Accident with cyclist - Seeking advice

Stringy said:
If you're submitting this as a claim on your insurance be prepared for increased premiums, even as non-fault. I'd be looking to recover costs from this incident, especially given it is explicitly illegal to cycle on the pavement. If you're worrying about the ethics of claiming off of him, just think to yourself: he could have cycled into a small child running out of a front garden, or a mother pushing a pram out of a gate.

Are you this obtuse when talking with friends in real life or do you save it for faceless conversations on the internet?
Click to expand...

No as I said the OP was stationary then he moved. The way forward was NOT clear when he started his manoeuvre. The OP was obviously still looking to his right when he started to pull off. Not having a go at the OP we all do it, But that doesn't make it right its just the OP got caught out this time.

Yes the cyclist was riding illegally but that doesn't absolve the OP from his mistake.

I'd say 50:50 but if the cyclist had been killed then would 50:50 mean the OP wouldn't have been up in court
 
Actually slowing down the footage the OP started to move before the cyclist got there. So I'd say more than 50:50 Cyclists fault
 
Wow.. caution much from the cyclist, just zoom in front of a car. Whether you're on a bike or walking/running, you approach a crossing with caution, you don't auto pilot/sail through.

At the speed the cyclist was going he'd have a damn hard time stopping in the distance between seeing the car and noticing he wasn't gonna make it.
 
mattyg said:
No as I said the OP was stationary then he moved. The way forward was NOT clear when he started his manoeuvre. The OP was obviously still looking to his right when he started to pull off. Not having a go at the OP we all do it, But that doesn't make it right its just the OP got caught out this time.

Yes the cyclist was riding illegally but that doesn't absolve the OP from his mistake.

I'd say 50:50 but if the cyclist had been killed then would 50:50 mean the OP wouldn't have been up in court
Click to expand...
But he showed due diligence in looking for obstructions on the pavement from the left and correctly would have been looking right before pulling out to turn left. If it had been a motorbike on the pavement doing that speed would you have called it 50:50? Of course not, as neither have any business being there doing that speed.
 
Bike should not have been on the path, and he was not showing much sign of cortion, taking into account he could see a car waiting to pull out, as a pedestrian i would not walk out straight in front of a car
 
Stringy said:
But he showed due diligence in looking for obstructions on the pavement from the left and correctly would have been looking right before pulling out to turn left. If it had been a motorbike on the pavement doing that speed would you have called it 50:50? Of course not, as neither have any business being there doing that speed.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the video shows that. Your assuming he had. But there is no evidence to support it.
 
Cyclist 100% at fault.
He was on the pavement, which as stated is illegal.
He was going WAY too fast, anyway (may have been excusable to be on the pavement if he lived like 2 doors down or something and he was about to get off - even then going about 5mph. But that's a moot point.
Cyclist is a knob.

If he has any insurance, claim off that. Maybe his home insurance covers him for being a *******. It's unlikely he'd have any cycling insurance.

Yeah you should've seen him, but he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
 
Cyclist was pretty reckless there. It may be pretty irrelevant but if your car was a person the cyclist could be in quite a bit of trouble, given the fact he couldn't see a car going the speed he was poking out, he likely wouldn't have seen a person.

I'd be pretty livid if that was me tbh.
 
mattyg said:
Your fault mate unfortunately

You have to treat the edge of the carriageway as a give way. You didn't give way

I know he was on the pavement. But that could also have been a jogger. Or a mum with a pram
Click to expand...

how many mum's with pram's do you know that travel at 15-20 km/h? same with joggers apart from mo farah. thing is a jogger would have been easily spotted approaching at a much slower speed. they can also stop much faster than a bike with less "braking" distance.

IMO this is the cyclists fault for not cycling on the road with traffic as he should have been.
 
re legitimacy of any cyclist being on the pavement - maybe this has been recinded
Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.

Final check to left is needed though, couple of regular situations -
you would be a stupid parent to let your young child run ahead of you on his scooter/bike on the way to school, but I often see it,
equally as a runner (w/fluo clothes) motorists often forget folks maybe approaching from the left quickly, and you can think you have looked a driver in the eye, but he has not seen you.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
how many mum's with pram's do you know that travel at 15-20 km/h? same with joggers apart from mo farah. thing is a jogger would have been easily spotted approaching at a much slower speed. they can also stop much faster than a bike with less "braking" distance.

IMO this is the cyclists fault for not cycling on the road with traffic as he should have been.
Click to expand...

I'm not trained in speed assessment so I cant say how fast the cyclist was going.

The cyclist is visible for over 2 secs in that video before the collision. Had the OP been looking where he was going then I'm sure he would have seen the cyclist.

However the OP did what I bet we all do and that is keep looking right as we pull out. Not knocking the OP I'm sure we all do it.
 
crinkleshoes said:
No, a pedestrian wouldn't have had right of way in that situation either - the car did.
Click to expand...

Isn’t the pavement considered part of the carriageway. The pedestrian continuing the same direction has right of way to the vehicle changing direction, just as you wouldn’t pull out in front of a car on the road.

Something most car drivers don’t realise, with the unofficial rule being the bigger mode of transport has right of way, even though it contravenes the actual rule.

When pulling out of a side road or turning in to a side road the pedestrian/path user has priority, just as a car does.

Rule 170 of the link you provided earlier.
 
Last edited:
peterwalkley said:
I think the "could have been a pedestrian" argument is irrelevant. Nobody with more than one brain cell crosses a road in front of a car pulling out like you were. They'd either wait or cross behind you.
Click to expand...
Amazingly, I have almost ran somebody over doing this, sat at a junction waiting for a gap turning left only to find when pulling out and then looking left to find a bloke and his young son had decided to walk round the front of my car in the actual road.

Just about had a heart attack and had to pull an emergency stop.
 
Jokester said:
Amazingly, I have almost ran somebody over doing this, sat at a junction waiting for a gap turning left only to find when pulling out and then looking left to find a bloke and his young son had decided to walk round the front of my car in the actual road.

Just about had a heart attack and had to pull an emergency stop.
Click to expand...

Some people are just to dumb to figure out they should be going behind vehicles waiting on junctions.
 
I'd definitely say the cyclists fault, from what I can tell you were halfway across the pavement before you started to turn out onto the road and it doesn't look like you moved forwards that far, probably less than 30cm so even if you hadn't moved the cyclist was cutting it a bit fine. It's impossible to tell what speed the cyclist was doing, but it doesn't look like he attempted to slow down or even look to his right. Hope it all works out in your favour.

Now let's lighten the mood with the normal OcUK reply: Should have checked for witnesses, deleted the dashcam footage and bundled him into the boot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom