[Closed] Head on crash with car caused by jogger

Sorry to be all boring and reasonable. 😀
Does your friend have any sort of legal cover via house insurance, car insurance, or via a trade union?

This is around 95% of my justification for paying my CyclingUK subscription fee, for the third party public liability cover.

It's also fun to mention when someone trots out the old "cyclists are not insured" line.

Cyclist fault is the obvious answer but what is considered reasonable behaviour that should be accounted for from a runner?

Clearly if it was approaching a crossing etc the you might be expected to be prepared to stop, but you can't account for every pedestrian randomly stepping into the road. So what's reasonable? 5m, 10m?

Unfortunately not every accident can be avoided.

goes onto the other side of the road.

I think this is a big clue as to who's legally at fault.

You’d think so, but some people are struggling to get their head round that idea...

Its a clue, but its not everything. We don't have enough information to say for certain. In all likelihood all 3 did something wrong and the argument is to what degree that error contributed to the outcome.

If your friend was driving a car, his insurer would assert to the van driver’s insurer that it was the van negligently swerving into the road that caused the accident. Without a witness / dash cam, this account is plausible.

Your mate has to be careful not to lose the insurance ‘game’ before it’s already begun by admitting liability AKA telling the truth.

It sucks being a cyclist without someone in your corner in these situations.

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

You missed a bit - the words "on your own side of the road", which addresses your own question about the speed of oncoming traffic (within certain assumptions admittedly)

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

Leaving aside that it's specifically referred to in Roadcraft (the Police drivers handbook) it is also basic driver/rider competence if you take a moment to think it through.

Ignore the OP's situation with a jogger, a van and a frozen sausage toting cyclist for a minute.

Country lane, bend, fallen tree blocking road other side of bend.

At the point where you can see the tree you can stop safely from 30mph.

If you hoon it round that bend at 50mph you'll hit the tree still doing 20mph (actually it will be more than thay as the energy you have to shed to get from 50 to 20 is more than from 30 to 0 since kinetic energy increases with the square of speed).

Now replace one side of the tree with a cyclist or a jogger stepping into the road or a child's face ("Mr Tree") and the other with an oncoming car. At 30mph no collision at 50mph potential for a fatality.

Far too many people treat the limiting factor of cornering speed as mechanical grip. In a significt proportion of corners it is the sight lines that define the limits.

Now let's translate that to a known / established "assumed liability" of rear ending someone...

You are liable because you were following too close and/or going too fast to be able to stop safely (or at all) for the hazard in front.

So in the case of Mr Tree above our driver was going too fast to stop or avoid a hazard, which bears a striking similarity to someone rear ending another vehicle wouldn't you say?

It's also in parallel with advice to slow down in poor visibility and in high risk areas to.

Just to add to the above the first bit quoted is Rule 125 of the Highway Code (oddly it omits same side of the road which is certainly in the copy of Roadcraft I inherited from a friend after he'd used it as a reference for his IAM test).

But in your example the tree has already fallen down (equating to the jogger being stood in the road already).

What does it say about driving around a bend at 30mph when a tree suddenly falls down in front of you?

What does it say about driving around a bend at 30mph when a tree suddenly falls down in front of you?

The plot thickens, would explain why the dog freaked and bit the jogger, who ran out into the road, causing the cyclist to swerve and hit the van. Hope your mate pays for your van BTW 🙂

Sadly there's some pretty basic legal and road safety principles getting buried in the mountain of humourous bollocks on this thread.

I'm not claiming to be the safest most perfect driver, but I'd happily get in a car with garage-dweller, not so sure about some of the rest of you. At least my son's driving instructor seems to be teaching him stuff that some on here seem to have forgotten.

Does your friend have any sort of legal cover via house insurance, car insurance, or via a trade union?

He doesn't, I do. He's now looking into getting it 🙂

Just rode in to work via where the crash happened and the road is narrow with parked cars, he would only have had to swerve a small amount to be over the middle of the road.

Obviously yes the rider and the driver should both probably have been more attentive, the van driver probably should have been able to stop and my mate probably should have seen the jogger coming as we would have been visible as far as I can tell. However when presented with a live obstacle and an empty road, I'd like to see how many ride into the person instead of instinctively swerving towards the empty bit of road. 95 times out of 100 on that piece of road he would have been fine anyway, rarely see a car coming that way as it becomes one way further down in the opposite direction. Doesn't make him right, just unlucky!

However when presented with a live obstacle and an empty road, I’d like to see how many ride into the person instead of instinctively swerving towards the empty bit of road.

It wasn't an empty bit of road, there was van approaching on it. FFS, he swerved across the road into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Glad he's ok, it could have been a very nasty accident, but if you swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle, it's pretty hard to argue that you aren't at fault.

It wasn’t an empty bit of road, there was van approaching on it

The road was empty when he swerved away from the jogger, the car came round the corner afterwards. Again, not saying he's right but just pointing out that in a split second decision when you see obstacle/empty road I'd bet you'd also go for the bit where you have a chance of not hitting something

joggers, cars parked all up my side (potential dooring), blind bend just up ahead... sounds like a nightmare; reckon I'd be riding pretty slowly tbh... think we're gonna have to see a Google Streetview of this spot 😉...

I’d like to see how many ride into the person instead of instinctively swerving towards the empty bit of road.

I know from experience because a few years ago someone ran out from behind a wall straight into the road in front of me. It was a straight road with no traffic at all; I was hard on the brakes in a straight line ending up balancing on the front wheel and gently shoulder barging him. (Didn’t floor him or hurt him, just a bit of a kiss. He apologised, I kept my thoughts to myself and filed it for learning: I was only doing about 15mph, a moderate urban pace, but I try to be a little more alert to people suddenly charging into the carriageway nonetheless.) But: No swerving, despite clear space to do so.

It was instinctive but I believe entirely rational. For a start, you can’t really predict whether the person will keep running/walking or whether they’ll slow or change themselves to try to avoid you, so there’s often no clear probability advantage to swerving. Secondly, if you swerve you can’t brake, so you’re not shaving off any energy if a collision of any sort does occur. Then there’s the issue that if you do swerve and you still collide then you’re no longer in a straight line and the outcome is much less in your control and probably worse: ie you’re going to take a high-sider or a low-sider and start sliding or rolling. If you have oncoming traffic that’s a big problem. And finally there’s the issue that it’s best not to drag third parties into the event: the cause is some combination of you and the person in front of you, and if someone else ends up affected by that then life is only going to get much more complicated.

As for how that combination played out in this case, we have no idea, because we’ve got a limited report from secondhand information derived from only one point of view on the incident. So we don’t really know what happened. But swerving into oncoming traffic isn’t a smart idea whether you’re considering legal issues or personal health…

Bloody hell Bez, your brain must be a highly trained machine to process all that in such s short space of time.

Most experienced cyclists process shit like that constantly while riding on the roads. It’s not really a super-power, just survival.

Pretty much anyone with home insurance is covered for third party liability while cycling.

Or jogging 🙂 Or any other activity that isn't excluded because it represents a particularly high risk to third parties and thus has mandatory, specialist insurance. Like driving.

The "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" rule isn't entirely relevant, as we may be talking about a situation in which the bit of road that you can *already see* ceases to be clear because a jogger or cyclist unexpectedly moves into it. When this happens, a collision may be unavoidable even if you were driving or riding "safely".

The rule will stop you colliding with a stationary object, it won't always stop you colliding with a moving one.

Bloody hell Bez, your brain must be a highly trained machine to process all that in such s short space of time.

Bloody hell Bez, your brain must be a highly trained machine to process all that in such s short space of time.

It’s not, which is why I explicitly said it’s instinctive. What I mean is that my instinctive reaction was, in retrospect, entirely justifiable rationally.

Instinctive responses are largely about pre-loading your brain with responses to actions, which is in part about consciously considering things beforehand, but more about your brain having prior experiences of events, responses and outcomes. Quite how they came together in that instance I have no way of knowing, but as an additional experience to feed into that instinctive response, it affirmed what I did, so the chances are high that I’d do the same again.

The “stop in the distance you can see to be clear” rule isn’t entirely relevant, as we may be talking about a situation in which the bit of road that you can *already see* ceases to be clear because a jogger or cyclist unexpectedly moves into it.

It’s still relevant, it’s just expressed perhaps a little over-concisely.

“The distance you can see to be clear and can be sure to remain so until you have passed” is more accurate, but I think the spirit of the original should be fairly clear, otherwise people will drive at 30mph an inch from a row of parked vehicles and anyone poking their head out from between those vehicles to see if there’s anything coming will be hit (I seem to recall an incident where exactly this happened). I don’t think “well, the space was clear when I looked at it” is a reasonable defence there: the potential appearance of someone should be obvious to all, and should be accounted for.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/from-out-of-nowhere/

From an insurance stand point, with no details for the jogger, no witnesses or other independent evidence to document the joggers actions, then it is purely between the cyclist and van driver, as a cyclist or motorist, the jogger will be seen as a more vulnerable party and you should be on the look out for pedestrians stepping or running close to the kerb and moderate your speed and your actions accordingly. The van driver is then an innocent party as he could do little to avoid the collision, so the cyclists insurers would probably deal with the van drivers claim on a without prejudice basis.

I'm with Bez ... mostly

Most experienced cyclists process shit like that constantly while riding on the roads. It’s not really a super-power, just survival.

Not long ago someone literally walked out into the road (headphones in looking at phone) and I found myself stopped in a ridiculously short space. Heels all the way down, full endo and practically kissing the young thing.

but more about your brain having prior experiences of events, responses and outcomes. Quite how they came together in that instance I have no way of knowing, but as an additional experience to feed into that instinctive response, it affirmed what I did, so the chances are high that I’d do the same again.

I just developed a theory (so the mainly)
I feel this is more of a offroad reaction I carried forwards. In part it's a conscious decision for squirrels, pheasants etc. (and one I've drummed into my son). Either they get out of the way or not but swerving won't help because they might double back, stop or carry on....
I've only hit one and it was a lot of blood and feathers but at least not mine.

The same mostly applies to tech stuff... either stop or don't but trying to slow down and swerve rarely ends well.

So to be fair looking back perhaps I stopped in a straight line simply from offroad experience and perhaps not "every cyclist" would do that?

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

Rule 154 of the Highway Code says it about country roads. "Take extra care on country roads and reduce your speed at approaches to bends, which can be sharper than they appear, and at junctions and turnings, which may be partially hidden. Be prepared for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, slow-moving farm vehicles or mud on the road surface. Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. You should also reduce your speed where country roads enter villages."

The Highway Code is not law, but it might assist a court to decide what a careful and competent driver would do. However, I don't think that anyone expects to be able to stop if an oncoming vehicle swerves onto your side of the road.

I'd be questioning whether there was actually a jogger there at all tbh. Sounds like a case of too fast round a corner, couldn't hold the line and drifted out to the other side of the road.

I’d be questioning whether there was actually a jogger there at all tbh.

one that was less than the width of a single lane of road, and about 90 degrees from his visual focus; from a bike-van head on collision and was completely oblivious to it.

Today, riding into work on a off-street NCN path (old railway line), I was riding along somewhere between 15-20kmph. There was a good line of sight and I could see 250m+ down the route. Tarmaced, but covered in leaves.

All of a sudden, from behind a bush 10-15m in front of me, a dog bolts right across the trail from L to R. I instinctively brake and veer a little left, but then I notice the extendable dog lead waiting to get me. Then the fella holding the other end appears from behind the same bush, sees me, and leaps after the dog. I am still braking and manage to avoid him, the lead and the dog, whilst managing not to skid.

My pulse did increase considerably. I reckon his did too. The dog seemed oblivious.

I often wonder similar at fault situations.

What happens if you collide with a car parked At night facing oncoming traffic on an unlit road.

A car parked less than 15 meters from a junction.

What happens if you collide with a considerate person who thinks they own the road and so overtakes a row of parked cars that are on their side meaning you’d have had to slow (inconveniently whilst tutting rather than anchors on) to avoid said collision. For this example it could be a head on or more of a scrape if there’s just not enough space but they are at least partially on the ‘wrong’ side of the road.

To close the loop on this luckily the van owner got in touch with my mate and the cost was pretty trivial so he just paid up which was the best possible resolution really. I'm still not convinced he was 100% at fault but as pointed out several times above, he would have had a VERY hard time proving that!

.

Thanks for the update/conclusion. Probably the best outcome given the facts.