Poll: who is at fault here

[Devilman]

Kindai is a biker. I'm not sure why he would have a prejudice against them. I also think it was the bikers fault and I am a biker myself (or at least I was until recently). It seems that quite a few of us bikers actually hold the riders actions to a higher standard than many non-bikers (I appreciate you also ride).

hence why I said "probably".. It was an assumption made given the quickness to blame the biker 100% as a few others have displayed.

However I now see that his quickness to blame the biker with 100% culpability stems from a blind assumption of what he can't see, what isn't in the clip and his opinion that the clip starts "conveniently" where it does.

To be clear, I do feel the biker in the clip was riding a little too fast given the traffic, the size of the road / available space to filter through traffic in and that it at least appeared to be a residential type area.

I would say based upon the clip as it's presented, it's 25% biker, 75% pedestrian. I do feel he was going a little fast for the circumstances shown, but it's very clear that the pedestrian made absolutely zero attempt to ensure the road was clear to cross before marching straight out from behind a stationary vehicle.

 

[Devilman]

Kindai is a biker. I'm not sure why he would have a prejudice against them. I also think it was the bikers fault and I am a biker myself (or at least I was until recently). It seems that quite a few of us bikers actually hold the riders actions to a higher standard than many non-bikers (I appreciate you also ride).

I do hold riders to a higher standard than average drivers that is true. However what many people seem to be completely ignoring here is that the entire "accident" was initiated by the pedestrian marching out from behind a stationary vehicle without doing the most basic (and Highway Code recommended) checks to ensure her own safety, let alone that of road users.

If he had been going slower, would he have been able to stop? Sure absolutely. But as we see from her actions in the clip, she would have still marched out infront of him.
He would have still be forced to emergency stop in a narrow section of road due to filtering through traffic which in itself could result in rider injury even if she had been avoided.

Would the collision had been avoided had he been travelling a little slower? Maybe... But then... would the collision have been avoided in it's entirety regardless of rider speed or filtering had the pedestrian carried out the most basic of checks before crossing into an active highway? Yes, absolutely.

That to me is the key difference in culpability here.. Had the rider been going slower they still would have had a dangerous situation present itself infront of them due to no fault of their own. The entire thing was initiated by her stepping into traffic without looking.

*Edit* Again, while I agree on some points - I do think he was going a little fast for the road situation / circumstances (I certainly wouldn't be filtering at that speed in that environment) and I do think those are exactly the kind of situations where we riders need to be super vigilant for people stepping out, or kids running into the road - However, when someone marches straight out from behind stationary vehicles without even turning their head to see if anything was coming, It is not the rider at fault. Just the same way as it's not the drivers fault when a kid runs into the road in-front of them and they get hit.

 

[koolpc]

Biker at fault. Simples

 

[Demon]

Stupid comment, frankly. Whether you see the hazard or not is irrelevant to fault. A car pulling out of a side road is a hazard. It's still their fault.

The difference is the filtering part, that is an 'at risk' manouevre like overtaking.

From more perspective the example would be someone overtaking a car and at the same time you cross the line, an oncoming car pulls out from a side road and you hit each other, he would argue he wasn't expecting you to be there, you'd argue he should have been looking out, both are correct, both are liable, both are to blame.. The hierachy of vulneratbiliy has you at the same level, so would probably be 50/50..

 

[bigmike20vt]

I appreciate that reply wasn't to me. But nevertheless, new rule H2 may beg to differ:


Pedestrians can step out into the road at any time and are entitled to do so. Granted if they just leap across like this woman did then they bear some degree of liability. But the new rules state they can use any part of the road at any time.

regardless of the rules, my personal view.which means nothing really is that the recent changes WRT pedestrians if it is as cut and dry as you state is stupid imo. (truth is I haven't studied the new changes , I probably should).
my gut feeling is I *hope* you have gotten the wrong end of the stick regarding the quoted paragraph above as pedestrians should NOT be able to step out at any time. IF they can then we may as well get rid of zebra crossings

am not even a fan of the pedestrians at junction changes tbh

 

[Curlyriff]

It's been pointed out several times, Rule 88:


Speciflcally "When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles " and "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."

Filtering is a risky manoevre, it's legal to do so, but you have to take care and be aware of obvious hazards. You seem hung up on the exact speed as if some magic number of mph makes it OK.. The (sad) fact is, if you can't react and stop in time to a hazard that you are told to be aware of, you are going too fast.. he didn't react and hit the woman, therefore he was going too fast for the situation.. simple as really.

It in no way absolves the woman of her part in this, she is absolutely equally to blame, but as mentioned, the hierachy of vulnerability means the balance will tip against the motorcycle IMO (but only IMO, the new rules are a bit weird).

There is nothing in that video that suggests he didn;t conform to rule 88. You and others as I have pointed out is what does speed low constitute, speed low is completely variable and of a personal opinion. Mine and others I iride with is that 20mph is already low in that instance, yours is 10-15mph. The only people whom will judge otherwise would be the police, the insurance and a judge if needed at court. There is no magic number but you all keep saying 10-15mph would make it right? Why. That isn't me hung up a number. It is a personal experieance and expectation.

The problem with this right now is the incident can happen at any speed from 1mph to 100mph because the party involved (the lady) would always be at fault, if she had stepped out and not looked as did not when going 10mph but the biker was 1m further up the road the same result would happen so speed isn't the factor here. Otherwise you have got to the point that traffic cannot move if you are stating that being aware of a possible hazard means you have to slow for it, to what speed if it is always possible to happen? It is a completely illogical falicay to what you are stating.

100% the bike no debate at all.

On frame 1 of the conveniently clipped video, you can see the white of the ladies coat just poking out from behind the silver car, so we know in previous moments that she was visible.

Now if you look behind the silver car, theres a micra, a small car that the bike will be able to see over with ease and most likely, if they were paying attention, would have seen the lady moving across the pavement towards the road.

Its basic hazard perception, and if the biker didnt see this coming then frankly he should have to re-take his test.

You realise the camera is a good 6" above the eyeline of the rider right on top of the helmet. The visibility of the person is obscured much longer than in the clip to the point the rider wouldn't have seen that person till she basically stepped from behind the car which in that as pointed out previous, thus meaning a total reaction and stopping distance of 2 car lengths. That wouldn't of mattered if the rider was going 10-15mph. It was just as likely he may have hit the lady due to her negligence.

 

[Shadowness]

As a cyclist I'm going with the woman at fault. Although the biker was going too fast for the conditions.

The woman did not look at all, so she asked for it frankly.

Which is why it sickens me that you can be completely innocent (and legal), and kill someone in a situation such as this, but you're punished despite it being 100% not your fault.

 

[Curlyriff]

I appreciate that reply wasn't to me. But nevertheless, new rule H2 may beg to differ:


So if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at any junction then you should give way (it's a "should" rather than "must" but this rule change still has consequences if you collide with a pedestrian at a junction because you were not looking out for them). Pedestrian crosses on red at a junction and you hit them? Your fault, you should have given way.


Pedestrians can step out into the road at any time and are entitled to do so. Granted if they just leap across like this woman did then they bear some degree of liability. But the new rules state they can use any part of the road at any time.

Yes do you know what else goes with H2, all the things I posted where you still have to stop, look, listen, move the kerb line to the edge of the car line before crossing etc. It isn't just 1 rule you read. You have to put the rules together. It also says the pedestrian has to wait for the flow of traffic still.

Also yes any junction is correct. She wasn't at a junction, that is the only time it notes the pedestrians right of way in hiarachy, not anywhere they want to cross. Otherwise you have indeed read H2 wrong.

 

[dlockers]

To be clear, I do feel the biker in the clip was riding a little too fast given the traffic, the size of the road / available space to filter through traffic in and that it at least appeared to be a residential type area.

You've used up a lot of megabytes of text to conclude with "I agree the biker has some fault in this situation", which is exactly what the folk you are whinging at are saying as well.

 

[danlightbulb]

I would say bike 90%, he was just going too fast in close proximity to those stationary cars, someone crossing, a car door opening on him, he couldn't stop for either of those situations.

 

[Curlyriff]

I would say bike 90%, he was just going too fast in close proximity to those stationary cars, someone crossing, a car door opening on him, he couldn't stop for either of those situations.

I had the car door opened on me at 10mph. Got knocked off and they at fault. It wouldn't of mattered if doing 15mph to 20mph during that though. They all end the same and the fault was on the person opening the door. They paid for everything through their insurance because they hadn't looked.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The basic principle of the highway code and law is that someone joining the carriageway has to give precedence to someone already on it.
There are some minor tweaks to this, such as the recent one where is says a person waiting to cross a road should be given precedence over a car joining it.

But fundamentally all our laws/guidance is based on that principle. Its the basis of the green cross code, all the laws of joining/exiting junctions, roundabouts, the lot really.

The new laws have given pedestrians additional rights in some scenarios, NOT carte blanch right to just ignore the principles as they are more vulnerable.
It situations where there is "equal right" then the order of hierarchy absolutely applies.

The woman should have applied the green cross code on initially joining the road, and again when she reached the centre, since at this point she was moving from one albeit stationary line to another.

Whats happening here is people are confusing good driving/riding/road craft of being defensive with the legal side.

I would say bike 90%, he was just going too fast in close proximity to those stationary cars, someone crossing, a car door opening on him, he couldn't stop for either of those situations.

The person opening the door would be at fault 100%.

However again, the wiser person would be adopting defensive roadcraft themselves.

Being in the right is one thing, but helping yourself avoid issues is still the better position to take even if you are in the right.

How many of the people who say the bike is in the wrong drive too close in traffic, I would bet the vast majority.
In fact I would say 99% of drivers I come across drive too close. I tend to try to always maintain a decent gap and as a result regularly have people driving right up my bumper as I have a decent gap in front of me.
And don't get me wrong, I make progress. My other half says I drive too quickly, we live pretty rural so often the NSL is above the safe speed for a road, and yet when we drive on duals/motorway I regularly have to ask her to drop back a bit as its making me nervous.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I would say bike 90%, he was just going too fast in close proximity to those stationary cars, someone crossing, a car door opening on him, he couldn't stop for either of those situations.

Was looking for this, whos fault?

Video: Biker's Miraculous Escape After Coming Under Truck

In the video, uploaded on Instagram, a man is riding a bike beside a truck while cars are parked on either side of the road.

www.ndtv.com

Truck drivers? he should have predicted the motor cycle may end up in front of him
Motorcyclist? he should have predicted a car door could be opened on him and shouldn't have put himself in the position he could end up under a truck
OR, idiot who opened a car door without checking it was safe to do so in advance

The car driver and the motorcyclist could both have taken action to avoid the incident, but should the motorcyclist be forced to, and should the have to accept it could happen.
The defensive position is to ride further out.

 

[danlightbulb]

If the biker had killed the lady, what do you think would have happened in the courts? I would be surprised actually if the biker wasn't prosecuted in that. I agree the woman was probably technically at fault, but I think the biker would have been accused of dangerous driving.

 

[Shocky-FM]

Cyclist, filtering is legal but should but done with caution and at a reasonable speed, he was going to fast and not paying attention, he should have noticed her.

She was also at fault for not looking but the cyclist should has spotted her, could have easily have been a child and been fatal incident..

 

[danlightbulb]

Was looking for this, whos fault?

Video: Biker's Miraculous Escape After Coming Under Truck

In the video, uploaded on Instagram, a man is riding a bike beside a truck while cars are parked on either side of the road.

www.ndtv.com

Truck drivers? he should have predicted the motor cycle may end up in front of him
Motorcyclist? he should have predicted a car door could be opened on him and shouldn't have put himself in the position he could end up under a truck
OR, idiot who opened a car door without checking it was safe to do so in advance

The car driver and the motorcyclist could both have taken action to avoid the incident, but should the motorcyclist be forced to, and should the have to accept it could happen.
The defensive position is to ride further out.

Wow he was a lucky guy. I think he was at fault, that was a dangerous place to try to overtake a moving lorry.

I take your point that there is a difference between who might be legally at fault and who we might say should have been more careful or taken less risk.

 

[Mr Jack]

If the biker had killed the lady, what do you think would have happened in the courts? I would be surprised actually if the biker wasn't prosecuted in that. I agree the woman was probably technically at fault, but I think the biker would have been accused of dangerous driving.

In order to have any likelihood of fatally injuring the woman, he would have had to have been travelling much faster than he was and had he been travelling at such speed then dangerous driving would be a reasonable charge.

Wow he was a lucky guy. I think he was at fault, that was a dangerous place to try to overtake a moving lorry.

Not sure what country that was taken in and what the road markings mean there, but assuming that it was legal for him to be where he was, I don't think he was doing anything more dangerous that simply being near an idiot in a parked car. Realistically neither motorcyclicts nor cyclists can avoid putting themselves in the position where they may be doored, and the lorry isn't really relevant. If he wasn't supposed to cross the white line then, yeah, that was dangerous (and stupid, tbh).

Lucky escape, good thing the lorry driver was on the ball.

 

[teenwolf]

burn him and his bike

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

If the biker had killed the lady, what do you think would have happened in the courts? I would be surprised actually if the biker wasn't prosecuted in that. I agree the woman was probably technically at fault, but I think the biker would have been accused of dangerous driving.

Dangerous unlikely
Driving with out due care and attention would be the correct charge

And I don't think anyone is saying that he couldn't have done a better job in that regard.
Most of us probably can on every journey we make.
We are constantly evaluating scenarios, and assessing the risk and likelyhood of that scenario playing out.

 

[Jokester]

Dangerous unlikely
Driving with out due care and attention would be the correct charge

And I don't think anyone is saying that he couldn't have done a better job in that regard.
Most of us probably can on every journey we make.
We are constantly evaluating scenarios, and assessing the risk and likelyhood of that scenario playing out.

There's already been a link to a civil case where a school girl was critically injured by someone doing 50mph when she crossed from behind a bus and the courts there couldn't even decide civil liability.