Forum menu
Looks like it is possibly a pass-over
It's got double yellow lines on it. It's a road.
OP - were the traffic lights at red or green just before the incident?
https://www.google.com/maps/ @52.8034032,-2.1176854,3a,51.5y,253.04h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtH5Ux6Ly4er0uYWGX5wng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Jumping to lots of conclusions I assume the lights were at red so you hopped on to the pavement to beat them ?
I can see how the van driver would not have seen a cyclist bombing along on the pavement from that view.
It is an access road according to the signs painted on the road
https://www.google.com/maps/ @52.8033592,-2.1179091,3a,75y,341.03h,82.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skvJoUN2ezo1C0bV8Pb_KEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://corporate.dominos.co.uk/Are-you-Driven-to-Deliver
Looks like Dominoes do provide 3rd party insurance to their workers.
Not sure where all these 50/50 views are coming from op is clearly the one at fault, its a dropped kerb junction speed should have been well knocked off (well not even been there from the off if we are being picky) driver was well into the turn before being struck so I fail to see blame on his part if I'm honest
Wow - wasn't expecting such a big response, thanks for your contributions.
Just as a bit of a follow-up and to answer a few questions if anyone is interested...
Firstly, i had and have no intention of pursuing this as some sort of compo claim, if anything i'm more concerned that he might come after me - until i know that this is not the case, please forgive me if i'm at least a little circumspect with my responses.
The info that he'd been 'flashed' through was from a witness at the scene, i obviously couldn't see that myself - i think it is material though, because it does affect the reaction of drivers, and i think it did have a bearing in this instance.
Yes the guy was pretty freaked out - it was a car not a van.
The road he was turning into is an access road to a small private car park for an office building, it's not exactly a busy 'junction', it wasn't massively unreasonable not to expect a car to pull across me, at 5pm on a Friday i'd have thought it more likely that stuff would have been coming from my left.
It's fair to say that speed was a factor, but i genuinely wasn't tonking along - i stopped without my bike hitting his car, and i did have that moment when you are not quite sure, then realise *yes i 'm going over* and let go. I think it was the way my hands were together, concentrating the mass at the middle of the window (this was the passenger side window not the windshield), that made it give way and break. I was more than a little surprised that it went the way it broke tbh.
I'd also like to point out that i have cycled this route - sometimes, but not often, using this pavement depending on the situation - at least twice a week for the last 18 years. This is my first palpable hit.
Ultimately my thoughts are that i'd like to file it under 'sh!t happens' and move on. But then i haven't just had some random geezer fly through my car window. From his perspective he's out of pocket, with limited options for redress.
What i would like to do is offer to pay half of the cost for repair as a gesture of goodwill, but i'm concerned that if i make such an offer it be seen as an admission of guilt. As things stand i'm going to wait and see what, if anything, comes of it.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Oh and i have pics of the injury if there is an audience for it.
I keep telling myself I should get 3rd party cover. As a matter of interest I got a quote from Direct Line. £14 a year.
Yes, i was telling myself recently that i should get some sort of insurance package.
I rather wish i'd listened to myself.
Twice a week for 18 years... yeah, get yourself insured, dude.
Flashing is an irrelevance, I only asked out of curiosity. All other things aside, the driver chose to progress. I was taught not to trust flashed lights when I was learning to drive 30+ years ago.
I wouldn't be volunteering anything, "doing the right thing" has no bearing where insurance is concerned. Let them do what they're paid for and then worry about it once you've heard what they have to say.
Just to add; you really don't need to be going that fast to go OTB - it's just panic grabbing the front brake, even at pretty modest speeds that'll see you off.
On balance, I'd have said that the driver was more at fault.
OP could easily have been entirely legally filtering on the inside, with the same result. I've certainly been caught out the same way (but been fortunate enough to avoid serious injury) in similar situations - drivers tend to speed into the gap when they're flashed through.
The fact that he was on the pavement was obviously contributory, but driver should have been more cautious in performing their manoeuvre.
did you cross the threshold between pavement and road without stopping? cos if you did you entered the road without due care too.
The pavement is part of the road https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192
You can't enter what you're already on...but I know what you mean 🙂
The reason people are banned from cycling on pavements is largely because of the speed they are likely to be going whilst doing it.
Im going to be slightly pedantic here and say its not pavements, its 'footpaths' and the law dates from 1835. Bikes were invented around 1817(A bike with no pedals), so in 1835 they were not as common a sight as now.
The HWC says you must not cycle on the pavements, but the actual law hasnt to my knowledge been properly updated, and that is probably the reason you could cycle past a dozen policemen in a day, on the pavement and none would stop you. In fact they'd more than likely move to the side.
You were in fact crossing a road at the time and the vehicle that hit you did so because they as the vehicle that impacted you, did so because they were driving without due care and attention. This is how the law(to my knowledge) treats the impact. the person doing the hitting is the one who is in the wrong.
Being even more pedantic it is footway not pavement. As per RTA 1988 and Highways Act 1835 and other regs.
Footway the bit alongside a road. Footpath a path not adjacent to a road.
In Scotland it is illegal under S129 Roads Scotland Act 1984. Almost never enforced.
But what about the pizzas? Were they delivered and were they still warm?
You were in fact crossing a road at the time and the vehicle that hit you did so because they as the vehicle that impacted you, did so because they were driving without due care and attention
<devilsadvocate>Was the OP crossing the road? Or was the car crossing a footway?</devilsadvocate>
But what about the pizzas? Were they delivered and were they still warm?
Anchovies? Guilty!
The driver could possibly be somewhat at fault, it's not clear. They might have had sufficient visibility to know that there wasn't a pedestrian crossing the side road. There's no evidence that they were driving fast or carelessly.
The cyclist is certainly at fault, riding on the pavement, recklessly fast (they were unable to stop in time and lost control) and not checking an obvious hazard. They could easily have seen the oncoming car as it started to turn across, had they been looking out for this obvious risk.
This is how the law(to my knowledge) treats the impact. the person doing the hitting is the one who is in the wrong.
The cyclist hit the car ! that is a fact that is not been disputed
OP - I would be asking the garage for the CCTV as I said above, if nothing more to see your superman impression in to the car window.
I had a slightly similar experience about 20 years ago. Wideish road, stationery cars, me filtering up the inside, not fast (maybe 10-15 mph) on a road that I thought I knew well. I would always slow at side roads in case of such a thing, but it turned out that there was a little entrance that I'd never noticed before. Van on my side of the road had left a gap for someone to turn across them (and me), but they couldn't see me and I couldn't see them... they nipped across and I couldn't stop in time, so my front wheel hit the door and my shoulder shattered the passenger window. Made a big bang. The passenger was at least as shocked as me. I was hardly injured (slight whiplash and a small chunk of glass that remained in my hand for about 6 months!). My front wheel and forks (cheap ones) were knackered though.
Driver and passenger were concerned about whether I was hurt, seemed like nice people. We exchanged details, and pretty much agreed that we both should have been more careful, and left it at that. I was aware that technically he was definitely liable, but figured that I really should (and normally would) have been more careful when filtering, and his car damage was definitely more costly than my bike, so I just chalked it up to experience!
You were in fact crossing a road at the time and the vehicle that hit you did so because they as the vehicle that impacted you, did so because they were driving without due care and attention.
As stated above, the bike hit the car (otherwise the OP would have been over the bonnet).
Riding on the pavement likely makes it 50-50. Had you been in the gutter it would be the driver's fault. I hit the side of a car that turned right across me at a mini roundabout. That they made no indication and were in the left- not right-hand lane meant that they were given 50% liability. That they left me for dead lying unconscious for 30 minutes, meant that they narrowly avoided prison.
Heal fast, and some basic cycle insurance from BC would not go amiss. They were very good with my accident.
If you've got home insurance you should already be covered for third party liability like this. Apologies if it's already been mentioned in the thread and you don't have it.
<devilsadvocate>Was the OP crossing the road? Or was the car crossing a footway?</devilsadvocate>
That's not devil's advocate that's just wrong. There are several clues as to why in the photo ..... Such as the tactile pavement. The double yellows on the road the kerbing.
That’s not devil’s advocate that’s just wrong. There are several clues as to why in the photo ….. Such as the tactile pavement. The double yellows on the road the kerbing.
Yes, there are construction features to give access, but the "road" covers building line to building line. That limit is shown by the bars on the ends of the double yellow lines.
The radiused part of the DY lines is on the footway to stop drivers parking and obstructing the footway while mistaking it for the carriageway. It isn't clear cut
It isn’t clear cut
your clutching at tenuous straws
Reflective practice. This is not about who is to blame
Why did the crash occur?
What could i have done to avoid it?
What can I do differently in future?
I do this after every near miss/ incident/ crash and adjust my riding accordingly. One thing i do is filter slowly and look down every side road and turning a d if there is a gap in queueing traffic look for a car going into that gap.
My opinion, drivers fault all day long.
Turning across a footway, might have a runner or a scooter moving at pace.
Legally maybe not, I have no idea, sorry.
Doesn't matter he's hit the side window.
Cars move quite quickly.
I can be fairly certain if the op was in a cycle lane, the collision would still happen.