pavement cycling – one for the internet lawyers
yes 50/50 is hwta insirance will try but if push comes to shove I blame the driver he crossed the pavement and hit something on it. Ergotthey did not look very well assuming your son was not travelling at interstellar speed [ and chose not to brake] he could have avoided this. I assume he would have hit them if they were on the road??Posted 7 years ago
PS Could have been a jogger with a pram or a small child or a badger chasing a gay Islamic swam. Can we stop the hyberbole/hypotheticals now STW and try to answer his question?cynic-alMember
Depends on visibility for both parties, speed of both parties. Illegality of riding on pavement in itself is irrelevant – issue is what duties were on both parties in the circumstances.
IMO generally a driver would have a duty to look out for whatever is known to commonly use thae pavement – which could include pedestrians, electric wheelchairs, wee kid on a bikes – and even adults on bikes at speed if they commonly use the pavement.
Prima faciae if he’s no visibility and gone out fast enough not to give your son time to brake (assuming he wasn’t going silly fast) then it’s probbers the driver’s fault IMO.
IANARTLPosted 7 years agoantigeeMember
if you put a drive in now then there are regs covering visibility either side – can’t remember what they are and to be honest on our drive because is very steep though walls are turned back as required have to edge out to make sure any joggers / pavement cyclists see front of car appearing before i can see them – older houses i assume no regs or is the drive recent but not to standard?Posted 7 years ago
glad young man is okTiRedMember
sadly i’m away so cant give google maps location. suffice to say it is a large exit with good visibility and all monitored from cctv from the doctor’s surgery where the car was emerging from. if it had been into the side of the car then yes i am liable. but to drive into the side of a cyclist from an exit is pretty much unforgivable. As i sid, if this was on a similar road with small blue signs, there would be no contention. And yes joggers and small kids could also have suffered a similar or worse fate.
police were pretty understanding, actually. And I’d pay the fine to see three points added to his licensePosted 7 years agoMrSalmonMember
I reckon it’s the driver’s responsibility to avoid hitting anything when he’s basically driving across the pavement. And I don’t know that he shouldn’t be expecting bikes (or runners, or dogs, or whatever) on the pavement- it’s not exactly unheard of for them to be using the pavements. Surely it’s better to pull out carefully assuming something’s coming than just pull out assuming it isn’t?Posted 7 years agoTheBrickMember
split responsibility IMO. Sounds like the driver pulled out without paying attention to the pavement but son is riding on the pavement. Tough one. I’m amazed the driver bothered to be honest. I’d be pissed off it was me but it’s a teenager and teenager do silly things and also deep down think actualy I should have been more cautious pulling out. Get you son to write a letter of apology from your son to smooth the road politically.Posted 7 years agoTiRedMember
Son1 was cycling to friend’s house with said friend. Friend has been told to ride on the pavement as it is a busy road out of Windsor. Pavement is on only one side of the road, boys travelling contra to traffic flow. Modest pace.
Car pulls out of ajoining entrance, hits Son1 side on and pushes him out into the road and into path of oncoming traffic. Son1 satys on (not bad as it’s my fixie) and there are no cars coming (thank goodness).
Front numberplate is broken off (it’s a fixie) and scratched, Son1 apologised, driver expect us to pay.
X-rays reveal no serious injury to Son1.
Reported to police – as has the driver.
Extra points – most pavements are dual use out of Windsor, this one was not. Son1 is 13 so over age of responsibility son1 is an experienced road rider.Posted 7 years agoMacgyverMember
actually plotting stuff on a development site as we speak. It varys a little but where my site is it requires a visbility zone of 2m by 2m where access crosses a footway to enable emerging vehicles from private drives to see pedestrians.
Now for cycling it’s a little vague. Even the Sustrans Manual only goes as far as saying adequate visibility should be provided. Digging a little further gives you data from TfL/LCN. This suggests that you should use a design speed of 10mph for cycle ways but does not state visiblity distances.
You then revert to Manual for Streets which suggest a stopping site distance of 11m for 10mph. Typically you use a setback of 2.4m for cars (you might be able to argue 2.0m for lightly trafficked accesses) so this gives you a visibility splay of 2.4 x 11.0m. Quite a jump up over what you need for see pedestrians.
Okay, who needs a transport planner? 🙂Posted 7 years ago
How can the car driver be at fault – he does not have to anticipate a cyclist on the pavement
Fek me TJ, you should know better than that. Does he not have to anticipate peds either?
Matters not to me, you give way to pavement users.Posted 7 years ago
Driver at fault. End of.
Tell him to swivel.ampthillSubscriber
Just to be clear
The car is driving forwards out of the drive of a doctors surgery and drives into the side of your son on his bike. The visibility was good, I mean the potential existed for him to see your son
I’d go for drivers fault. What about some one in a wheel chair or an electric mobility scooter
I think asking for cash is to wrong foot you when deep down he knows he’s in the wrong
Moments like this when a family membership of the CTC would be handy…
Get hold off the CCTV footage. I think seeing a video of a car pushing a kid into the road would carry alot of natural justice. I bet the doctors surgery has some potential liabilityPosted 7 years agoqwertyMember
techknickerally the driver could spout on about:
S.28 RTA 1988 Dangerous Cycling
S.29 RTA 1988 Careless Cycling
S.72 Highways Act 1835 Any person wilfully riding upon a footpath blah blah blah
but as already mentioned he couldn’t see a person and drove into them so you could throw it all straight back at himPosted 7 years agopolyMember
I assume that your son has now developed some soft tissue damage which was not immediately apparent at the time due to the adreneline etc and will be issuing a counter claim for several thousand pounds of compensation. I’d also be going over that fixie with a fine toothcomb as any paint damage may just possibly indicate structural damage to the frame which will add to your claim (perhaps if you are lucky you’ll get enough for a ‘big boys bike, with gears and stuff!).
All of that as a claim against the drivers insurance / no-claims should cost him much more than a number plate – even if he is not at fault and has no claims protection!
I’d say that a reasonable and careful driver would look across a pavement for all sort of users including cyclists before driving over it. Just because they shouldn’t be there doesn’t mean they won’t. Do you turn into 1 way streets without looking both ways?Posted 7 years ago
Poly the answer to your one way question it most people don’t look both ways! The standards of driving on UK roads is shocking.
now wonder our country is f**** and insurance costs are going up! Something so minor what happened to “sorry”, “yeah no problems mate” sighs….Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘pavement cycling – one for the internet lawyers’ is closed to new replies.