Forum menu
Interesting reading, especially considering some peoples attitudes to RLJ
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
he hasn't 'lost' 80% of his claim as I read it - he's just been aportioned 80% of the blame - so his insurers (if he has some) pay 80% of the total bill, the taxi's insurers pay 20% of the bill.
Its interesting that the RLJ can avoid any of the blame - but if he was hit by a cab doing 50 he's done well to be alive
I jump reds, but I'm careful about doing so. I'm far more likely to be hit by an opening car door or someone pulling out
I jump reds, but I'm careful about doing so.
That makes it alright - the reason it annoys the public and gives them a dim view of cyclists is that they're worried about the cyclist's welfare 🙄
People who totter through a 2mph are just as ridiculous as those who go straight through at 20 IMO!
As for the case, it seems very reasonable to me!
[i]However, this implies that a cyclist could be found to be partially liable for an accident if they are not wearing hi-visibility clothing[/i]
this is the important part - if there is poor visibility for a driver at a junction it would allow them to argue that a cyclist with right of way contributed to an accident even if they were using legally required lights etc.
RLJ vs "41-50mph" in a 30 zone.
80/20 hmm
edit and wot wwaswas said
if I can turn left at a T junction controlled by lights, and in doing so I am putting no one, myself included at risk, I will do it. I would never go through the lights as detailed in the article, ever.
Two things to take away from this.
DON'T Speed.
DON'T jump a red light*.
*If you do get hit jumping a red light then chalk it up to experience and move along without making silly claims.
Interesting to see the comment about high viz clothing. Why should this not be extended to all road users and all cars having to come in high viz colours? Are poor contrast coloured cars more likely to be involved in accidents I wonder?
I would never go through the lights as detailed in the article, ever.
How do you know he's not turning left though?
Are poor contrast coloured cars more likely to be involved in accidents I wonder?
No, red is the most likely to be crashed apparently, but I imagine that's more to do with the sort of person who chooses a red car!
Seems reasonable to me, I'm surprised he got anything at all TBH
I treat red lights as a warning on the bike, not an instruction. I honestly don't give a flying toss about RLJing, I just do it.
But, if I had an accident, I would admit it was my fault as I'm fully aware what I'm doing is wrong.
No, red is the most likely to be crashed apparently, but I imagine that's more to do with the sort of person who chooses a red car!
Lasses?
this is the important part - if there is poor visibility for a driver at a junction it would allow them to argue that a cyclist with right of way contributed to an accident even if they were using legally required lights etc.
I'm not sure that is the implication here. Certainly don't think you can draw any conclusions based on the few scant sentences in the article. I think it's more likely the taxi driver's legal team tried to use the "no hi-viz" argument and the Judge (rightly) threw it straight out.
Pretty fair judgement overall I think. Although IMO the taxi driver should lose his license, as everyone should who speeds and is then involved in an accident (regardless of who is to blame). There are no winners in this case & it could have been a lot worse.
I don't jump reds anymore, despite feeling it is safe or even safer for a cyclist to do so in certain road scenarios, especially ones that are known through experience to the rider.
However, since I witnessed two big issue seller killers, sorry, police, chase, herd, shout at, and jump upon, and give a fine to, a poor bewildered polish man trying to get to or from work on his ok, nothing flash, mountain bike (a man who did BTW jump the light in a safe way), I now wait or get off and walk it through the lights. I have no desire to be chased by the zombie brained army of the rich establishment, sorry I mean the police, dressed in their paramilitary gear on on their shit Land Rover bikes..
Time for my medication.
Seems like an excessively harsh penalty for the cyclist.
The cyclist would have no doubt suffered far greater injuries from being hit at 50mph than they would have if the taxi driver had been travelling at the speed limit.
MALASI v ATTMED (2011)
http://www.lawtel.com/Content/Document. ... =AC9300999
QBD (Judge Seymour QC) 5/12/2011
PERSONAL INJURY - NEGLIGENCE - ROAD TRAFFIC
APPORTIONMENT : CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE : CYCLING : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : COLLISION BETWEEN TAXI AND BICYCLE : CYCLIST'S FAILURE TO STOP AT RED LIGHT OR BRAKE IN TIME TO AVOID COLLISION : APPROPRIATE APPORTIONMENT : s.1(1) LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) ACT 1945
While a road traffic accident in which a cyclist was injured had been caused by a taxi driver's excessive speed, the cyclist had been contributorily negligent by failing to stop at a red traffic light and failing to brake in sufficient time to avoid the collision. Damages for personal injury were therefore reduced by 80 per cent.
The court was required to determine whether the defendant taxi driver (T) was liable in negligence for the injuries suffered by the claimant cyclist (B). T was involved in a collision with B in which B suffered serious injury, and had no recall of the accident. The accident occurred when early one morning, T, together with a fare-paying passenger (P), approached and proceeded through a T-junction, when B, travelling from the left, collided with the front left hand section of T's vehicle. On T and P's accounts, T had had a green light in his favour and had braked as soon as he saw B. T pleaded that B had been contributorily negligent in wearing dark clothing; keeping his head down and not keeping a proper lookout; running a red light; failing to wear a hi-visibility vest and helmet and in failing to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid a collision. Both parties' experts agreed that T had been travelling between 41-50 mph immediately before the collision. The experts' reports also agreed on all other factual conclusions. The issues for determination included (i) the resolution of any factual issues and consideration of the effect of the conclusions drawn in the experts' reports; (ii) whether travelling at speed was per se negligent; (iii) a consideration of other possible causative factors, including an allegation that T's ABS system had not been in working order; (iv) the apportionment of liability.
HELD: (1) T's accounts of the accident were consistent and supported by P's evidence. Insofar as there was any factual dispute, the court held that the traffic lights had been green in T's favour when he drove his vehicle through the T-junction and collided with B. It followed as a matter of logic and common sense that B had travelled through the junction against a red light with which he ought to have complied and stopped. The court accepted the experts' reports' conclusions without reservation; it was plain that if B had complied with the traffic signal then there would have been no accident, and that if he had reduced his speed by 0.3 to 0.4 seconds he would have travelled behind T's vehicle. If, having passed through the red light, B had paid attention to the presence of the taxi and if he had taken even modest steps to take account of it then the collision would have been avoided. On the other hand, it was plain on the experts' findings that even if, as was the case, B had failed to comply with the traffic lights, and had failed to take account of the taxi, there would have nonetheless been no collision if T had not been driving at 41-50 mph where there had been a speed limit of 30 mph. (2) Although T's submission that travelling at a high speed was not negligent unless particular conditions precluded it was technically correct, it was important to remember that the authority relied on had been decided when there was no maximum speed limit, Quinn v Scott (1965) 1 WLR 1004 QBD considered. Such a point would avail anyone who had exceeded the speed limit who had been involved in an accident. All motorists had to have regard to fixed speed limits and that limit was an indicator of the likelihood of accidents and the nature of hazards. In the instant case, a speed limit of 30 mph had been imposed. Had T been travelling modestly over the speed limit it was possible that the court, depending on the circumstances, might not have concluded that T had been driving negligently, but T had been travelling gloriously in excess of the speed limit at at least 41 mph. T's negligence in driving at that speed was causative of the collision and the injuries that B suffered, notwithstanding B's defalcations, given that no accident would have occurred had T been driving within the speed limit. (3) In light of the finding that T had been driving at an excess speed, it was not relevant whether T's ABS system had not been working; if T had been travelling within the speed limit, he would have been able to avoid the accident which in fact occurred. In circumstances where T had had a good perception-response time, the fact that B had not been wearing a hi-visibility vest, and had been wearing dark clothing, was immaterial. (4) In considering the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1(1), the accident had three causative factors; B's running of the red light; B's failure to apply his brakes in time to avoid the accident and T's excessive speed in that without any one of these factors there would have been no accident and no injury. Accordingly, the balance of fault lay very heavily with B. The extent of T's responsibility for B's injuries depended on him travelling at an excess speed through a green light, where T had a legitimate expectation that other road users, including cyclists, would comply with the traffic signals. Accordingly, B's damages were to be reduced by 80 per cent.
Judgment accordingly
Counsel:
For the claimant: Catherine Howells
For the defendant: Marcus Dignum
Solicitors:
For the claimant: Ameer Meredith (Cambridge)
For the defendant: Morris Orman Hearle
this is the important part - if there is poor visibility for a driver at a junction it would allow them to argue that a cyclist with right of way contributed to an accident even if they were using legally required lights etc.
If there was poor visibility and you hit a cyclist wouldn't that suggest you were driving at a speed inappropriate for the conditions? If you're going down the road of blaming someone for not wearing high-vis then you could also blame a car driver for driving a vehicle that's more dangerous to others e.g. bull bars are now banned, but some vehicle designs are safer than others to third parties.
I jump every single red light I deem safe to do so. Like those at pedestrian crossings, at 1am when there's no-one about and that. Utterly pointless stopping; I've seen police cars go through them too. 🙂
I'm getting my thirty quid's worth. Far from acting as a 'deterrent', quite the opposite, it has motivated me to now just jump them whenever I want to.
I'm just more careful to check if any Babylonians are about these days though... 😉
it seems odd that people who admit to jumping red lights only seem to think that they're putting their own lives at risk, therefore, if they accept that risk, it's OK. What if a car swerves to avoid an RLJing cyclist, and hits another car, or pedestrian?
I treat red lights as a warning on the bike, not an instruction. I honestly don't give a flying toss about RLJing, I just do it.
in what way are bikes exempt from the rules of the road?
Just curious.
What if a car swerves to avoid an RLJing cyclist, and hits another car, or pedestrian?
Well, life's not always fair, is it? 😆
it seems odd that people who admit to jumping red lights only seem to think that they're putting their own lives at risk
I've stated that I only do it if I deem it SAFE to do so. That means considering the safety of all other road users too, not just myself. I would never intentionally put anyone else in danger through my own actions.
I simply meant that I'll ride through red lights I deem SAFE to do so. IE, no peds crossing, no other vehicles to potentially crash into/put at risk, etc. Y'know, by just using common sense.
In all my years of riding in London, I have never once caused any danger to pedestrians or other road users by riding through a red light. And that's an awful lot of red lights...
in what way are bikes exempt from the rules of the road?Just curious.
They are not.
I never said they were.
I'm glad that these days I rarely ride places and in am in such a hurry that I would feel the urge to rlj. And surly the main point is the cyclist "thought" it was safe to do it and was then knocked off and is lucky to be alive. The motorist should not have been speeding but you would have to be very naive not to appreciate that some do and not act accordingly - the cyclist is physically always going to come out worse in that situation. I wonder if he has modified his behaviour or his judgement of when to set off and what he considers "safe"? One would also hope the taxi driver spends more time thinking "what if?" too......
Says a lot about modern society though that someone who knew he was also in the wrong chose to claim against someone else in the wrong (unless it was all the insurance companies claiming against each other and not the actual participants). I just wouldn't have the gall to claim.
i agree with elf. which is happenning more and more at the moment. im worried. 😕
My initial reaction was whoooa how fast?
My second was, the cyclist shouldn't have jumped the redlight and even so he'd have seen the car approaching - cars at 40mph at still visible and don't disapear unless they are travelling at warp speed.
I've jumped redlights on my bike, however its been circa 7am and silent. No traffic around. Even then I know its my risk.
There are places where it is safer to go thru a red light than wait. My safety comes first everytime. If that means breaking the road traffic act them I will
There are places where it is safer to go thru a red light than wait.
Fortunately I know none of these. Unless you count junctions where you know the sequence intimately, the other directions have just gone red and you set off a couple of seconds before the lights actually go green for your direction to get a head start on the cars so you don't get squeezed. But for me that's a very different category to the pillocks you see wobbling across a busy stream of traffic like they're playing a game of frogger.
Jumping a red in the middle of the night or early morning when there's no-one/vehicle to hit is fine. It's not legal. I'd never do on in the busy times, it doesn't offer an advantage on my journey anyway. it doesn't add that much to my journey stopping.
As for wearing hi viz - it's not for me thanks. If there's low visibility I'd use lights. as cars do. My commuters a lovely shade of Canary yellow anyway so hopefully it would be seen.
The RLJ should have got nothing and the driver should have lost his license. Even Stevens innit.
From the cyclists I've seen driving in over the past few weeks hi-viz jackets mean **** all unless I had high beam on. Its hi-viz on the legs that get cyclists seen best.
On my commute to & from work through Bristol city centre each day I definitely see more cars running red lights than cyclists. But I rarely hear anyone complaining about this, whereas RLJing cyclists are brought up in most conversations with non-cyclists as their biggest complaint. Whether its safe or not is a moot point; by doing so you are contributing to the negative opinion most non-cyclists have of us.
the judgement suggests that had the taxi been travelling at 30mph the accident would have been avoided (suggesting, in turn, that the speed of the impact was somewhat lower than ~40mph). It also seems the cyclist rode into the side of the taxi (or maybe just clipped the front) but didn't try to avoid the accident.
the majority of reds I run are ped crossings (approx 3 lights per day), before/after people have crossed on them. There's no danger to anyone. Rules do apply to me, I choose to break them.
2 people broke laws put in place for their own safety and that of others and came a cropper.
That's what happens when you break the law and seems like a very good reason to a) obey 30mph limits in particular and b) not ride thru red lights..
Not sure how or why anyone has a claim for compensation. Just seems like an exercise in idiots self-identifying!
brooess - Member
2 people broke laws put in place for their own safety and that of others and came a cropper.
That's what happens when you break the law and seems like a very good reason to a) obey 30mph limits in particular and b) not ride thru red lights..
Not sure how or why anyone has a claim for compensation. Just seems like an exercise in idiots self-identifying!
Well put.
If people think it is OK to RLJ on bikes when it is safe, then is it OK to do it in a car as long as you have looked and its safe. Both subject to the same rules of the road, so what is good for one......
However as TJ says there can be situations where RLJing actually does increase the safety for cyclists. There is one such junction on my commute where a pedestrian crossing is about 50 yards before a busy junction. I RLJ the ped xing to get ahead at the main junction to avoid the vehicles.
However, that is the only one I know of. Bet quite a few cyclist use the "safety" excuse when it is in fact nonsense.
Cheeky barstewards. If they'd said "no lights" fair point (as is RLJing) but no bright clothes, hi viz or helmet? Piss right off. If I drive into a black car at night with a helmet-less hiviz-less occupant can I claim the same contributary negligence?T pleaded that B [b]had been contributorily negligent in wearing dark clothing[/b]; keeping his head down and not keeping a proper lookout; running a red light; [b]failing to wear a hi-visibility vest[/b] and [b]helmet[/b] and in failing to apply his brakes in sufficient time to avoid a collision
There are places where it is safer to go thru a red light than wait. My safety comes first everytime. If that means breaking the road traffic act them I will
Seems a little hypocritical considering your attitude to other laws 😉
Also, you don't seem to be the most balanced individual, so I am not sure I would trust your judgement, especially when you could be endangering other peoples lives to save 30 seconds.
not keeping a proper lookout
Being aware of what is going on around you and acting accordingly is a fundamental part of road safety. Regardless of your choosen mode of transport.
There are places where it is safer to go thru a red light than wait
TBH, I think that's a load of bull. I can't imagine why it could be unsafe to stop at a red light.
There's only ONE reason we do it: Becasue we won't get caught.
Same reason I go whatever speed I like on the motorbike past foreward facing cameras.
Donk - that sort of "building a picture" is normal in all sorts of litigation.
And if you read to the end of the judgement (well, the report - not sure if there's a full copy of the judgement anywhere?) you'll see that was discounted as immaterial.
There may well be an argument over the apportionment of liability, but this is a pretty clear application of existing law.
There's only ONE reason we do it: Becasue we won't get caught.
I also do it as it shortens my journey time, saves my brake pads and saves me pedalling back up to speed
🙂
Discounted as immaterial [i]in the circumstances[/i] not immaterial full stop.
PP
One instance - I don't always do it but depending on the traffic.
I have a traffic light where I can see down every road and I know the sequence. Beyond it is a pinch point and the it goes from one narrow lane to three - I then want to turn right.
If I go early - at the end of the green man but while my light is still red I clear the pinch point before the traffic catches up and I can make the manouvere into the right lane to make my right turn ahead of the traffic. its significantly safer as make manouvers on a clear road not atraffic filled one. there is usually an illegally parked car at the pinch point as well
Heading off from here.
PP [url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=broad+street+manchester&hl=en&ll=53.488556,-2.280264&spn=0.032632,0.067034&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Broad+St,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=53.488667,-2.2804&panoid=jN8YEEIJ-Olia1WQXeW33Q&cbp=12,169.4,,0,12.22 ]see here[/url] legit option is wait for the lights and enter into the 4lane drag race (in my case moving from left lane to right lane) or wait for the cross traffic (from the left) to go through then between that going to red and the oncoming traffic filter turning green I go through the junction, safely negotiate the junction (watching for other RLJers of course) and have a 20second gap to get into the needed right hand lane before the cars behind me start racing along. It's not often I get to those lights when they are red but when I do I'll take the safe* option
*as risk assessed by me, not perfect or legitimate but certainly not done to save time (as the next set of lights will be on red anyway and I'll be stopping at those)
Anyone looking to apply that point about hi-viz to a subsequent case would probably be on a hiding to nothing, it reads like a classic [i]obiter dicta[/i] remark to me.