Who would be at fault

[Littlejets]

This situation almost just occurred and wondered who would have been at fault had the accident happened.

Set the scene...it's dark outside and my road has no street lights. As I was reversing onto my drive I noticed a cyclist some way away but on the path, I had plenty of time to reverse onto the drive so continued to do so. Then before I knew it, he was directly behind me and I almost got him (a little bit of me wishes I had). So my wonderment is, had I actually knocked him off, who would actually have been at fault? Does the driver have right of way in this situation or the cyclist?

You would have been as you clearly misjudged his speed if he got to you quicker than you expected.
I can see why you might think he is at fault for not stopping or slowing but it doesn't work like that as he is already on the road and you are joining it.

That's nice that you wished you'd hit a cyclist with your car.

I can see why you might think he is at fault for not stopping or slowing but it doesn't work like that as he is already on the road and you are joining it.

I read it as OP was leaving the road by reversing onto their drive?

You, for not observing properly.

I would have thought he was at fault because he was cycling on the path.

The cyclist was on the pavement? He's at fault surely

You would probably be classed as at fault as you were the one reversing. He should have stopped cycling though when he saw you were coming up onto the pavement

You would be at fault.

The cyclist had right of way because they were following the direction of travel of the road and you were turning across it. Just like if you wanted to turn right and a car was travelling in the opposite direction - even if they were speeding it would be your fault as you've cut across their path.

By the way, pedestrians also have right of way if they are crossing a side road that you want to turn down.

Whether the cyclist should have been on the footpath depends on if it is a shared use path or not. But to be honest if there's no streetlights and a propensity for car drivers to manoeuvre with no regard for their surroundings I can see why they would err on the side of caution.

You cant even claim you didnt see them because you did. You should have let them past before continuing your manoeuvre

My colleague is paralysed from the ribcage down as a result of a situation just like this. The driver admitted she saw him but he got there faster than she anticipated, she hit him and his life is changed forever. Your situation is slightly different in that he shouldn't have been on the pavement, but still pretty bad taste to wish you had hit him.

@hidinginthenightgarden the reason for my post is because I genuinely don't know. I definitely hadn't misjudged his speed, I would say he picked up speed so he didn't have to stop as he appeared to be carrying a ladder or something just as large under his arm.

@iklboo - that it how it was, I was reversing from the road onto my driveway

@PsychosonicCindy - apologies, I forget some people take comments like that so seriously

How can you say you "definitely" didn't misjudge his speed? ! What evidence do you have to support that?

Why is it you wish you drove into him?

Yeh, because the idea of seriously injuring someone is hilarious.

@ohwheniknow, I'm not sure I put I wanted to seriously injure him!!

Seriously, it was a little joke. I didn't actually want to hurt someone.

@WeeDangerousSpike

Thank you.

It sounds like the cyclist was doing something wrong in cycling on the pavement. But that does not mean that makes you immune from liability in the case of an accident. You should still exercise a duty of care, even if (or maybe especially if) someone is doing something wrong. e.g. if someone walks out into the road in front of you, you should try and avoid them, even though they shouldn't have walked out in the first place, and you could be sued if you hadn't tried to avoid an accident. It is likely that in such a situation if the cyclist did sue you that if they won, the claim would be reduced by their contributory negligence.