their speed towards you? This all works for the apocryphal child standing (stationary) in the road.

If you go round a corner at a speed allowing you to stop in said distance. Half way round someone else zooms round and you bump because they way up lots of ‘your’ distance.

If you screech to a halt and they still hit you then it’s them bang to rights. But if you slow and *almost* stop, and they steam into you, you’ve still both hit each other. What then?

Driving so slow you can stop even if some oncoming vehicle with any arbitrary speed appears would cause you to be hit from behind I suggest before you got half way to town!

I wonder if your classed as a driver on a bike, if yes maybe bikes fault, was it on a corner?

https://www.birchallblackburn.co.uk/do-pedestrians-always-have-right-of-way-on-roads/

Joggers should have licence plates

And they don’t even pay road tax, the bastards.

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

Can you provide authority for this, especially whether it is how courts determine decisions? And are you talking civil or criminal?

The only reasons an adult should run are to get away from danger, a wild animal eg lion, to catch a bus/train and to get to the front of the queue at the supermarket .

Running or fast walking = jogging should be banned as of no intrinsic value to society.

Jogger at fault for not obeying the above

^ 100%

Weirdos

Joggers should have licence plates

Have they sat a test?

I bet they run though red lights and run on the road too.

It's irresponsible I tell you.

What if cyclist was a wee kid?

Van driver should have been able to stop.

oh and any adult caught running except for the above i posted should be arrested as theyre obviously a criminal running from the scene of a crime.

Joggers dont do it, you look silly and stupid, its not big and clever, and your parents are ashamed of your behaviour, get a bike or walk properley.

What if cyclist was a wee kid?

What if the jogger was a wee kid?

Van driver should have been able to stop.

So should the cyclist. Who, in case people are forgetting, was on the wrong side of the road!

Bottom line, always brake never swerve.

And who pays - the van driver (insurance) worse case will pay for themselves as your pal won't be able to or won't want to pay and the van drivers insurance CBA to attempt to take them to court.

Otherwise your pal puts his hand in his pocket.

These kinda decisions are the reasons why we all need self-driving cars. Nothing could possibly go wrong with them surely? LOL

Can the jogger claim from the dog?

You know exactly what he needs to do to the dog

What if the van driver had been Domonic Cummings on another eye sight testing drive.... would have wiped out all, including the dog (who was presumably about to be humped by a mountain biker) ?

How do we know the van didn't stop in time? Cyclist may have just ridden into him.

What if the dog was driving the van, therefore rendering all parties uninsured ? who pays then.

I bet they run though red lights and run on the road too.

It’s irresponsible I tell you.

And I bet they were running without wearing a helmet, bloody idiot.

Thanks everyone, some informative and entertaining responses! Self driving joggers with number plates is what we need

I’ll add that the corner is a bit tight and loads of parked cars and the jogger was coming from a side road so not just stepping off the pavement hence the swerve onto other side of road. He was also going slowly enough not to injure himself when hitting a van head on, so not hooning