RTC - opinions please...

In case you were worried, my bike is unscathed.

A bit of an error on both sides perhaps? Glad your are "ok" though.

Driver should have shown more caution of course. The old classic "flashed through" doesn't mean the actual junction is clear for a safe manoeuvre just that the other driver it's giving way. The fact the driver couldn't see you also infers he needed to take the turning slower for that very reason.

You on the path, not ideal but understandable looking at the road. Crossing a junction on the pavement you were probably going a fair amount faster than a pedestrian, enough to make it impossible to stop in time if an unexpected event occurred anyway?

No offence intended, just my take on it and what do I know.😁

No offence taken - interested to hear all and any opinion.

I'm not 100% on my own side.

Cycling on the pavement is ok, and legal if you ride carefully.

So, technically your right of way ... but not because you're on a bike? Tricky.

Firstly, get well soon
This is a classic cycle lane collision and had it happened involving a cycle lane then I don't think that there's much of an argument for the driver
Had you been in the gutter then the same
I don't think that that the pavement changes culpability that much, the driver still has to recognise the possibility of a runner or a child on a bike/scooter, but you shouldn't have been there and this is bound to influence the outcome. One for the solicitors I think

Doesn't the new highway code stuff come into play here. Driver should have been checking for pedestrians crossing the side road and giving them priority before turning in. If they were doing that, they'd have seen the OP.

Doesn’t the new highway code stuff come into play here. Driver should have been checking for pedestrians crossing the side road and giving them priority before turning in. If they were doing that, they’d have seen the OP.

In fairness to the driver, they were probably looking for pedestrians as far as pavement crossings go. The fact that the op had sufficient momentum to crash through the window suggests he was going a fair bit faster than a pedestrian.

No idea of the legalities, but personally I'd call it a 50/50 and chalk it up to experience if I were the OP.

You're taking a very measured approach to this, to your credit.

I'm with the posters above, you're going to have to lawyer up here, because the Domino's driver might take that initiative and put you on the back foot.

BC or Cycling UK lawyers if you're a member or the gang that provide the service for Cycling UK are sponsoring the Tour de France telly coverage this year. SOS Cycling Lawyers or something similar.

Sounds 50:50. Not wanting to be preachy. I will use pavements to get past traffic queues, whether they are dual use or not. But crossing a road needs to be treated as a give way. If you can't see it clear then down to walking speed.

By the same logic if then driver can't see it's clear he should be edging round slowly not swinging through at any speed because he has been flashed.

Driver should have been checking for pedestrians crossing the side road

Cyclist is not a pedestrian.

What speed was the op doing. I've had similar happen to me at 20mph while on a continuous Cyclelane and I did not go through the window - quite painfully bounced off of it. Made a royal mess of his door and wingmirror

Most likely the dominos driver will want to keep it hush as his insurance likely doesn't know he's delivering pizzas..... Certainly used to be how all my unis mates did it without putting their insurance through the roof.

Cycling on the pavement is ok, and legal if you ride carefully.

It is always illegal to cycle on the pavement. The fact that the Police have been instructed to be pragmatic about enforcing it is a different issue.

Think the OP is also taking a sensible and pragmatic approach. The new Highway Code may come in to play here, but I can see both sides. There's a stretch of pavement cycle path on my old commute and even when they put some green paint on the road to show that cyclists had priority, I still pretty much stopped at each side road because drivers can be ignorant/distracted or whatever.

Yeah it sounds like a bit of both, neither of you checking fully before entering the junction.

I bet he shit himself.

What speed was the op doing. I’ve had similar happen to me at 20mph while on a continuous Cyclelane and I did not go through the window

I'm struggling to see how the described scenario could be possible without both parties travelling at excessive speed and without due caution.

In an ideal world the driver should automatically bear responsibility, as per presumed liability laws on the continent, imo. But in this case, since you were on the pavement it seems unlikely the law will side with you.

My honest opinion is there is blame on both sides for the accident.

That aside, one avenue I’d be investigating quickly would be the driver’s insurance. Was it a marked up Dominos car? If not, there’s an extremely high chance that it wasn’t insured for fast food delivery. The entire industry is notorious for drivers not being properly insured.

If you are going fast enough to go OTB then you are going way too fast on a pavement & the driver is entitled to only be expecting someone going at walking pace.

Light flash by static car does not absolve the Dominos driver's responsibility to ensure it is safe to turn right.

I’m struggling to see how the described scenario could be possible without both parties travelling at excessive speed and without due caution.

the OP went through the side window of the van. Assuming the van was on the correct side of the road he was entering, and its a normal-ish road layout, the passenger side window is maybe 1' from the side of the road, yet the front of the van (~2' from in front of the side window) is now maybe 3-6' into the side road (depending on how far 'in' the op is riding).

if both were travelling at the same speed (?), the van has entered the junction 3-6 times earlier than the bike, and was established on the road first.

pedestrians have priority when crossing the road, but they don't have priority to begin crossing after a vehicle has entered a road. The vehicle should have entered slowly enough to avoid a pedestrian entering at ~4 miles per hour, but that is a different speed to that required to avoid a roadie doing ~20mph. The OP is likely between these 2 speeds, but I would very much doubt a court would award the OP anything at all for cycling into the side of a vehicle. The question with negligence is that of "reasonable care". Did the van driver take reasonable care in ensuring no pedestrians were crossing the road (maybe with a view of the first 2-3' of the pavement at the side of the road)? Maybe. Did the OP take reasonable care whilst travelling more quickly on a pavement than a pedestrian and not checking their crossing was clear before proceeding? Maybe not.

My honest opinion is there is blame on both sides for the accident.

I'd say this really. car drivers insurance co will almost certainly go for 50/50, It's illegal for you to be on the pavement, but clearly the Dominos drivers wasn't paying attention either. Are you going to claim from insurance?

People do realise the van is turning into a car park? He is unlikely to be going at great speed. Remember the bike has gone into the side of the van. OP is going too fast & shouldn’t have been on the pavement in the first place.

Cyclist is not a pedestrian.

Well yeah! But if I were looking for pedestrians on a footway about to cross a side road I was turning into I reckon I'd also notice a bloke on a bike. Lots of people 'we' don't refer to as cyclists use the footway to ride a bike along regardless of whether its illegal or not.....

People do realise the van is turning into a car park? He is unlikely to be going at great speed.

Hmmm, thats not my experience of Dominos delivery drivers at the one near me. They couldn't GAS shit who has right of way.

I'm not saying the OP doesn't have some responsibilty in this, he's clearly riding along a footway where he shouldn't be. But any driver turning into a side road or car park where there are likely to be pedestrians or other footway users (mobility scooters ect..) should be checking there is no one crossing the bloody thing first.

The 'cyclist dismount' sign further down the road is the killer here though.

Sorry OP, but I think that it was mostly your fault. You shouldn't have been on the pavement. You were going too fast. You weren't looking out for what was going on. You say he was crossing a path, but the road markings suggest that it was you that was crossing a road, putting the onus on you to be careful.

But good luck and heal quickly!

Mechanistically I can't really picture how the driver has a case to answer, unfortunately. You were clearly moving fast enough to go through the side window of a van. It's not clear whether the van was even moving at the time, but if it was moving at any real speed, you probably wouldn't have gone through the window. IMHO and of course very difficult to prove either way unless one of you has a camera.

BUT is there a question to answer for an insurer? Even if the driver is partially at fault they would lose their excess and any NCD if they claimed. Notwithstanding the fact that they're probably, as above, not insured for business use. The NHS picks up the bill for fixing your arm, so what's left? If it's just the cost of a window, I guess the driver will just have to pay the £150 or whatever for a new window.

If you feel like it was (partially) your fault, you could offer to pay (partially)?

 He is unlikely to be going at great speed.

Is that important though? Collisions can happen at any speed, and (partly) the cause of this accident was  the driver not paying attention to the fact that a vulnerable road user (whilst riding illegally) was potentially on a collision course. Because he's in a car he has a greater responsibility no? he should've at least been prepared to stop, or ideally; not pulled into the side road until the OP had gone past.

If someone was jogging or running for a bus or something on that same bit of pavement wouldn't the accident be the same?

I'd say 70:30, both need to look, more so the driver because he has a lot more potential to injure others.

Sounds nasty and hope you get sorted and recover quickly.

But... I'd be probably putting yourself at more fault than 50/50 if you were going fast enough across a junction from pavement to pavement to go through the side window of a vehicle.

Yeh the vehicle should slow/stop to let any one cross as per new HWC, but you were obviously going faster than is safe if you couldn't stop without going OTB and through the window. It's not like a pedestrian ambling up to cross, you could have been a fair way back from the junction when (if) he did look to check.

From how you've described it I'd be hoping I didn't get a bill for repairs.

From how you’ve described it I’d be hoping I didn’t get a bill for repairs.

The way I read it - I thought that's exactly what the OP was asking about 🙂

How.come you didn't see each other?

(I've been in a similar scenario when vision was blocked by a bus).

Given you hit the car I think fault is more on you.

Yep the shared use cycling looks well signposted to come from the station to the park and then the toucan crossing towards Tesco, and terminates with a clear "Cyclists Dismount" rectangular sign. After that point if you were doing much more than walking pace and didn't cross the side road like a pedestrian, looking both ways etc, then I can't see much fault with the Dominos driver.

The new highway code priorities are nice as a pedestrian, but there's no way I'm going to stop looking out for traffic when crossing side roads.

Get well soon, not too much damage done which is the important thing.

People do realise the van is turning into a car park? He is unlikely to be going at great speed.

Speed is relative. Driver either didn't have a clear view or wasn't paying great attention. Given the potential for conflict with pedestrians (and let's face it, it could have been a child running across at speed) they should probably have been travelling no more than walking pace. And if there's no clear view, perhaps even stop and check the pavement is clear before proceeding. Anyone operating several tonnes of dangerous machinery should be held to the highest standards imo.

If that was the case, its difficult to see how the OP could not have seen them in time, unless completely oblivious to their own surroundings.

If someone was jogging or running for a bus or something on that same bit of pavement wouldn’t the accident be the same?

I wonder what the stats are for people on foot running into the sides of cars? & if we are going for hypotheticals what if it it was a single mother pushing her baby’s pram across the road? Presumably the OP would still have smashed into them.
He shouldn’t be on the pavement. He’s riding too fast given the circumstances. This is what has led to the accident: His fault.

I say it because there was a case a while back where someone cycled across a pedestrian crossing and was hit by a car. The driver said the person shouldn't have been cycling. The judge said it was immeaterial, the outcome would have been the same had he been walking or running and found the driver at fault. Thats what I'm getting at.

I think the OP's speed is relevant.
The fact the OP was on a bicycle on a pavement is not (unless he was doing 30mph or some other speed that would not be possible on foot)

For no other reason than my own curiosity: how do you know he was flashed out? Did the driver you hit tell you that? You cannot possibly have seen it.

He shouldn’t be on the pavement. He’s riding too fast given the circumstances. This is what has led to the accident: His fault.

As much as I hate to say it, this does rather appear to be the case.

Even if the driver booted it they'd have had to cross the chevrons in the middle of the road, the opposing lane, and be sufficiently across the mouth of the car-park for the OP to T-bone them.

You were (understandably perhaps but) illegally riding on the pavement to start with. You were either not watching the road (likely but foolish when passing / crossing junctions), riding too fast to stop in time (speculation but you'll know whether this was the case or not) or both.

Legally you might be on firmer ground as technically you had right of way. I think if I were you I'd be happy with a 50:50 decision.

Hope you heal well soon. Slow down on pavements, next time it could be a baby robin's face.

I think the OP’s speed is relevant.
The fact the OP was on a bicycle on a pavement is not

But the speed he was going is inextricably linked to the fact that he was on a bicycle. The reason people are banned from cycling on pavements is largely because of the speed they are likely to be going whilst doing it.

I don't think that it's that simple. I think that we'd agree that had it happened involving the OP cycling along the nearside of the lane (filtering) then I don’t think that there’s much of an argument for the driver
Highway Code rule 160, "be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them."
Rule 170,
"Take extra care at junctions. You should:
~watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians including powered wheelchairs/mobility scooter users as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind"
"Turning right
Rule 180
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.

However
Rule 88 (motorcyclists) "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low."
Rule 163 "Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles."

And you shouldn’t have been filtering on the pavement, which is bound to influence the outcome. One for the solicitors I think

hands first i smash through his passenger side window,

You must have been travelling at some speed to manage to do that !

I think it is completely wrong to have been on the pavement when you should be on the road. Either wait in the traffic or filter on the road.

50/50 I would say, and lessons learned for both parties.

The Stoneacre garage looks like it has a camera point straight at the point where you had the collision.

I would say that at the point the van driver pulled across there would have been no one waiting to cross the road gap. He wouldnt have been expecting a cyclist travelling at considerable speed (and therefore be scanning the pavement way beyond the point you would need to for a pedestrian/runner, and to break a car window you must have been travelling at considerable speed

I hope a few hours on you are still feeling ok, that will have been some impact !

if we are going for hypotheticals what if it it was a single mother pushing her baby’s pram across the road?

If she was going fast enough to smash the car window it might be a relevent hypothetic........ How ever I'd imagine that is unlikely

The fact that the op had sufficient momentum to crash through the window suggests he was going a fair bit faster than a pedestrian

That was my immediate thought - the OP must have been travelling at quite a speed.

The driver still has a duty of care to other road users regardless of them not supposed to being there. The driver should have checked better, being obscured from being able to see isn't a defence.

Disagree on the speed thing. Impossible to say at what point the glass breaks. did the arms speed up to protect the face?

The junction is also a bit weird. Looks like a crossover in which case anyone on it will have priority but then it's also kerbed. confusing priorities.

Also though dominoes had blanket occasional business insurance for anyone driving for them? Not that it means much. One of our local ones seems to have tourettes and an overly loud small hatch back

did the arms speed up to protect the face?

That's not how momentum works.

The driver still has a duty of care to other road users regardless of them not supposed to being there. The driver should have checked better, being obscured from being able to see isn’t a defence.

Sorry but bollocks. Everyone has a duty of care. The driver could be no more expected to stop for the cyclist than the cyclist for the driver, probably less so given the cyclist rode into the side of the vehicle as opposed to being in front (when the driver may have seen them). Anyone excusing a cyclist on a pavement riding into a road and into a vehicle needs their head checking.

Regardless of all the blame, duty of care, Highway code etc my main concern when riding a bike in traffic is looking after myself. That is quite clearly a dangerous junction (for somebody on the pavement) with restricted sight lines. In the interest of self preservation I would be coming to a stop there, not tanking along.

The new highway code also advises peds and cyclists that they are not absolved of the responsibility to check it's safe to cross even if they have priority.

The driver wasn't looking well enough as if you'd been on the road, the outcome would be the same. But by being on the pavement you've reduced your priority so you should now be looking at each junction (even if you have the right of way).

But once at the pavement, a driver wouldn't need to scan as far left and right to check for pedestrians, slower speed means you just need to observe the first few metres of pavement.

The junction is crap anyway isn't it, it's looks like an entrance to private land, yet the tactile paving implies it's a proper road entrance. Some other countries (Netherlands?) would leave the pavement raised with a pedestrian surface to make it clear to drivers that they need to cross with caution, (even for council owned side roads) as the pavement here is tarmac, it could be differentiated by running the tactile paving (or normal blocks) all the way across.

Is it a side road? Looks like it is possibly a pass-over. In which case it's still pavement, just a spot where motor vehicles are allowed to pass over, in which case the motor vehicle driver is floating, about to drop as there are no legs beneath... Motor vehicle must give way.

Looks like it is possibly a pass-over

It's got double yellow lines on it. It's a road.

OP - were the traffic lights at red or green just before the incident?

https://www.google.com/maps/ @52.8034032,-2.1176854,3a,51.5y,253.04h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtH5Ux6Ly4er0uYWGX5wng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Jumping to lots of conclusions I assume the lights were at red so you hopped on to the pavement to beat them ?

I can see how the van driver would not have seen a cyclist bombing along on the pavement from that view.

It is an access road according to the signs painted on the road

https://www.google.com/maps/ @52.8033592,-2.1179091,3a,75y,341.03h,82.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skvJoUN2ezo1C0bV8Pb_KEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://corporate.dominos.co.uk/Are-you-Driven-to-Deliver

Looks like Dominoes do provide 3rd party insurance to their workers.

Not sure where all these 50/50 views are coming from op is clearly the one at fault, its a dropped kerb junction speed should have been well knocked off (well not even been there from the off if we are being picky) driver was well into the turn before being struck so I fail to see blame on his part if I'm honest

Wow - wasn't expecting such a big response, thanks for your contributions.

Just as a bit of a follow-up and to answer a few questions if anyone is interested...

Firstly, i had and have no intention of pursuing this as some sort of compo claim, if anything i'm more concerned that he might come after me - until i know that this is not the case, please forgive me if i'm at least a little circumspect with my responses.

The info that he'd been 'flashed' through was from a witness at the scene, i obviously couldn't see that myself - i think it is material though, because it does affect the reaction of drivers, and i think it did have a bearing in this instance.

Yes the guy was pretty freaked out - it was a car not a van.

The road he was turning into is an access road to a small private car park for an office building, it's not exactly a busy 'junction', it wasn't massively unreasonable not to expect a car to pull across me, at 5pm on a Friday i'd have thought it more likely that stuff would have been coming from my left.

It's fair to say that speed was a factor, but i genuinely wasn't tonking along - i stopped without my bike hitting his car, and i did have that moment when you are not quite sure, then realise *yes i 'm going over* and let go. I think it was the way my hands were together, concentrating the mass at the middle of the window (this was the passenger side window not the windshield), that made it give way and break. I was more than a little surprised that it went the way it broke tbh.

I'd also like to point out that i have cycled this route - sometimes, but not often, using this pavement depending on the situation - at least twice a week for the last 18 years. This is my first palpable hit.

Ultimately my thoughts are that i'd like to file it under 'sh!t happens' and move on. But then i haven't just had some random geezer fly through my car window. From his perspective he's out of pocket, with limited options for redress.

What i would like to do is offer to pay half of the cost for repair as a gesture of goodwill, but i'm concerned that if i make such an offer it be seen as an admission of guilt. As things stand i'm going to wait and see what, if anything, comes of it.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Oh and i have pics of the injury if there is an audience for it.

I keep telling myself I should get 3rd party cover. As a matter of interest I got a quote from Direct Line. £14 a year.

Yes, i was telling myself recently that i should get some sort of insurance package.

I rather wish i'd listened to myself.

Twice a week for 18 years... yeah, get yourself insured, dude.

Flashing is an irrelevance, I only asked out of curiosity. All other things aside, the driver chose to progress. I was taught not to trust flashed lights when I was learning to drive 30+ years ago.

I wouldn't be volunteering anything, "doing the right thing" has no bearing where insurance is concerned. Let them do what they're paid for and then worry about it once you've heard what they have to say.

Just to add; you really don't need to be going that fast to go OTB - it's just panic grabbing the front brake, even at pretty modest speeds that'll see you off.

On balance, I'd have said that the driver was more at fault.

OP could easily have been entirely legally filtering on the inside, with the same result. I've certainly been caught out the same way (but been fortunate enough to avoid serious injury) in similar situations - drivers tend to speed into the gap when they're flashed through.

The fact that he was on the pavement was obviously contributory, but driver should have been more cautious in performing their manoeuvre.

did you cross the threshold between pavement and road without stopping? cos if you did you entered the road without due care too.

The pavement is part of the road https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/192
You can't enter what you're already on...but I know what you mean 🙂

The reason people are banned from cycling on pavements is largely because of the speed they are likely to be going whilst doing it.

Im going to be slightly pedantic here and say its not pavements, its 'footpaths' and the law dates from 1835. Bikes were invented around 1817(A bike with no pedals), so in 1835 they were not as common a sight as now.

The HWC says you must not cycle on the pavements, but the actual law hasnt to my knowledge been properly updated, and that is probably the reason you could cycle past a dozen policemen in a day, on the pavement and none would stop you. In fact they'd more than likely move to the side.

You were in fact crossing a road at the time and the vehicle that hit you did so because they as the vehicle that impacted you, did so because they were driving without due care and attention. This is how the law(to my knowledge) treats the impact. the person doing the hitting is the one who is in the wrong.

Being even more pedantic it is footway not pavement. As per RTA 1988 and Highways Act 1835 and other regs.

Footway the bit alongside a road. Footpath a path not adjacent to a road.

In Scotland it is illegal under S129 Roads Scotland Act 1984. Almost never enforced.

But what about the pizzas? Were they delivered and were they still warm?

You were in fact crossing a road at the time and the vehicle that hit you did so because they as the vehicle that impacted you, did so because they were driving without due care and attention

<devilsadvocate>Was the OP crossing the road? Or was the car crossing a footway?</devilsadvocate>

But what about the pizzas? Were they delivered and were they still warm?

Anchovies? Guilty!

The driver could possibly be somewhat at fault, it's not clear. They might have had sufficient visibility to know that there wasn't a pedestrian crossing the side road. There's no evidence that they were driving fast or carelessly.

The cyclist is certainly at fault, riding on the pavement, recklessly fast (they were unable to stop in time and lost control) and not checking an obvious hazard. They could easily have seen the oncoming car as it started to turn across, had they been looking out for this obvious risk.

This is how the law(to my knowledge) treats the impact. the person doing the hitting is the one who is in the wrong.

The cyclist hit the car ! that is a fact that is not been disputed

OP - I would be asking the garage for the CCTV as I said above, if nothing more to see your superman impression in to the car window.

I had a slightly similar experience about 20 years ago. Wideish road, stationery cars, me filtering up the inside, not fast (maybe 10-15 mph) on a road that I thought I knew well. I would always slow at side roads in case of such a thing, but it turned out that there was a little entrance that I'd never noticed before. Van on my side of the road had left a gap for someone to turn across them (and me), but they couldn't see me and I couldn't see them... they nipped across and I couldn't stop in time, so my front wheel hit the door and my shoulder shattered the passenger window. Made a big bang. The passenger was at least as shocked as me. I was hardly injured (slight whiplash and a small chunk of glass that remained in my hand for about 6 months!). My front wheel and forks (cheap ones) were knackered though.

Driver and passenger were concerned about whether I was hurt, seemed like nice people. We exchanged details, and pretty much agreed that we both should have been more careful, and left it at that. I was aware that technically he was definitely liable, but figured that I really should (and normally would) have been more careful when filtering, and his car damage was definitely more costly than my bike, so I just chalked it up to experience!

You were in fact crossing a road at the time and the vehicle that hit you did so because they as the vehicle that impacted you, did so because they were driving without due care and attention.

As stated above, the bike hit the car (otherwise the OP would have been over the bonnet).

Riding on the pavement likely makes it 50-50. Had you been in the gutter it would be the driver's fault. I hit the side of a car that turned right across me at a mini roundabout. That they made no indication and were in the left- not right-hand lane meant that they were given 50% liability. That they left me for dead lying unconscious for 30 minutes, meant that they narrowly avoided prison.

Heal fast, and some basic cycle insurance from BC would not go amiss. They were very good with my accident.

If you've got home insurance you should already be covered for third party liability like this. Apologies if it's already been mentioned in the thread and you don't have it.

<devilsadvocate>Was the OP crossing the road? Or was the car crossing a footway?</devilsadvocate>

That's not devil's advocate that's just wrong. There are several clues as to why in the photo ..... Such as the tactile pavement. The double yellows on the road the kerbing.

That’s not devil’s advocate that’s just wrong. There are several clues as to why in the photo ….. Such as the tactile pavement. The double yellows on the road the kerbing.

Yes, there are construction features to give access, but the "road" covers building line to building line. That limit is shown by the bars on the ends of the double yellow lines.
The radiused part of the DY lines is on the footway to stop drivers parking and obstructing the footway while mistaking it for the carriageway. It isn't clear cut

It isn’t clear cut

your clutching at tenuous straws

 

Reflective practice. This is not about who is to blame

Why did the crash occur?
What could i have done to avoid it?
What can I do differently in future?

I do this after every near miss/ incident/ crash and adjust my riding accordingly. One thing i do is filter slowly and look down every side road and turning a d if there is a gap in queueing traffic look for a car going into that gap.

My opinion, drivers fault all day long.

Turning across a footway, might have a runner or a scooter moving at pace.

Legally maybe not, I have no idea, sorry.

Doesn't matter he's hit the side window.

Cars move quite quickly.
I can be fairly certain if the op was in a cycle lane, the collision would still happen.