Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Another bike one - contains diagram

34 replies

5foot5 · 03/04/2019 13:57

Not a TAAT, but having just read another thread about a bike near miss I wanted to put this incident I saw the other day to the mumsnet jury.

First off I want to make it clear I wasn't directly involved (I was in the car labelled Me) but it was one of those situations that could so easily happen to anyone and I wondered what people's views were on who was at fault. Oh also I should say that nobody was hurt in this case, luckily.

Anyway, as the diagram shows there was a standing line of traffic on one side of the road, there almost always is at that time of day. There was a car waiting to pull out of a side road to turn right, i.e. to go in the same direction that I was travelling. One of the cars in the queue had left a gap to let this person out.

So the car was edging out slowly as clearly they wanted to check if anything was approaching from the left. However, a cyclist (labelled) was overtaking the standing line of traffic. As the car started to nose out past the line they must have looked right and seen the cyclist because they stopped. The cyclist was obviously alarmed as they did a slight swerve and then I could see he turned and was gesticulating angrily at the car waiting to pull out.

So who was at fault here?

Obviously the driver pulling out had a responsibility to check it was safe to do so and he/she did look right before pulling out completely. But it is easy to imagine that because of the queue of cars to the right the driver would not have been able to see the approaching cyclist until they were pulled quite a long way forward.

The car in the queue should have been able to see the cyclist approaching in their wing mirror so could they have done something to warn the driver who was attempting to pull out?

Or should the cyclist have maybe read the road a bit better and realised that it was not unlikely that this could happen, i.e. queue of traffic and a gap having been left.

Interested in any thoughts / opinions on this?

Another bike one - contains diagram
OP posts:
BlueSkiesLies · 03/04/2019 13:59

Huh? Total non incident. Nothing happened. No fault. Just part of driving/cycling.

GreatDuckCookery · 03/04/2019 14:04

Nobody was at fault. The driver turning right edged out looking carefully and stopped when they saw the cyclist.

Who do you think was at fault?

CallipygianFancier · 03/04/2019 14:12

If they collided, it would probably be the driver at fault, as they were coming from a minor road onto the larger road and the cyclist had priority.

But if you're overtaking queued traffic like this, you should be extremely wary of traffic pulling out of junctions, and moderating your speed to give you time to react.

As with much to do with using the road, being technically in the right doesn't make the crash hurt any less.

mclaleli · 03/04/2019 14:12

I don't get it. No one was at fault, nothing happened!

The car edged out slowly, saw cyclist, stopped.

What exactly do you think was wrong?

Original poster
5foot5 · 03/04/2019 14:19

Nobody was at fault.

Well from his angry reaction the cyclist clearly thought the driver was at fault! If the cyclist had swerved and fallen then the issue of fault might well have come up and I am guessing the driver of the car pulling out would be held responsible. But it is difficult to see how they could have handled the situation differently.

OP posts:
Mumski45 · 03/04/2019 14:24

As cyclist and a driver I agree with CallipygianFancier.
Technically a collision if it occurred would have been the drivers fault as he/she shouldn't be pulling out into a space he/she has no visibility of and can't assume there is nothing there. The cyclist is doing nothing wrong and it is correct to filter on the right of a queue of traffic if its stationary.

However the cyclist should be aware if they see a gap ahead that this may be what is happening and adjust their speed accordingly to enable them to stop if necessary.

In these circumstances however everyone did what they should and was cautious and no collision occurred. I think the cyclist is unreasonable to be angry about this as it could be anticipated.

mclaleli · 03/04/2019 14:25

Well from his angry reaction the cyclist clearly thought the driver was at fault!

Surely though you can see that nothing happened? You said yourself the car was wedging our slowly. Are you assessing the situation based on the cyclists reaction over what you actually saw the car driver do?

Even then, it's a load of nothing.

GreatDuckCookery · 03/04/2019 14:27

But the driver didn’t just swing out? They edged out and stopped when they saw the cyclist, so I’m not sure why he was angry!

redwoodmazza · 03/04/2019 14:29

The car driver must ensure he pulls out when it is safe to do so. He stopped to wait for the cyclist. Correct.
If you can't see if the road is clear - don't go!

FuriousCheekyFucker · 03/04/2019 14:37

Highway Code Rule 67:

...Cyclists...Must take care when overtaking

Which then leads us to Rule 167:

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users...where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works

but...Rule 180 states:

(for the car driver) Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

Ultimately, there is no right or wrong here. The driver edged out slowly in the correct manner to see if there was a cyclist, there was, she stopped, nobody was injured.

The cyclist gesticulated angrily, but that doesn't make him right or wrong, it simply makes him a dick.

BlackeyedGruesome · 03/04/2019 15:04

Cyclist probably had a fright and thus shouting in response.

acciocat · 03/04/2019 15:42

What furiouscheekyfucker has referred to. This explains it really clearly.
The driver was edging out carefully, and clearly left themself enough time to stop.
Although nothing actually happened,The fact that the cyclist got in a stress and was clearly angry implies that they probably werent adhering to rule 167, and they’re a wanker for getting angry with the driver who clearly did nothing wrong at all

PettyContractor · 03/04/2019 15:47

I've been in a similar situation as the car driver, except my "cyclist" was a motorcyclist, travelling slowly, but considerable faster than the stopped traffic.

I don't see what I could have done differently, I could not have seen him before I did.

GregoryPeckingDuck · 03/04/2019 15:52

Shouldn’t the cyclist have been in the cycle lane or on the left of there was no cycle lane? Don’t worry, I don’t cycle hence the ignorance.

Ineweverything · 03/04/2019 16:14

I think the car driver was wrong. They were crossing 2 lanes of traffic. Cyclist got a fright --->anger.

mclaleli · 03/04/2019 16:21

I think the car driver was wrong. They were crossing 2 lanes of traffic.

How does crossing 2 lanes make them wrong? The manoeuvre was perfectly legal.

Justamemory · 03/04/2019 16:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VelvetSpoon · 03/04/2019 16:45

It's a Powell v Moody scenario. That means the starting point (had a collision occurred) would be 80/20 in favour of the car.

That said, cases like this always turn on their own facts. I have won a claim like this in full for the driver and the cyclist/ motorcyclist depending on the exact facts of the case.

Simply put if you are filtering past stationary traffic you need to take extreme care. Legally this is described as a manoeuvre fraught with hazard.

However as a car driver you should npt emerge unless safe to do so. The fact a car has stopped to give way to you doesn't negate any obligation to do your own checks.

mclaleli · 03/04/2019 16:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SoHotADragonRetired · 03/04/2019 16:52

Shouldn’t the cyclist have been in the cycle lane or on the left of there was no cycle lane? Don’t worry, I don’t cycle hence the ignorance.

No. The cyclist was filtering past stationary traffic to the right, as is both legal and good practice.

It is often safer for everyone for cyclists to ride in the primary position, i.e. the centre of a lane, rather than close in to the left and cycle lanes are often dangerous/ blocked/ in poor condition. Cyclists are entitled to be on any non-motorway road in any legal position for a car, and some which are not legal for a car (like filtering, as above).

MotherWol · 03/04/2019 16:59

This is why driving instructors advise against waving someone out, and tell you to always do your observations rather than relying on a driver who's letting you out. Motorcyclists and cyclists can legally filter on the outside of traffic, and you can't rely on the driver in the stopped car to have actually checked their mirrors.

MotherWol · 03/04/2019 17:00

oops, I thought that was going to post the short clip. Skip to 1.29 unless you're really interested in motorbike videos.

maddening · 03/04/2019 17:06

Highway code rule 167 says no not overtake past a junction therefore the cyclist is in the wrong:

www.highwaycode.info/rule/167

acciocat · 03/04/2019 17:10

If a traffic queue is moving extremely slowly, it is absolutely common sense for a driver to leave a gap for someone trying to emerge from a side road. They aren’t actually going to be able to get out if every driver just hugs the bumper of the car in front and blocks anyone from joining the traffic from a side road.

I agree totally about never waving other drivers out though, as this blurs the boundaries: every driver needs to make their own checks.

It sounds as though the emerging driver did precisely that: they checked, edging forward slowly and allowing enough time to stop in the case of a hazard.

I can only assume that for this to be ‘incident’ in the eyes of the cyclist (who clearly lost their temper and tried to blame the driver for a non event) is that they were not overtaking safely (see rules 67 and 167 above)

DisappearingGirl · 03/04/2019 17:15

I have seen EXACTLY this scenario happen.

The bike went over the car bonnet and the cyclist was hurt. As you say, the car driver would have been mainly looking left not right, since the traffic to the right was stationery and had let her out.

The cyclist was on the right of the traffic (rather than left) because he was about to turn right into a small cycle lane (not road).

I have thought about it since and honestly couldn't figure out whose fault it was or how it could have been avoided.

So to all those saying it was a non-event - it was a bad event in the identical case I saw!!