Vehicle Collision with Bike - Who's at Fault?

Lexecwinter on 16/11/2022 - 22:44
Last edited 17/11/2022 - 09:16 by 1 other user

Hi, so just got into an accident with a bike rider (South Australia), and would like to find out who's at fault in this scenario:

I was queued up in traffic, and indicated to turn left about 15 seconds before making the turn, and as I approached the turn and started to turn in a bit, I hit the bike rider who was I presume wasn't paying attention and tried pass me just before I was turning (he was probably just 1 metre away from my cars boot just where the blind spot is) and made it up to the front left wheel arch of my vehicle before I hit him on a side on collision (his speed was at 20-25km/h and I was going around 5-10km/h when approaching the turn.

Photos for reference:
3D overview
2D overview
Idea of where the damage is, white being scratch mark and grey is a dent

From this booklet

"PASSING (OVERTAKING) VEHICLES ON THE LEFT
Whether you are riding in a marked bicycle lane or sharing a lane with a vehicle, a bicycle rider must not pass or overtake on the left of any vehicle that is giving a left change of direction signal and is turning left. A bicycle rider may pass or overtake a vehicle on the left when the vehicle is giving a left change of direction signal and is stationary or moving forward to turn left.
Once the vehicle begins turning left the rider must not ride past or overtake the vehicle on the left. A driver turning left through a break in a dividing strip must give way to any cyclist travelling in the bicycle lane. A dividing strip is a painted area or a raised structure, located between intersections, separating the bicycle lane from a marked lane. Drivers must not overtake a cyclist and then turn left in front of the cyclist’s path without due care and consideration to the movement and safety of the cyclist."

I've also read this blog, which talks about this a bit but doesn't really relate much to this scenario, so what do you guys think? Who's at fault?

Poll Options

  • 39
    Car is at fault
  • 66
    Cyclist is at fault
  • 9
    Both
Automotive

Comments

  • MS Paint on 16/11/2022 - 22:46
    +1

    Poll?

  • jv on 16/11/2022 - 22:49
    +2

    Vehicle Collision with Bike - Whos at Fault

    New Account…

    Is that you Dan ???

  • jv on 16/11/2022 - 22:51
    +5

    If you indicated you were turning left, the bike was required to give way, but they rarely do as they don't know the law… (in VIC anyway…)

    • execwinter on 16/11/2022 - 22:58
      +1

      I've indicated and started to turn but the collision was a side on collision so I was at the very beginning of my turn which knocked him off his bike. If he saw me indicating at least slow down to let me turn first rather than try to pass me where I cant see you coming. He was definitely not riding beside me when I was indicating for sure tho otherwise I would have seen him through my passenger side window.

      • jv on 16/11/2022 - 23:00
        +10

        I wouldn't worry about it…

        It's all part of Natural Selection…

      • Mokr on 16/11/2022 - 23:37
        +3

        This is where knowing the road rules versus knowing what most people do helps you

        Difference between being smart and being wise. Knowing tomato is a fruit and putting it in a fruit salad.

        I didn't know cyclists had to give way. I thought the bike lane was like another road lane.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 08:20
          +1

          Since a tomato is a fruit, then why all the hate for pineapple on pizza?

          • LuslecGrace on 18/11/2022 - 00:12

            @[Deactivated]: I like to see tomato as a vegetable and no one can change my mind about it. Since everything you put on pizza is either a vegetable or something else theres always never any pineapple or fruits in genral, want to know why?
            Because their sweet taste and texture would ruin the overall taste.

    • JoeBogan on 17/11/2022 - 06:15
      +2

      Oh wow JV an actual constructive comment, great job mate!

    • Anbaraen on 18/11/2022 - 14:14

      Incorrect, they cut off a bike lane by turning left. You need to do a check before you turn across a bike lane, same as if you cross a car lane.

      Imagine two cars on a three-lane road, with a car in the left lane and a car in the middle lane. Middle lane indicates to turn from the middle lane into the left lane, doesn't head check, then turns and runs into a car in the left lane.

      Who is at fault?

      • jv on 18/11/2022 - 14:15

        Who is at fault?

        cyclist.

  • Ughhh on 16/11/2022 - 23:01
    +5

    Regardless of who's at fault, as a driver who is changing their path by making a turn, you should have been aware of the rider approaching and predicted this scenario. Adjust your speed accordingly so you don't end up at the same location at the same time.
    Assume everyone is blind.

    • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 07:15
      +5

      The bike was going quite fast so would have been a long way behind OP. Depending what vehicles are behind OP the bike might not even have been visible in any mirror.

      This is different to when you are driving along and pass a bike, then immediately turn left while the bike wants to go straight ahead. In that circumstance you know the bike is there because you're going faster than it and passed it, so should know to wait and let the bike go straight ahead before making your turn. But in this case the bike is going much faster than the OP who was queued up in traffic, so OP never had a chance to see the bike.

  • AustriaBargain on 16/11/2022 - 23:05
    +4

    Did you check your mirror/blind spot? I don't know if it matters if you have the right of way, but did you?

    • execwinter on 16/11/2022 - 23:13
      -1

      Always tend to check mirror and blindspot as I indicate to turn but in this case it was about 10-15seconds before I actually turned so I didn't see him coming, also car has blindspot monitoring but didn't pickup anything I suppose because it was a bike and not a car.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/11/2022 - 23:45
        +11

        shoulder check on every turn boiii

      • freefall101 on 17/11/2022 - 00:35
        +8

        You probably should start checking when you turn, not just when you indicate. Putting on your indicator doesn't somehow resolve you of all responsibility anymore (even though you were possibly in the right in this situation).

        What's the point of checking when you indicate but not any time after that? Are you going to not turn on your indicator if someone is there?

      • jjjaar on 17/11/2022 - 01:46
        +7

        so I didn't see him coming

        So you didn’t properly make sure the road was clear? Even if we had enough evidence to say with 100% certainty that you were not at fault, that’s very unsafe driving.

        You should always know what is around you on the road, and should always aim to avoid crashes. Assume everyone is going to get in your way.

        I hit the bike rider who was I presume wasn't paying attention

        If you were paying attention, why did you not do anything to avoid the crash? (I’m assuming you didn’t, otherwise you’d have included it in your detailed post).

        https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/driving-and-transport/roads-and…

        When crossing or turning into a bicycle lane, drivers can only travel in the lane for 50 metres and must watch for and give way to bicycle riders.

        You failed to watch for and give way to bicycle riders

        • execwinter on 17/11/2022 - 22:37
          -3

          If you were paying attention, why did you not do anything to avoid the crash? (I’m assuming you didn’t, otherwise you’d have included it in your detailed post).

          I didn't see him coming at all from behind so I couldn't do anything to avoid the crash, I didn't overtake him in any point before the turn. This was in rush hour traffic.

          You failed to watch for and give way to bicycle riders

          I think that most people don't travel on the bicycle lane and turn when they get to the intersection or the turning point would be pretty tight, this maneuver wouldn't really be feasible for vans or buses either due to their length. But yeah I try to block the bike lane when I'm queuing to turn in crawling traffic now to prevent these kinda incidents.

          • jjjaar on 17/11/2022 - 23:22

            @execwinter:

            I think that most people don't travel on the bicycle lane

            It also said “when crossing”, which is what you did.

          • Euphemistic on 18/11/2022 - 06:07
            +2

            @execwinter:

            But yeah I try to block the bike lane when I'm queuing to turn in crawling traffic now to prevent these kinda incidents.

            Don’t block the lane. Just be more aware of cyclists. Look properly and move more cautiously. Blocking the lane while waiting to turn is selfish. Moving into the lane while moving at travel speeds is what you are meant to do. This allows extra time for a cyclist to see you preparing to turn left and take appropriate action.

  • kickling on 16/11/2022 - 23:31
    +4

    Contentious. I was caught in a very similar accident (me on bike) just passing through Vic Square. I was riding next to the car and then he turned left into me all of a sudden. In my case it was obvious that the driver was at fault.

    1) You say "tried pass me just before I was turning". This means you were waiting/moving forward to turn left? So then the cyclist was allowed to pass. Perhaps this was just unlucky timing where you both were right and wrong at the same time. But if you were not already turning, and the cyclist was at your boot already (even if you didn't see him/her) then the cyclist has right of way.

    2) When the bike lane changes to a dotted line, is that a "break in a dividing strip"? I honestly don't know. It looks like it is there to show that you can cross the dotted lines as opposed to solid line, but I don't know what is an example of "break in a dividing strip". Edit : I think it means the no-access bits in the middle of roads like nature strips…

    I assume no dash cam?

    • execwinter on 16/11/2022 - 23:49

      I was moving forward to turn left, cyclist may have been 1 meter away from my boot as I was moving forward, and made it to front wheel arch before I hit him side on because I had committed to turn. If I was already turning, the cyclist would have T-boned me but that wasn't the type of collision that happened.

      No dash cam unfortunately.

      • Euphemistic on 17/11/2022 - 00:03
        +11

        Don’t say was only 1m away unless you can prove it. Humans are pretty bad at guessing distances between moving objects. It may have been ‘very close’.

        At 20km/h the bike will be moving around 5m per second. That’s a car length every second. That’s pretty quick and not enough time to react and stop from 1m away.

        The cyclist may not have seen your indicator if it was obscured by other queued traffic and if so only reacted to your vehicle moving - ie not until too late.

        If there was a bicycle lane in that place you failed to give way, indicator or not.

        • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 07:23
          -1

          Moving at that speed the bike was probably not visible 2 seconds before the turn. Could easily have reached OP between the blindspot check and OP turning head back to look where they are going. You can't drive while constantly looking over your shoulder, you have to look where you are going occasionally.

    • Euphemistic on 16/11/2022 - 23:51
      +7

      Agree, contentious. I wasn’t there and we only have OPs account of the situation which doesn’t provide much information. Was the cyclist in a bike lane, on the shoulder or lane splitting up the left of the traffic against the kerb or between parked cars and queued traffic? Was the traffic queue moving or just started moving as the cyclist came past?

      As a cyclist, I’ve been almost ‘left hooked’ a few times. Drivers pass because they can’t stand to be behind a ‘slow cyclist’ then suddenly turn left across my path not realising just how fast I’m actually going.

      As a driver I’ve been caught a few times by cyclists riding where they shouldn’t. eg alongside a car about to turn.

      As a cyclist I’m extra cautious of drivers turning left from a queue of traffic and will prefer to lane split to the right of the traffic queue (between two rows of cars rather than on the shoulder)

      As a driver I try to be extra aware of cyclists, especially if I’m turningn across a bike lane.

      • execwinter on 17/11/2022 - 00:02
        +1
        1. Yes the cyclist was in a bike lane, idea of the turn is in photo 1.
        2. the traffic queue was moving and the cyclist was not next to me during this time, or at the moment of indicating either, nor was he visible on my side mirror. Traffic was backed up pretty far behind me as well.
        3. I didn't pass the cyclist.
        • Euphemistic on 17/11/2022 - 00:05
          +9

          If the cyclist was in a bike lane, you failed to give way. You are at fault indicator or not.

          • execwinter on 17/11/2022 - 00:22
            +1

            @Euphemistic: Could I get your thoughts on this article's interpretation then:
            https://rideonmagazine.com.au/overtaking-on-the-left/
            https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/r/austr… (RR149)

            "At an intersection

            Whether there’s a bike lane or not, bike riders are required to keep left. This means the rider may be to the left of a motorist at an intersection at which the motorist wants to turn left. This includes when a bike lane peters out before the intersection. [Fig 2] The two parties need to negotiate who will give way to whom, with guidance from the road rule that states that if any part of a vehicle in front, the other party must give way. [RR149]

            In practice, if the rider is ahead of the driver, the driver will most likely give way. If the rider is behind the driver, the rider should give way but the motorist may give way to them. If the rider is behind the end of the motor vehicle, they should expect to give way and should call out “Stopping” to alert the riders behind them. However, each instance of this situation is negotiated by the parties involved and the prudent rider will be ready to give way or to move through and clear of the situation."

            • kickling on 17/11/2022 - 00:59
              +3

              @execwinter: Also this bit in the article :

              Road rule 148A does provide help as it makes it is clear that drivers must give way to cyclists already in a lane when the driver is moving from the right to the left of a lane.

              But all these points aside, you'd have to prove that you were turning (however you want to define the action of turning) before the cyclist began to make the pass.

              Again. Contentious without proof, as it sounds like this all happened quickly and unluckily at the same time. So both could be at fault (or not).

              But also just want to simply clarify for further understanding, what you said above :

              "If I was already turning" (If? So were you not turning?)

              "the cyclist would have T-boned me but that wasn't the type of collision that happened" (so no T-bone = no turning?)

            • ThithLord on 17/11/2022 - 09:42

              @execwinter: By your description of events and interpreting those road rules, I'd say Bicyclist at fault. Just unlucky.

              Are you and the cyclist in loggerheads or you're just curious?

          • Porker on 17/11/2022 - 00:40

            @Euphemistic: Hard to say if it's a bike lane or not - using OPs 3D image as reference.

            It's definitely delineated to suggest where cyclists should ride, but legally (at least in Victoria) cars can drive and park in that area of bike line marking, provided they are obeying other applicable road rules.

            Eg. Cars can park in that lane provided they're not blocking the intersection.

            • kickling on 17/11/2022 - 00:47
              +1

              @Porker: In SA it is a bike lane at all times unless specifically sign posted to say what times.

              • resisting the urge on 17/11/2022 - 01:27
                +2

                @kickling: Where bike lanes are delineated, bicycles usually have right of way. I don't drive in SA so have no idea what the rules are there.

                But it seems most clear that the OP failed to comply with the bit "A driver turning left through a break in a dividing strip must give way to any cyclist travelling in the bicycle lane"

                As drivers we are supposed to be watching before proceeding, and as we proceed. If it was a bus lane we'd have no trouble giving way to a taxi coming up on the inside. A paramedic on a motorbike would be at risk without lights or siren on. A pushbike… or a ebike… a scooter… yea, evolution does take over.

                St00pid govs set these things up and don't co-ordinate to educate the great unwary. We simply aren't expecting to be overtaken on the left by something small and fast, but in many ways we logically must learn to now the bike lanes are there. And it's an accident waiting to happen as Oz roads are so cheaply designed and constructed.

                • kickling on 17/11/2022 - 08:28

                  @resisting the urge: Yes. You're right. And I totally missed the point about being in the bike lane like someone below suggested. What the article above talks about is when the bike lane ends, then you have to think about passing/overtaking.

                  I do remember now after my report to the police after my own accident, them saying that the bike lane is still a traffic lane and the driver should give way.

                  • resisting the urge on 18/11/2022 - 10:55

                    @kickling: And with everyone traditionally conditioned to give way to full-sized traffic lanes, simply adding in these mini-lanes that appear to drivers to be footpath infrastructure more than a road, in many cases is downright dangerous. As cyclists and drivers we're all being made less safe by space-constrained road modifications stemming from the same poor design principles we've been putting into land and road infrastructure since we first began laying tarmac on top of dirt.

      • kickling on 17/11/2022 - 00:36
        +2

        Yup. Agree… Also looking into windows to avoid getting doored.

  • tsunamisurfer on 17/11/2022 - 01:05
    +6

    I am a regular cyclist.

    I hope when you got out of the car you checked the damage to your paint before going to him.

    • knobbs on 17/11/2022 - 09:35

      I am a regular driver.

      I hope when you got out of the car you checked the damage to your paint before going to him.

  • brotherfranciz on 17/11/2022 - 05:58
    +6

    I am wary of this post as we're only getting your account of what happened:

    The only thing we can really rely on in your account is the location of the impact to your car at the front side bumper/wheel arch.

    I hit the bike rider who was I presume wasn't paying attention and tried pass me just before I was turning

    Statements like this sounds like a classic example of victim-blaming: "I had my indicator on for 15 seconds!"; "The cyclist came out of nowhere!"; "The cyclist rode into me!"; etc.

    he was probably just 1 meter away from my cars boot just where the blind spot is

    So you didn't do a head check to check your blind spot then.

    Indicating for 15 seconds is an odd statement - indicating does not give you the right of way, no matter how long the indicator is on for. You should do your head check before initiating your turn.

    If you hit the cyclist with your front side bumper/wheel arch, then that seems to indicate the cyclist had the right of way and that you didn't do a head check before turning.

    • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 07:28
      +2

      So you didn't do a head check to check your blind spot then

      It takes a moment after checking your blindspot to turn your head back to look where you are going, start turning your wheel, etc. The bike was travelling at 5m/s so had time to move a great distance between OP checking the blindspot and starting to move.

      • md333 on 17/11/2022 - 20:25

        In that case would have already seen the cyclist in the mirrors before doing the head check.

        • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 21:48

          How? There are lots of cars behind you, all at different horizontal offsets and heights. Probably can't see more than 10 meters back into the bike lane.

  • ginormousgiraffe on 17/11/2022 - 07:29
    +17

    You've said he was in a bike lane. In that case he wasn't overtaking on your left, he was staying in his lane and you attempted to turn through his lane. You are at fault. If there was no bike lane, the cyclist would have been at fault.

    • kickling on 17/11/2022 - 08:18
      +1

      Actually, this is a good point. I think you may be right.

  • iamherenow on 17/11/2022 - 07:34
    +2

    and started to turn in abit, I hit the bike rider who was I presume wasn't paying attention

    haha rather than make a presumption about what the bike rider was doing, you could have stated that you weren't paying attention.

    What I found (for separated lanes, but still seems relevant):

    A bike rider must not pass or overtake
    on the left of any vehicle that is
    indicating to turn left and turning. A
    bike rider may pass or overtake a
    vehicle on the left when the vehicle is
    indicating to turn left but is stationary.

    https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/490883/DPT…

    If you were stationary, it's your fault. You stated "I was queued up in traffic", so I presume stationary at the corner waiting for your turn to go around the corner.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2022 - 08:09

      You're misinterpreting it that clause. If OP was moving, they are no longer stationary.

      • iamherenow on 17/11/2022 - 08:11

        If OP was moving, they are no longer stationary.

        I figured that!

        It takes time to overtake.

    • execwinter on 17/11/2022 - 22:52

      Well I was moving at around 5-10km/h approaching the turn and went go turn as soon as I could but the moment I turn I hit that bike rider. Seems like bike rider thought it was okay to try to pass me even though I can't see him coming up from behind. Now the clause indicating to turn left and turning well I'm not sure at what point it is considered actually turning, is it when the front wheel is on the bicycle lane or when your already moving up for the turn?

      • Euphemistic on 18/11/2022 - 06:11

        Face it. You failed to see the cyclist before you turned. Don’t take it as a personal affront, the cyclist either misjudged the situation or simply failed to see your indicator. Cyclist made a mistake too.

        Take it as a learning experience and next time look more carefully before turning across a bicycle lane. You don’t want to hit anyone any more than they want to hit you.

  • kolorijo on 17/11/2022 - 07:38
    +2

    OP, get a dashcam, front and rear preferrably.

  • Krankite on 17/11/2022 - 08:35

    Need an option that the car was at fault but the cyclist was an idiot. It's pretty clear the cyclist was overtaking you while you were preparing to turn and then you failed to give way. Only thing to be said in your defense I have to question any cyclist that would over take a car in this situation without getting some kind of soft signal that the driver had seen them. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong but road safety includes being aware of when other road users may be about to do something silly.

  • playerzer2 on 17/11/2022 - 09:14
    +2

    "Drivers must not overtake a cyclist and then turn left in front
    of the cyclist’s path without due care and consideration to the
    movement and safety of the cyclist."

    Did you do this, OP?

    • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 09:58

      No, they mentioned in other comments that they never passed the cyclist and they were queued at an intersection

  • pegaxs on 17/11/2022 - 09:25
    +2

    50/50. Both at fault.

    OP because crossing over a marked lane without giving way to vehicles already in that lane (SRR: 148(1))

    Bike rider because don't overtake on the left of turning vehicle (SARR: 141(2))

    What OP should have done was merged into the bike lane well before the intersection (up to 50m before) as allowed by SARR: 158(1)(a), and made the turn from the far left of the road as outlined in SARR: 27(1).

    But, in saying all this… I have a feeling that if we asked the bike rider, we would get a totally different version of how the events unfolded…

    • Euphemistic on 17/11/2022 - 09:50
      +2

      I’m guessing both rider and driver would say ‘came out of nowhere’.

      It’s a dangerous situation having left turning motorised traffic turning across bicycle traffic, especially where the motorised traffic is likely to be queued and stopped.

      • bobbified on 18/11/2022 - 11:19

        It's funny because for the lane filtering rules for motorcyclists, they specifically don't allow filtering in the left lane between the kerb and vehicles for this particular [safety] reason.

        Yet, that's exactly where they put bike lanes and even without the bike lane, plenty of cyclists still put themselves in that vulnerable position. There's no rules against it, but it's better to be "alive" than "right, but dead".

        • Euphemistic on 18/11/2022 - 16:09

          On road bike lanes are not a good idea. Aside from the left turn thing they often put you between parked cars and traffic and an open door will completely block the bike lane, let alone hitting a door and being thrown into moving traffic.

          On road bike lanes are a cheap but dangerous option to improve cycle routes.

    • Baysew on 17/11/2022 - 10:19

      I have noticed (and do it myself) of staying completely out of bike lanes, when in fact probably safer to get into it earlier to make a turn.

      I wonder if the outcome may have been different if it was a Bus in a Bus Lane?

      Also, is there some sort of insurance claim involved, for a scratched car and mangled bike?

      • pegaxs on 17/11/2022 - 11:13

        …staying completely out of bike lanes

        Check your states laws, but you can travel in a "special purpose lane" (truck/bus/transit/bike/etc lane) for a set distance (about 50m) IF you are doing 1 of about 4 or 5 things, such as, turning, avoiding a vehicle turning, to enter road related area, to make an emergency stop, avoiding an obstacle, etc. (In most states it will be RR: 158.)

        I wonder if the outcome may have been different if it was a Bus in a Bus Lane?

        Yes, the bang when they hit would have been much louder. And, again, it depends on the state, as for example, NSW has an extra sub-rule that prohibits drivers in bus lanes at all. (NSWRR: 158(1-1))

      • execwinter on 17/11/2022 - 23:30

        There wasn't any damages on the bike, but a big scratch and dent on my car tho. I only have Third Party which doesn't help with any of the damages in my case and I reckon it'd be pretty hard to win a small claims court case for the damages on my car (around 2k of damage) chances of winning and the costs involved may not be worth pursing this route.
        Cyclist ended up with injuries from falling off, and was taken by ambulance, possible that cyclist could come after me for medical costs?

        • kickling on 18/11/2022 - 00:15

          Kind of, through means of insurance you may be pursued (if he got your rego) as this is what your CTP covers you for. Whether or not your insurer then pursues you is their choice.

          They would/should have made a police report as well, at least for the accident statistic and is required first anyway before they're making any insurance claim.

          Yes. Not worth going to small claims court. Don't think you'd win if you're at fault anyway.

  • bobbified on 17/11/2022 - 09:28

    From the location of the damage to your car, the cyclist was either moving quite fast from behind (which would make this collision their fault) or he was already alongside you when you commenced the turn (which would make it your fault). Since there's no way to tell, there's no point arguing here.

  • jumpypotato53 on 17/11/2022 - 09:34

    A driver turning left through a break in a dividing strip must give way to any cyclist travelling in the bicycle lane.

    • pegaxs on 17/11/2022 - 09:50

      While it sounds good, the driver is not driving through a dividing strip.

      • jumpypotato53 on 17/11/2022 - 13:36

        What do you call these white marks on the floor? https://imgbb.com/286fcLp

        • kickling on 17/11/2022 - 14:01

          I think dividing strip means the bit in the middle / sides of the road that you don't drive on, like verge or nature strip?

        • pegaxs on 17/11/2022 - 14:31
          +1

          What do you call these white marks on the floor

          "Road Marking" or "Marked Lane" as defined in the Road Rules "Dictionary" section.

          A "Dividing Strip" is defined as;

          dividing strip means an area or structure that divides a road lengthways, but does not include a nature strip, bicycle path, footpath or shared path.

          An "area" or "structure" that is not a "bicycle path".

          This is a dividing strip…

          This is also a dividing strip.

          This also is a dividing strip.

          This is NOT a dividing strip… It is a bike lane. It is in and of itself, its own lane.

  • leiiv on 17/11/2022 - 09:53
    +1

    I think there is something wrong with bike lane on the left side at an intersection where cars need to cut the way to turn left. It's accident waiting to happen.
    But in any case, it is an unsignalled intersection. If a pedestrian crossing the road hit you when you make a turn, would you blame them as well?

  • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 10:00
    -3

    There should be speed limits on cyclists, for these areas where going too fast means a car can't possibly see you in time to give way to you. Then if the cyclist is travelling slowly enough in this situation, it would be the driver's fault, but if they are going so fast that the driver didn't get a chance to see them, it's the cyclist's fault

    • Bogusjimmy on 17/11/2022 - 14:30
      +1

      "Bicycle riders must obey the same speed limits as drivers of motor vehicles."

      http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/transport-travel-and-motoring/cy…

      • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 14:49
        -2

        I think there needs to be something separate for cyclists though as this situation shows. Cars are all equally limited by the other cars on the road, none of them can surprise another car by suddenly travelling really fast when they're all next to each other, but a cyclist can since they aren't limited by travelling in car lanes. If you had a car going 50 km/hr on a 100 km/hr highway that would be equally a hazard as someone coming around a bend of a 50 km/hr road at 100 km/hr. The car travelling at 50 can't reasonably expect a car that it can't see yet, to be close enough to cause an accident in a particular amount of time. They are expecting other cars to be travelling around 45-60 km/hr.

        • iamherenow on 17/11/2022 - 15:29
          +1

          So cars can fly past a bike at 100kph, but if a car slows down the bike needs to slow down too?

          • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 15:46

            @iamherenow: Cars need to provide I think it's 2m of space. If a car is going 100km/hr they aren't going to be turning so there's no question of a collision. If a car is going at all faster than the cyclist they will be overtaking them and know that they're there, so when they want to turn they will be able to wait for the cyclist to travel past them before turning. This is for when cars are travelling very slowly or stopped, and can't be reasonably expecting something to appear next to them that couldn't be seen one second ago. It should be common sense for a cyclist to travel a little slower in this circumstance (as well as turning, a car might open its door, you want to give them a chance to see you coming so they can wait for you to go past before opening the door), but unfortunately common sense is rarely common.

            • iamherenow on 17/11/2022 - 15:56
              +1

              @Quantumcat: Cyclists still get run down by cars regularly.

              I think the issue is more road design. When they put lanes in like this one they are asking for trouble.

              • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 15:58

                @iamherenow: True but I don't know what the solution could be, except to only allow cyclists to cross at pedestrian crossing areas, which would be unpopular. If they think of these things when building the road they could add cyclist underpasses.

                • iamherenow on 17/11/2022 - 16:08
                  +2

                  @Quantumcat: I have paths near me where they put signs saying cyclists must give way to cars. Most of the time the cyclist can go straight through at speed, but it puts the responsibility on the cyclist to be careful.

                  • Quantumcat on 17/11/2022 - 16:19

                    @iamherenow: That's a good idea, especially at intersections where the visibility is known to be poor or there have been collisions in the past

                    • Euphemistic on 18/11/2022 - 06:14
                      +1

                      @Quantumcat: There’s already a rule in place for these intersections. The problem is that there’s aren’t enough cyclists for motorists to be more aware of them. Motorists generally don’t expect cyclists and therefore don’t take appropriate care.

                • jjjaar on 17/11/2022 - 19:47
                  +3

                  @Quantumcat: Over/underpasses are generally not feasible as they require long lengths for ramps to be a safe gradient. If there are a lot of side streets it would never work.

                  But allowing cyclists to cross at pedestrian crossings is very common in cities that do offer safe bike infrastructure. It’s not necessarily sharing with pedestrians, but rather, adjacent to. Like so:

                  https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pedestrian_and_cyc…

                  Some other examples but at signalised intersections:

                  https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2020/09/24/east-m…

                  https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/the-case-for-protected-inter…

  • cnitsuj on 17/11/2022 - 12:11
    +2

    This is for Victoria
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH3bddtCU3Q

    • execwinter on 17/11/2022 - 23:23

      Well the bicycle lane wasn't that wide as the video shows it is, and I'm sure that you don't slow down to a complete stop when turning left if there ain't a pedestrian walking across the road or if there was a car in front. Also the bollards between the bike lane would definitely help make the bike lane an actual separate lane but when's the government going to start putting that in every intersection and make the bike lanes wider.

      My car was like this when I had impact with the cyclist, circled in the red is where the cyclist is at point of impact. Few seconds ago he would have been coming up from behind me around the blind spot area?

    • mrvaluepack on 09/12/2022 - 23:49

      The video is confusing as hell. Scenarios 1 & 2 look the same but completely opposite ruling/wording lol.

  • loropy9 on 17/11/2022 - 19:41

    Cyclists should be encouraged to ride on main roads, together with trucks and busses. It will lower the house prices and rents in the long run.

  • cheaplee on 17/11/2022 - 20:37
    +1

    If this bike/car interaction was viewed from a good angle at full speed I suspect it would be quite clear who should be giving way.

    However a car in a turning lane, with their indicator on trying to complete a turn, should never be expected to give way to vehicles behind them. This isn't clearly marked a turning lane, but the dashed bike lane makes it clear something about that bit of road is different.

    As a cyclist I feel the onus is on you to keep yourself safe. This is a very predictable outcome for the cyclist. I would be looking out for the cars that want to turn off, not just expecting them to see me and stop.

  • bargaino on 17/11/2022 - 23:26
    -1

    Here in WA, based on OPs account, I think the cyclist would be at fault.

    But in SA, the bike lane continues through the intersection. OP turned across the bike lane, which is the same as crossing a car or bus lane. You have to make sure it is clear.
    Cyclist may or may not have had time to stop and give way, but driver is definitely at fault under these circumstances. Your state may vary.

  • kator on 18/11/2022 - 11:47
    +2

    Western Australia Driver’s Handbook: Drive Safe (2022):
    Turning left: Being careful not to cut riders off when you are turning left. Do not turn in front of cyclist or motorcyclist - wait for them to ride past.
    This is just in the Handbook, not in the Traffic code.

    The painted bike lanes on the road are meant to be similar to bus lanes so drivers need to indicate and give way when crossing them.

    However, the road rules are not up to date yet.

    https://bikemelbourne.org/2021/10/road-rules-left-turning-ca…

  • Architectonic on 23/11/2022 - 14:48

    This is called a left hook collision. The car driver is most likely at fault given the description and the timing of the collision. Indicating alone is not enough if you are in stop-start traffic.

    The bike lane is legally a lane that you must give way to when turning across. The driver failed to check their blind spot and hence is at fault.

    • Euphemistic on 23/11/2022 - 15:19

      The bike lane is legally a lane

      While it’s true that a legal bike lane is a legal lane, unfortunately there aren’t a lot that meet the technical requirements of a bike lane. Sadly, councils don’t seem to set them up properly.

      As a driver, you should assume it’s a legal lane and give way accordingly. If you’re a cyclist you don’t legally have to use them either.

  • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 18:37
    Merged from Disputing Traffic Fine - Should I Go to Court?

    So recently I've been hit with a traffic expiation for a collision incident where I'm turning left from a continuing road into a terminating road and collided with a cyclist.
    This is the alleged offense.

    This is the incident except that instead of a pedestrian, it was a cyclist riding in a bike lane on the left side of the car that was hit. Cyclist apparently didn't see the indicators and I didn't see the Cyclist coming up from behind.
    Cyclists also have to adhere by section 141 and must giveway if approaching a vehicle turning left and is giving a left change of direction signal. But that's another story.

    Should I go to court over this fine given that this scenario falls out of the scope of the alleged expiable offense? There is nothing in section 73 that covers: "driver is turning left (except if the driver is using a slip lane) from the continuing road into the terminating road must give way to cyclists." It only covers pedestrians as defined by this and also the definition of what wheeled device is as defined here. Also additional rules apply to section 73 listed here but doesn't cover this particular scenario either.

    Anyone who has had similar experiences or any experience going to court over traffic expiation's explaining the process would help as well on what normally goes down and what the process is.

    • Bafranz on 09/12/2022 - 18:40
      +4

      just pay, cheaper in the long run

      • HeWhoKnows on 10/12/2022 - 07:43

        Up to you to decide OP
        It doesnt cost to go to court and tell the judge your story (see below)
        HINT: Keep it simple and make sure you have CLEAN DRIVING RECORD because that is what they will take into account more than anything.
        HOWEVER!!! Judge can either waiver fine, stay the fine or increase the fine

        So its your choice
        Not ours

        NB: You can plead "guilty with an excuse" if you think you are somewhat at fault but should be excused under the circumstances. That way you dont need a solicitor, it wont go to a hearing and the judge wont think you wasted the courts time

    • pegaxs on 09/12/2022 - 18:48
      +1

      Hell yeah! Go to court. Fight the man. Just make sure you plead not guilty.

      • Gervais fanboy on 09/12/2022 - 19:32

        I don’t get it, Op has two active accounts and uses both to post the same thing ?

        Op’s trolling us ?

        • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 19:52
          +3

          Different issue, related but not also not related that's why I just did another post instead. This one focuses on the technicality of the law and fighting the fine that's issued not about who should've given way or who was right/wrong.

        • spackbace on 09/12/2022 - 19:53
          +3

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/449980/nodes

          Same account, multiple posts

          • Gervais fanboy on 09/12/2022 - 20:06

            @spackbace: Ahh I saw the L badge next to that other post and I thought it must be a different account.

            Anyways, thanks.

    • Porker on 09/12/2022 - 19:05
      +1

      Motorist: I had my indicator on, cyclist should have given way

      Cyclist: Motorist did not have their indicator on, they illegally turned in front of me.

      If you go to court, unless there's dashcam or witness, then it'll likely be their word against your word. The only recourse that you may have is to say that the road rule that you were infringed for was the incorrect one, so should be dismissed. I haven't fully read the road rules you've provided, but you'll basically be arguing on a technicality rather than a demonstration of right-of-way.

      Example of above: If you receive a parking infringement, the infringement (at least for Vic) must state the offence and road rule breached. If you overstay timed parking and that's the intention of the fine, but the information on the infringement doesn't match, then Courts will likely rule in favour of the driver based on this type of technicality.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join