Poll: who is at fault here

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

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.

I agree and thats fine. And there are often different levels of care expected, eg around schools.
A school area is a far more obvious and defined risk than a random piece of road.
You have to accept that children do not have the same level of expectation to following the rules as an adult.
I mean its literally why they cannot be held to anything they sign as a child, and its basically unenforceable until they pass the age of 18.

One of my mates is a solicitor, one of his common sayings is that only 80% of decisions go the correct way.
He says this regularly when someone says they are going to court as its a cut and dry case. He always warns them with the above.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Just noticed the votes are exactly even.

Woman at fault, I absolutely hate pedestrians who walk out without looking while I'm cycling.
Biker is allowed to do what he was doing.

Hold on the percentages are still the same, Mods playing games

 

[Jokester]

I agree and thats fine. And there are often different levels of care expected, eg around schools.
A school area is a far more obvious and defined risk than a random piece of road.
You have to accept that children do not have the same level of expectation to following the rules as an adult.
I mean its literally why they cannot be held to anything they sign as a child, and its basically unenforceable until they pass the age of 18.

One of my mates is a solicitor, one of his common sayings is that only 80% of decisions go the correct way.
He says this regularly when someone says they are going to court as its a cut and dry case. He always warns them with the above.

Indeed, and that's why I think the guy that hit the school girl at the back of a school bus when he was overtaking it had to share some significant blame even though she jumped out in front of him.

The alternative is that we all have to drive so slowly, everywhere, so that even if someone runs out in front you can stop in time, or at least if you hit them, don't seriously injure them. I guess that's why there's a push to have a 20mph limit in urban areas...

 

[Curlyriff]

Indeed, and that's why I think the guy that hit the school girl at the back of a school bus when he was overtaking it had to share some significant blame even though she jumped out in front of him.

The alternative is that we all have to drive so slowly, everywhere, so that even if someone runs out in front you can stop in time, or at least if you hit them, don't seriously injure them. I guess that's why there's a push to have a 20mph limit in urban areas...

It is already 20mph in Witney near where I live, I have yet to see a car follow that. I set my limiter to 20mph when I enter Witney, I have had 3 sets of lights flashed at me, an anrgy woman pulled up along side me and screamed I was holding traffic up and a queue of about 20 cars up a road that used to be a 40mph with cars overtaking at every opportunity. It is mental what trying to do 20mph does and the driving is 0% better off with it so far.

 

[danlightbulb]

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.

She was knocked to the ground, all it could take to kill someone is a bump on the head, brick on the floor, sharp something and her head lands on it. That wouldn't be the bikers fault directly but that accident could have killed the lady (agree likelihood was it wouldn't).

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).

Yeah agree we don't know the location. But filtering is meant to be (?) something to be used in slow moving or stationary traffic. In that video, the lorry is moving along just fine in his lane and the biker tries to overtake/undertake in an adjacent lane that is already occupied by parked cars. What was his need to overtake in that location (assuming the lorry was doing a normal speed on a normal road in his lane)?

 

[danlightbulb]

It is already 20mph in Witney near where I live, I have yet to see a car follow that. I set my limiter to 20mph when I enter Witney, I have had 3 sets of lights flashed at me, an anrgy woman pulled up along side me and screamed I was holding traffic up and a queue of about 20 cars up a road that used to be a 40mph with cars overtaking at every opportunity. It is mental what trying to do 20mph does and the driving is 0% better off with it so far.

Its not working due to idiot drivers though. I have no problem with 20 mph speed limits in tight residential areas and near schools, but I do think in return they should open up the speed limits on dual carriageways. Some dual carriageways in rural areas or even urban areas with no turnoffs are 40 when they could quite safely be 50 or 60.

 

[Demon]

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.

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.

We obviously ride very differently.. I don't hang around, I've tested the 300kph limiter was working correctly on my last bike (private driveway of course) and I heavily filter because I'm impatient, but I vary my filtering speed based on the conditions/situation.. Simple as that, I wouldn't have been going that fast in that situation..

As for rule 88, again for clarity: "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.":
The unique thing about the hazard "a pedestrian crossing between cars"? It's an unseen, last second hazard.. So clearly, when filtering in stationary traffic (an at risk manouevre, like overtaking), you should be looking out for precisely that woman, and riding at a speed you can take care.. That guy was not, you admit he needs 2 car lengths, and had no chance at all to react/stop to a pedestian crossing between two cars and you are baffled by how that would come under Rule 88?

I'm still astounded by your blind faith in this notion there is specific safe filtering speed of 20mph, but carry on, someone has to test and hopefully not fail the new changes to the highway code (https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/ins...hway-code-rules-and-the-vulnerable-road-user/).

 

[Curlyriff]

We obviously ride very differently.. I don't hang around, I've tested the 300kph limiter was working correctly on my last bike (private driveway of course) and I heavily filter because I'm impatient, but I vary my filtering speed based on the conditions/situation.. Simple as that, I wouldn't have been going that fast in that situation..

As for rule 88, again for clarity: "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.":
The unique thing about the hazard "a pedestrian crossing between cars"? It's an unseen, last second hazard.. So clearly, when filtering in stationary traffic (an at risk manouevre, like overtaking), you should be looking out for precisely that woman, and riding at a speed you can take care.. That guy was not, you admit he needs 2 car lengths, and had no chance at all to react/stop to a pedestian crossing between two cars and you are baffled by how that would come under Rule 88?

I'm still astounded by your blind faith in this notion there is specific safe filtering speed of 20mph, but carry on, someone has to test and hopefully not fail the new changes to the highway code (https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/ins...hway-code-rules-and-the-vulnerable-road-user/).

Yeah I am baffaled because if he was doing 10mph but 1m further up the road the same result would have happened so you are suggesting that then it would still be too fast cause you wouldn't be able to take avoiding action. You would not be able to avoid taking action always at some point which is why the rule 88 states keep your speed low. Low isn't a figure. There is always a lower speed that someone could be going till you are technically no longer moving so you have to judge and honestly 2 car lengths stopping distnace (a single car length is the reaction time by way). So going 10mph and had been 1m further up the road they also wouldn't of been able to stop. So then you are in a logic state where you are suggesting that the rider has to slow again because of such as they would still not had chance to at all react/stop to a pedestrian crossing then.

I am not saying any filtering speed is safe, I have not stated the is a specific safe filtering speed, I don't actually think filtering is safe at all at any speed because of other road users and pedestrians, however I also think that riding at 20mph is relative safe personally and already has got to the threshold of "when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low." and I also believe this is somewhat understood because it is the reason it is taught at the advance riding school I have been to and certified from just last summer. It is them that provided the 20/20 rule to follow as a guidance, which the police (no idea if you spoke to a motorcycle policeman but they train to that rule also). Yes it is a guidance but the rider doing 15mph looking at the video would still have ended up in the same issue because the stopping distance doesn't change that great because of the initial reaction distance is 1 car alone at 20mph. Of course slighlty shorter but really not by much.

The second exmaple of why that speed is also in my opinion viewed relative by the eyes of the law as safe when filtering is the same reason it is when you are travelling through a housing estate that has the same hazards and a defined speed limit of 20mph. If it wasn't they could define it as 10 or 15mph just fine on the sign accordingly. The hazard in that clip is the same hazard almost all housing estates have. Parked cars, stationary traffic of some sort, pedestriants of any type etc.

However also with your view and point why in that this particular clip the speed is moot because in my view the rider was already travelling at a reasonable speed for the situation. And so doesn't do anything against rule 88. As under your description and interpritation, even if the rider was doing 5mph and her stepping out right in front of biker (withn 1m say) the that would still meant the rider broke rule 88 because they could not have chance to stop/react to the pedestrian crossing. That is 100% not how the rule is written or intended to be implied.

 

[Mr Jack]

As an aside: the video is from 2014 so even if the new hierarchy rules made any difference here, they weren't in force at the time.

 

[bigmike20vt]

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.

glad you got sorted.... actually as an aside cheeses me off that pushbike cyclists don't have insurance actually. (not suggesting you were at fault in your case btw). I saw.a video yesterday (don't think it was on this thread) someone opened a car door on a cyclist and knocked them under a lorry. cyclist did nothing wrong . how they were not squashed. someone was looking over them that day as they pull themselves out and seem ok.


but that said when I lived in Cambridge centre you get a lot of insane cyclists but the thing which happened loads which i hated was.... at traffic lights when they are stopped (so points at least for them stopping) cyclists will sometimes lean on your car with their handle bars. one slipped whilst leaning on my car and made a big scratch. I asked him what the hell he was playing at and I got a response which would have got me a yellow card if i repeated on this forum.

this isn't unique to me. it's common knowledge about the cyclists in Cambridge and I have mentioned before even people in work with see no problem with getting drunk at the pub and cycling home. the police turn a blind eye like they do for no lights etc

 

[SkodaMart]

I’m a biker and that’s the bikes fault.
Whilst technically the woman didn’t look carefully enough the biker has a duty of care to pedestrians, he should have been filtering at a lower speed.

 

[SkodaMart]

As an aside: the video is from 2014 so even if the new hierarchy rules made any difference here, they weren't in force at the time.

I’ve always obeyed the hierarchy rules.
I’ve had dozens of opportunities to kill people carelessly in the road, especially teenagers on bikes without lights.

 

[Demon]

Yeah I am baffaled because if he was doing 10mph but 1m further up the road the same result would have happened so you are suggesting that then it would still be too fast cause you wouldn't be able to take avoiding action. You would not be able to avoid taking action always at some point which is why the rule 88 states keep your speed low. Low isn't a figure. There is always a lower speed that someone could be going till you are technically no longer moving so you have to judge and honestly 2 car lengths stopping distnace (a single car length is the reaction time by way). So going 10mph and had been 1m further up the road they also wouldn't of been able to stop. So then you are in a logic state where you are suggesting that the rider has to slow again because of such as they would still not had chance to at all react/stop to a pedestrian crossing then.

I am not saying any filtering speed is safe, I have not stated the is a specific safe filtering speed, I don't actually think filtering is safe at all at any speed because of other road users and pedestrians, however I also think that riding at 20mph is relative safe personally and already has got to the threshold of "when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low." and I also believe this is somewhat understood because it is the reason it is taught at the advance riding school I have been to and certified from just last summer. It is them that provided the 20/20 rule to follow as a guidance, which the police (no idea if you spoke to a motorcycle policeman but they train to that rule also). Yes it is a guidance but the rider doing 15mph looking at the video would still have ended up in the same issue because the stopping distance doesn't change that great because of the initial reaction distance is 1 car alone at 20mph. Of course slighlty shorter but really not by much.

The second exmaple of why that speed is also in my opinion viewed relative by the eyes of the law as safe when filtering is the same reason it is when you are travelling through a housing estate that has the same hazards and a defined speed limit of 20mph. If it wasn't they could define it as 10 or 15mph just fine on the sign accordingly. The hazard in that clip is the same hazard almost all housing estates have. Parked cars, stationary traffic of some sort, pedestriants of any type etc.

However also with your view and point why in that this particular clip the speed is moot because in my view the rider was already travelling at a reasonable speed for the situation. And so doesn't do anything against rule 88. As under your description and interpritation, even if the rider was doing 5mph and her stepping out right in front of biker (withn 1m say) the that would still meant the rider broke rule 88 because they could not have chance to stop/react to the pedestrian crossing. That is 100% not how the rule is written or intended to be implied.

I see this quite differently..

1. 20mph is a limit not a target - I live on such an estate and some parts you could safely do 40 if you wanted, but there are densely parked areas that everyone slows down to 10mph or less, because you lose all visibilty of the pavement and side roads.
2. On an estate, a pedestrian only has one main hazard, the normal traffic.. when you are filtering in stationary traffic, a pedestrian has two hazards to focus on, the first (primary) being the stationary cars (ensuring they aren't about to move and to plot their path between them) and then the additional hazard of someone filtering.. Not only is it an additional hazard but being so infrequent, it's very plausible they'd forget to check because they are focussed on the primary (normal) hazard. On top of that, as a ride, you also have more to focus on when filtering, giving you more workload..

Look at rule 146:

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.

 

[Stu999]

Indeed, and that's why I think the guy that hit the school girl at the back of a school bus when he was overtaking it had to share some significant blame even though she jumped out in front of him.

The alternative is that we all have to drive so slowly, everywhere, so that even if someone runs out in front you can stop in time, or at least if you hit them, don't seriously injure them. I guess that's why there's a push to have a 20mph limit in urban areas...

Orrr....they could make cars out of inflatable materials so nobody gets hurt. Or people have to walk around in a zorb / inflatable sumo suit while they're outdoors.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Orrr....they could make cars out of inflatable materials so nobody gets hurt. Or people have to walk around in a zorb / inflatable sumo suit while they're outdoors.

it wasn't so long ago rolls royce cars essentially had impaling spikes mounted on the front. I may be wrong (can't be bothered checking) but I don't think they are allowed to mount the flying lady any more on new cars.

 

[dlockers]

it wasn't so long ago rolls royce cars essentially had impaling spikes mounted on the front. I may be wrong (can't be bothered checking) but I don't think they are allowed to mount the flying lady any more on new cars.

Pretty sure it retracts whilst driving/on impact. Jaguar got rid of the leaper - now that was a real meat-bag-opener.

 

[Devilman]

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.

You've used up a lot of megabytes across many threads posting utter garbage and nonsense and this is yet another example of it.

A lot of people are doing EXACTLY what Kindai did... make HUGE assumptions based entirely on what they CANT see and determining guilt based upon that.

Perhaps if you had any experience in the situation at all you'd have some insight, instead of just being a pathetic troll.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Indeed, and that's why I think the guy that hit the school girl at the back of a school bus when he was overtaking it had to share some significant blame even though she jumped out in front of him.

The alternative is that we all have to drive so slowly, everywhere, so that even if someone runs out in front you can stop in time, or at least if you hit them, don't seriously injure them. I guess that's why there's a push to have a 20mph limit in urban areas...

There are areas where its more likely that there will be someone running out in front of you i.e. residential areas, its also a fact the the risk of injuries at 20mph is significantly lower than at 30 theres some statistics somewhere or other I can't find right now. Theres also an expectation with school vehicles that there will be children milling around which is why you are supposed to drive to the conditions traditionally there are pictures on the back of ice cream vans with a "Mind that Child!" warning and for good reason...

Pretty sure it retracts whilst driving/on impact. Jaguar got rid of the leaper - now that was a real meat-bag-opener.

Remember the craze for Bull Bars years ago? They're gone as are solid metal bumpers

 

[Jelly4mybelly]

20mph is too fast IMO. In a built up area there is potential for pedestrians to walk out from behind cars. Much like car drivers should slow down when overtaking stopped busses bikers should slow down a lot when filtering. Yes the lady is seemingly compos mentis and should have known to look first, but I think the onus should be on the biker to account for pedestrians not paying attention. We all know that this is getting worse due to mobile phones so adjustments need to be made.

Even if the bike was doing 10mph he might not have been able to stop but the outcome might not have been so severe.

 

[bigmike20vt]

another one today (I won't start a new topic as this is not the driving awareness forum)

I really am at a loss. the car perhaps was going too fast on a round about but.....cyclist in right hand lane of a roundabout but goes left

surely cyclist is mostly at fault here? I am legally in the wrong however.

initially before I realised it was a roundabout I thought the car was being an idiot but not on a roundabout imo.
edit... this just occured to me (unless the left of the roundabout was left turn only then car more at fault)
edit 2 after thinking about this some more I have reverse ferreted and do think the police got it right . it is hard to tell on the vid tho

Woman found guilty of driving without due care... but Facebook still blames cyclist

Having refused a fixed penalty notice the driver ended up with a £440 fine and £669 in costs after being found guilty at Northampton Magistrates' Court

road.cc