Accident. Who's at fault

[Covidcovid]

I witnessed this as a pedestrian.

Teenager on bike comes out of a side street moving at speed. A van is on the main road coming in the same direction as bike. Behind the bike. Van is doing at least 30mph. Road in opposite direction is clear but van only pulls out about 3ft while going round cyclist and doesn't slow even though he could have moved much further out.

There's a small tesco on the right and cyclist without looking veers to the right to go to tesco. Van was still some point behind him and braked/swerved.

Can ended up on the pavement opposite side of the road. Nearly hit 2 pedestrian and took the kid on the bike out at the same time.

Obviously the kid should have looked but I feel with more thought to hazard perception, going slower and wider this could have been avoided. Driver said to me when I told him he was going too fast that he was only doing 30.

Well don't do 30mph and pass a cyclist so near. Even before the kid veered to the right I was watching and thinking the van driver was driving like an idiot. I wouldn't have overtaken until past the tesco turn.

Was it a driveway entrance to Tesco or an actual road junction -- where van was tried to overtake & cyclist swerved in front of van?

The cyclist was being a twat. Good to know he didn’t end up causing someone else to have to live with something terrible.

The driver was probably shocked and ranting because of that, people do react to extremes when they’re shaken up.

The cyclist swerved right in front of the van, they are at fault. Van possibly should have been going a bit slower, but cyclist should have been paying attention to vehicles on the road

Why are people saying that the driver was at fault for 1. Overtaking and 2. Doing so at a junction?

My understanding is that both cyclist and driver were past the junction by the time the driver pulled out to go past the cyclist. There was nothing coming towards them, and actually, the OP feels the driver should have pulled out further to pass the cyclist. There’s been loads of campaigns telling drivers to give cyclists plenty of space.

The driver wasn’t at fault for moving over into a clear lane to pass the cyclist. The cyclist was very clearly at fault for moving into the path of the van.

I just realised why there are such variation in the answers. Some are going by the Highway Code, whereas others are making moral judgements.

Legally speaking, it's almost always the case that a child cyclist cannot be "at fault". It's very hard to prove otherwise. You would have to prove they were capable of managing their safety properly in that moment, tricky to do if he was 13.

Additionally, a motorist is expected to exercise a higher level of care and attention when the cyclist is a child, meaning he should have been much more careful when choosing to overtake the cyclist. E.g. check for hazards, slow down, give a very wide margin when overtaking, which it sounds like he didn't do.

Personally, I find it a bit depressing that people leap to the defence of a van driver who didn't safely overtake a child on his way home from school and who then yelled at said child after he'd knocked him to the ground.

@CostaDelCovid

Police and the insurance would declare can driver at fault. Astonishingly it's almost always declared the driver's fault, even if a Cyclist/pedestrian goes straight in front of them

Not always. 2 years ago dh was overtaking a cyclist, who decided to put their phone in their pocket, and swerved right into the side of his car. Car was a write off, and we had to claim on our insurance, but it is down as a no fault claim.

If I read that right, a young, approx 13yo cyclist didn't indicate his intention to turn, van driver assumed he knew which way cyclist was going to was looking to overtake but cyclist turned across the front of the van resulting in an incident?

Highway Code would hold van at fault.
Also, you shouldn't ever overtake a cyclist unless you are 100% sure it's safe and there's no way to do that with a youngster on a bike.
On top of that, cyclists are considered vulnerable road users meaning vehicles are expected to use more caution than they would with another car when considering overtaking etc.

Van driver was probably in shock after the accident - I imagine it's a bit like shouting at your child when they almost hurt themselves. I remember being absolutely bellowed at by the other driver after an accident years ago then the guy rang me to apologise the following day.

As long as cyclist is ok I wouldn't think much more about it tbh OP.

Why would he slow down when overtaking? As long as you don't go over the speed limit, you should get past as quick as you can.

The cyclist was at fault and did something very silly/dangerous by not signalling or looking.

I hope your ok OP, it’s scary witnessing something like that even when thankfully no one was hurt.

@NailsNeedDoing

The cyclist was being a twat. Good to know he didn’t end up causing someone else to have to live with something terrible.

The driver was probably shocked and ranting because of that, people do react to extremes when they’re shaken up.

Not sure my reaction would be to call a 13yo a twat and I definitely don't think it's OK to rant at a child after you knock him off his bike with your van

Sounds like the cyst list was more at fault. Firstly pulled out of a side road without stopping or looking and then turned right on the main road again without slowing down or looking or even indicating.

Van driver may well have been over taking like they did as a reaction to the cyclist suddenly coming out of the side road.

It would depend on whether the van had already started to pass the bike or not when they turned (was the collision between the side of the van and the bike, or the front) but there isn’t really a right or wrong answer. You can probably argue negligence on both sides and if it was to go to court, as it’s a civil matter the outcome would be decided by a judge who could go either way. A lot of judges tend to favour vulnerable road users but you could find a case law that was almost identical and still find that judge decides completely differently

The van driver's hazard perception was shit. He should never have been trying to overtake the cyclist that close in the first place, and he should have given the bike a much wider berth, bearing in mind that they had already made one unpredictable manouevre and were obviously a child.

In my view and from what you have described, if the van driver had slowed down and was overtaking much more widely, then the accident could have been averted. But - the van driver was driving too fast and too close to the bicycle to be able to take evasive action, therefore it has to be their fault.

Both to some extent. Cyclist not paying due care and attention, not signalling. Driver because he didn't make allowances for the strong possibility of a child on a bike doing something unexpected and I don't believe for a second he was only doing 30. Barring ice and snow, modern vehicles can come to a stop quite easily at thirty without swerving across the other side of the road and mounting the pavement.

Kid should have looked and waiting for van before leaving the side road.
Van driver should have left the kid more room when he overtook.
Kid shouldn't have swerved into Tescos unexpectedly.
I got lost after that.

Was the van close behind the cyclist because the bike had only just pulled out in front of him? Also, if the van is trying to pass the bike anyway, it's got to be near at some point in the manoeuvre: so long as the driver has left enough space to clear the bike, that should be OK. If the bike suddenly moved to the right without any sort of indication, that seems to make it at least 50% the cyclist's fault because overtaking is perfectly legitimate; we are all taught the need to look over our shoulders before pulling out precisely because someone might be aiming to drive past. But I agree the van driver should have been taking extra care given that he had a child cyclist in front of him who had already executed one dangerous manoeuvre.

Cyclist should have signalled he was turning. You say he veered right which from your description caused the accident.

The people who believe the cyclist was at fault are making me lose my faith in human nature (and, in some ways, my faith in human intelligence!)

@geckogirl13

Legally speaking, it's almost always the case that a child cyclist cannot be "at fault". It's very hard to prove otherwise. You would have to prove they were capable of managing their safety properly in that moment, tricky to do if he was 13.

Additionally, a motorist is expected to exercise a higher level of care and attention when the cyclist is a child, meaning he should have been much more careful when choosing to overtake the cyclist. E.g. check for hazards, slow down, give a very wide margin when overtaking, which it sounds like he didn't do.

Personally, I find it a bit depressing that people leap to the defence of a van driver who didn't safely overtake a child on his way home from school and who then yelled at said child after he'd knocked him to the ground.

This ^^ I can't believe people are making excuses for a van driver (who says he was going at 30. ) when he hit a child. I hope the poor boy got home OK and that his mum or dad called the police to report the bastard. And no he shouldn't have been shouting at a child that's victim-blaming of the highest order. He should have been apologising for almost killing the poor boy.

It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the person overtaking to do so in a safe manner. The person at the front has the whole lane. Even if they're a cyclist.

Regardless of who is at fault, I hope that the cyclist is OK?

I don't usually say this, but entirely the cyclists fault.

they pulled out of a side street at a speed that forced the van driver to make a choice of either having to slow dramatically, or, as they did make an unplanned overtake.

After the van began the overtake, the cyclist makes a second mistake of pulling out to make a right turn forcing the van to make an emergency evasive manoeuvre again with little to no planning time.

@Covidcovid

I do feel sorry for the driver. The teenager didn't look, didn't indicate. But I also think drivers need to be more careful around vulnerable road users, especially children.

I have seen some militant cyclists round here who basically think they own the road. It’s the cyclist’s fault in this case.

Jeez some drivers. Totally avoidable. Cyclists are vulnerable and kids more so. Poor kid. Zero sympathy for van driver. Legally I have no idea but I think all van drivers should have to prove maturity before being allowed on road.

Having read the subsequent three pages I think we should also conclude that if the child cannot cycle safely on the road, they shouldn't be.

Presumably the parents then shoulder some responsibility.