[Closed] Cyclist v car... again

Both at fault, cyclist on the wrong side of the road and driver not looking both ways.

Someone flashed me out, and so I pulled out onto the road

If someone flashes at you, they're telling you that their headlights work. Sounds like he needs to go and get some driving lessons.

Fortunate that the cyclist was not seriously injured.

EDIT: the cyclist was cycling the wrong way down the cycle path. In that case my sympathy diminishes somewhat. Can anyone make sense of this?

Six of one, half of a dozen of the other...

Yes, the driver should have looked both ways (especially given that he knew of the habit of bikers speeding down the hill the wrong way) but equally, cycling down a cycle path on the wrong side of the road is a stupid thing to do as well.

Apparently the majority of road accidents are caused by a few things going wrong at the same time rather than just one problem/mistake in isolation, this sounds like just that.

Yes, he should have checked, which he admitted. But what a bell end for cycling down the wrong side of the road. These stupid folk really get on my nerves.

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

Reminds me of a comment made after my sister had a head-on collision on a sharp bend in a side street-"It was a good job we both knew it was a dangerous corner, otherwise it could have been much worse.", pure genius.
It's about time road users realised that if they're going to avoid having accidents, they have to take responsibility for everybody's actions, not just their own.

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

It depends on the path some are one way some are two way. If that photo in the newspaper is the one in question, then I can see why there would be a path going up hill where the cyclists are slower than other road users and not one going downhill where they will be at the same(ish) speed as other road users. I agree that it's a case six and two threes.

Mervyn said: "He was cycling down the hill in the cycle lane facing the oncoming traffic, I didn't think to look to my left as the cyclist shouldn't have been there."

But Mervyn said cyclists going in the wrong direction down Sticklepath Hill was an ongoing problem

Did not think to look but knew it was a problem???

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

I was about to say the same thing, I follow this rule... If the cyclepath is on the road itself, then I assume it is one way. There's usually one on each side of the road if this is the case. If it is on a shared path (usually on or next to pavement) then I assume it goes both ways.

Even on a 30 road I'd be shit scared riding against oncoming traffic like that, double impact!

As a man much wiser than me once said: "Too many psychopaths, not enough cycle paths"

That makes good sense thanks. Not having that steep a hill round here, it had'nt occurred to me about the speed factor. Also, here the cycle paths are shared pavement with only minimal road shared which obviously I wouldn't ride the wrong way on.

Weirdly I largely agree the cyclist was at fault, bike lanes that are part of a road are mostly one way, going the same way as the traffic on that side. I've seen a few cyclists using them over the years as two way which is dangerous for fellow cyclists as well as themselves. The cyclists I've seen doing this are generally in the leisure category, i.e. people cycling for transport not hobby, often in jeans etc - nowt wrong with that but they clearly need some help using bike facilities.

I suspect theres another reason they go the wrong way on that route, maybe the road is busy and they cant cross it to use the other side? Or some such thing. Maybe the college is on this side of the road and people cant be bothered to cross. anybody know?

As above I'd guess there is a reason cyclists are using the lane in wrong direction - lots of drivers don't check for filtering bikes cars or motorbikes a lot don't check when pulling out turning left even to see if any obstruction - lived opposite a bus stop by a junction and saw a few cars pull out fast into the back of a stationary bus because only looked one way

Old guy admits to not looking, well at least he had the balls to say so. Cyclist however, well that was simply natural selection in action. Having spent time with "leisure" cyclists, they seem to think that the rules of the road don't apply to them and its pretty scary watching them"interact" with traffic.

Did not think to look but knew it was a problem???

My thoughts exactly, he knew of a possible hazard but chose not to check - with the college where it is, this is going to be difficult to stop people riding this way.

College is at the top of the hill (behind in this pic) on the same side as Mervs house, students want to get to town (at the bottom) but the cycle path in question is used rather than crossing a busy road, using the correct cycle lane then crossing the same busy road halfway down the hill.
[url= https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=barnstaple&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Barnstaple,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.073968,-4.071851&spn=0.000007,0.005493&t=h&z=18&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.073918,-4.071981&panoid=jj_cyFDoNd1Yn2e6BVmt2A&cbp=12,41.89,,0,16.79 ]Picture of both cycle lanes[/url]

Cyclist shouldn't have been in the cycle path, but the key to me, the driver states it happens all the time. So if he knows it is likely why didn't he bother to look!

Having looked at the google link, i link the way the path just disappears and then reappears on the downhill side how it takes you right past the gates of the houses on a narrow pavement, the positioning of the blue pedestrian/cyclist sign. The way it leads you onto the pavement at a ridiculus angle, accident waiting to happen if ever i saw one!

A perfect example of why UK cycle paths are s***!

2 contraflow cycle paths round here, off the top of my head.

I'm going with 75/25 in Merv's favour.

Merv looks alright to me.

[img] [/img]

A quick look on Google suggests that this is probably a result of typically poor signing of cycle paths.

Here we are at the top of the hill with a nice blue sign encouraging cyclists onto a shared use path:

http://goo.gl/maps/MTlwj

Just round the corner and there's the start of the on-road cycle lane:

http://goo.gl/maps/2E4aR

The on-road lane is obviously one-way, but what are cyclists going the other way on the shared path supposed to do? There's no sign saying that the shared use path has ended, so with the on-road lane clearly being one-way, you might reasonably do the same as the cyclist captured on Google and carry on on the path.

If you look a bit further down the hill, you can see why people coming from the college want to use that side of the road. You'd otherwise have to make what looks like difficult right turn to stay on Sticklepath Hill, and then get onto the cycle path across to the train station etc. Although that said, I don't know why you would go down the much quieter Old Sticklepath Hill which links up with the same route, other than the fact that there's no sign at the top of the hill suggesting that it's possible.

There's obviously some acknowledgement of the problem: it's pretty rare of an on-road cycle lane to have direction arrows, and this one has plenty. If the cyclist really was in the cycle lane, then I have little sympathy as it's very obviously one way.

if you move up the hill from the link above, i guess towards the college, you can see why cyclists use this side of the road, eventually at the roundabout the cycle lane fades into the path, this is quite a wide cycle lane so i can see the appeal of riding down it, against the traffic direction. I wouldnt myself but can see the temptation looks more appealing than crossing that traffic. There needs to be some adjustment to get the bikes over the road onto the right side. or to build up the pavement and make the cycle lane dual purpose (multi-directional) with pedestrians/bikes and up off the road.

EDIT: well said above, snap.

Although that said, I don't know why you would go down the much quieter Old Sticklepath Hill which links up with the same route, other than the fact that there's no sign at the top of the hill suggesting that it's possible.

If you go back up the hill on streetview, to the Esso Garage, http://goo.gl/maps/uXDBb you'll see that the cycle lane disappears and the pavement on that side of the road becomes a two way cycle track and shared use pavement. So...

1. I can't see any signs to say that the pavement further down the hill is no longer 'shared use'. It probably isn't but there's someone on a bike on streetview riding on it. So the driver [i]could[/i] have been supposed to be looking for cyclists coming downhill on the pavement.

2. There's a confusing bit of paint that could just be a divider for Pedestrian¦Cyclist or it could be directing cyclists heading down the hill into the cycle lane: http://goo.gl/maps/1DXNp
It could be that the designers (ha!) never imagined that anyone would be travelling 'against' the traffic flow while on the shared use pavement. So where they put the paint guiding 'uphill' cyclists onto the pavement it now looks like it's guiding downhill cyclists into the road.

It's a bit of mess really. Well intentioned but poorly thought out and half heartedly built, like most cycle facilities in the UK.

The driver should have looked both ways and the cyclist shouldn't have been riding against traffic.

Edit: Other people ^^ have said the same as me about the rubbish cycle lane.

If you look over the shoulder of the guy in the picture above there is the stem of what looks to be an arrow indicating the direction of travel for the lane.

If there was a kid cycling down the lane then the driver should also have been on the look out for pedestrians leaving the college as I assume the kid wasn't alone in leaving school/college for the day.

Mistakes all round really. The 'flashing' driver shouldn't have and should have seen the cyclist, the cyclist shouldn't have been on the wrong side of the road, and the driver was clearly not paying enough attention.

I'm with Merv. Everyone cycles and drives on the left, much simpler and safer for everyone. Seems obvious to me.

It does make you wonder why the driver flashed. He/she would have been looking straight at the cyclist when they did it!

Mind you, I had a van half overtake me, then slam on the brakes and flash a car to pull out of a side road on the left. I nearly ended up in the side of it. I was travelling the right way down the road though!

Initially I was mostly with Merv, but after looking at that signage, there's nothing (except possibly some common sense) telling cyclists that their shared path has ended, so he perhaps should expect cyclists on his pavement heading downhill, so should have looked harder.

Crazy cycle 'facility', though, given the speed that could be built up on that hill. Council needs to look again at it.

I'm with Merv. Everyone cycles and drives on the left,

Merv does know that pedestrians may be approaching from the left doesn't he? And he already knows cyclists ride the wrong way so he really, really should be looking left aswell before he pulls out (and IME lots of driver don't look [b]at all[/b] when they get flashed, which is [s]shit scary[/s] quite irksome if I'm filtering or overtaking busy traffic)

shite bike infrastructure as per.

But yeah cyclist contributed to it. 50/50?

Bails I sometimes wonder whether some drivers do shit like that on purpose, "oooh luck there's a cyclist lets have some fun and flash this car out of the side street".

The Blameometer

33.333% Driver who flashed for Merv to pull out.
33.333% Merv for not looking left.
33.333% Cyclist

Just because someone flashes you to come out of a junction doesn't abdicate you from looking both ways. Never rely on the eyesight of someone else to tell you it is safe to do anything on the road.

Plus how does he know, if he didn't look, that the guy flashing wasn't letting someone cross the road?

Whether or not the cyclist was in the wrong a good motorist should be checking both directions,for the unexpected not the expected .

the cyclist may have been in the wrong place, BUT the driver is the one who has a licence, the one who is expected to know the law, to make allowances for those around him. What if it had been a kid on a scooter,etc. Was he blocking the pavement, what if a pedestrian was trying to get past etc.

The blame is the drivers end of.

I'm 80-20 in Merv's favour. He could have looked to check both ways were clear but then there shouldn't have been anything coming from that direction as it's not a contra flow, maybe he should also have looked up in case there was a falling piano heading his way.

the cyclist may have been in the wrong place, BUT the driver is the one who has a licence, the one who is expected to know the law, to make allowances for those around him.

So cyclists can't be to blame for any incedent that also involves a car then.

After all, cyclists don't have a license
and aren't expected to know the law,
And don't have to make allowances for anyone else

according to your logic at least.

He could have looked to check both ways were clear but then there shouldn't have been anything coming from that direction

I already said bicyclist has to share some blame but drivers have a duty to look [b]both [/b]ways, more so than others cause they are the ones in the potentially very dangerous vehicle.

coogan - Member
Yes, he should have checked, which he admitted. But what a bell end for cycling down the wrong side of the road. These stupid folk really get on my nerves.

This. Nothing else really needs to be said.

that is not a contraflow shared use cycle path. it is a one way shared use cycle path designed (!) to remove cyclists from the main carriageway that are coming up the hill towards the roundabout. there are no instructions for anyone in any other direction to join the shared use cycle path. it could be argued that the instructions for the people travelling up the hill are vague at best. cyclists from the other 2 directions are not given any instruction until after the roundabout heading down the hill where they are provided with a mandatory cycle lane.

i think both parties are at fault. wouldn't at all surprise me if mere wasn't reversing out his drive too (i have no evidence of this obviously) which is also an offence.

Here where I live we have cycle paths on just one side of the road. Does this mean I have to cycle just one way on them as I've never heard of cycle paths being one way especially as they are shared with walkers who go both ways!

Are you sure you're talking about a cycle "path" (which I would take to mean something separate to the main carriageway of the road) or a cycle "lane" (i.e. a painted section of the main carriageway, shared with motor vehicles). I think this incident involved a lane painted on the normal carriageway.

In the case of the former (separate path), I've never come across one that was "one-way" and, if it's separate from the "road" I'm not sure why you would assume that its position relative to the road would imply a particular direction of travel (think of it as being a separate "road" for bikes that happens to run parallel to the "road" for the cars and lorries etc.)

In the case of the latter (a painted lane), unless there's signage telling you differently, I would assume that the lane is for cyclists travelling in the direction of the traffic, i.e. a cyclist in the lane finds themselves to the left of the traffic, and if you're travelling in the other direction, you simply use the other side of the road as you normally would (i.e. mixing it up with the rest of the traffic). There's lots like this near me and to be honest I don't think many of them are put in for the benefit of cyclists, more as a traffic calming measure, i.e. it's a reason to narrow the "normal" lanes a bit and make the road seem narrower to drivers than it really is - similar to those where they've widened the central divider from a broken white line to a foot wide hashed strip.

[url= https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=barnstaple&ll=51.072991,-4.073036&spn=0.000007,0.005933&hnear=Barnstaple,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.072602,-4.073322&panoid=MGeZXXKxP8GR31yZBgRN9w&cbp=12,62.72,,0,15.75&z=18 ]cyclist doing just what teh cyclist in question did. [/url]

Who would have guessed a google car captured the problem.

[url= https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=barnstaple&ll=51.072883,-4.073101&spn=0.000007,0.005933&hnear=Barnstaple,+Devon,+United+Kingdom&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.072992,-4.073036&panoid=FO8HJgUB2HjaGfI2jN4gHw&cbp=12,130.93,,1,27.66&z=18 ]wonder what the flowers are for?[/url]

nealglover - Member

the cyclist may have been in the wrong place, BUT the driver is the one who has a licence, the one who is expected to know the law, to make allowances for those around him.

So cyclists can't be to blame for any incedent that also involves a car then.

After all, cyclists don't have a license
and aren't expected to know the law,
And don't have to make allowances for anyone else

according to your logic at least.

Pretty much, there is no right to drive a car and when most drivers realise this the better for everyone. What we don't know is how old the youth was? i am guessing youth from the mention of college. Was s/he given the option of cycle training, why was he on the wrong cycle path etc etc. kids are kids, they do stupid things. It is why young children aren't liable for their actions in a criminal court, why sentances for young offenders are different to adults, etc etc

Ban private cars and you solve far more problems than you create. Most journeys are less than a couple of miles where cars are uneccessary, they might be more convienient but that doesn't make them vital. For those who commute 50miles each way to work, you are the miniscule minority and are statisically insignificant. The increase in air quality and the reduction in Asthma, the reduction in RTAs, the reduction in congestion would improve commercial traffic, etc etc.

Legally, as Merv was the one entering the highway he is probably 100% at fault. It has nothing to do with him being in a car and the chap being on a bike.
Realistically there is blame on both sides, of course.

[url= http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Fatal-crash-driver-legal-limit/story-12160665-detail/story.html ]Flowers were for this I think[/url]

I'm going with 75/25 in Merv's favour.

Merv looks alright to me.

I agree, but make an adjustment to 70/30 for wearing a purple jumper.

snaps - Member

Flowers were for this I think

Thanks, not good.

I'm 75% in favour of Merv. The cycle lane has clearly marked directional arrows on the ground and their is a cycle lane on the opposite side of the road.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the layout on the local cycle lanes, the cyclist knowingly rode on the wrong side of the road against the traffic and ignoring clear markings.

Merv lost 25% as he should have looked both ways as a pedestrian could have been coming from up the hill.

33.333% Driver who flashed for Merv to pull out.

Driver was presumably in a line of traffic and let Merv in - the cyclist could have been doing a fair lick down that road and might have been not visible when he flashed.

I agree, but make an adjustment to 70/30 for wearing a purple jumper.

I'm adding a 2% adjustment on for Merv as he didn't mention he fought in two world wars etc.

Did Merv just look the one way when crossing the pavement too? He still needs to look both ways. Just because there shouldn't be something where you don't expect it to be, doesn't there wont be something there. Basically someone's very nicely flashed him out and Merv didn't look first before pulling out.

Doesn't excuse the cyclist from riding the WRONG way down the hill. Its pretty clear from streetview that there are cycle lanes on BOTH sides of the road, so the cyclist shouldn't have been in the lane he was riding down.

Poorly designed cycle lanes caused this problem.

The cyle lane is clearly maked with arrows but diverges from the road a little further down the down, if you want to go that way theres no good way to cross form the lane on the correct side of the road.

Also looks like that lane is blocked by a parked car.

Another reason not to use half arsed attempts at cycle lanes, stick to the road its safer.

So if you were out for a run and was hit by a car when the driver just pulled out when "Flashed"
I seem to remember that in the highway code you must look both ways when turning left.
That aside rule 183 is interesting. Makes the driver 100% at fault.

So if you were out for a run and was hit by a car when the driver just pulled out when "Flashed"
I seem to remember that in the highway code you must look both ways when turning left.
That aside rule 183 is interesting. Makes the driver 100% at fault.

Had it have been an articulated lorry overtaking a parked car, Merv wouldn't be here now, so I reckon looking both ways makes a lot of sense.

Interestingly, I know of a similar layout where a shared path spits you out onto a cycle lane on the wrong side of the road, right next to a junction making it almost impossible to cross the road in rush hour traffic. I see loads of people riding the wrong way down it. But it's either that or the footpath. It just highlights crap infrastructure.

Quick poll - if it'd been a cyclist riding out of a junction and a car hit him/her whilst driving the wrong way down a street would we be saying it's the cyclists fault for not looking both ways? Or arranging the noose for the car driver?

Quick poll - if it'd been a cyclist riding out of a junction and a car hit him/her whilst driving the wrong way down a street would we be saying it's the cyclists fault for not looking both ways? Or arranging the noose for the car driver?

He is still wrong for not looking both ways

And the cyclist is still a bell end for going the wrong way down the road. Got what he deserved quite frankly.

Whether or not the cyclist was in the wrong a good motorist should be checking both directions,for the unexpected not the expected .

WTF are you on

wether the motorist was in the wrondg a good cyclist would have leapt the car with cat like knievil skills

on a serious note good job implied liability wasn't in force

Mervyn said: "He was cycling down the hill in the cycle lane facing the oncoming traffic, I didn't think to look to my left as the cyclist shouldn't have been there."

He said: "It seems to happen all the time, for as long as I can remember

A bit contradictory

Quick poll - if it'd been a cyclist riding out of a junction and a car hit him/her whilst driving the wrong way down a street would we be saying it's the cyclists fault for not looking both ways?

on a serious note good job implied liability wasn't in force

even a cursory look at the evidence would have shown the cyclist was going up the cycle lane the wrong way so we're back to looking at all the evidence properly. No problem.

...you honestly believe that? there will be money and legals (loosest use of word) involved

The driver should be looking both ways regardless of whether something should be there or not!

Its like crashing into an illegally parked car, because it shouldn't be there! Utter nonsense.

Under such a system - more accurately termed 'presumed liability,' although 'strict liability is the one used in the campaign - a hierarchy is established that places a presumption of liability that favours the more vulnerable road user – for example, where a cyclist has been struck by a car, the motorist is presumed to be liable, unless they can prove that the cyclist was at fault. The system only applies to civil cases, not criminal ones.

I think I'd be happy with 50/50 from either side of that tbh. Nice messy grey areas for a stw argument though 🙂 Pretty comfortable I would not have been that cyclist though.

I once put in the door of an astra using my motorbike, only reason I didn't end up in a mess was that I saw the other car flash them, and realised they were going to pull out on me. The driver doing the flashing was an idiot but I still put all blame for that on the driver that pulled out, it's entirely their job to drive safely.