Hit by a cyclist. Who was at fault?

[XsQuiZiT]

I think the best way to explain this is with a diagram.


I was turning right when a cyclist rode across the road I was turning onto and hit the side of my car.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2uho7l3.jpg

At the time, he said it was his fault however there were no witnesses and now he has claimed that I turned after he proceeded to ride and has denied any wrong doing.

After some research, here are some facts:
- According to the council, the 'footpath' he was riding on (in the direction of oncoming traffic) is not a shared path.
- He is over 18 and therefore should be on the road where he is treated as a motorist. "Riders 12 years of age and over are not permitted to ride on a footpath"
- According to the flyer "Cycling and the law" (http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/AT_CYC_P_cycling_and_the_law.pdf) it states: "At path intersections you must signal your intention to turn, and give way to motor vehicles entering or exiting an intersecting road."

Not to mention he was riding without a helmet

Who was at fault? Has anyone been involved in a similar incident?

I'd appreciate any advice/assistance!

ps. I cycle myself so I'm not hopping on the lycra bashing wagon but it's annoying when someone doesn't take responsibility for something that they caused!

[skidkid]

In before lycra bashing...

He's at fault.

If he was a pedestrian , you would be at fault for failing to give way to a pedestrian - but as he was on a bike he should be on the road not the footpath.

I also cycle, and have seen a couple of similar incidents, never end too well.

[Bomber]

Well I guess it comes down to wether he is considered a pedestrian or not, not being a shared path would mean, to my understanding, the cyclist would be at fault.

[RGVFAST]

Cyclist is at fault unless he had a green signal/green man ( if one is present at that location)

Not wearing a helmet doesn't change who is responsible for an accident.

[XsQuiZiT]

There were no traffic signals.

At what point is he classified motorist rather than a pedestrian?

[PHIL]

the minute he got on a bike.pedestrians walk

[Lonewolf]

yeah cyclist at fault in this case.

They're usually in the wrong with any opinion with regards to road rules etc ;)

[ReaperSS]

on the footpath he is at fault full stop. You will find he will change his story to he was on the road after he chats to a few people then you will be at fault thats when you go around and break his nose

[stumps.]

I doubt he would be riding on the road into on coming traffic so you should be safe there.

[XsQuiZiT]

That's where the issue is, he was on the path, crossing the road at speed. He said I pulled out infront of him as he was already crossing the road.

Obviously now he won't want to be pay a cent for repairs and my insurance has said both of us 'contributed' to the accident.

Him for crashing into me.
Me for not giving way to a "pedestrian"

[Phyber]

Explain to them he is not a pedestrian I guess?

[Macca]

Unfortunately you are both at fault.

He is at fault for riding across the road. However they will class you at fault and if it goes to court you will be charged with failing to give way

The problem was he was actually on the road and whilst you were turning you have not given way to traffic (this part of it sucks).

[XsQuiZiT]

And that sucks because I could see him riding past the fence of the intersection so he hadn't even reached the road and without any witnesses there's no way to prove that he changed his story.

[Macca]

that is the shittest part. Have his details. go break his nose as already suggested

[huggy_b]

Lawn digs - you know its the best solution

[EVLO]

wouldn't the fact he ran into the side of your car show he failed to give way not you??

[NoOg_sTaR]

You do have a photo of the guy wearing no helmet, riding on a foot path. Even worst case if you have to pay excess. Surely you can get him some fines.

#instakarma

[Macca]

wouldn't the fact he ran into the side of your car show he failed to give way not you??

No

That would be like hitting a car that turned into your path. Are you at fault there

[Riggs]

Is he not supposed to turn his head and look for a car indicating to turn and give way? Whether you moved or not, your indicator is flashing and you have signaled to turn so he must give way?

[Trolley]

Is he not supposed to turn his head and look for a car indicating to turn and give way? Whether you moved or not, your indicator is flashing and you have signaled to turn so he must give way?

Exactly what I thought. He is not on foot, therefore cannot be considered a pedestrian to give way for. A footpath is not a continuous path when broken up by a road and as such he should be coming to a stop until it is safe to walk/cycle/crawl/dance across the street. The only time it would be a continual path with no obligation to stop, look, and listen is a crosswalk/zebra crossing.

edit: a friend's missus had a similar thing happen to her a few months ago. Coming out of the driveway of an apartment complex, a cyclist cannoned into the side of her car when riding on the footpath. Both parties vision was impaired by a brick wall, however due to the fact he shouldn't have been riding on the footpath he was judged to be completely at fault.

[Brett_J]

The Cyclist !

Jungle law Bitch!

[TheChad]

Not true. pedestrians always have right of way. However as stateda cyclist is nota pedestrian.

[R3N]

Incidents like these are increasing the need for dash cams

[sensei_]

Incidents like these are increasing the need for dash cams

definitely. people no longer take responsibility for their fuck ups, and insurance i have found will find any excuse to appoint blame to both parties. i got rear ended and QBE said they couldnt ascertain fault.

[Phyber]

I was surprised the first time I heard of the apportioning of blame during accidents. I guess it makes sense, but could get you shafted by your insurer easily.

[-Luke-]

Incidents like these are increasing the need for dash cams
Or cam set ups like this :

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5203778046_9605f7bf8e.jpg

Removes all doubt when this happens:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17njmag9eg5o2jpg/original.jpg:p

[_S9_]

Had the same thing happen to me once (minus the actual collision)

Cyclist skidded to a stop near my front fender, then had the nerve to abuse me for not giving way to him riding on the footpath.




Almost got out and went Nick D'Arcy on him.

[Macca]

Had the same thing happen to me once (minus the actual collision)

Cyclist skidded to a stop near my front fender, then had the nerve to abuse me for not giving way to him riding on the footpath.




Almost got out and went Nick D'Arcy on him.

Well if he is on an actual footpath you are in the wrong every single time

[S85FI]

Something I had to dig up for a mate earlier in the week... must be bike season.

Most of this will cover your question.

Unless there is a sign that states no bikes a foot path is ok. Footpath means an area that is open to the public that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by pedestrians; RTC 2000

Bicycle means a vehicle with 2 or more wheels that is built to be propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears (whether or not it has an auxiliary motor) — RTC 2000

Separated footpath means a length of footpath beginning at a “separated footpath” sign or a “separated footpath” road marking, and ending at the nearest of the following:

(a) an “end separated footpath” sign or an “end separated

footpath” road marking;

(b) a “no bicycles” sign, or a “no bicycles” road marking;

(c) a “bicycle path” sign or “bicycle path” road marking;

(d) a carriageway;

(e) the end of the path; RTC 2000



Vehicle has the same meaning as that term has in the Act, and, in Parts 4 to 11, inclusive and in Part 18 of these regulations, includes an animal driven or ridden but does not include a wheeled toy or wheeled recreational device; RTC 2000

vehicle includes —

(a) every conveyance, not being a train, vessel or aircraft, and every object capable of being propelled or drawn, on wheels or tracks, by any means; and

(b) where the context permits, an animal being driven or ridden; RTA 1974



"253 (4)

The driver of a vehicle driving on a path (except the rider of a bicycle) shall give way to all other persons, and to animals , on the path.

You need to demonstrate that the person did not comply with Regs and that is they were exceeding 10km/h and they did not use a warning bell.
So the person that hit you is classified as a vehicle on a path to which they are allowed to travel on. Unless there are signs erected that state a bicycle is not allowed to use the path then you must give way to the bicycle. In this instance it is your fault for not giving way.

However once the person was on the road they need to comply with the RTC 2000 and the ACT and should of done a Hook Turn - So you need to prove that they were on a road, going in the wrong direction and exceeding 10km/h and did not perform a hook turn.

If your drawing is how it happened then IMO their fault
Their fault.

[XsQuiZiT]

I really appreciate that!

My understanding:
The main factor is the fact that the path ends at a carriageway (road). Therefore, the moment he leaves the path to cross onto the road, he becomes a motorist. If he was on the road then he shouldn't have been going against oncoming traffic.

The rider was going straight so I'm not sure how a hook turn comes into play but I assume a hook turn is defined under RTC 28 (5) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s28.html for when the rider wishes to turn right.


I understand if I was turning into a driveway without giving way to a cyclist that it would be my fault but this is a break in the path, I'm going road to road.

[DISTRBD]

So from what I can see here I can just walk out onto the road and the motorist that hits me is in the wrong ?? If so then fuck i'm going to scam me a new fucking bicycle :P

[volt_bite]

If you survive, yes, possibly.

[XsQuiZiT]

RTC2000, s58 says I need to give way to pedestrians and vehicles when I'm entering land from a carriageway which is understandable. HOWEVER, according to s58 (c) when entering another carriageway I only need to give way to oncoming vehicles going straight ahead or turning left (into the carriageway I am entering)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s58.html


Further more, if I was travelling from the median strip to another carriage way or lane, Section 65 & 68 stipulates I need to give way to traffic already in the lane OR line of traffic.

The cyclist was neither.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s68.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rtc2000113/s65.html

[TurboHead]

Unless the path is designated as a shared path, riders over 12 are not permitted. Pedestrians (unless crossing under some form of traffic control) only have right of way against cars on roads when the cars are turning. A person on a bike is not a pedestrian. He was also riding against the flow of traffic..... Throw the book at this guy.

[XsQuiZiT]

A little update:

Spoke to the rep assessing liability. Seemed fairly clueless, had to look up definitions of pedestrians, path, vehicles etc because she didn't actually know and then rebutted every single part of the act I outlined and still deemed it my fault.

As we were in disagreeance, the claim was escalated to the team leader who reviewed the police report, my email statings facts and spoke to the other party. A decision was quickly made that I was not at fault and now the car is being repaired.

Thanks for the help everyone, especially ZZM5!

[S85FI]

Glad it worked out.

Thats case number 2 in a month I've helped someone out with a pushy mishap.

[SircatmaN]

Good to hear! So many turkeys on and around the roads these days. The other day I was on wellington st in the elft lane, I needed to be in the right because at the horseshoe bridge road works left lane must turn left and right must go straight.
I was indicating all the way down the road and everyone just kept speeding up, about 6-7 cars later (while we are moving) there is finally a gap and I started pulling into it then the taxi that was back a bit speeds right upto me and beeps at me. COULD YOU NOT SEE MY INDICATORS!?

Then today in Rockingham turning right at a set of lights into a dual lane road a guy was coming the other way turning left so I stop in the middle and wait for him and then he just slows down and stops at the lights. Wtf? So I pull into the right lane (Mind you he should be pulling into the left anyway) and then he pulls out behind me and beeps at me and pulls straight into the right lane.

Jesus christ what is wrong with people?

[sensei_]

Good to hear! So many turkeys on and around the roads these days. The other day I was on wellington st in the elft lane, I needed to be in the right because at the horseshoe bridge road works left lane must turn left and right must go straight.
I was indicating all the way down the road and everyone just kept speeding up, about 6-7 cars later (while we are moving) there is finally a gap and I started pulling into it then the taxi that was back a bit speeds right upto me and beeps at me. COULD YOU NOT SEE MY INDICATORS!?

happened to me a few weeks back to. only this was a lady driver. too many morons on the road who either have no clue or are just looking for trouble.

[ChrisGTR]

Then today in Rockingham


There's your problem