Team time trialist awarded £55,000 after collision with 4x4 but court also says he was 50% to blame

SteppenHerring wrote:

The article says "unclassified" not "single track. A little googling indicates that this is probably the road https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.196358,-3.5639561,3a,75y,129.67h,60.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srC-w92pETLEUnSE3V4wcBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's not that narrow (I've chosen a bit with a car in the picture for scale).

The article says"there were ‘single track’ and ‘road narrows’ signs in both directions." I don't see those on the road you've linked to, although it seems a good candidate otherwise.

Was just wondering, thanks anyway.

John Smith wrote:

Interesting how many people call for equal treatment of cyclists when what they actually mean is cyclists being treated as more important, exactly what they accuse of happening with cars.

In this case both sides chose to go too fast, both sides chose not to give way on a narrow road. 50/50 seems fair. The cyclists were more vulnerable, which means that both the driver and them should act with a little more caution, which nither did. If cyclists want to be treated equally we can’t complain when we are.

With power comes responsibility, and more power means more responsibility.  The driver of a tank has more responsibility than the driver of a mobility scooter because they have more power to inflict damage, and the same levels of recklessness would have very different results.

The largest problem with road safety is that the people causing by far the biggest problems are least likely to suffer the consequences, while those causing only a tiny part of the problem are killed.  The law is supposed to protect the vulnerable, but it clearly fails to do so in this case.

Perhaps it is time that this principle is enshrined in law, and I'm sure the forthcoming inquiry will be reccommending this.  Must dash out and feed the pigs ready for the 0800 flight.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

It doesn't really matter what speed the vehicles were doing really. They could have been doing 100mph or 10mph, what matters was the space available. Even if the driver stopped the cyclist may have still ridden into him. 

No, the speed IS important because if stopped or at very slow speed they would have (would have even less feeble excuse) gone all the way over and thus there would have been more space and thus redued the chances of collision significantly. The driver actively chose not to and kept their foot in on a narrow lane taking up the vast majority of the road. The lane positioning is a consequence of not slowing down enough or coming to a halt, that action is as I said what jurists, the police and judges expect when confronting vulnerable road users and not to do so is classed at the very least as wanton and furious and if a death occured manslaughter.

So yeah, the speed really DOES matter both from a criminal POV and from a civil claim POV, except those in charge ignored it yet again.

mattsccm wrote:

Usual uninformed garbage above. Some one know nothing about time trials. You don't/cant stop or neutalise a bit of the course for one vehicle. Not how TTs work Marshals cannot stop traffic and cannot even flaf them down to wrn them.

Rural road. Quite concievable that those pot holes were a foot deep. Some by me are. Droppinga wheel into one has seriuous consequences.

50/50 sounds about right. After all its would have been much easier for the cyclist to give way. On rural roads we all give way for tractors. They are important. Recreational riding isn't.  i see that the rider had his head down, I do that in TTs as well but not where I cannot see a dead ceratin clear road.

Your comment highlighted is repugnant to natural justice and has no basis in law. All road users have equal right to use of the road (and equal responsiblity to other road users).

mattsccm wrote:

Usual uninformed garbage above. Some one know nothing about time trials. You don't/cant stop or neutalise a bit of the course for one vehicle. Not how TTs work Marshals cannot stop traffic and cannot even flaf them down to wrn them.

Rural road. Quite concievable that those pot holes were a foot deep. Some by me are. Droppinga wheel into one has seriuous consequences.

50/50 sounds about right. After all its would have been much easier for the cyclist to give way. On rural roads we all give way for tractors. They are important. Recreational riding isn't.  i see that the rider had his head down, I do that in TTs as well but not where I cannot see a dead ceratin clear road.

But the logic of your point about 'potholes' would seem to be that if two such drivers encountered each other, they'd have no option but to drive into each other head-on at speed.  If that's the case, then clearly they shouldn't be driving down such a road in the first place.

The driver could just have slowed down sufficiently to be able to cope with the potholes, or just stopped entirely.  Both were at fault, the cyclist really should have looked where he was going, but the driver was taking up greater road-space and creating a greater danger by virtue of having greater mass and width - ergo I don't agree it's exactly 50/50.

I really don't give a toss about judgments about whose journey is more 'important' - was the driver's boat really a vital national resource?  And I'm pretty sure most of the drivers making trips of less than 1 mile in London are not doing anything of world-shaking importance, so why don't they give all instantly way to me when I want to cross the road on foot, eh?

mattsccm wrote:

Usual uninformed garbage above. Some one know nothing about time trials. You don't/cant stop or neutalise a bit of the course for one vehicle. Not how TTs work Marshals cannot stop traffic and cannot even flaf them down to wrn them.

Rural road. Quite concievable that those pot holes were a foot deep. Some by me are. Droppinga wheel into one has seriuous consequences.

50/50 sounds about right. After all its would have been much easier for the cyclist to give way. On rural roads we all give way for tractors. They are important. Recreational riding isn't.  i see that the rider had his head down, I do that in TTs as well but not where I cannot see a dead ceratin clear road.

Agree with pretty much all of this. There are some total entitled bellends commenting on this article...on a rural road having a trailer wheel fall into a pothole could mean any one of a number of costly and potentially dangerous consequences. Furthermore, since the (it has to be said) fucking idiot cyclist didn't even look up, what difference would it have made of the fucking guy stopped? Some cyclists love to get on their soap boxes about drivers thinking they own the road, while completely ignoring the fact that plenty of cyclists seem to think everyone should move out of their way.

Mathemagician wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

Usual uninformed garbage above. Some one know nothing about time trials. You don't/cant stop or neutalise a bit of the course for one vehicle. Not how TTs work Marshals cannot stop traffic and cannot even flaf them down to wrn them.

Rural road. Quite concievable that those pot holes were a foot deep. Some by me are. Droppinga wheel into one has seriuous consequences.

50/50 sounds about right. After all its would have been much easier for the cyclist to give way. On rural roads we all give way for tractors. They are important. Recreational riding isn't.  i see that the rider had his head down, I do that in TTs as well but not where I cannot see a dead ceratin clear road.

Agree with pretty much all of this. There are some total entitled bellends commenting on this article...on a rural road having a trailer wheel fall into a pothole could mean any one of a number of costly and potentially dangerous consequences. Furthermore, since the (it has to be said) fucking idiot cyclist didn't even look up, what difference would it have made of the fucking guy stopped? Some cyclists love to get on their soap boxes about drivers thinking they own the road, while completely ignoring the fact that plenty of cyclists seem to think everyone should move out of their way.

Then perhaps he shouldn't have been pulling a trailer along such a road?

Bloody boatists.

Mathemagician wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

Usual uninformed garbage above. Some one know nothing about time trials. You don't/cant stop or neutalise a bit of the course for one vehicle. Not how TTs work Marshals cannot stop traffic and cannot even flaf them down to wrn them.

Rural road. Quite concievable that those pot holes were a foot deep. Some by me are. Droppinga wheel into one has seriuous consequences.

50/50 sounds about right. After all its would have been much easier for the cyclist to give way. On rural roads we all give way for tractors. They are important. Recreational riding isn't.  i see that the rider had his head down, I do that in TTs as well but not where I cannot see a dead ceratin clear road.

Agree with pretty much all of this. There are some total entitled bellends commenting on this article...on a rural road having a trailer wheel fall into a pothole could mean any one of a number of costly and potentially dangerous consequences. Furthermore, since the (it has to be said) fucking idiot cyclist didn't even look up, what difference would it have made of the fucking guy stopped? Some cyclists love to get on their soap boxes about drivers thinking they own the road, while completely ignoring the fact that plenty of cyclists seem to think everyone should move out of their way.

Not if the driver had slowed to say 5mph or a stop, after all a high court judge decreed that Charlie Alliston should have come to a complete stop when confronted with what was percieved as a vulnerable road user compared to himself (which is BS in itself). So given the huge dispairty in the kinetic energy/damage that can be done you would expect at the very least if we are to ensure that the law/rules of the road are applied evenly that the boatist should have come to a complete halt and moved right over at the first sign of seeing the people on bikes. Thus not endangering his load and reducing the chances of a an incident. 

That you and others cannot see this says more about your inability to understand matters, both with respect to who should have the greater responsibility to act and reduce the chances of harm nor understand how uneven the rules are being applied.

You sound like a motorist with a motorists viewpoint (same as the sheriff/police) and you've taken that attitude/way of thinking when you decided to take up cycling. It's pretty common tbh, no ida whatsoever.

mattsccm wrote:

Usual uninformed garbage above. Some one know nothing about time trials. You don't/cant stop or neutalise a bit of the course for one vehicle. Not how TTs work Marshals cannot stop traffic and cannot even flaf them down to wrn them.

Rural road. Quite concievable that those pot holes were a foot deep. Some by me are. Droppinga wheel into one has seriuous consequences.

50/50 sounds about right. After all its would have been much easier for the cyclist to give way. On rural roads we all give way for tractors. They are important. Recreational riding isn't.  i see that the rider had his head down, I do that in TTs as well but not where I cannot see a dead ceratin clear road.

Whereas your speculation is to be taken as fact, hmmmm?

I'll see your speculation about foot-deep potholes and raise you a 'the moton twat didn't want to bounce his boat or ping his alloy'.

Yes, rural roads might have foot-deep potholes, but how many roads that are chosen as time trial courses will?

Duncann wrote:

While the dispute is largely between the colliding parties, I wonder what the legal position of the organisers would be here?

<snip>

Anyone have experience of designing on-road courses? How is this dealt with?

If the event was on a course sanctioned by their district CTT committee and run as a type B club event, then that kind of punts the responsibility upstream. Having riders going both ways on a single-carriageway road would generally be a no-no - especially if it's busy. You get cars overtaking one set of riders moving into the path of oncoming riders.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. The guy was just driving further out because of his precious boat trailer.

However 2, under CTT rules and regs, it's the responsibility of the rider to look where the hell they are going. There have been fatalities in the past with riders going hell for leather head down riding into stationary vehicles/obstacles.

I think it's a bit harsh to say the blame was 50/50 here - although I don't know the road or all of the details. The driver admitted to driving in the middle of the road.

SteppenHerring wrote:

Duncann wrote:

While the dispute is largely between the colliding parties, I wonder what the legal position of the organisers would be here?

<snip>

Anyone have experience of designing on-road courses? How is this dealt with?

If the event was on a course sanctioned by their district CTT committee and run as a type B club event, then that kind of punts the responsibility upstream. Having riders going both ways on a single-carriageway road would generally be a no-no - especially if it's busy. You get cars overtaking one set of riders moving into the path of oncoming riders.

 

However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. The guy was just driving further out because of his precious boat trailer.

 

However 2, under CTT rules and regs, it's the responsibility of the rider to look where the hell they are going. There have been fatalities in the past with riders going hell for leather head down riding into stationary vehicles/obstacles.

 

I think it's a bit harsh to say the blame was 50/50 here - although I don't know the road or all of the details. The driver admitted to driving in the middle of the road.

Thanks for the reply. The article says it was a singletrack, not a single carriageway, road though - i.e. "only wide enough for one vehicle", according to the HC. They work on the basis that users slow down voluntarily and give way to one another - which doesn't seem to fit well with being a TT course. That was what lay behind my question.

Duncann wrote:

Thanks for the reply. The article says it was a singletrack, not a single carriageway, road though - i.e. "only wide enough for one vehicle", according to the HC.

All the people here criticising the time trial organisers for running their event on a single track, lightly used road could equally criticise the driver for taking a wide trailer down a narrow, unsuitable single track road, surely there were alternatives?

Or does this blame thing only work one way?

Since wide roads apparently aren't suitable either, just where are they supposed to hold these events?  http://road.cc/content/news/235915-highways-england-wants-ban-cyclists-u...

burtthebike wrote:

Duncann wrote:

Thanks for the reply. The article says it was a singletrack, not a single carriageway, road though - i.e. "only wide enough for one vehicle", according to the HC.

All the people here criticising the time trial organisers for running their event on a single track, lightly used road could equally criticise the driver for taking a wide trailer down a narrow, unsuitable single track road, surely there were alternatives?

Or does this blame thing only work one way?

Since wide roads apparently aren't suitable either, just where are they supposed to hold these events?  http://road.cc/content/news/235915-highways-england-wants-ban-cyclists-u...

Not sure why you've quoted me since I didn't criticise the organisers. Nor did I give any view on the driver or suggest blame only works one way. In this case it works at least two ways, and the driver deserves most.

Duncann wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Duncann wrote:

Thanks for the reply. The article says it was a singletrack, not a single carriageway, road though - i.e. "only wide enough for one vehicle", according to the HC.

All the people here criticising the time trial organisers for running their event on a single track, lightly used road could equally criticise the driver for taking a wide trailer down a narrow, unsuitable single track road, surely there were alternatives?

Or does this blame thing only work one way?

Since wide roads apparently aren't suitable either, just where are they supposed to hold these events?  http://road.cc/content/news/235915-highways-england-wants-ban-cyclists-u...

Not sure why you've quoted me since I didn't criticise the organisers. Nor did I give any view on the driver or suggest blame only works one way. In this case it works at least two ways, and the driver deserves most.

Sorry, I was just quoting someone saying that it was a single track road and I didn't mean to imply that you had criticised the organisers.

burtthebike wrote:

Duncann wrote:

Thanks for the reply. The article says it was a singletrack, not a single carriageway, road though - i.e. "only wide enough for one vehicle", according to the HC.

All the people here criticising the time trial organisers for running their event on a single track, lightly used road could equally criticise the driver for taking a wide trailer down a narrow, unsuitable single track road, surely there were alternatives?

Or does this blame thing only work one way?

Since wide roads apparently aren't suitable either, just where are they supposed to hold these events?  http://road.cc/content/news/235915-highways-england-wants-ban-cyclists-u...

I am not sure why Time Trials (or any races) are allowed on open roads to be honest as it would seem that drafting is against the highway code

HighwayCodeRule66 wrote:

You should...not ride close behind another vehicle

and in law a bicycle is considered a "vehicle"

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Reading between the lines, it sounds like the driver has an attitude problem and/or is a shit driver.

1. not slowing and travelling at excessive speed.

2. not altering his road position.

The cunt knew exactly what he was doing.

 

As did the cyclists

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Seems dumb to have a race on an open, public road, and dumber still to just keep your head down and keep going at speed when you know things are coming the other way.

 

But the driver drove a large , heavy, vehicle at excessive speed down a narrow lane and refused to slow down or move across even after seeing a vehicle coming the other way (I mean, what would he have done had the vehicle coming the other way been another 20mph+ car towing a boat?).  The cyclist was also travelling at excessive speed and failed to look...but wasn't driving such a high-momentum, oversized, vehicle.   The cyclist only bought a smaller part of the KE to the party (and the lesser obstruction).

 

Ergo, it seems to me the driver did more wrong things than did the cyclist.    So, if it were up to me, I'd reduce damages by 1/3 or something, not a half.

Time Trials are pretty much exclusively ridden on open roads and have been for decades.
I've heard of racers riding head down into parked cars before now and they get a ban for doing so.

You still owe a duty of care even if you're racing.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Seems dumb to have a race on an open, public road, and dumber still to just keep your head down and keep going at speed when you know things are coming the other way.

 

But the driver drove a large , heavy, vehicle at excessive speed down a narrow lane and refused to slow down or move across even after seeing a vehicle coming the other way (I mean, what would he have done had the vehicle coming the other way been another 20mph+ car towing a boat?).  The cyclist was also travelling at excessive speed and failed to look...but wasn't driving such a high-momentum, oversized, vehicle.   The cyclist only bought a smaller part of the KE to the party (and the lesser obstruction).

 

Ergo, it seems to me the driver did more wrong things than did the cyclist.    So, if it were up to me, I'd reduce damages by 1/3 or something, not a half.

As the cyclists were doing 25 mph and the car 20 mph, clearly the cyclists were travelling at a 'worse' excessive speed.

So far as holding races on open roads, it's not dumb, it's normal practice, without which we wouldn't have road races. It is dumb to race along open roads without looking where you are going. 

It seems odd that the front riders didn't give really loud warning of the impending situation...