DH in Accident with Cyclist - Any Advice

[LilacPombear]

DH has just given me a quick call to say he was in an accident this morning. He never calls me in the mornings and had to cut the call short as he's at work and no phones allowed. He said he was driving into work (around 7am); the roads are fairly quiet at that time around here and he's done the route for years. He looked before turning left, all clear, but as he turned, a bike hit the car.

He got out and checked the rider, who was unharmed and seemed more concerned about his bike than anything else. The bike was not damaged or un-rideable. DH said the rider had added mods to the bike, which is why it was moving so fast. The rider had no helmet, high-vis, nothing. Initially, the rider was angry and called someone, speaking in another language, and making threats about DH ruining his bike.

DH has no idea how he stayed so calm but said he wanted to deal with this amicably. The first thing he checked was if the rider was unharmed, which he was. But there is damage to the car. They exchanged details, but the rider was not able to speak English very well. He got back on the bike and left. DH then headed into work and gave me a quick call to let me know.

I'm glad the man was okay as is DH, and it could have been so much worse, especially since he had no helmet. DH seemed quite shaken on the phone. What happens now? What do we do? I'm sure DH knows what to do next, but I just feel worried, especially as the rider was making threats. Any advice or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated.

I suspect the owner of the bike may have an illegal bike... Not wearing a helmet whilst cycling and undertaking are both stupid and dangerous. I hope your DH is OK mentally.

Don't take the debate down the helmet road.

There are reasons why cycling forums either won't touch the subject or confine debate to one thread!!!

Don't ring his insurer whatever you do. It will be set up as a claim and possibly kept open for quite some time

This is 100% your dh’s fault, the cyclist was riding next to the kerb as he was supposed to (undertaking, and/or filtering are legal manoeuvres for a cyclist ).

Your DH pulled across the cyclist’s path, it’s totally your DH fault. It’s actually really worrying how few people on this thread seem to appreciate this.

This was formalised as part of the most recent update to the Highway Code btw

From 2022 update

Bit you still need to look and make sure it's safe for the manoeuvre. It's worrying that OPs dh was totally unaware of this cyclist

He needed to give way to the cyclist, that’s the whole point. He should have looked to check there were no cyclists coming up on his left before turning.

Had he seen the cyclist, he should have stopped to let him pass before turning, I can’t believe some people seriously seem to be suggesting the cyclist should have stopped to let your DH turn.

No.....the very fast cyclist should have considered that (even though the driver had checked) because he was going so fast the car indicating to turn may be about to turn, and adjust their speed accordingly.
The driver didn't see the bike, the bike didn't see that the car was indicating to turn.

OP says, the driver looked - all clear, then turned.

There are any number of transport accidents, the sort involving aircraft or trains, that are subject to lengthy formal reports. Looked but did not see is a theme down many decades. We don't know whether OP's DH was caught out that way, by something obstructing his sightline, a poorly adjusted mirror or by something coming up so fast he'd not a snowball's of seeing it.

As I've already said, if you're on a pedal bike and intending to 'make progress' in congested and slow moving traffic you're far safer on the offside.

I think you are being too black and white here, the onus is on both the car and the cyclist not to have a collision, the car should not turn into the path of a cyclist and of course will always be at fault for not giving way to a more vulnerable road user, but the rules for cyclists are clear that they shouldn't be trying to proceed ahead if there is a vehicle indicating and slowing down at an upcoming junction (see below No. 74 in the highway code).

The cyclist has full view in front of him, so really has no reason to miss a car indicating and slowing at a junction unless not paying attention or going too fast to stop.

The car has a responsibility to give way to the left when turning but if they look but don't see a cyclist, which can be easily done when an e bike is going at least 15-20mph (or more), they wouldn't necessarily be visible in your mirror and blind spot as they would be too far away/may be obscured at the point that you check for them, depending on the road you may not have overtaken them either as it is quite possible they have caught up with you after they have joined the road elsewhere, it's no excuse for not checking thoroughly but there can be times when neither would not see each other.

Personally I think the rules should be updated for e-bikes, as a cyclist on a pedal powered bike would absolutely know better then to be travelling at 15-20mph or they would change their road position in a built up area while cars ahead may be turning off/coming out of junctions. I see an awful lot more terrible riding with people on e-bikes than I do regular cyclists.

Rules for cyclists:

74
Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

see also:

72
Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.

1. Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations:

1. at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you

I don't think it's automatically the car's fault. The way I've seen some cyclists come flying past (well past the speed the cars are going in some areas), you just couldn't see them coming. I always check extra carefully because of this but it scares me in the city sometimes, just the thought it could. Cars do need to watch out but cyclists also have to ride responsibly too.

It's drivers who are responsible not cars, same as cyclists are responsible not bikes.

@sandyhappypeople you've done it as well, you talk about a car being responsible - yet not a bike - when you talk about the human on the bike you call them the cyclist, but not when you talk about the driver.

why do people dehumanise a driver and lay the responsibility with the car not the human operating the car?

Interesting point, but It's because it's implied shorthand.. If I say 'car' everyone knows that cars don't drive them selves around, so 'car' implies 'car driver' in that scenario, same for cyclist, except that is one word so there is no point using 'bicycle' as it's the same amount of letters.

It isn't anything to do with dehumanising anything, that would only make sense if I actually though the 'car' made the decision, which is quite obviously not the case. Driver is a loose term that can apply to any 4 wheel vehicle, bus, lorry, truck.. so I would always say car/bus/truck/lorry.. with the 'driver' part being implied.