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

      • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 19:20
        +2

        No dashcam or witness that's willing to testify. Going to court to purely fight the infringement but not sure how ugly it can get.

        • Brodo Faggins on 09/12/2022 - 19:49

          If you have strong enough case & supportive evidence ad/or very good interpretation of road rules according to the magistrate, you might have a chance.

          Otherwise, it'll be based on he said / she said technicalities and it could go either way, or judge may split it 50/50.

          Results = either you get off the fine/demerits + nothing else from cyclist OR you cop fine/demerits + court fees + potential counter personal injury claim from cyclist etc

      • nwa on 23/01/2023 - 19:36

        moral of the story - get a dashcam.

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/12/2022 - 19:09
      -7

      Yeah this is why you shouldn't try and be a keyboard lawyer. Your interpretation of the rules is very wrong.

      • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 19:15
        +1

        In what sense? the cyclist is not a pedestrian and the cyclist was not crossing the terminating road. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    • oscargamer on 09/12/2022 - 19:17
      +2

      The ticket you have been given is not applicable to your incident, as you describe it.

      Who gave you the ticket? SAPol?

      Happy to discuss in messages

      EDIT - why did you not mention the cycle lane that the cyclist was in (as per your previous post)

      • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 19:23

        Yeah SAPol officer did. Post edited to include that detail about the cyclist lane

    • Loot N Plunder on 09/12/2022 - 19:25
      +4

      Drivers must not overtake and then turn left across a bicycle riders path without due care and consideration to the movement and safety of the rider
      A driver turning left through a break in a dividing strip must give way to any bicycle rider travelling in the bicycle lane.

      https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/23438/DPTI…

      Drivers are required to give a minimum of one metre when passing a cyclist where the speed limit is 60 km/h or less or 1.5 metres where the speed limit is over 60 km/h.
      BTW it is riders shoulder/elbow to car mirror

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

      Just pay the fine

      • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 19:43

        I never overtaken the cyclist.
        Also fine is regards to a different section of the law, in the offense codes the alleged offense is not for cutting off a cyclist but failing to give way. I couldn't find the Road Rule for 'Drivers must not overtake and then turn left across a bicycle riders path without due care and consideration to the movement and safety of the rider' but I could find the applicable expiation for the cyclist here

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/12/2022 - 21:09
          +2

          They're in a bicycle lane clown emoji

          Tell us the address of the intersection. I'm assuming there's a reason you've not revealed that.

        • thetrain on 09/12/2022 - 23:33
          +2

          This is equivalent to turning in front of a tram and then complaining when it hits you. You have to give way to a cyclist in the bicycle lane when you cross that lane

          • execwinter on 10/12/2022 - 00:56
            -2

            @thetrain: A tram and cyclist are 2 seperate and completely different road class entities. Cyclists in the bicycle still has to follow the road rules like all motorists on the road. But this post is about what part of the road rule I’ve breached that’s applicable to the expiation that’s been issued. I’m not fighting the cyclist here, it’s the expiation itself.

    • AndyC1 on 09/12/2022 - 19:28
      +3

      So what's changes since last post?

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/12/2022 - 19:33
        +8

        OP forgot to mention the cycling lane. Which changes my view that they're 97% in the wrong to 170% in the wrong.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 09/12/2022 - 19:39

          Ahaha, now they've edited their post to include the cycling lane. Hilarious.

      • execwinter on 09/12/2022 - 19:45

        Going to court! To fight the expiation that shouldn't be applicable to this incident!

    • JimmyF on 09/12/2022 - 21:52
      +6

      and collided with a cyclist.

      Dude you hit a cyclist….. There was even a bicycle land too! But somehow you want to blame them for it.

      • execwinter on 10/12/2022 - 00:47
        -2

        Post is about disputing the fine, not pointing right/wrong. That was covered in my previous post.

        • pegaxs on 10/12/2022 - 08:35
          +3

          Are you serious? To dispute the fine, you need to point out the right and wrong. It’s literally how you dispute the fine…

          I want you to go to court and plead not guilty and take it to trial. That way, it will cost you thousands when you lose. And maybe, just maybe, after losing thousands you will learn to not drive like a moron and keep and eye out for cyclists.

          What you are looking for is a loophole, and if you want a loophole, you need to see a real traffic lawyer.

        • JimmyF on 10/12/2022 - 08:52
          +2

          Post is about disputing the fine, not pointing right/wrong

          LOL to dispute the fine you need to prove you had been in the right. So hitting a cyclist who had been in their own bicycle lane at the time, is a pretty hard sell to the courts to claim you had been in the right.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 10/12/2022 - 10:53

          Has the cyclist sued yet for injury and damage to their bike? Or did you or your insurance company pay them to avoid it going legal?

    • star-ggg on 09/12/2022 - 23:36

      The thing with going to court is if the cyclist says they didn't see an indicator signal then you'll probably lose. You need a dashcam that captures the sound of your blinkers or the light refraction to have any hope

    • Tee Rex Arms on 10/12/2022 - 00:53

      Police pros will hand up another preferred charge to the bench at court if needed. Which you will be guilty of.

    • USER DC on 10/12/2022 - 01:50

      There's a good reason why blind spot mirrors exists.

    • Dorge on 10/12/2022 - 03:27
      +3

      I think your lucky the cyclist was not hurt.
      Run for the hills and dont look back. Drive better next time you menace.

    • payless69 on 10/12/2022 - 07:38
      -3

      SA, State full of greenies!
      Go to court and if you win, please tell us and you'll be a legend!

    • HelpMeiCantSee on 10/12/2022 - 10:44

      I take it by “expiation” instead of “fine” that you’re in SA? If so, you’re SOL my friend. SA doesnt let anyone off traffic infringements for any reason. Been there, done that. Not worth it sadly.

    • Bitplay33 on 10/12/2022 - 11:47
      +1

      About time you learnt to understand the road rules. A vehicle indicator lamp is exactly that, an indicator. It is not an automatic approval to turn in any direction. You can only turn if it is safe to do so. I don't buy your story at all, how can you have a collision on your left side and not be aware of a cyclist, unless you are not attentive. You certainly are a very entitled motorist.
      I'm a cyclist and I see you on the road every day.

    • Sleeqb7 on 10/12/2022 - 11:58

      Maybe I'm misremembering, but the scenario you're describing in this thread isn't the full story if we're to believe the previous thread.

      As such, presuming the first thread with more detail is the more accurate one, then you don't have a leg to stand on and you're going to be paying the increased penalty for challenging and failing.
      Save your time and money and pay the fine.

    • bargaino on 10/12/2022 - 14:15
      +1

      " Failing to give way at a T-intersection" is the charge. I imagine that is intended for a vehicle turning out of the terminating road.

      OP actually failed to give way when crossing another lane, a bike lane in this case. The closest I can find is "failed to give way when changing lanes".
      It may be arguable that he was given the wrong charge. But any other charge would be about $100 less at best, and still 3 demerits.

      Really not worth it, unless you think you can get the charge dropped on a technicality.

      google cache for list of offenses and fines, as SA police webserver is broken:

      https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NMXr2a…

      If you were being sued, you could certainly argue that the cyclist contributed to the accident, but that does not help avoid the fine. Lesson is to watch the wing mirror before turning.

    • Architectonic on 13/12/2022 - 19:16

      You are at fault, so the fine is quite reasonable.
      You failed to give way while crossing the bike lane (you must always give way when turning across another lane). By your own admission you failed to check your blind spot. within 10 seconds of turning.

  • kickling on 10/12/2022 - 17:25

    Let us know the date of hearing. I might come watch for curiosity.

    Also, offence provisions in Reg 73 make allowance/inclusion for this :

    Note 3—

    Rule 75(1)(d) requires a driver at a T-intersection to give way when crossing the continuing road to enter a road-related area or adjacent land.

    I would have thought that since you broke this, and it is provided for under Reg 73, that you would have no argument?

    Would like to know a solicitor's opinion. But my gut feeling is that the expiation will stand and then you will be liable for court fees.

    • execwinter on 10/12/2022 - 18:10

      Just had a look through 75(1)(d) and applies if your crossing the road. Examples provided in the rule description. I couldn't see any applications of that rule to apply to this scenario.
      https://ibb.co/q7WXNzt
      https://ibb.co/YNw6Y69

      • kickling on 11/12/2022 - 01:15

        Hmm.

        But look at 75(1)(b) which says you must give way to vehicles and pedestrians (which in SA, a bicycle is a vehicle).

        But in any case 75(1)(d) also mentions a continuing vehicle, which again is also a bike.

        Also 75(1)(d) doesn't sound like crossing a road to me. It is talking about your vehicle leaving/moving off from an intersection, and you requiring to give way.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 12/12/2022 - 16:21
          +1

          75(1)(b) which says you must give way to vehicles and pedestrians (which in SA, a bicycle is a vehicle)

          In SA a bicycle is defined as a vehicle BUT unfortunately for OP in reference to their matter, in SA only, reference to a pedestrian includes a rider of a bicycle. And to quote Yoda - that is why they fail.

      • kickling on 11/12/2022 - 01:18

        Also on both examples, vehicle B is crossing a lane, which makes sense for vehicle B to be giving way. I gather that that is the spirit of the intention that can be applied to other scenarios.

  • kickling on 23/01/2023 - 10:20
    +2

    Soooo OP did you decide to file proceedings to go to court?

    • GOMOOTYPRO on 24/01/2023 - 11:24
      +1

      If I don't get closure on this one I'll cry :(

      • kickling on 23/03/2023 - 23:47

        I have a feeling that the OP decided to agree he was wrong…

  • Kremleen on 27/03/2023 - 14:45

    OP, please go to court! I want to see the judge throw the books at you for turning across a bicycle lane and hitting a cyclist.

    • kickling on 27/03/2023 - 22:51
      +1

      Do they still throw books?

      Maybe an eBook?

      • Kremleen on 28/03/2023 - 09:33

        A podcast will deliver more brain and ear damage for sure

        • kickling on 29/03/2023 - 00:02

          I sentence you to 300 hours of The Cycling Podcast with Mitch Docker … actually, that sounds pretty good

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join