Poll: who is at fault here

[bazzabear]

I'm all for bikers filtering. But if you're going to do it, you have to be hyper aware of your surroundings, and you have to do it at a pace which means you can stop pretty much immediately. Because people are not going to expect you to turn up suddenly.

So, despite that the woman should also have been more aware, I find the biker more culpable.

 

[JUMPURS]

No it doesn't. Go read it.

Rule 88 is pertinent here. Although it doesn’t say explicitly the pedestrian has the right of way, the biker must look out for pedestrians and keep their speed low. This would point to the biker being at fault.

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

 

[Dis86]

Rule 88 is pertinent here. Although it doesn’t say explicitly the pedestrian has the right of way, the biker must look out for pedestrians and keep their speed low. This would point to the biker being at fault.

No it wouldn't. The pedestrian still has to abide by rules also. They have completely failed to take even the most basic levels of care by observing before they stepped out. It might provide a level of mitigation but not exemption. Arguably the speed was low but we can't be certain in what it was.

 

[caff]

Motorist. How he could not have seen her and slowed to a crawl is shocking tbh.

 

[brendy]

For a nasty second I thought that was Ronnie Pickering's Picasso just ahead too.
Woman's fault, you don't enter the road without checking it's safe.

 

[Mrwong]

(not me on the bike and I am not the old lady either)

it popped up on my watch links for some reason. no argument from me which ever way you side but I genuinely do not know legally who is in the wrong

https://mobile.twitter.com/Rossmac212/status/1609274892058492929

personally whilst I would say the woman should have looked where she was going, I would say the motorbike is going to fast considering riding in the middle of stationary traffic.... but legally I would have no idea.

Bike, plus he did not attempt to break.
Biker should have paid attention to pedestrians.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I had to re-watch it. You're right. It's two lanes of cars blocked.

My main point still stands. If people think it was a good idea to be going 20mph in that situation then they are taking a risk.

I drive defensively because I assume most people aren't looking where they are going. At 20mph he's assuming everyone is doing what they are supposed to be doing. But the real world isn't like that. Expect the unexpected.

I still say because he crashed in to her then he's liable. He should have been going slow enough to see her and anticipate she might walk out.

I can just about remember what my driving instructor said when anticipating hazards/child running out into road/similar thing. He said something along the lines of you need to scan ahead, anticipate hazards and drive to the conditions, imagine a child running out into the road, chasing a ball say, if you can't stop in time then you're going too fast. Its as simple as that.

You better go off and learn about those changed then. Pedestrians now have priority when they have started to cross the road at a junction


To cross the standard carriageway, as that woman was doing, the standard green cross code applies



Which the woman didn't do any of those at all.

Luckily she wasn't hurt worse than she was, but that's her fault.

That doesn't give you right to mow them down though. As someone in charge of potentially lethal weapon vehicle its your responsibility to behave responsibly with it you do not have the right to simply drive with impunity no matter how much she wasn't paying attention/not obeying the GCC

 

[Raiden85]

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.

 

[Mrwong]

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.

When you're indicating to take a turn, they are far away. Yet they don't seem to slow down, then reach you while you're turning and still they do not break, or they jump red lights. Then they start to shout etc...

 

[mattyfez]

I'd say both are pretty much to blame.
60% the motorbike for going too fast in very congested conditions.
40% the pedestrian for walking across a busy road without looking.

 

[tom_e]

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 **** heads of their bikes.

You're confusing bad riders poorly filtering with all riders and you should be paying attention when driving anyway.

 

[JBuk]

The Woman caused the accident but the Biker at was going too fast and should have been more cautious when filtering in standing traffic so I would put the ultimate responsibility on the biker for not driving to the conditions

 

[Captain]

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.

That’s a massive generalisation when there’s more safer riders than bad.

Maybe you should stay at home if you can’t handle being in the car when there’s bikes around?

 

[200sols]

Unfortunately one of those threads where absolutely everybody is correct. Knock for knock is the only answer.

Highway code disagrees. Pedestrians take precedence over all others, you hit one its your fault no matter the circumstances

 

[Dis86]

Highway code disagrees. Pedestrians take precedence over all others, you hit one its your fault no matter the circumstances

Wrong again. Another one who hasn't read it. The highway code also isn't law.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Highway code disagrees. Pedestrians take precedence over all others, you hit one its your fault no matter the circumstances

I disagree with that. regardless of who is wrong in the vid you can't have a scenario where no matter what a pedestrian is never at fault. taken to extreme what about suicides.

 

[Jokester]

I’m amazed by the number of people who say she walks into the road.

 

[200sols]

Wrong again. Another one who hasn't read it. The highway code also isn't law.

Wrong though. And he claimed equal liability. Also wrong because the pedestrian is afforded higher precedence in the hierarchy of road users. Bike clearly going too fast for the situation and is unable to react fast enough when a hazard arises which endangers the most vulnerable road users.

 

[Captain]

Highway code disagrees. Pedestrians take precedence over all others, you hit one its your fault no matter the circumstances

So someone runs out in front of me while I’m doing 60 on the motorway and it’s my fault?

It’s not that simple.

 

[Dis86]

Wrong though. And he claimed equal liability. Also wrong because the pedestrian is afforded higher precedence in the hierarchy of road users. Bike clearly going too fast for the situation and is unable to react fast enough when a hazard arises which endangers the most vulnerable road users.

Simply put you're making things up. There is no provision in the highway code for pedestrians to walk out in to a live carriageway and have other road users come to an immediate halt.
Feel free to quote the appropriate legislation. Like the others that have made this incorrect claim you'll struggle however as it doesn't exist.