Scenario - RLJ taken out by a driver?

[aclivity]

Anyone got any interesting views on this? I've taken it from another post I've read online, also as it gets warmer the summer only cyclists are appearing (and riding like they are mental, IMHO).

So, usual ride to work - cyclist goes past you as you have stopped at the lights. Takes the red light option and gets mown down by a car / van / lorry. How would you react?

Personally, I would want to help the cyclist, but I feel I would have to offer support to the driver in case it went to court.

Views?

[TonyHetherington]

I'm surprised it's that much of a question - I'd have thought it quite obvious?

At the split second, help the guy who's injured (the cyclist).

In court/statements etc...you tell the truth, which was the cyclist jumped the red light and it was entirely his own fault.

[aclivity]

That's my view - however I am interested if the "other forum" I have asked have the same views?

[hondafanatic]

TonyHetherington said:

I'm surprised it's that much of a question - I'd have thought it quite obvious?

At the split second, help the guy who's injured (the cyclist).

In court/statements etc...you tell the truth, which was the cyclist jumped the red light and it was entirely his own fault.

^^^^ This.

i'm not sure what the other forum is, but are you expecting that people will say they'd leave an injured person on the road and walk on by?

[aclivity]

More about the driver being on the phone / not looking / etc.

[TonyHetherington]

Sounds like they're *trying* to apportion blame somewhere, rather than just where it should be placed?!

Seems a weird question to be honest. Cyclist jumped red light. Got hit by something that went through a green light.

We could argue back and forth about green meaning "go if clear" etc. all day, but ultimately it will always come down to the cyclist's fault (in those circumstances you've given)

[tobinen]

What's 'RLJ'?

[aclivity]

Red Light Jumper

[Foliage]

Weird question, Your own safety is your own responsibility, if you do something stupid like run a red light then or not use cycle paths and use a busy dual carriageway instead, then you're clearly not that sharp in the old common sense department. But that doesn't mean that you deserve to get injured or that people shouldn't offer you assistance if you do get injured. But its still your fault.

Edited by Foliage on Wednesday 20th May 10:23

[aclivity]

Foliage said:

Weird question, Your own safety is your own responsibility, if you do something stupid like run a red light

agree with this

Foliage said:

then or not use cycle paths and use a busy dual carriageway instead,

which is 100% legal? So why would it be

Foliage said:

still your fault.

[Foliage]

acclivity said:

Foliage said:

or not use cycle paths and use a busy dual carriageway instead,

which is 100% legal? So why would it be

What do you mean?

[Magic919]

Foliage said:

then your clearly not that sharp in the old common sense department.

Like the irony.

[aclivity]

Foliage said:

acclivity said:

Foliage said:

or not use cycle paths and use a busy dual carriageway instead,

which is 100% legal? So why would it be

What do you mean?

I mean "not using a cycle path" and "using a busy dial carriageway" is 100%, totally, in every way, legal.

[Foliage]

aclivity said:

Foliage said:

acclivity said:

Foliage said:

or not use cycle paths and use a busy dual carriageway instead,

which is 100% legal? So why would it be

What do you mean?

I mean "not using a cycle path" and "using a busy dial carriageway" is 100%, totally, in every way, legal.

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I said its your responsibility to keep yourself safe, I see cyclists on a dual carriageway near me all the time that has a cycle path, I don't think ohh that so illegal, I think ohh that's dangerous as a HGV goes past them at 50.

I don't have anything against cyclists, I do think councils should provide more safety for them, and segregate them from cars better & that in a lot of cases they should be allowed to use footpaths.

[Foliage]

Magic919 said:

Foliage said:

then your clearly not that sharp in the old common sense department.

I like the irony.

Fixed I think, thanks for pointing that out.

[yellowjack]

TonyHetherington said:

Sounds like they're *trying* to apportion blame somewhere, rather than just where it should be placed?!

Seems a weird question to be honest. Cyclist jumped red light. Got hit by something that went through a green light.

We could argue back and forth about green meaning "go if clear" etc. all day, but ultimately it will always come down to the cyclist's fault (in those circumstances you've given)

The whole thing about a Green Light actually meaning 'proceed, only if it is safe' is lost on many people, but it has to be balanced with the phrase "the way ahead was clear, and there was a reasonable expectation that it would remain clear". By which I mean that the car driver (in the OP's scenario) is likely to have seen cross traffic stop on their red light, and possibly even spotted the (cyclist) OP stopped at the red. If the driver proceeds after the light has gone to Green, and all visible cross traffic appears to have stopped, then any resulting collision is, IMHO, entirely the fault of the cyclist who failed to obey the traffic signal. There are degrees of fault, and a number of variables to take into account, such as whether the driver began to move at the first sign of an amber light, or even before 'his' light had changed at all (pre-empting the change). None of these variables would entirely excuse the 'red light jumping' cyclist from fault, but where both parties have in some way either broken the law, or failed to adhere to a safe system of vehicle operation, then the blame for any collision must, logically and legally, be split in some proportion between them.

As for the immediate action on witnessing such a collision? Summon assistance immediately (999), keep your head (don't rush blindly forward and get run over yourself), secure the safety of the casualty, by either removing any danger (ie: stop traffic) or removing the casualty from danger (less advisable in our increasingly litigious times). Then attempt first aid. If the Police attend, make yourself known to them, and provide a statement. Bare facts are best, leave your emotions out of it. Then let the courts, the lawyers or the insurers sort it all out.

[Zigster]

aclivity said:

More about the driver being on the phone / not looking / etc.

Do you mean that the cyclist jumped a red light and was hit by a driver who wasn't concentrating because (s)he was using a mobile phone?

[yellowjack]

Foliage said:

Magic919 said:

Foliage said:

then youryou're clearly not that sharp in the old common sense department.

I like the irony.

Fixed I think, thanks for pointing that out.

"you're" was correct in the first place. I suspect that the irony is now even stronger...

Foliage said:

I didn't say it wasn't legal, I said its your responsibility to keep yourself safe, I see cyclists on a dual carriageway near me all the time that has a cycle path, I don't think ohh that so illegal, I think ohh that's dangerous as a HGV goes past them at 50.

I don't have anything against cyclists, I do think councils should provide more safety for them, and segregate them from cars better & that in a lot of cases they should be allowed to use footpaths.

So you don't seem to have anything against cyclists, except perhaps the fact that they are even present on the public highway at all. You seem to be unaware of the Taylor v Goodwin judgement of 1879, and the fact that, since pre-Victorian days, the law (Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835) has specifically prohibited (when taken together with the 1879 case law) cycling on footways. It is far better to segregate cyclists from pedestrians than to segregate them from motor vehicles.

You say "its your responsibility to keep yourself safe". I strongly disagree. It is the legally established responsibility of ALL road users to ensure that they use the roads in a manner which does not endanger other road users. Yes, I have a degree of responsibility to ensure my own safety, but so does everybody else who shares the roads with me. It's one of the principal tenets of a civilised society, FFS! If all road users behaved properly, then we wouldn't need to call upon councils to "provide more safety for" cyclists, and the money spent on white elephant "cycling infrastructure" could be spent on making the roads a better place to be for EVERYONE. Budget cuts mean that councils cannot afford to both build cycle paths AND fix potholes. As both a cyclist and a driver, I know where I'd prefer the money to be spent

Edit to add: Yes, before anyone presses the point, I do think that cyclists should obey the law and stop at red lights, etc, and take appropriate steps to ensure their own safety. However. Staying off the carriageway is NOT an acceptable method for doing this.

Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 20th May 11:12

[aclivity]

Zigster said:

Do you mean that the cyclist jumped a red light and was hit by a driver who wasn't concentrating because (s)he was using a mobile phone?

Looks like it.

I don't think it matters though - I think crossing the line when the signal is red is the higher offence? MOST drivers don't seem to give you any attention anyway!

[yellowjack]

aclivity said:

Zigster said:

Do you mean that the cyclist jumped a red light and was hit by a driver who wasn't concentrating because (s)he was using a mobile phone?

Looks like it.

I don't think it matters though - I think crossing the line when the signal is red is the higher offence? MOST drivers don't seem to give you any attention anyway!

It does matter!!! Massively.

Fkwits who are involved in collisions caused by distractions of their own making ought to be burned at the stake. Seriously? "I don't think it matters though"??? What if it were a car or even a truck that ran the red light? Where would that leave the texting/talking driver? Such a vital new piece of evidence would massively sway the proportion of the blame for the collision toward the driver. For a start it is possible to run through a red light unintentionally, due to a moment's inattention, or not 'having your mind fully on the task of driving/riding', but, try as I might, I cannot begin to imagine a scenario in which I could ever *unintentionally* pick up a mobile 'phone to make/take a call or read/compose a text.