Cyclist v car… again

Home Forum Bike Forum Cyclist v car… again

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)
  • Cyclist v car… again
  • bigyinn
    Member

    Did Merv just look the one way when crossing the pavement too? He still needs to look both ways. Just because there shouldn’t be something where you don’t expect it to be, doesn’t there wont be something there. Basically someone’s very nicely flashed him out and Merv didn’t look first before pulling out.

    Doesn’t excuse the cyclist from riding the WRONG way down the hill. Its pretty clear from streetview that there are cycle lanes on BOTH sides of the road, so the cyclist shouldn’t have been in the lane he was riding down.

    IanW
    Member

    Poorly designed cycle lanes caused this problem.

    The cyle lane is clearly maked with arrows but diverges from the road a little further down the down, if you want to go that way theres no good way to cross form the lane on the correct side of the road.

    Also looks like that lane is blocked by a parked car.

    Another reason not to use half arsed attempts at cycle lanes, stick to the road its safer.

    So if you were out for a run and was hit by a car when the driver just pulled out when “Flashed”
    I seem to remember that in the highway code you must look both ways when turning left.
    That aside rule 183 is interesting. Makes the driver 100% at fault.

    butcher
    Member

    So if you were out for a run and was hit by a car when the driver just pulled out when “Flashed”
    I seem to remember that in the highway code you must look both ways when turning left.
    That aside rule 183 is interesting. Makes the driver 100% at fault.

    Had it have been an articulated lorry overtaking a parked car, Merv wouldn’t be here now, so I reckon looking both ways makes a lot of sense.

    Interestingly, I know of a similar layout where a shared path spits you out onto a cycle lane on the wrong side of the road, right next to a junction making it almost impossible to cross the road in rush hour traffic. I see loads of people riding the wrong way down it. But it’s either that or the footpath. It just highlights crap infrastructure.

    Quick poll – if it’d been a cyclist riding out of a junction and a car hit him/her whilst driving the wrong way down a street would we be saying it’s the cyclists fault for not looking both ways? Or arranging the noose for the car driver?

    Quick poll – if it’d been a cyclist riding out of a junction and a car hit him/her whilst driving the wrong way down a street would we be saying it’s the cyclists fault for not looking both ways? Or arranging the noose for the car driver?

    He is still wrong for not looking both ways

    coogan
    Member

    And the cyclist is still a bell end for going the wrong way down the road. Got what he deserved quite frankly.

    Whether or not the cyclist was in the wrong a good motorist should be checking both directions,for the unexpected not the expected .

    WTF are you on

    wether the motorist was in the wrondg a good cyclist would have leapt the car with cat like knievil skills

    on a serious note good job implied liability wasn’t in force

    matt22
    Member

    Mervyn said: “He was cycling down the hill in the cycle lane facing the oncoming traffic, I didn’t think to look to my left as the cyclist shouldn’t have been there.”

    He said: “It seems to happen all the time, for as long as I can remember

    A bit contradictory

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    Quick poll – if it’d been a cyclist riding out of a junction and a car hit him/her whilst driving the wrong way down a street would we be saying it’s the cyclists fault for not looking both ways?

    well there’s a one way street near me that drivers regularly go up the wrong way, if that happened to me on there I’d consider myself partially responsible for not looking both ways

    on a serious note good job implied liability wasn’t in force

    even a cursory look at the evidence would have shown the cyclist was going up the cycle lane the wrong way so we’re back to looking at all the evidence properly. No problem.

    even a cursory look at the evidence would have shown the cyclist was going up the cycle lane the wrong way so we’re back to looking at all the evidence properly. No problem.

    …you honestly believe that? there will be money and legals (loosest use of word) involved

    bigyinn
    Member

    The driver should be looking both ways regardless of whether something should be there or not!

    Its like crashing into an illegally parked car, because it shouldn’t be there! Utter nonsense.

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    Under such a system – more accurately termed ‘presumed liability,’ although ‘strict liability is the one used in the campaign – a hierarchy is established that places a presumption of liability that favours the more vulnerable road user – for example, where a cyclist has been struck by a car, the motorist is presumed to be liable, unless they can prove that the cyclist was at fault. The system only applies to civil cases, not criminal ones.

    [url=http://road.cc/content/news/81176-law-firm-launches-campaign-strict-liability-scotland-cases-involving-cyclists]sauce[/url] not difficult to show a cyclist going the wrong way up a cycle lane is at some fault. You’d still have legal wranglings in this case because the driver should have looked both ways, there could have been pedestrians on that side

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    I think I’d be happy with 50/50 from either side of that tbh. Nice messy grey areas for a stw argument though 🙂 Pretty comfortable I would not have been that cyclist though.

    I once put in the door of an astra using my motorbike, only reason I didn’t end up in a mess was that I saw the other car flash them, and realised they were going to pull out on me. The driver doing the flashing was an idiot but I still put all blame for that on the driver that pulled out, it’s entirely their job to drive safely.

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)

The topic ‘Cyclist v car… again’ is closed to new replies.