Forum menu
If a cyclist is riding in the road and a pedestrian steps out into the road and straight into the cyclist and a collision occurs, who's liable?
To avoid confusion, the ped didn't look, steped out quickly directly into the path of the cyclist who had no way of avoiding them.
I said the pedestrian, colleague said tha cyclist. This then developed into a full blown discussion ending up with my colleague bing beaten to death by a rabid mob of cyclists and his corpulant corpse being wrapped in copies of the Daily Mail & thrown into the river Thames! (well, not really, but we were taking the piss a bit!).
Along the way he said that all bikes should be registered and that cyclists like me should have insurance. He was a little taken aback when I told him i do have insurance (member of CTC) and I did point out that registering bikes is something that is raised every few years only to be put back in the 'Looney Ideas' box.
Anyway, I said that ped is liable and I would be entitled to persue damages if I wanted.
So, what's your take on who's liable?
Pedestrian
pedestrian all the way (unless it was a zebra crossing) although the way things are going people are less and less likely to take personal responsibility so expect to be sued for damages because of pain caused by whiplash or some other nonsense
if it was a car/tractor/motorbike/missile then it would be put down to another fool on the darwin award list, but because it's a bike too many people see them as a menace in the same way they view people on skateboards
Cyclist.
If the pedestrian were hit by a car it would be the car that is liable, why a cyclist would be different.
More maneuverable gives way to less maneuverable.
I would suggest it's probably a bit 50/50 in this case if the Ped. wasn't paying attention, but a good cyclist should be on the look out for precisely this sort of thing, and should be able to take avoiding action.
If the pedestrian were hit by a car it would be the car that is liable, why a cyclist would be different.
So you are saying if a pedestrian steps STRAIGHT out into a road WITHOUT looking, 10 feet in front of a car and the car hits them the car driver is liable ?
I think you may be slightly wrong !!
Are, but who would be liable if the cyclist swerved to avoid the Pedestrian, which caused the car following the cyclist to swerve into the Pedestrian?
😉
Why would the car be liable?
This all came about because I nearly splatted a woman all over the road this morning when she ran out from a busy pavement right infront of me. I was at least 1.5m away from the kerb and only just missed her (clipped her coat). If I had caught her arm and knocked her over, how the hell would that have been my fault?
Cyclist.
If the pedestrian were hit by a car it would be the car that is liable, why a cyclist would be different.
Cyclist as well for me.
You should cycle (and drive) based on the conditions around you. In town I slow right down in the car (20mph often) and keep an eye on the peds to make sure I can make a good effort at stopping in case of this!
Its easier for car drivers as peds tend to hear cars and not step out but they dont always hear cyclists.
I know this isnt the answer you want - sorry! 🙁
David.
Why would the car be liable?
It wouldn't, unless the incident occured on a zebra crossing or the car was exceeding the speed limit by a considerable margin.
Highway code on pedestrians crossing the road:
B. Stop just before you get to the kerb, where you can see if anything is coming. Do not get too close to the traffic. If there’s no pavement, keep back from the edge of the road but make sure you can still see approaching traffic.
C. Look all around for traffic and listen. Traffic could come from any direction. Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic before you see it.
D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.
E. When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run. Keep looking and listening for traffic while you cross, in case there is any traffic you did not see, or in case other traffic appears suddenly. Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic. Do not walk diagonally across the road.
Also says this on cyclists:
205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.
206
Drive carefully and slowly when
- in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218) or residential areas
- driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road
- turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning
i think at least part of the problem is that bikes in general keep your head pointing towards the ground,
in a chaingang your stareign ar the guy in fronts front wheel,
on a mountainbike your looking at the trail
on a road ride im still probably not looking much further than my braking distance.
I'm not saying I/we don't know whats going on ahead, but our eyes are more natural focused on the road surface than whats happening a meter or two above it (i.e. cars, peds etc)which tend to sit more in the perfieral vision.
In a car or walking on the other hand your head points straight at the car/person in front, it'd be pretty hard to drive in the same position we ride bikes in!
Bit of a grey area, you could probably argue it either way - pedestrian not looking/not paying attention vs cyclist not riding according to the conditions of the road (ie busy street, expect the unexpected blah blah).
I'd say the greater percentage of blame could be attached to the pedestrian but it's not clear cut.
I think you may be slightly wrong !!
Well I Am not.
Might be different in the UK but over here if you hi t a pedestrian you are liable. First rule of the French highway code is "you should remain at all time and in all conditions in complete control of your vehicle". I shall expect things to be the same in the UK though.
If you hit a pedestrian that is crossing without looking or when he has a red traffic light you are responsible. The only thing is the pedestrian can't sue you.
[i]"you should remain at all time and in all conditions in complete control of your vehicle"[/i]
You can be in perfect control of a vehicle but if some twunt steps out in front of it at a distance it's impossible to stop in then it's not your fault.
How about if somebody reverses their car into the road without looking?
Clearly they would be responsible if they hit a car that was already driving along, same should be true of pedestrians.
It is different in the UK and you are wrong.
A few months back one of my wifes colleagues was hit by a car while crossing the road on his way to work. As the car was being driven legally and within the speed limits, and he had crossed the road into it's path, he was held legally responsible for the damage to the car.
Does this all still hold true if the bike is on a conveyor belt?
How about if somebody reverses their car into the road without looking?
Then they'd be at fault. A motorcyclist was killed near here a few years back when a driver reversed out of their drive into the road. He was overtaking illegally (and probably speeding) so was found partially responsible, however the car driver was prosecuted.
On my commute one morning a few years back I saw a girl get knocked down by a car. She was on a traffic island in the middle of the road and stepped off right into a car which fortunately, due to the number of kids about, was following the highway code and driving slowly - so she wasn't seriously injured. Definitely the kids fault (she was chatting but not looking), but made worse by this being right beside the school and there being no pedestrian crossing.
Might be different in the UK but over here if you hi t a pedestrian you are liable.
Does that mean in France, that if someone commits suicide by walking onto a busy road and gets mown down by a lorry the driver can then be prosecuted? Serious question, if the law is that clear cut.
It would be the fault of the pedestrian over here, of course you should drive with due care and attention and all that, but you can't slow to 5 mph every time you see a pedestrian beside any road on the off chance that they decide to skip into traffic. If they do, they deserve to be hit. Natural selection.
Does this all still hold true if the bike is on a conveyor belt?
I just had a vision of someone on a bike on a conveyor belt in the back of a pickup 'cause its safer than cycling on the road...
Actually I wonder if you could link the conveyor belt to the throttle and figure out a way of steering it as well. I can see that as a scrapheap challenge episode actually!
Does that mean in France, that if someone commits suicide by walking onto a busy road and gets mown down by a lorry the driver can then be prosecuted?
Not prosecuted. However in terms of insurance you will be held responsible fro the accident. If you can't stop it means you can't control your car/lorry.
Not prosecuted. However in terms of insurance you will be held responsible fro the accident. If you can't stop it means you can't control your car/lorry.
If that's the law then it's idiotic. What if someone commits suicide by jumping from a motorway bridge into traffic (happens on the M8 through Glasgow occassionally). Would the vehicle driver also be held liable because he can't stop?
They are trying to make the law so that the person with the most powerful form of transport would automatically be considered liable, unless you can prove otherwise. This is what they do in some European countries, such as Germany, where it has worked really well. It promotes defensive driving (or riding), so that you need to give yourself space incase a pedestrian does suddenly step out, you have time to react and avoid.
Something exactly like this happened to me the other day. A group of girls suddenly stepped out without looking and I was travelling about 25-30mph. Only my shouting, and the fact that I was well away from the edge of the kerb prevented a more serious accident. Scary stuff and I probably would have come off far worse than them if I had hit them hard!
Is it me or is Juan changing his argument?
that would mean driving every where at 10 miles per hour or less which is just ridiculous. If you're anything (pedestrian, cycist...) you should chuffin well look to see if anythings coming. If you step out into a car/bike, it's your own chuffin fault. If you're half way across the road, and a car comes screaming along over the speed limit/round a blind bend, then it is the car driver at fault... also the drivers fault at ped. crossings etc... but some sanity please, if someone just walks into the road without looking, it's their own chuffing fault.
Is it me or is Juan changing his argument?
Nope not changing it.
If tomorrow I hit a pedestrian, my insurance premium will increase as I will be responsible for the accident, regardless of what the pedestrian is doing. However he can only sue me if he's on the pedestrian crossing and has the green light.
if someone just walks into the road without looking, it's their own chuffing fault.
Which is pretty much what the highway code says.
Exactly what is wrong with most people's riding - they look [i]at[/i] the trail, not [i]through[/i] it. Carrying your head up with eyes as level as you can manage is vital and something that cyclists should learn from day one - you need to look in the way you do when you are driving, not like when you are walking.i think at least part of the problem is that bikes in general keep your head pointing towards the ground,in a chaingang your stareign ar the guy in fronts front wheel,
on a mountainbike your looking at the trail
on a road ride im still probably not looking much further than my braking distance.
Juan that seems overly simplistic to be a fact of law somehow.
How can you be held responsible for someone else's unpredictable actions? I always take the view that if somone deviates from their current course of action which would cause a conflict situation, then the person deviating from their course is generally the one held to blame. Obviously this is taking into account the rules of the road etc.
I think the legal answer is that the pedestrian should have taken care before crossing the road. However, if the rider is 1.5m from the edge that is quite a long time at walking pace for the rider to do something, especially if they are riding along keeping an eye on the pedestrians to see if they are near the road and looking likely to come out.
bigyinn that have to do with the being in control thing. If you drive and hit something for the "code de la route" you are not in control no matter if ti's unexpected or expected. If you go round a roundabout and hit the muppet that is stop on the side to phone it's your fault. You might get a 50/50 responsible accident but that's it. Makes no sense, can be stupid but that is the way it is.
Then I find very funny all the comment above about how stupid is it etc etc, when the general consensus seems to be that riding bike in France is safer than in UK. Maybe they are related facts?
The law in Europe is that the balance of proving fault lies with the car driver.
Over here, if a pedestrian is hit by a car it is up to the pedestrian to prove that the driver was at fault. In much of Europe, if a pedestrian is hit by a car it is up to the driver to prove that they were not at fault.
On the original question, the pedestrian is at fault.
It would be perfectly reasonable to be driving along a main road at 20 to 30 mph even if a pedestrian were on the pavement to one side. A driver wouyld not be expected to assume a pedestrian would suddenly dart off the path and in front of them.
Obviously, if there were a group of kids playing with a ball on the pavement, it would be reasonable to expect the driver to slow when passing, to pass further from the kerb and to be prepared to brake.
juan,
probably explains why i feel safer riding on the road in france than in the uk
french drivers seem to be far more aware and accepting of cyclists than uk drivers
french drivers seem to be far more aware and accepting of cyclists than uk drivers
Not sure about that, but they might no want to be held responsible for any crahs hence why they are a bit more careful.
I would say cyclist as he should be riding in sucha way to avoid this sort of thing - expect the unexpected...saying that, if it were me on the bike I'd be going mental at the pedestrian for not looking and just stepping out.
I'm sure the Highway Code says somethign about pedestrians have right of way over everything unless on a motorway - not the exact words but somethign like that, therefore if a pedestrian steps out, you should either be driving/cycling in such a way to avoid them or should be able to stop to allow them passage...I think (but I'm really not sure)...
Juan maybe right in the future, but he's not at the moment. And to be honest nobody is liable in any road/traffic incident. The person who is liable is whoever accepts responsibilty or whoever the court decides is responsible and therefore liable.
There is a white paper being produced that address's this issue. If the new law is passed it will be similar to liability legislation on the continent (well France and Germany anyway), their law states that the most powerful vehicle involved in a traffic accident is automaticly liable. As I said earlier nobody is automaticly liable in the UK. The current system is based upon either one party accepting responsibility or if neither party will accept responsibility it goes to court.
The new system would mean that the courts would only get involved if the driver/rider of the more powerful vehicle believed there were extenuating circumstances as to why they should not be liable.
I don't know what would happen if two cyclists smashed into each other though. Or what would happen if a 1.7l diesel car was involved in an accident with a 1.6l petrol car, the diesel has the bigger engine but chances are the petrol car would be faster.
DickBarton - MemberI would say cyclist as he should be riding in sucha way to avoid this sort of thing - expect the unexpected...saying that, if it were me on the bike I'd be going mental at the pedestrian for not looking and just stepping out.
I'm sure the Highway Code says somethign about pedestrians have right of way over everything unless on a motorway - not the exact words but somethign like that, therefore if a pedestrian steps out, you should either be driving/cycling in such a way to avoid them or should be able to stop to allow them passage...I think (but I'm really not sure)...
Then may I suggest that you find out? the highway code is freely available online, and it would be beneficial to be sure rather than just guessing, surely? You could even find out then share a definitive answer, maybe? 😉
I can't see how this can be the cyclist's fault if they have right of way ie: on the road, not going through a red light and incident didn't happen on a pedestrian crossing. London pedestrians do this all the time and you do learn to ride defensively and be very very observant but really you can't put liability on the cyclist when a pedestrian ignores both the Highway Code and common sense. Can you??
Everyone should look out for themselves, though people should be travelling sensibly and taking reasonable steps to maintain safety. Travelling at or below the limit for the road and being observant should be sufficient, so if someone runs out inside your stopping distance you at least slow a reasonable amount if possible, but ultimately it's the person that steps out that is at fault, the rest of the road users should simply aim to minimise the damage if the unfortunate does occur.
Making the most powerful mode of transport liable is never going to work, what are you basing it on - BHP? Mass? Size? Cyclist and peds have the same power available. On the sea it is the most manouverable that have to give way to the less manouvreable/harder to stop/change direction. Works pretty well, though the biggest/hardest thigns to stop tend to be the slowest too, which isnt the case with roads.
Surely if you want to step into the road it is your responsibilty to see that it is safe to do so?
I can't see how this can be the cyclist's fault if they have right of way ie: on the road, not going through a red light and incident didn't happen on a pedestrian crossing.
I believe pedestrians [i]do[/i] have right of way in the road, so technically the cyclist is probably at fault. I'd guess that if it went to court or something though there'd be a strong argument that the stuff about "if you couldn't stop you weren't in control" is all very well but shouldn't be taken to ridiculous extremes, depending on how the cyclist was riding at the time of course.