Who is at fault? Cyclist or Taxi Driver?

There's a debate going on right now over this video:

Luckily, no one is hurt and it ended on a handshake. I think it's a great example of what can happen when there is some ambiguity. The taxi did clearly indicate it was turning left. The cyclist may have been on autopilot following the other cyclist ahead of him.

Views: 840

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Lazzaro on November 24, 2015 at 4:20am

The taxi driver did signal, though only just before the intersection, so the cyclist probably couldn't see it, as he was already passing beside the car.   The driver should have checked his mirror immediately before executing the turn.  So, technically I'd put the fault on the driver.

However...the cyclist was not wise to pass a car in an intersection.  Drivers often fail to signal turns, so a move like that is always risky.

Permalink Reply by Apie (11) on November 24, 2015 at 4:38am

Well said.

Permalink Reply by Steve G on November 24, 2015 at 4:38am

There is no  debate possible about this. The taxi driver was at fault. 

See rule 183 at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on November 24, 2015 at 3:22pm

You're referring to this text:

  • give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

The taxi driver did give way, unfortunately, a little too late in the process. The cyclist should have had the common sense to predict that turn, given the presence of the taxi in the bus lane and the fact that he had slowed at the intersection. The bicyclist was riding aggressively, clearly not a smart move. The right of way is something that is granted, not taken. More so, when the laws of physics are not on your side.

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on November 24, 2015 at 7:04am

The English right hook. That was a last minute signal without much notice, and it didn't look squirrley before turning like most traffic does, though being stopped at the intersection with no traffic in front is a bit of a giveaway. Right after one bike passing I would think the driver would have the sense to look for more, too. England seems to be the one place where cycling is a bigger mess than the United States.

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on November 24, 2015 at 7:06am

Not to let the taxi driver off the hook, but this street seems to not to have been set up at all for the mixed use it's being put to. I don't know that I would have attempted a pass there, no matter whether or not the taxi was signaling a turn.

Permalink Reply by Steve G on November 24, 2015 at 7:12am

It don't get you guys- this was a bus lane. The taxi driver was supposed to yield.  

Permalink Reply by ad on November 24, 2015 at 7:30am

I think what people are getting at is that there is the letter of the law and who is legally at fault (in Chicago, if a car right hooks a cyclist, the car is most likely at fault even if it signaled, etc.), and then there is the idea of promoting best practices while riding on the road to ensure the cyclist stays safe.  

I've seen a very similar situation play out on Damen/Division more than I care to think about.  Car is stopped ahead signaling a right turn (more in advance than what happened here even), and a cyclist goes straight through the intersection and contact is almost made when the driver initiates the turn.  

The driver is likely going to be held liable if he/she right hooks someone in that situation, but the cyclist is approaching and going straight in the vehicle's known blind spot.  Holding drivers strictly responsible when an accident occurs involving their blind spot is 100% the right thing to do, but a cyclist that doesn't want to get hit on the roads as currently designed would still be will served to learn what blind spots entail and avoid the danger.     

Permalink Reply by Steve G on November 24, 2015 at 7:58am

Yasmeen's (provocative ;) ) question was after all, Was who is at fault?

That requirement is written into the law. Whether the cyclist exercises even more care to avoid such an accident is a separate discussion. 

It's a reasonable expectation that a driver would have an eye on their side view mirror throughout the maneuver. 

The cyclist was in full view of the driver before he entered his blind spot. Motorists now have to adapt to the fact that there is traffic to the passenger side and the driver side. whereas in the past there was only traffic on the driver side. 

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on November 24, 2015 at 7:57am

Not sure I get what you mean by "yield" here. If it was a bus lane, were either the taxi or the cyclist supposed to even be using it? (I freely admit complete ignorance of British road laws.) If it was okay for the taxi to be where he was, was it reasonable of him to expect to be passed on the left? It's not like there was a bike lane there.

Considering just right-of-way issues, In my mind, all three bikes were clearly behind the taxi and shouldn't have tried to pass, at least not on the left, as they didn't have the right-of-way. That the cab signaled late, one bike made it through, one got hit, and one got video is pretty much beside the point.

Permalink Reply by Steve G on November 24, 2015 at 8:03am

Well, I guess you are right, since their was no bus lane actually at the corner, having ended before that. Here's the rules I was looking at anyway... 

It does say 'any vehicles' in the bus lane.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14483917...

Rule 182

Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

Rule 182: Do not cut in on cyclists

Rule 183

When turning

  • keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
  • give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14483917...

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on November 24, 2015 at 8:21am

I've watched this a bunch of times and I still think there's some ambiguity to it. If he's in the bus lane, doesn't that mean you can assume the taxi is going to turn? So if the cyclist is coming up from behind him and the taxi has slowed to near stop, does the "don't cut in on cyclists" apply? Idk, if it was me, I would have stopped because I would assume he was turning (signal or no signal) just based on the fact that he was in the bus lane. Lots of people forget/fail to signal. 


Agree, the question I asked was not so great but it did get you all talking. ;-) 

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service