[Closed] Head on crash with car caused by jogger

Isnt this a bit like the old "driver behind is liable regardless of what happens ahead?". So the onus is on the cyclist to be in such control of his own speed that he can react safely to the surrounding environment. So the cyclist is liable to the motorist i suspect.

But this being STW I imagine i will be told i am wrong very soon.

I'm not sure your mate's decision to swerve onto the wrong side of the road is really the jogger's fault tbh.

@Blackflag no, I agree with that. If the cyclist's swerve has taken him onto the wrong side of the road, that's a BIG swerve (or the jogger was moving REALLY fast) So yeah, keep an eye out for hazards (same as in a car), adjust riding accordingly

Cyclists aren't insured so the default is the van claims on theirs and, if the insurance company want to pursue the cyclist, so be it.

The cyclist could of course pay up out of a sense of decency but it wasn't their fault either, and have quite a bit of expense, so might think it's 50/50.

Lastly, why couldn't the van stop?

Isnt this a bit like the old “driver behind is liable regardless of what happens ahead?”. So the onus is on the cyclist to be in such control of his own speed that he can react safely to the surrounding environment. So the cyclist is liable to the motorist i suspect.

Possibly. But then you could extend that to the van driver, or he should have been driving slowly enough around a corner to be able to stop should he have encountered anything out of sight, ie the cyclist?

Cyclists aren’t insured

The cyclist could of course pay up out of a sense of decency but it wasn’t their fault either, and have quite a bit of expense, so might think it’s 50/50.

If you're not prepared to accept the responsibility that comes with operating ANY vehicle on a road, you shouldn't be on the road, end of.

I'm genuinely fascinated to see the 'official' answer to this. If the cyclist was replaced by a car driver, ped. or jogger steps out in front, driver swerves to avoid and damages parked car, building, other road user are they liable? If the answer is yes, wouldn't that tend to encourage them to simply hit the pedestrian? Like the advice about not swerving to avoid animals in the road unless it's a moose?

If this was a tale of a car driving swerving to avoid a jogger and hitting a cyclist in the process the pitchforks would be out.

This is the cyclist's fault and he needs to pony up. No insurance? Tough.

What would a self driving car do in this situation? Hit the jogger or hit a third party head on? 😉

The jogger is a complete knob whether he stopped or ‘fled the scene’ but the fault for this road accident lies solely with the cyclist sadly. He needs to either pay up out of his own pocket or have his insurance pay up.

The line of insurance would be van driver claims against cyclist, cyclist claims against jogger, unfortunately for them the joggers done a runner - any chance they were on a regular run and can be spotted on another day?

What if the jogger was being chased by a dog and that’s why they ran out?

"What would a self driving car do in this situation? Hit the jogger or hit a third party head on? 😉"

Anticipated the jogger might move onto the road and change to an appropriate speed, likely brake sufficiently to avoid injury, or swerve only as much as required, communicate with the self driving white van heading in the other direction to make sure they slow down too.
Or if we just get a self driving jogger then the whole situation could have been completely avoided....

I’m not convinced cyclist could claim off jogger. Cyclist was the road user and wasn’t riding appropriately to stop in time.

Cyclist certainly had balls though to ride into a van rather than hit a pedestrian

Please tell me there were no conveyor belts?! We can't deal with that level of complexity.

Can the jogger claim from the dog?

What if the dog was only loose because it’s lead snapped due to a manufacturing fault?

The jogger was the dogs neighbour, last seen with a pack of frozen sausages 😳

Cyclists aren’t insured

Pretty much anyone with home insurance is covered for third party liability while cycling. Check your policy, most if not all have liability cover specifically excluding certain activities such as the use of motor vehicles.

Anyway… does sound like the chap on the bike is liable, the awkward reality being that he can’t claim off the jogger because there’s no equivalent of the MIB which exists to pay claims against unidentifiable third parties. But, as above: home insurance, unless he’d rather settle it himself.

Obviously the jogger is at fault

Obvious troll is obvious.

The legal question is was the cyclist negligent - would the man on the Clapham omnibus think what he did was reasonable?

If there was a witness to back up the cyclists version of events, I'd be fairly comfortable arguing that his instinctive reaction to avoid the obvious hazard of the jogger was not negligent, despite him swerving into a van that appears to have come round a corner.

My view is not clouded by having a frame written off earlier this year after a pedestrian stepped out in front of me. 🤣

The line of insurance would be van driver claims against cyclist, cyclist claims against jogger

No, you claim against the negligent party. If the cyclist wasn't negligent, the van driver claims directly from the jogger.

I don't believe that a claim in tort would be anything else except between directly affected parties.

What Bez said - home insurance covers you for something like £1million in liability costs for such occurences.

I don’t believe that a claim in tort would be anything else except between directly affected parties.

I fear you are mistaken. If you are stationary in traffic and hit from behind into the car in front of you, the guy in fronts claim is against the person who was negligent ie the guy who hit you from behind.

If the van driver took legal action against the cyclist, the cyclist could join the jogger to the action as part of his defence (if the jogger was known)

Obviously, with no details for the jogger and no witnesses, the cyclist doesn't stand a chance of a successful defence, one person's word against another.

Joggers should have licence plates

So the moral of the story, should this ever happen to you, is to chin the driver steal his van, hunt down and run over the jogger, escape to the south of France, burn the van, leave your clothes in a pile on the beach to look like suicide and go live free and naked in the warm Mediterranean hills just as nature intended.

I’d say the cyclist bears some responsibility, better choice of line or speed might have helped, all hard to judge without actually knowing the facts & layout of the event. He should probably have been able to change his line or slow down without needing the other side of the road.

However...

Lastly, why couldn’t the van stop?

This.

[smug hat on] You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

Yes, most people don’t drive this way. It means slowing for a corner, often. I admit I often don’t do this.

But it is what should be done. And if you go round a corner and can’t stop, it’s down to you. [/smug].

Yes, I sound like a arse saying that. But it’s the way it is.

What’s always puzzled me is what about their speed towards you? This all works for the apocryphal child standing (stationary) in the road.

If you go round a corner at a speed allowing you to stop in said distance. Half way round someone else zooms round and you bump because they way up lots of ‘your’ distance.

If you screech to a halt and they still hit you then it’s them bang to rights. But if you slow and *almost* stop, and they steam into you, you’ve still both hit each other. What then?

Driving so slow you can stop even if some oncoming vehicle with any arbitrary speed appears would cause you to be hit from behind I suggest before you got half way to town!

I wonder if your classed as a driver on a bike, if yes maybe bikes fault, was it on a corner?

https://www.birchallblackburn.co.uk/do-pedestrians-always-have-right-of-way-on-roads/

Joggers should have licence plates

And they don’t even pay road tax, the bastards.

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

Can you provide authority for this, especially whether it is how courts determine decisions? And are you talking civil or criminal?

The only reasons an adult should run are to get away from danger, a wild animal eg lion, to catch a bus/train and to get to the front of the queue at the supermarket .

Running or fast walking = jogging should be banned as of no intrinsic value to society.

Jogger at fault for not obeying the above

^ 100%

Weirdos

Joggers should have licence plates

Have they sat a test?

I bet they run though red lights and run on the road too.

It's irresponsible I tell you.

What if cyclist was a wee kid?

Van driver should have been able to stop.

oh and any adult caught running except for the above i posted should be arrested as theyre obviously a criminal running from the scene of a crime.

Joggers dont do it, you look silly and stupid, its not big and clever, and your parents are ashamed of your behaviour, get a bike or walk properley.

What if cyclist was a wee kid?

What if the jogger was a wee kid?

Van driver should have been able to stop.

So should the cyclist. Who, in case people are forgetting, was on the wrong side of the road!

Bottom line, always brake never swerve.

And who pays - the van driver (insurance) worse case will pay for themselves as your pal won't be able to or won't want to pay and the van drivers insurance CBA to attempt to take them to court.

Otherwise your pal puts his hand in his pocket.

These kinda decisions are the reasons why we all need self-driving cars. Nothing could possibly go wrong with them surely? LOL

Can the jogger claim from the dog?

You know exactly what he needs to do to the dog

What if the van driver had been Domonic Cummings on another eye sight testing drive.... would have wiped out all, including the dog (who was presumably about to be humped by a mountain biker) ?

How do we know the van didn't stop in time? Cyclist may have just ridden into him.

What if the dog was driving the van, therefore rendering all parties uninsured ? who pays then.

I bet they run though red lights and run on the road too.

It’s irresponsible I tell you.

And I bet they were running without wearing a helmet, bloody idiot.

Thanks everyone, some informative and entertaining responses! Self driving joggers with number plates is what we need

I’ll add that the corner is a bit tight and loads of parked cars and the jogger was coming from a side road so not just stepping off the pavement hence the swerve onto other side of road. He was also going slowly enough not to injure himself when hitting a van head on, so not hooning

Sorry to be all boring and reasonable. 😀
Does your friend have any sort of legal cover via house insurance, car insurance, or via a trade union?

This is around 95% of my justification for paying my CyclingUK subscription fee, for the third party public liability cover.

It's also fun to mention when someone trots out the old "cyclists are not insured" line.

Cyclist fault is the obvious answer but what is considered reasonable behaviour that should be accounted for from a runner?

Clearly if it was approaching a crossing etc the you might be expected to be prepared to stop, but you can't account for every pedestrian randomly stepping into the road. So what's reasonable? 5m, 10m?

Unfortunately not every accident can be avoided.

goes onto the other side of the road.

I think this is a big clue as to who's legally at fault.

You’d think so, but some people are struggling to get their head round that idea...

Its a clue, but its not everything. We don't have enough information to say for certain. In all likelihood all 3 did something wrong and the argument is to what degree that error contributed to the outcome.

If your friend was driving a car, his insurer would assert to the van driver’s insurer that it was the van negligently swerving into the road that caused the accident. Without a witness / dash cam, this account is plausible.

Your mate has to be careful not to lose the insurance ‘game’ before it’s already begun by admitting liability AKA telling the truth.

It sucks being a cyclist without someone in your corner in these situations.

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

You missed a bit - the words "on your own side of the road", which addresses your own question about the speed of oncoming traffic (within certain assumptions admittedly)

Can you provide authority for this, especially whether it is how courts determine decisions? And are you talking civil or criminal?

Leaving aside that it's specifically referred to in Roadcraft (the Police drivers handbook) it is also basic driver/rider competence if you take a moment to think it through.

Ignore the OP's situation with a jogger, a van and a frozen sausage toting cyclist for a minute.

Country lane, bend, fallen tree blocking road other side of bend.

At the point where you can see the tree you can stop safely from 30mph.

If you hoon it round that bend at 50mph you'll hit the tree still doing 20mph (actually it will be more than thay as the energy you have to shed to get from 50 to 20 is more than from 30 to 0 since kinetic energy increases with the square of speed).

Now replace one side of the tree with a cyclist or a jogger stepping into the road or a child's face ("Mr Tree") and the other with an oncoming car. At 30mph no collision at 50mph potential for a fatality.

Far too many people treat the limiting factor of cornering speed as mechanical grip. In a significt proportion of corners it is the sight lines that define the limits.

Now let's translate that to a known / established "assumed liability" of rear ending someone...

You are liable because you were following too close and/or going too fast to be able to stop safely (or at all) for the hazard in front.

So in the case of Mr Tree above our driver was going too fast to stop or avoid a hazard, which bears a striking similarity to someone rear ending another vehicle wouldn't you say?

It's also in parallel with advice to slow down in poor visibility and in high risk areas to.

Just to add to the above the first bit quoted is Rule 125 of the Highway Code (oddly it omits same side of the road which is certainly in the copy of Roadcraft I inherited from a friend after he'd used it as a reference for his IAM test).

But in your example the tree has already fallen down (equating to the jogger being stood in the road already).

What does it say about driving around a bend at 30mph when a tree suddenly falls down in front of you?

What does it say about driving around a bend at 30mph when a tree suddenly falls down in front of you?

The plot thickens, would explain why the dog freaked and bit the jogger, who ran out into the road, causing the cyclist to swerve and hit the van. Hope your mate pays for your van BTW 🙂

Sadly there's some pretty basic legal and road safety principles getting buried in the mountain of humourous bollocks on this thread.

I'm not claiming to be the safest most perfect driver, but I'd happily get in a car with garage-dweller, not so sure about some of the rest of you. At least my son's driving instructor seems to be teaching him stuff that some on here seem to have forgotten.

Does your friend have any sort of legal cover via house insurance, car insurance, or via a trade union?

He doesn't, I do. He's now looking into getting it 🙂

Just rode in to work via where the crash happened and the road is narrow with parked cars, he would only have had to swerve a small amount to be over the middle of the road.

Obviously yes the rider and the driver should both probably have been more attentive, the van driver probably should have been able to stop and my mate probably should have seen the jogger coming as we would have been visible as far as I can tell. However when presented with a live obstacle and an empty road, I'd like to see how many ride into the person instead of instinctively swerving towards the empty bit of road. 95 times out of 100 on that piece of road he would have been fine anyway, rarely see a car coming that way as it becomes one way further down in the opposite direction. Doesn't make him right, just unlucky!

However when presented with a live obstacle and an empty road, I’d like to see how many ride into the person instead of instinctively swerving towards the empty bit of road.

It wasn't an empty bit of road, there was van approaching on it. FFS, he swerved across the road into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Glad he's ok, it could have been a very nasty accident, but if you swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle, it's pretty hard to argue that you aren't at fault.

It wasn’t an empty bit of road, there was van approaching on it

The road was empty when he swerved away from the jogger, the car came round the corner afterwards. Again, not saying he's right but just pointing out that in a split second decision when you see obstacle/empty road I'd bet you'd also go for the bit where you have a chance of not hitting something

joggers, cars parked all up my side (potential dooring), blind bend just up ahead... sounds like a nightmare; reckon I'd be riding pretty slowly tbh... think we're gonna have to see a Google Streetview of this spot 😉...

I’d like to see how many ride into the person instead of instinctively swerving towards the empty bit of road.

I know from experience because a few years ago someone ran out from behind a wall straight into the road in front of me. It was a straight road with no traffic at all; I was hard on the brakes in a straight line ending up balancing on the front wheel and gently shoulder barging him. (Didn’t floor him or hurt him, just a bit of a kiss. He apologised, I kept my thoughts to myself and filed it for learning: I was only doing about 15mph, a moderate urban pace, but I try to be a little more alert to people suddenly charging into the carriageway nonetheless.) But: No swerving, despite clear space to do so.

It was instinctive but I believe entirely rational. For a start, you can’t really predict whether the person will keep running/walking or whether they’ll slow or change themselves to try to avoid you, so there’s often no clear probability advantage to swerving. Secondly, if you swerve you can’t brake, so you’re not shaving off any energy if a collision of any sort does occur. Then there’s the issue that if you do swerve and you still collide then you’re no longer in a straight line and the outcome is much less in your control and probably worse: ie you’re going to take a high-sider or a low-sider and start sliding or rolling. If you have oncoming traffic that’s a big problem. And finally there’s the issue that it’s best not to drag third parties into the event: the cause is some combination of you and the person in front of you, and if someone else ends up affected by that then life is only going to get much more complicated.

As for how that combination played out in this case, we have no idea, because we’ve got a limited report from secondhand information derived from only one point of view on the incident. So we don’t really know what happened. But swerving into oncoming traffic isn’t a smart idea whether you’re considering legal issues or personal health…

Bloody hell Bez, your brain must be a highly trained machine to process all that in such s short space of time.

Most experienced cyclists process shit like that constantly while riding on the roads. It’s not really a super-power, just survival.

Pretty much anyone with home insurance is covered for third party liability while cycling.

Or jogging 🙂 Or any other activity that isn't excluded because it represents a particularly high risk to third parties and thus has mandatory, specialist insurance. Like driving.

The "stop in the distance you can see to be clear" rule isn't entirely relevant, as we may be talking about a situation in which the bit of road that you can *already see* ceases to be clear because a jogger or cyclist unexpectedly moves into it. When this happens, a collision may be unavoidable even if you were driving or riding "safely".

The rule will stop you colliding with a stationary object, it won't always stop you colliding with a moving one.

Bloody hell Bez, your brain must be a highly trained machine to process all that in such s short space of time.

Bloody hell Bez, your brain must be a highly trained machine to process all that in such s short space of time.

It’s not, which is why I explicitly said it’s instinctive. What I mean is that my instinctive reaction was, in retrospect, entirely justifiable rationally.

Instinctive responses are largely about pre-loading your brain with responses to actions, which is in part about consciously considering things beforehand, but more about your brain having prior experiences of events, responses and outcomes. Quite how they came together in that instance I have no way of knowing, but as an additional experience to feed into that instinctive response, it affirmed what I did, so the chances are high that I’d do the same again.

The “stop in the distance you can see to be clear” rule isn’t entirely relevant, as we may be talking about a situation in which the bit of road that you can *already see* ceases to be clear because a jogger or cyclist unexpectedly moves into it.

It’s still relevant, it’s just expressed perhaps a little over-concisely.

“The distance you can see to be clear and can be sure to remain so until you have passed” is more accurate, but I think the spirit of the original should be fairly clear, otherwise people will drive at 30mph an inch from a row of parked vehicles and anyone poking their head out from between those vehicles to see if there’s anything coming will be hit (I seem to recall an incident where exactly this happened). I don’t think “well, the space was clear when I looked at it” is a reasonable defence there: the potential appearance of someone should be obvious to all, and should be accounted for.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/from-out-of-nowhere/

From an insurance stand point, with no details for the jogger, no witnesses or other independent evidence to document the joggers actions, then it is purely between the cyclist and van driver, as a cyclist or motorist, the jogger will be seen as a more vulnerable party and you should be on the look out for pedestrians stepping or running close to the kerb and moderate your speed and your actions accordingly. The van driver is then an innocent party as he could do little to avoid the collision, so the cyclists insurers would probably deal with the van drivers claim on a without prejudice basis.

I'm with Bez ... mostly

Most experienced cyclists process shit like that constantly while riding on the roads. It’s not really a super-power, just survival.

Not long ago someone literally walked out into the road (headphones in looking at phone) and I found myself stopped in a ridiculously short space. Heels all the way down, full endo and practically kissing the young thing.

but more about your brain having prior experiences of events, responses and outcomes. Quite how they came together in that instance I have no way of knowing, but as an additional experience to feed into that instinctive response, it affirmed what I did, so the chances are high that I’d do the same again.

I just developed a theory (so the mainly)
I feel this is more of a offroad reaction I carried forwards. In part it's a conscious decision for squirrels, pheasants etc. (and one I've drummed into my son). Either they get out of the way or not but swerving won't help because they might double back, stop or carry on....
I've only hit one and it was a lot of blood and feathers but at least not mine.

The same mostly applies to tech stuff... either stop or don't but trying to slow down and swerve rarely ends well.

So to be fair looking back perhaps I stopped in a straight line simply from offroad experience and perhaps not "every cyclist" would do that?

Can you provide authority for this, especially whether it is how courts determine decisions? And are you talking civil or criminal?

Rule 154 of the Highway Code says it about country roads. "Take extra care on country roads and reduce your speed at approaches to bends, which can be sharper than they appear, and at junctions and turnings, which may be partially hidden. Be prepared for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, slow-moving farm vehicles or mud on the road surface. Make sure you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. You should also reduce your speed where country roads enter villages."

The Highway Code is not law, but it might assist a court to decide what a careful and competent driver would do. However, I don't think that anyone expects to be able to stop if an oncoming vehicle swerves onto your side of the road.

I'd be questioning whether there was actually a jogger there at all tbh. Sounds like a case of too fast round a corner, couldn't hold the line and drifted out to the other side of the road.

I’d be questioning whether there was actually a jogger there at all tbh.

one that was less than the width of a single lane of road, and about 90 degrees from his visual focus; from a bike-van head on collision and was completely oblivious to it.

Today, riding into work on a off-street NCN path (old railway line), I was riding along somewhere between 15-20kmph. There was a good line of sight and I could see 250m+ down the route. Tarmaced, but covered in leaves.

All of a sudden, from behind a bush 10-15m in front of me, a dog bolts right across the trail from L to R. I instinctively brake and veer a little left, but then I notice the extendable dog lead waiting to get me. Then the fella holding the other end appears from behind the same bush, sees me, and leaps after the dog. I am still braking and manage to avoid him, the lead and the dog, whilst managing not to skid.

My pulse did increase considerably. I reckon his did too. The dog seemed oblivious.

I often wonder similar at fault situations.

What happens if you collide with a car parked At night facing oncoming traffic on an unlit road.

A car parked less than 15 meters from a junction.

What happens if you collide with a considerate person who thinks they own the road and so overtakes a row of parked cars that are on their side meaning you’d have had to slow (inconveniently whilst tutting rather than anchors on) to avoid said collision. For this example it could be a head on or more of a scrape if there’s just not enough space but they are at least partially on the ‘wrong’ side of the road.

To close the loop on this luckily the van owner got in touch with my mate and the cost was pretty trivial so he just paid up which was the best possible resolution really. I'm still not convinced he was 100% at fault but as pointed out several times above, he would have had a VERY hard time proving that!

.

Thanks for the update/conclusion. Probably the best outcome given the facts.