Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Bicycle collision with car at pedestrian crossing - who is at fault? Watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClaryK)
    All a valid point, you get car insurance for when accidents like this happen - is she knows that her insurance is going to go up anyway then as you say why not get some money back
    She probably planned on not informing them, which as RoyalSheepy said would be insurance fraud.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    Wasn't this a light-controlled crossing that you crossed on red?
    oh yh it was red, I didn't mean that at that exact moment i should have been crossing because i shouldn't have been.... I thought you meant that I shouldnt have been on that crossing what-so-ever, my bad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samendra)
    Lol a similar situation with me, I was like 11 and was riding my bike on the main road, it was a blind corner and a car came outta no where and hit my bike at a decent speed. Luckily I wasnt hurt (I have no idea how and the car was going at what looked like 30-40mph) and people rushed to me but I just stood up and rode away on my bike and the car owner apologised and went away its been 6 years and I haven't heard anything yet
    ooooohhhh ouch thats sucks but at least you were ok
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClaryK)
    agree to some of what you are saying but here in the UK cyclist can ride across a pedestrian crossing so it was fine for me to be crossing there
    Maybe?? but a cyclist does not have priority while a pedestrian does.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClaryK)
    I think I may have slightly admitted that i was partially to blame at the scene, I definitely at least apologised to her which from what i've read online is not something that you want to do but just as equally she admitted to be partly to blame as well. And no I didn't go through a red stop light, I was on the pavement at a pedestrian crossing as i needed to get to the other side of the road to the pavement on the other side.

    Ive seen somewhere about claiming on my works insurance as i was on my way to work but having only been working there a week I'm not sure if i can do that. (already filed a report for the bike theft but not much they can do without a frame number)

    Thanks for the advice - I won't do too much until the situation is clear as you say, at the moment i dont really know what she plans to do so I guess i'll just wait to see if she goes ahead to try to get me to pay.
    Okay, that makes morse sense now.

    If it was a toucan crossing then you are in the clear I think, the driver should have been able to stop to avoid a collision. If it was an ordinary pedestrian crossing then she could argue that you were not meant to be there, but on the other hand if you'd been walking across and she hit you the case would be 100% cut and dry, pedestrians always have right of way.

    You shouldn't have admitted fault, but if the other party did as well I don't think she'll be able to hold it against you.

    IMO you should not pay, there simply isn't enough evidence and the burden of proof would be on the driver to show that you didn't give her enough time to react. And if she isn't reporting it to her insurer, that's even more dodgy, so best to keep clear of whatever she's up to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I saw an NHS ambulance do this right in front of my eyes they just let it go but I would say it was ambulances fault because it reversed after going through a red light.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Rule 198
    Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings.
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-high...oad-159-to-203
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClaryK)
    . I already know that this was a silly thing to do
    Well, you were on a road, against the pedestrian crossing lights, while riding a bike when you should have been dismounted (Highway Code, rules 69 and 79 or 81). You did not look before crossing, as you have said.

    You are clearly in the wrong.

    The driver is not expected to be driving so slowly as to be able to stop for anyone that cycles across their path at a pedestrian crossing, and, anyway, was distracted by the illegal pedestrian you saw yourself and so knew about and could anticipate causing such distraction.

    So the driver was not in the wrong.

    If there is a claim you are liable. Your home insurance may pay out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Rule 198
    Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green.
    How does still crossing apply to the OP, who commenced to cross against a red light?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    How does still crossing apply to the OP, who commenced to cross against a red light?
    "I probably only got just past my front tyre onto the road when a car hit my front tyre side on from the right"

    The car hit a bike that was on the crossing - this wasn't a case where the cyclist rode into the side of the car.

    This is why the driving test includes hazard perception - as a driver you're supposed to be looking out for things like this to be responsibly in control.

    This woman is already on dodgy ground having hit a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing and not reported it to her insurance and is topping that off by trying to extort expenses out of the person she hit.

    I'd get onto a no win no fee firm and try to throw a personal injury claim at her personally...especially given that an ambulance was called so there's an official record of the injuries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    The car hit a bike that was on the crossing - this wasn't a case where the cyclist rode into the side of the car.
    The OP tells us the crossing light was against him and he went across anyway without looking. There is no question that

    Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green.

    does not apply in this case as the OP was not on the crossing when his light was green and that of the car was red. This rule is intended to make sure that cars give way to people who are slow at crossing, not those that want to cross any old time.

    Exactly where on the car the collision occurred is irrelevant - it depends entirely on the coincidence of timing and relative speeds. The OP has told us he went out when he shouldn't, so there is no doubt about that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Tricky
    If you crossed at red and she had a green light, it's your fault
    Equally, if the damage is to her passenger door then you hit her!
    Should she have seen you and stopped? Maybe. But if she had a green light and she didn't see you I don't see how she could have stopped.
    As drivers we anticipate pedestrians at crossings all the time. But short of stopping every time at a crossing, accidents happen
    Probably not the ethical or moral thing to do but don't respond to this communication and see what happens next.
    You are likely to be held responsible but recovering the money is a separate issue.
    If she goes to small claims, ask if she's notified insurance. If she goes to county court you'll end up with a ccj and you don't want that! If she passses it to her insurance they'll probably pursue it as far as they can
    Up to you
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    This woman is already on dodgy ground having hit a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing and not reported it to her insurance and is topping that off by trying to extort expenses out of the person she hit.

    I'd get onto a no win no fee firm and try to throw a personal injury claim at her personally...especially given that an ambulance was called so there's an official record of the injuries.
    He rode across the road against a red light. He is clearly at fault. A driver cannot be expected to know that a bike will suddenly decide to dart across the road on a red light.

    Whilst the driver should have reported the accident to protect themselves against a personal injury claim, they were clearly not at fault in the incident. The cyclist needs to accept responsibility for their dangerous actions, and be thankful that it wasn't worse. Crossing lights are there to protect pedestrians, but they only work if you look and follow them.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The OP tells us the crossing light was against him and he went across anyway without looking. There is no question that

    Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green.

    does not apply in this case as the OP was not on the crossing when his light was green and that of the car was red. This rule is intended to make sure that cars give way to people who are slow at crossing, not those that want to cross any old time.

    Exactly where on the car the collision occurred is irrelevant - it depends entirely on the coincidence of timing and relative speeds. The OP has told us he went out when he shouldn't, so there is no doubt about that.
    Rule 144
    You MUST NOT
    drive dangerously
    drive without due care and attention
    drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.

    That includes other road users who might not be obeying the rules - you can reasonably expect pedestrians/cyclists to cross the road without looking. When I'm on my bike I make eye contact with every driver who I know should be giving way to me to make sure they've seen me, I do the same when I'm driving my car - particularly with pedestrians and cyclists so that they know I've seen them.

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

    Rule 206
    Drive carefully and slowly when
    needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement

    The highway code and driving test are very clear that drivers should be anticipating pedestrians (or cyclists/dogs/children/badgers) walking out in front of their vehicle....particularly on a crossing and if that person isn't looking in the direction of their car (as the OP described they were looking left because cars come round a blind spot quickly).

    Anyone paying attention would have noticed that the cyclist hadn't seen them and would wait.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    He rode across the road against a red light. He is clearly at fault. A driver cannot be expected to know that a bike will suddenly decide to dart across the road on a red light.

    Whilst the driver should have reported the accident to protect themselves against a personal injury claim, they were clearly not at fault in the incident. The cyclist needs to accept responsibility for their dangerous actions, and be thankful that it wasn't worse. Crossing lights are there to protect pedestrians, but they only work if you look and follow them.
    Rule 146
    Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on.
    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.

    This woman would have failed her hazard perception test if she drove over a crossing while a bike approached with the cyclist looking in the other direction.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It is significant that the tenor of posts here is not about whether the OP is at fault (which is the case) but about finding ways of coercing the driver not to ask him to pay for the damage his carelessness caused, or how to get away with it.

    My wife had an accident once, rammed up the rear in my company car when she stopped at a roundabout in a classic piece of not looking by the chap following her. He apologised and they exchanged details and went home.

    We were thus taken aback to have his insurance company tell mine that she was at fault as she had moved sideways on the roundabout, out of a slip lane, and he could not avoid rear-ending her. The biggest shock was that we could not even remember such a turning-left-only slip lane on that roundabout.

    I drove round to it and saw that there was one, but we still could not understand, until I rang the highways department and discovered that it had been installed about a week after the accident. The other chap was thus caught out lying to his insurance company and solicitor. Not clever.

    In this case we have a driver, in the middle of coping with one idiot crossing when they shouldn't is confronted by another, from the direction his attention is no longer focussed on, and then, later, what amounts to a conspiracy to defraud them of their rightful damages.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Rule 146
    .try to anticipate what pedestrians and cyclists might do.
    Yes, try. By your logic, though, every time a child runs out into the road and is killed it must be the car driver's fault. It isn't. Quite often, the driver cannot avoid an accident, as was probably the case here. We abandoned men preceding vehicles with red flags in 1896, and cars are not expected to drive at a walking pace.

    Read this:

    http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...trian-car.html
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes, try. By your logic, though, every time a child runs out into the road and is killed it must be the car driver's fault. It isn't. Quite often, the driver cannot avoid an accident, as was probably the case here. We abandoned men preceding vehicles with red flags in 1896, and cars are not expected to drive at a walking pace.

    Read this:

    http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/...trian-car.html
    There was a cyclist on the crossing looking in the other direction - this woman decided to drive across the crossing.
    She wasn't driving towards the crossing - she had stopped for the preceding pedestrian and would have had a good view of anyone approaching the crossing.

    Even based on the (US focused) advice on the website you linked that puts her in no position to be demanding expenses from someone she would have seen (if she was paying attention) and could have reasonably expected to have not seen her as they were looking in the other direction (if she was paying attention and following the highway code).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    There was a cyclist on the crossing looking in the other direction - this woman decided to drive across the crossing.
    She wasn't driving towards the crossing - she had stopped for the preceding pedestrian
    The car must have been driving towards the crossing, or the accident could not have happened, and I am aware of only one bike, one car and one pedestrian. Let's go through this:

    Car drives towards crossing, lights green.

    Pedestrian leaps out and crosses (against red pedestrian lights). Driver alarmed and swears, possibly slows, Attention follows pedestrian.

    Bike approaches crossing, overlapping with last step - does driver see it? With eyes naturally fixed on idiot pedestrian, I don't think so.

    Bike crosses, not seeing car (or even looking for it). Driver still looking at pedestrian, probably until final millisecond.

    Bike and car collide.

    The very thing that the cyclist thinks meant it was safe for him to cross (the pedestrian ahead) made it more dangerous for him.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    There was a cyclist on the crossing looking in the other direction - this woman decided to drive across the crossing.
    They weren't on the crossing as the car approached. They only got their front wheel onto the crossing before hitting the car.

    I agree that a driver should do everything that they can to avoid hitting vulnerable road users. In this case, they could not have done very much, and the cyclist was clearly riding recklessly.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.