Cyclist Vs Car - Right of Way Question

[casdave]

In the highway code, the cyclist is instructed to dismount at most types of crossing and proceed on foot, however, this is not always the case, a cycle lane for example or a combined cycle/pedestrian path controlled by crossing lights would be an exception.

If you had struck the cyclist, then the cyclist might bear most of the responsibility, but do not take that for granted.

Drivers of all motor vehicles must give way to pedestrians, and cyclists, even if said persons are breaking the law.

There obviously limts to this, if some pedestrian/cyclist happens to move out in front 2 feet from your bumper without warning when you are driving along at 50mph, then you really didn’t have any options.

The police would investigate a pedestrian/cyclist collision with a motor vehicle and will decide wether you had reasonable time to stop, that the movement in front of you was reasonably predictable or not.

In your case, which amounted to a game of chicken, you had perfect sight of the cyclist, you could reasonably expect that person to move into the road (they didn’t in this case but it was reasonably forseeable that they might).

The police would probably do you for driving without due care and attention - it would be up to you to show in your defence that there was no other alternative, and for the police to show that there was something you could have done.There is every chance the cyclist would also be done for riding without due care and attention by the police too.

That’s for the criminal side fo the law, as for compensation, that’s rather differant, you had right of way, the cyclist did something stupid and any claim would be countered quite easily, you might even be able to make a claim from the cyclist if you got off with the ‘due care and attention’ charge.

It boils down to this, you do not have the right to collide your vehicle with any other person, or other vehicle merely because you have the right of way.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@NurseCarmen

As a regular bike commuter, could I yell this from the tops of buildings? When on a bike, you are a vehicle. If you want pedestrian laws to apply to you, get off and walk your bike. So simple, it’s silly, yet half of the cyclists out ther don’t get it (And the angry motorists take it out and me)

I’ll yell it at cyclists whizzing by my stopped car at stoplights, if you like.

I have NEVER ONCE seen a cyclist stop at a traffic signal, nor dismount to use a pedestrian crossing. A quick glance around, and they tootle right on through.

Actually I can sympathize with their plight. When cycling, kinetic energy has a much greater cost in the form of personal exertion. I can understand people wanting to cruise through the light instead of repeatingly getting into repeated sprinting contests with autos at light after light in heavy traffic. But if they want to keep crowing about “same road, same rules” then they need to behave. The problem is that a lot of these aren’t responsible commuters but just hippie kids bouncing between coffee shops without any clue what the rules really are.

[enipla]

The cyclist was wrong in three ways. Sounds arrogant too.

Riding on a sidewalk. Trying to cross a pedestrian crosswalk while riding.

Crossing against a light (you said you had the green)

People like that really piss me off.

[CookingWithGas]

Cites from Virginia state law, which of course, apply only in Virginia:

@WSS 346.24

(1) At an intersection or crosswalk where traffic is not controlled by traffic control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right–of–way to a pedestrian, or to a person riding a bicycle in a manner which is consistent with the safe use of the crosswalk by pedestrians, who is crossing the highway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

Note that this implies that it is legal to ride a bicycle through a crosswalk (to contradict some other posts above), and cars must yield to both pedestrians and cyclists at uncontrolled intersections.

However, the cyclist would have been held liable in Virginia in the same situation as the OP:

@WSS 346.24

(2) No pedestrian or bicyclist shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield.

[Evil_Captor]

As a cyclist, I always yield to cars if there’s ANY doubt due to my desire not to collide with them. Rights of way are nice, but I don’t want to be run over.

I also ride on the sidewalk a lot because experience riding on the road has convinced me I will be killed or injured in short order if I don’t.

[Telemark]

@Evil Captor

I also ride on the sidewalk a lot because experience riding on the road has convinced me I will be killed or injured in short order if I don’t.

I have had the exact opposite experience. Riding on the sidewalk in the city is a sure guarantee of collisions and general nastiness. Riding on the roadway is the only legal and safe course of action.

[wendigo1974]

Ticker Yep, got them confused, I checked Gorilla Man’s Wiki hint and realised my mistake last night. I wasn’t going to add another “Just to Clarify” lessed it muddied the waters.

Casdave As I thought, lynchings all round by the local constabulary as expected.

Out of interest, the “Pelican” crossing I was approaching has a ramp to bring it just sub-level to the pavement. The jolt at a steady slow speed is discomforting enough. Hitting the ramp in an Emergency stop would not do the suspension or the car any good at all.

Would damaging my car due to the cyclist negligence warrant criminal damage due to the circumstances or is it just treated as my problem and the cyclist is only guilty of Undue Care and Attention.
Would the police agree the cyclist was liable to a civil action I might raise against the cyclist for the damage to my car. Having a nod from police is heck of alot better then a he said/she said scenario.

Just thinking of ways to punish idiots in the future, mind.