Poll: who is at fault here

[Tom_ed1987]

Bike. Going too fast for the conditions. Wouldnt have had time to stop for a dog or small child etc.
In the hierarchy of vulnerability, pedestrian trumps bike. Minor fault on pedestrian for not looking.

 

[JBuk]

The woman is at fault she did not look, nor is that a crossing.

Both to blame is not a valid option in the poll, IMO.

The bike could stop, or he could go much slower, and thus it could be avoided, but this does not mean blame, blame occurs only if moving between cars in such a way is illegal in itself.

Filtering itself is not illegal but driving too fast for the conditions could be classed as dangerous driving

 

[fez]

The sensible way to assess the situation is to put the blame on both parties involved and hoping they’ve both learned a lesson from this.

The reason this isn't the case is because one side is almost guaranteed to come off far worse. The responsibility to behave in the safest manner increases (as it should) with the danger you present to other people on the roads. If you are driving a 2 tonne hunk of metal then you have a very dangerous weapon in your hands and you should take that very seriously as you could kill someone with shocking ease. If you have a bicycle you are very unlikely to harm someone in the same way.

Thats almost certainly why the person in @bigmike20vt post above got in trouble despite the cyclist going the wrong way down a one way street. When two people are doing something silly the bulk of the responsibility to avoid the situation falls on the must vulnerable. Unless the driver couldn't have done anything differently they should have been able to stop before hitting the cyclist and were probably deemed to be driving without due care and attention. I could crash a dozen or so times every time I do a longish drive if I didn't compensate for the **** driving of others around me. That is part of your responsibility though. Do your best to avoid crashes no matter how stupidly the other person is behaving.

99% of the time inattentive drivers get away with it because someone else compensates for them. When they don't they deserve everything they get. People in this country treat driving as far too much of a right not a privilege.

 

[Chrisc]

I say this as somebody who absolutely hates being sat in my car and seeing bikers whip through traffic (Pure jealousy I know) but its the Womans fault in my eyes, maybe he was going a tad fast, but you cant just run out into the road while not looking and then blame the person who hit you.

Silly cow

 

[TheCSSDoctor]

I rode bikes for a good number of years, and one thing everyone says is to treat all other people as idiots and expect the worst from them, whether they be motorists or pedestrians

Ideally, it would have been good to see more of the video leading up to the incident to give a better view of how the situation developed into the collision, but based on the short clip it is hard to say who is most at fault as they both made mistakes - the woman looking away from the bike as she tries to move between the vehicles, but the bike also appears to be going to quick for the conditions

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Both. Woman didn’t look and biker was going far too fast for the very limited visibility he had.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Watching the video again, the rider does actually manage to stop, within a cars length (admittedly with the help of squishy barrier). So his speed is fine to me.

The argument that you need to drive at a speed to avoid such situations, would see speed limits where any pavement exists dropped to walking pace because, If someone decides to run across the road 2m in front of you there is very little you can do to avoid hitting them if you are travelling faster than 10mph. I doubt any of the people saying he is going too fast, slow down to walking pace anytime they pass a pedestrian.

Clearly speed limits aren't set like that, so reasonable leeway is given so that vehicles can make progress. Maybe if this was near a crossing or a set of traffic lights, it would be reasonable to expect a pedestrian to be crossing and therefore he should have been more alert, but that isn't the case here.

 

[Hades]

Speed is subjective, to me he is going slowly, i cycle faster than that on a pedal bike, i also react faster, and so forth.
did he do wrong that is written down.

A cycle can stop much faster than a motorbike because it is lighter. Your vision and awareness is also better on a cycle. Motorcyclists wear helmets which restrict peripheral vision to a degree and reduce what they can hear (hearing probably isn't relevant in this accident though).

The law does not differentiate between me and him or anyone else, otherwise i would have a different alcohol driving limit.

There are many rules which are different depending on the type of person/vehicle. e.g. a pedestrian (who is still considered a road user) does not have an alcohol limit, there are different maximum speed limits for different vehicles on some roads, some vehicles are prohibited from bus lanes, etc, and there is a new hierarchy of road users with due care expected from others to protect the more vulnerable.

The theory test is also slightly different for different vehicles. e.g. I had to take a new theory test when getting my motorcycle license and there are a small number of differences between it and a normal car theory test.

I don't think the differences are relevant to this particular collision other than the fact only cyclists and motorcycles could actually filter between the two lanes of stationary traffic.

So what is the "slow right down speed", and where is it written down.

While there is no defined speed in terms of numbers it must be appropriate to the conditions. Rule 146 of the Highway Code comes to mind:

146
Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

• do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit
• take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution
• where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging
• in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority
• be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary
• try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do. If pedestrians, particularly children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you.

Additionally, rule 88 (which is specific to motorcycles) states:

88​

Manoeuvring. You should be aware of what is behind and to the sides before manoeuvring. Look behind you; use mirrors if they are fitted. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

 

[Curlyriff]

Bike is at fault 100%, I hate bikes whether motorbikes or push bikes that travel in between cars on a two way road in stationary traffic, if this is not illegal it bloody well should be with a massive fine and heavy points to go with it. While driving my car I've had some close calls over the years when they come speeding past very close to my car, usually within 1ft while waiting at the lights for example. If I wasn't paying attention to motorbikes that are passing all the cars while waiting in traffic it wouldn't have taken much to knock these dick heads of their bikes.

And you are the problem, filtering is legal and actually encouraged and tought at riding school to allow and maintain proper flow of traffic.

Just because it says this in the code still doesn't mean that the bike isn't at fault. You are hiding behind the code here.

Any accomplished and experienced rider would know to slow right down here and it looks like to me that the rider was pushing his luck. He knew that there was a possible situation here but ploughed on anyway taking that chance. He lost and the unexpected happened of which he knows he should have been ready for but due to rushing/being late for something/impatience/bad mood decided to take that chance.

As a pedestrian you cannot really ever be wrong, drivers and riders are expected to predict and prevent all possibilities from happening and I do not think that this level awareness was demonstrated by this particular rider

If the rider is going 20mph at that point they are well withing the expected limit. I know this because the advance training school that is endorsed by the police (IAM RoadSmart) teaches to filter on roads such as shown in the video with a speed of approximatly 20mph. We don't know the speed though. But without knowning that and only taking the speed given then the rider did nothing wrong as taught.

 

[azazl187]

And you are the problem, filtering is legal and actually encouraged and tought at riding school to allow and maintain proper flow of traffic.

If the rider is going 20mph at that point they are well withing the expected limit. I know this because the advance training school that is endorsed by the police (IAM RoadSmart) teaches to filter on roads such as shown in the video with a speed of approximatly 20mph. We don't know the speed though. But without knowning that and only taking the speed given then the rider did nothing wrong as taught.

I personally would have been more careful and as a result dropped my speed by half of that to ensure better reaction times

 

[Thekwango]

I personally would have been more careful and as a result dropped my speed by half of that to ensure better reaction times

funnily enough this is what most of the bike riding mates are saying.

 

[Curlyriff]

People should also note that if you pause at 1 second in that is your first visual view from the camera, let alone the rider position. The distance from visual to contact is 1 car length, it actually extends to just under 2 as she is moving away from the rider. It takes on average at 20mph to stop at 3 car lengths. In the clip the rider stops within that 2 car length although making light contact didn't drop the bike or loose control in doing so.

If you take the stopping distance then the rider is doing at most 20mph. The rider has already considered the speed as the road that is normally a 30mph has stationary/slow moving traffic, the rider has reduced speed to about 20mph or maybe less due to the stopping distance achieved. That is as expected and as noted generally as taught in advance riding schools.

 

[eddie101]

Bike was going too fast, woman should have paid more attention.

When filtering in stationary traffic, you should go no more than about 20mph. But for a road like on the video, i'd say 10mph is ample.

 

[jaybee]

If the bike is at fault here, then you are basically saying filtering through traffic between cars should be banned essentially. In order for a biker to be able to stop within a few feet there upon seeing her, he would have to have been going literally <5mph. Riding most bikes at that speed is very hard to do so without swerving around a lot to counter balance, which would be more dangerous getting close to wing mirrors of cars etc. You have to get a bit of speed up to maintain a straight projected path.

You can't just blame bikers for filtering at 20mph past stationery traffic. With some of the mindsets on here, it would be the bikers fault if someone jumped off a bridge and landed in front of them. If it was a car in this situation (obviously not filtering) then everyone would say the pedestrian at fault. It's targeting bikers because everyone is obsessed with the stereotype that they ride too fast and that filtering is dangerous and selfish. Bikes have filtered for literally decades. The women has been around for decades by the looks of it. She has no excuse.

 

[Thekwango]

then you are basically saying filtering through traffic between cars should be banned essentially

Don’t think anyone bar one poster has said that.

With some of the mindsets on here, it would be the bikers fault if someone jumped off a bridge and landed in front of them.

Hyperbole.

If it was a car in this situation (obviously not filtering) then everyone would say the pedestrian at fault.

I certainly wouldn’t. I’d also say a car doing 20 in those sort of road conditions is going too fast. However a car wouldn’t be able to drive at all in those road conditions so it’s a moot point.

 

[gingergundog]

Different scenario but interesting the driver of the car was deemed to be driving at excessive speed due to not reducing it to account for the potential hazard, even though they were doing 10mph less than the speed limit. The motorcyclist said he was doing 20mph, should he have reduced speed to account for a potential hazard of someone stepping out between the cars, I'm not sure tbh. He couldn't even see the old dear until the last moment and seems like she didn't even look. It might end up being 50/50.

Do pedestrians have a legal responsibility for their actions in road accidents?​

In simple terms, yes they do. Everybody has a duty to take care of their own safety, much of which is common sense: pedestrians should cross at a Green Man; they should not walk across the road on their phone checking social media or browsing a website (if you are crossing the road right now please look up!); and should continue to look both ways as they cross the road.

However, going back to the original point – drivers are driving a potentially lethal weapon. Therefore, there is arguably a greater duty upon drivers to make sure they don’t hit a pedestrian, even if the pedestrian does something careless or reckless.

Pedestrians partly to blame for road traffic accident​

In civil law, which is what governs personal injury claims, if a pedestrian steps onto a road without looking first and steps into the path of an oncoming car, the pedestrian can make a compensation claim against the driver.

However, much legal discussion will take place about the extent to which the pedestrian has contributed to the accident.

Contributory negligence for pedestrian injury claims​

If the driver can prove some negligence on the part of the pedestrian, the pedestrian’s compensation will have a percentage deducted to account for their contribution to the accident. This is known as ‘contributory negligence’.

So, for example, if a pedestrian is found to be 25% to blame for the accident, they will only receive 75% of the compensation they would have been entitled to if the accident had been entirely the driver’s fault.

Case in point: Jackson v Murray​

In a 2012 Court of Session case, a thirteen-year-old school girl was found to be 90% to blame (i.e. the driver was 10% to blame) for an accident when she emerged from behind a school bus and entered the road whereupon she was struck by a passing car.

The car was travelling 10mph under the 60mph speed limit. On appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session the driver’s degree of fault was increased from 10% to 30%.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the driver and the schoolgirl were found to be equally to blame, with contributory negligence set at 50%.

Why was the driver found 50% to blame?

Put simply, he had noticed the school bus but failed to reduce his speed nor adequately anticipated a child may enter the road in front of his car. This case highlights two points:

1. Despite a pedestrian stepping out in front of you, drivers owe a duty of care to pedestrians and must anticipate pedestrians entering the carriageway. Drivers should therefore modify their driving accordingly;
2. Assessing a pedestrian’s contribution to an accident is incredibly difficult. In Jackson v Murray the case called before three different courts which all made different assessments of contributory negligence.

https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/news/w... pedestrians have,of contributory negligence.

It seems to be only advisory on what the speed should be when filtering, I guess common sense applies.

1. Speed – and perception - when filtering through traffic​

A good starting point is speed. You must be aware of your actual speed and the perception of your speed to other motorists.

Your speed will depend upon various factors including:

• road conditions
• weather conditions
• experience

However, as your speed increases, braking distance increases and the prospects or time for you to be seen by other motorists in their mirror decreases.

If a car is stationary or crawling at less than 5mph, a bike passing at 20mph will appear to be travelling fast.

This perception could be crucial where an accident takes place and you require to rely on supportive witness evidence. As a result, it is important to be aware of the impact the perception of your speed may also have.

Accordingly, it may be advisable to filter through slow-moving traffic at a speed of no more than 5 – 10 mph more than the traffic. This is only a rough rule of thumb, but may help to limit the prospects of wrongdoing being attributed to you or your actions in the event of a collision.

https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/news/i...rcycle#:~:text=1. Speed – and,of a collision.

 

[RevBillyG]

Anyone blamed Corbyn yet?

 

[EdButler]

Bike

Highway Code rule 88: "When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

They weren't looking out adequately and their speed was too fast. 20mph (probably more) is like an Olympic sprinter at full pelt or 2+ car lengths per second. Far too fast when travelling flanked by cars on each side.

 

[Devilman]

Ask yourself this...

Who can stop in a single pace? The bike, or the pedestrian?

 

[Devilman]

Bike

Highway Code rule 88: "When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

They weren't looking out adequately and their speed was too fast. 20mph (probably more) is like an Olympic sprinter at full pelt or 2+ car lengths per second. Far too fast when travelling flanked by cars on each side.

Highway code is not the law, Highway code does not constitute legal culpability.