Leaving the scene of an ‘accident’

[Red 5]

Hi,

I have a question retaliated to leaving the scene of an incident.

A cyclist was riding moderately along a road approaching a junction.
There is a car waiting, which pulls out a few yards in front of the cyclist to turn right.
The cyclist dodges the car front of the car without contact, attempting to mount the curb, on their new unplanned trajectory.
They slip and fall off. Not hurt, but a bit of bike damage.

Did the driver just leave the scene of an accident, or did a cyclist just have an off, in a st happens kind of way?

I was neither party

[OriginalFDM]

Red 5 said:

Did the driver just leave the scene of an accident?

Yes

[Sa Calobra]

Yes. Pretty low behaviour too.

The hypothetical person should report the accident within 24hrs at a police station

[anonymous-user]

One step to this Injured cyclist 'deliberately' struck in York hit-and-run https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-y...

[HRL]

If you’re a pedestrian walking along the pavement and a car pulls up at the end of a road and edges forward you’d tend to wait until the car has gone before crossing the road rather than walking in front of it.

If you’re driving down the road and someone pulls out halfway across the road at a turning you’re forced to stop until they pull out. Probably while cursing them, especially if they have the nerve to thank you for inconveniencing you.

If you’re cycling down the road and someone edges out of a turning wouldn’t you just stop and wait for them to pull out? Why try mounting the pavement, which you shouldn’t be on anyway?

I get it’s a pain to start pedalling again from a standstill but it’s the safer option, no?

[Sa Calobra]

You could apply that thinking to motorbikes too using 'your' logic.

[HRL]

Sa Calobra said:

You could apply that thinking to motorbikes too using 'your' logic.

You could but a motorbike would be unlikely to mount the pavement through impatience.

[Sa Calobra]

On their new unplanned trajectory

I don't read into that impatient

[Pothole]

Red 5 said:

Hi,

I have a question retaliated to leaving the scene of an incident.

A cyclist was riding moderately along a road approaching a junction.
There is a car waiting, which pulls out a few yards in front of the cyclist to turn right.
The cyclist dodges the car front of the car without contact, attempting to mount the curb, on their new unplanned trajectory.
They slip and fall off. Not hurt, but a bit of bike damage.

Did the driver just leave the scene of an accident, or did a cyclist just have an off, in a st happens kind of way?

I was neither party

As described, it would seem the driver was not aware of the cyclist, so while they technically, perhaps, left the scene of an accident, I'm not sure that charge would hold water as they would have been unaware of the cyclist's falling off, too. There's a case for careless driving, though, IMHO.

Which side of the cyclist was the car turning from?

[HRL]

Sa Calobra said:

On their new unplanned trajectory

I don't read into that impatient

I get that and I’m really not trying to argue or troll. They could have stopped instead of gone around it was my point.

Possibly the same kind of cyclist that doesn’t stop at red lights either, and I realise that most do stop, but there are some that just don’t think the rules apply to bikes.

[Sa Calobra]

Car drivers also don't stop at red lights.

I'm more a cyclist than a driver.

[Pachydermus]

HRL said:

Sa Calobra said:

On their new unplanned trajectory

I don't read into that impatient

I get that and I’m really not trying to argue or troll. They could have stopped instead of gone around it was my point.

Possibly the same kind of cyclist that doesn’t stop at red lights either, and I realise that most do stop, but there are some that just don’t think the rules apply to bikes.

You don't always have time to stop. I had someone do this to me. Had I stopped it would have been in front of him so not exactly a great solution. Unfortunately I still came a cropper as I clipped a car that had stopped in traffic at the worst possible moment before I was able to get back into the bike lane.
Naturally the guy drove off - while looking at me so he knew exactly what had happened - but I got his numberplate and his insurance had no arguments about paying for the damage done (albeit not nearly enough given I still can't bend one of my fingers properly 10 years later).

Edit: come to think of it, I don't know why I even bothered to post a response to such blatant trolling. if "they could have stopped instead of gone around" then clearly there would never be any multi-vehicle crashes

Edited by Pachydermus on Thursday 28th May 19:43

[jimmy156]

I think this depends on timing, did...

a) The cyclist see the driver pull out, have time stop or try and go around, and chose to go around by going up onto the curb and then came off.

b) Car pulls out in front of cyclist who makes a split second decision not to crash, and ends up coming off his bike because of it.

A = car driver not at fault, but still should have stopped to check cyclist was okay
B = car driver at fault and left the scene of an accident he caused

[HRL]

jimmy156 said:

I think this depends on timing, did...

a) The cyclist see the driver pull out, have time stop or try and go around, and chose to go around by going up onto the curb and then came off.

b) Car pulls out infant of cyclist who makes a split second decision not to crash, and ends up coming off his bike because of it.

A = car driver not at fault, but still should have stopped to check cyclist was okay
B = car driver at fault and left the scene of an accident he caused

And that’s exactly how I should have put it.

You have to be very careful posting in any of the cycling threads on PH or people think you’re purposely being a dick.

[BenGismo]

Some of the replies are hilarious ^^^^ 10/10 for trolling

Red 5 said:

There is a car waiting, which pulls out a few yards in front of the cyclist to turn right.

If literally anyone pulls out a few yards ahead of a vehicle already on the road....they are at fault.

Driver didnt didnt see the cyclist and caused the accident. The cyclist had to take avoiding action. Fault is with the driver that pulled out.

A cyclist doing just 16mph is covering 8 yards a second... The car pulled out 0.25sec in front of him Not exactly adequate space that is it?.

Edited by BenGismo on Thursday 28th May 21:17

[Bacon Is Proof]

HRL said:

They could have stopped instead of gone around it was my point.

You don't know that.
Deceleration takes time, brakes do not stop you instantly.

[Zigster]

jimmy156 said:

I think this depends on timing, did...

a) The cyclist see the driver pull out, have time stop or try and go around, and chose to go around by going up onto the curb and then came off.

b) Car pulls out in front of cyclist who makes a split second decision not to crash, and ends up coming off his bike because of it.

A = car driver not at fault, but still should have stopped to check cyclist was okay
B = car driver at fault and left the scene of an accident he caused

I agree. It’s not clear from the OP which of these two scenarios happened, and I suspect people posting since then have assumed one or the other which has influenced whether they think the driver was in the wrong to leave the scene.

[HRL]

BenGismo said:

If literally anyone pulls out a few yards ahead of a vehicle already on the road....they are at fault.

Driver didnt didnt see the cyclist and caused the accident. The cyclist had to take avoiding action. Fault is with the driver that pulled out.

A cyclist doing just 16mph is covering 8 yards a second... The car pulled out 0.25sec in front of him Not exactly adequate space that is it?.

Edited by BenGismo on Thursday 28th May 21:17

Not trolling at all. I may have misread the OP’s original post but the way it read to me was that the car edged out into the road rather than just pulled out in front of the cyclist at the last minute.

Of course the driver would be in the wrong in both cases, but one is far worse than the other.

My question was whether or not it was completely avoidable if the cyclist did have time to stop, or whether he could have stopped but chose not to and came off when attempting to mount the pavement instead.

[yellowjack]

HRL said:

Sa Calobra said:

You could apply that thinking to motorbikes too using 'your' logic.

You could but a motorbike would be unlikely to mount the pavement through impatience.

Serious question. Are you actually retarded?

Do you not "get" the difference between impatience and self preservation collision avoidance?

'Cyclist' in this instance is no different to 'driver'. There is a set system of priorities at most junctions, communicated by a system of Statutory signs and road markings. To apply your logic, we'd all be driving around at 20mph everywhere, slowing every time there was a junction "just in case" someone pulled out without giving way as instructed.

In a situation where a vehicle edges out of a junction before it's clear for them to proceed, there is ALWAYS a chance that the driver will have not seen a cyclist, through poor observation and IMPATIENCE. Going around the front of such a vehicle is likely to get one squashed. So a cyclist established on, and merrily travelling along the priority route, has a reasonable expectation that traffic not yet established upon the route will give way as instructed. (The road is clear, and it is reasonable to assume it will remain clear). When the waiting driver commits the offence (code TS10 ), it may not be possible for the cyclist to stop safely in the remaining available road. So they steer a course to the rear of the offending vehicle, and physics kicks in. They cannot regain the main carriageway because the steering angle to do so is too extreme. The only option is to either complete a left turn (probably into the offside/oncoming traffic lane) or to "mount the curb".

Why the juddering fk do so many halfwits expect cyclists to adhere to a different set of traffic rules or scientific laws? How many "minor bumps" occur at junctions every day do we think? Car-to-car, and any combination of vans lorries and motorcycles. Why didn't all those drivers "just stop" to avoid colliding with the vehicle that pulled out in their path? Hmmm?

TL;DR? Obvious idiot is obvious.

[Red 5]

Pothole said:

As described, it would seem the driver was not aware of the cyclist, so while they technically, perhaps, left the scene of an accident, I'm not sure that charge would hold water as they would have been unaware of the cyclist's falling off, too. There's a case for careless driving, though, IMHO.

Which side of the cyclist was the car turning from?

The car was exiting a B road, onto a slightly wider B road, turning right from the nearside.
The fella just had time to do a comedy style leg out swerve to avoid being spread over the bonnet.

The car pulled out a few yards before he would have passed. Just time for an instinctive swerve.
He then found himself faced with the curb at an oblique angle.

Having put himself off balance, he wasn’t able to attempt any hop and the front wheel was just swept away.

More info....
The car did have windows down and clearly heard all the shouting and clattering.
The lady Volvo driver stopped briefly and shouted ‘sorry’ before driving off!

This is a local chap to me, who did get the plate and has now contacted the police.
My thoughts were that is was a case of leaving the scene, but he wasn’t sure and didn’t want to be a bother to the police etc!

It’s not a lot of damage luckily. Below insurance excess for sure.