-
Hmm, that crossing is further from the junction than I expected. I'm assuming (from your description) the cyclist was coming from left to right as that streetview link shows.
[snip]
Given the distance of the crossing from the junction, you would assume that a car turning in (from either direction) at an appropriate speed should have had plenty of time to see someone still crossing and to slow down or stop in order to let them finish crossing.
It depends on what you see as 'the junction'. In a design like this, the junction envelope really goes back at least to the island, even if the lines are drawn further out, so I'd say the crossing is actually pretty close to the junction. Gently-angled corners like this are very bad for cycling (whether inside or outside the carriageway) because of the inevitable high entry speeds drivers can maintain, and they inevitably contribute to according excessive priority to straight-on drivers on the main drag (even over right-turners). Needless to say, crossing movements are much harder to anticipate or prepare for at higher speeds, even though, judging by the StreetView image, there seems to be a good deal of pedestrian and cycling activity.
As you imply, excessive speed (for the conditions) is the most likely reason why this happened.
To answer your original question: No, I don't see how any cyclist could read that they have any form of priority to cross that junction to the shared use path on the far side. There just isn't the signage or road markings to indicate that.
Yes, it's a completely informal crossing. However, this is a clear case in which the law says that people crossing on foot have priority over turning drivers. As ever, the situation with respect to cycling is unclear. In any case, drivers should be appropriately cautious when turning based on the requirement to slow down for pedestrians alone.
However, if the car was going 20mph or under and only just clipped the front wheel of the bike then it would say to me that the cyclist knowingly started to try and cross the road even with the car approaching.
If the car was going 20mph or under and just clipped the rear wheel of the bike, then it's 100% the fault of the driver. There's too much distance and time not to have seen the cyclist that was already most of the way across and slowed down accordingly.
I think it's very unlikely that any rider would think they could get across that wide junction mouth if they had seen the driver approaching. I think there are only two possibilities in the case of low(ish) driver speed--either the rider just didn't see the car, or the driver didn't see the rider and started to speed up after turning. In many cases of crashes like this, riders on a parallel path have greater difficulty turning their head to look behind them, so even if the driver was going reasonably slowly, the rider may just not have seen them.
In between those two extremes you've got the blame accumulating for one side over the other with the benefit of the doubt going to the person crossing the road as the onus should be on the motorist to expect the unexpected and be in a position to stop.
Quite. Here I'd suspect that if the driver was a right-turner that they may have tried to squeeze through too narrow a gap in the oncoming traffic and may not have seen the rider.
All speculation, of course. There are many features that point to this conforming to a fairly classic crash pattern, but there's always more to know.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
Hmm, that crossing is further from the junction than I expected. I'm assuming (from your description) the cyclist was coming from left to right as that streetview link shows.
To answer your original question: No, I don't see how any cyclist could read that they have any form of priority to cross that junction to the shared use path on the far side. There just isn't the signage or road markings to indicate that.
That being said...
If the car was turning right they've just come from a 40mph limit into a 30mph limit and sight lines may have been obscured by non-turning traffic in the opposite lane. If they weren't able to see they should be appropriately cautious. If they were taking the corner too fast then they're a twat.
If the car was turning left they've been in a 30mph limit for a while and sight lines should have been good.
Given the distance of the crossing from the junction, you would assume that a car turning in (from either direction) at an appropriate speed should have had plenty of time to see someone still crossing and to slow down or stop in order to let them finish crossing.
So, in most likelihood, it's a going to be a vast majority of the fault of the motorist.
The only thing that would start to shift some of the blame onto the cyclist would require knowledge of the speed of impact of the car and the point of impact on the bicycle.
If the car is doing ~20mph (or more) at this point then there can be little argument that that kind of speed is inappropriate at that point (although this doesn't mean they're entirely at fault).
However, if the car was going 20mph or under and only just clipped the front wheel of the bike then it would say to me that the cyclist knowingly started to try and cross the road even with the car approaching.
If the car was going 20mph or under and just clipped the rear wheel of the bike, then it's 100% the fault of the driver. There's too much distance and time not to have seen the cyclist that was already most of the way across and slowed down accordingly.
In between those two extremes you've got the blame accumulating for one side over the other with the benefit of the doubt going to the person crossing the road as the onus should be on the motorist to expect the unexpected and be in a position to stop.