UKC

This is the scenario. A slow moving stream of traffic is moving up a hill. One of the cars stops to allow another car coming from a side turning on the left to cross the stream and turn right. A cyclist is coming up the hill at a greater speed than the cars and on the outside of them, overtaking the stream. He collides with the car turning across the stream where the other motorist has stopped to allow him out.

Who is at fault?

In reply to Trangia:

Car driver pulling out.

In reply to Trangia:

Jeremy Corbyn's.

In reply to Trangia:

cyclist in the wrong . should not have been overtaking at a junction . https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

In reply to Trangia:

It would probably depend on the individual circumstances: -

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

In reply to tim000:


That's what I thought. I don't understand why Yanis Nayu says it's the driver pulling out?

In reply to Trangia:


The driver pulling out does not have right of way.

The driver allowing the car to drive out has a duty of care if they suggest or indicate that it is safe to do so.

Not ideal to be overtaking on a junction.

So quite a good original question.

Were you involved?

In reply to Trangia:

Bit of both.

Cyclist should have been aware of the potential hazards when overtaking, and should have noticed the car stopped to allow the other driver to pull out, and the car pulling out.

Driver pulling out should have taken care to look both ways whilst pulling out.

But I'd put the bulk of the blame on the overtaking cyclist, because they were overtaking, and not simply in the stream of normal traffic.

In reply to Rick Graham:


Not directly. I was in the car behind the guy who stopped.

Fortunately no-one was injured and apart from some scratched paint no serious damage. The cyclist became very abusive with the car driver, and it got me thinking about liability had it been a more serious accident. I think the cyclist was cycling without due care and attention. There really wasn't much time for the motorist to react as her vision was somewhat obstructed by the car that had stopped for her and she was cautiously edging out.

In reply to tim000:

I think that makes more sense when considering a car doing the overtaking than a bicycle. The overtaking car would be filling the lane that the turning car would be pulling into. In this scenario, the driver pulling out has pulled out in front of somebody.

If I was the cyclist in this scenario, I would probably have checked why the car I was overtaking had stopped, but feel aggrieved to be hit by someone pulling out in front of me. If I was the driver, I would definitely consider myself in the wrong.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

As a non-driving cyclist, I disagree.

If you're overtaking, you need to take far more care than if you're in the normal stream of traffic. If I'd been hit, I'd have considered myself very foolish.

In reply to FactorXXX:


That's interesting reading. I avoid undertaking on a bicycle like the plague.

I'm not sure of the wisdom of those boxes at traffic lights that allow cyclists to go to the front. They just mean the cyclists get in the way of the drivers all over again.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Oh, I agree about the extra care.

In reply to Trangia:

All three, though not necessarily to the same degree

The motorist emerging from the side road is most to blame - just because someone lets you out, it doesn't mean it's safe to proceed. They should have looked both ways before completing the move.

The cyclist overtaking is taking a risk - always need to be extra vigilant. Whether you should overtake is another matter. I'm often in this situation when cycling up a bus or cycle lane on the inside of cars

And the other motorist should check for cyclists be letting someone else out

In reply to Trangia:

Actually, I've changed my mind. I still think there's a degree of liability on both parties, but I've imagined it cycling and I've imagined it driving and think I have greater sympathy with the driver. I think the crucial factor is that the cyclist hit the car - if I was filtering on the outside I'd be vigilant, slower than normal and covering the brakes. As the driver, you have to pull out a certain amount to be able to see.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

got to agree . never use them . either wait in line or get off and walk if it`s a big queue

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I agree that both driver and cyclist are to blame, but why blame the motorist, who wasnt breaking the rules, more than the cyclist, who was breaking the HWC?

In reply to Trangia:

Were they ok?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Also, aren't you meant leave junctions clear? Unless they waived the motorist in the side street on, I don't see they are at fault,

In reply to Trangia:

I'd say the cyclist is at fault for lack of care. He should have exercised more care around a stationary vehicle.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Yes.

In reply to Trangia:


Good. Lesson learned hopefully

In reply to MG:

Because he pulled out into a stream of traffic without checking both ways

No of course you will say that the motorist shouldn't have to cater for cyclists being there and then I will say that the cyclist was only there because the motorists were taking up so much of the road and we'll go round in circles

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Whoever can be deemed to be at fault legally, clearly all parties are at fault for not having awareness that this kind of accident happens many times a day all over the country and they both have some responsibility in ensuring it doesn't keep happening. Cyclists being hit by crossing traffic is entirely predictable because lines of sight are poor when there's a build up of traffic. Any cyclist has to proceed with caution if they're going to advance ahead of any stationary car whether they're on the driver's nearside or offside but not slowing down at side streets is a recipe for disaster.

In terms of predictability, the stationary driver was most at fault for indicating that it was OK for the crossing driver to proceed but they thought they were just being courteous. All a matter of awareness.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Very useful thanks. From this it is pretty clear that both the cyclist and the driver turning right bear some responsibility.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Advanced stop zones are a flawed concept, IMHO. What happens when the lights change as you're cycling up the ASZ lane? No different to cycling up the inside of traffic at any set of lights; you are at risk of a vehicle turning left across you.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


That's exactly the argument that impatient drivers will use when held up by cyclists. And I'm sure you'd say that the drivers should just be patient and wait until it's safe to overtake, and then give room and take care.

Cyclists need to exercise patience in slow moving traffic, too. You can't have your cake and eat it.

In reply to sg:


Since Trangia was behind this driver, he cannot have seen any such indication, and, indeed, does not mention anything other than that the driver stopped to leave the junction clear, as they are required to do.

In reply to sg:

Agree entirely - better awareness all round is required

In reply to captain paranoia:


What's the point of having cake and not eating it ?

It's like saying you can't have cycle lanes and expect them not to have parked cars in them ?

But back to the cake, what sort of cake is it ?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Rule 170

In reply to Trangia:

You're only supposed to overtake when it is safe so to do. That is an absolute obligation.

In reply to captain paranoia:

No I couldn't see whether or not the driver stopping gave any signal to proceed to the crossing driver, but I can say that when we stopped I couldn't see the cyclist in my mirror, so obviously the driver in front couldn't see the cyclist either at the time he stopped. The cyclist only appeared after we had stopped and came up fast overtaking the line of traffic. I still think the cyclist was most at fault, the emerging driver was concentrating more on possible traffic to her left, which logically would have been her most threatening quadrant,

In reply to Chris the Tall:

the cyclist was only there because the motorists were taking up so much of the road and we'll go round in circles

I thought it was at a junction, not a roundabout...

In reply to Trangia:

The cyclist only appeared after we had stopped and came up fast overtaking the line of traffic.

'Fast' might be the key factor in all of this.

In reply to Trangia:


To me it sounds like the cyclist was most at fault. From what you've said, it sounds like they had ample time to react to what was going on up ahead.

It definitely wasn't the fault of the driver who stopped to let the other out. They could be partly or wholly responsible if the cyclist was alongside or just behind, but it doesn't sound like that was the case.

The driver pulling out could be partly responsible depending on their relative speeds and the visibility of the cyclist.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


If you're going to question long-established aphorisms, then let me put it another way:

You can't have one rule for you, and another rule for others. Not when the same rules apply to all road users. You can't expect drivers to be patient and wait for you if you are not prepared to be patient and wait for them.

In reply to tim000:


Which rule?

In reply to MG:


Only if it's a box junction

In reply to captain paranoia:


But the same rules don't apply to cars and bike do they? The HC suggests filtering is acceptable on two wheels, not on four. Just one example of specific rules/expectations.

The way I see it, when I'm on my bike, I'm already doing traffic a big favour by not holding them up further in a car. No way am I going to wait in somebody's exhaust fumes when I can go anyway without inconveniencing anybody.

So yes, filter, but with extra caution.

In reply to Trevers:


Okay, it may be legal, but it needs great care. Without knowing the specifics of the situation, it's impossible for me to say whether 'filtering' would be a safe thing to do. Was it possible to leave a safe space between you and the cars? Would you have to stray into the other lane? In any case, if you're filtering, you need to care considerable additional care, especially when approaching junctions, because of the obvious hazards they pose, as demonstrated in this case.

In reply to Trangia:

The way you have described it about the car edging out due to restricted vision caused by the other cars I would put the blame on the cyclist.
If I am on my motorbike overtaking slow or standing traffic I am constantly scanning ahead for both junctions and people turning right and if there is a car at a junction I slow down just in case.
If the traffic has stopped the right turning car isn't expecting someone coming up on the outside.
It's the same with a car pulling out of the line to do a U turn. Done correctly that will involve the use of indicators, a mirror and shoulder check before moving but even at very modest speeds the bike can be totally out of sight until it it too late.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Hence both fault. but only one did a banned manoeuvre. I don't see how you arrive at the motorist being more at fault,


> of course you will say that the motorist shouldn't have to cater for cyclists being there and then I will say that the cyclist was only there because the motorists were taking up so much of the road and we'll go round in circles

I won't. Both those would be childish claims

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I presume you meant "before"?

If so, that's an interesting one, not necessarily just in the situation I described. I often stop to allow side joining traffic to join or cross my path, particularly in slow moving traffic. Whilst I might catch the other person's eye and even indicate my willingness to give way with my hand. I don't believe this should be interpreted as "it's safe to go". I believe the responsibility of deciding as to whether or not to go lies solely with the joining person, although in the case I described there was the added complication of the cyclist overtaking in a potentially dangerous situation and failing to read the road ahead.

Yes, there are times when they just can't see, and then, having caught their eye, you can try and assist by continuing to wave them out, or putting the palm of your hand up to indicate "stop", but unless you can see very well yourself both ahead and in your mirror I think you are entering onto dangerous legal ground here, and need to be ultra careful because the joining person is relying on you.

Signals in this sort of situation are ambiguous, and the fewer and simpler the better. I believe all the joining road user needs to know is that you are willing to give them passage, but that shouldn't be an indication that it's safe to go. The two are very different, but can be confused.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No. The driver pulling out should think "That driver has left me space to pull out. However, he does not speak for other road users, and has no control over other road users. I shall therefore assume that there are other road users about who may still be going along at a fair pace".

Happened to me. Two lanes going each way, not a dual carriageway. I was cycling along in the inside lane, and a driver in the outside lane flashed an oncoming driver to turn right (in contravention of the HWC, but that's another matter).
I nearly ended up over the bonnet of the right turner, who said "He flashed me". My reply "Oh, and he speaks for me as well does he?"

Driver conceded I had a fair point, and was profusely apologetic.

In reply to Chris Harris:


Not criticising you, but could it be said that you were not reading the road ahead? You were filtering, which is your right, but did you not see the oncoming right turner indicating, and notice the car that flashed him slowing down? When filtering, which is in effect "undertaking" surely you need to be ultra careful because this is exactly the sort of thing that happens? Please don't take this wrongly but as in all collision situations including the one I witnessed, nothing is ever as clear cut as it seems.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
the reason cycle boxes are there is to avoid the scenarion where a cyclist is blamelessly waiting at a traffic lights, then a car pulls up beside them and immediately cuts in front of the cyclist and turns left when the traffic lights change . unfortunately a lot of drivers tend to ignore the cycle boxes, so the only way for the cyclist to avoid this scenarion is to pull in front of the box. Having been pulled under a lorry which not only did this (pulled up beside me from behind then turned left) but mounted the pavement in the process i can confirm that it happens

In reply to all: Just to throw another left-field option into the mix. I think car designers bear some of the responsibility. It seems crazy to me that we're still driving cars with the engine out in front, so when edging into traffic there's a few feet that have to encroach into the flow before the driver can see properly. Surely we can design vehicles with better visibility these days. I suspect it's a kind of qwerty legacy thing.

In reply to alanw:
Putting the driver at the front makes the driver the crumple zone for the car.

In reply to Trangia:

He didn't say he was filtering.

'' I was cycling along in the inside lane, and a driver in the outside lane flashed an oncoming driver to turn right (in contravention of the HWC, but that's another matter).''

In reply to Trangia:
Cyclists or motorbikes overtaking slow moving or stationary* traffic is allowed.

*eg the car that stopped to let somebody out

Both car and cyclist should have been aware of the hazard. Car definitely didn't have priority so I think the cyclist did.

When pulling out into traffic from a side road you don't have priority. The driver created a hazard by moving into the path of traffic that did have priority so mainly the fault of the driver.

Very very roughly:
if you have priority and somebody doesn't see you that's their fault,
if you don't have priority and somebody doesn't see you that's your fault.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Absolutely, you need to keep your eyes peeled for all sorts of clues. In this instance, it sounds like the cyclist missed a pretty obvious one - cars stopping and leaving a gap by the entrance to a side road.

In reply to pebbles:

How do you magically get to the ASZ box in zero time? As I said earlier, the lights can change whilst you are moving up the inside, exactly the scenario that cyclists are warned against doing; don't cycle up the inside of lorries, etc, at traffic lights.

The safest way to avoid being turned across is to wait in the line of traffic, 'taking the lane', i.e. sitting in the middle of the lane, just like any other vehicle.

In reply to Trangia:


Because that's the law?

It's extremely worrying how many people have failed on this and blamed the cyclist.

It explains why you see so many people edge out dangerously though.

If you can't see if it's safe to pull out then wait until you can see, its pretty simple.

That law blog is pretty clear, the actions of the cyclist might reduce culpability but it doesn't change it, reduced culpability still leaves the driver culpable.

In reply to elsewhere:


No doubt you're right. All I'm saying is that when accidents happen there often a lot can be done in terms of design that can help prevent them. With cars we seem to be stuck with a legacy design despite all the advances that have occurred with materials, air bags, etc. Visibility is one area that I think more can done on. It's probably a bigger issue with HGVs and I'm glad efforts do seem to be being made to address this.

In reply to pebbles:


That's one benefit but you also get them where the only possible action is straight on.

Making the cyclist more visible to all drivers is the reason they're there, so vehicles do a proper over taking manoeuvre rather than dodgily squeezing past.

In reply to alanw:


The very first patented motor car, the Benz Patent-Motorwagen was rear engined in 1885, so it's not a new idea.

The weight distribution still required that passengers sit back from the front wheels. The reason you see flat fronted HGVs is because the additional weight of the passengers is little compared to the rest of the vehicle.

In reply to winhill:


As Tim000 pointed out overtaking when approaching a junction contravenes the Highway Code. The cyclist was overtaking.

In reply to winhill:

Also, it means cyclists are not stuck behind a vehicle breathing in the fumes, especially bad when accelerating when the light goes green

In reply to Trangia:


The Highway Code and the Law are two different things. It's not illegal to overtake approaching a junction.

In reply to winhill:

It's not illegal to pull out of a junction either! Both are at fault.

In reply to Trangia:
Welcome to my world - 20 miles into London and 20 miles out each day. On part of the route, the only way to proceeed is down the outside, with eyes like a hawk for people emerging from the left and those turning right without bothering to indicate. I'd put money on the driver looking to the left and not the right when the cyclist hit them. Seems to be the norm. As a cyclist riding down the outside, the only clue that there is a turning on teh left is the ominous gap between the cars. At least 'keep clear' paint gives some warning, as long as there is additional white line marking, which is not always the case. In the event of a more serious accident, it would have been the driver for due care and attention and the cyclist as a contributory factor. Driver has to put £1 in the Rotary Club collection tin on their way out of court.

For much of my route I've got CS7, which at least provides some delineation bewteen bike and motor traffic. You still get traffic turning right across your front on a regular basis. My pet hate is cars that overtake you and then seconds later stop to let someone turn across their front, with attendant increase in heart rate.

In reply to MG:


I made the point about culpability already, it's bad if dilutions of culpability leave people unsure who is at fault or how to act, which certainly seems to be the case here.

In reply to winhill:


I don't think that cyclelaw blog is quite as clear cut as that. It points out the need for both those filtering, and those pulling out to take care.

"Rule 160 states that road users should ‘be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic’ and Rule 88, in relation to manoeuvring, states that road users should take care and keep speed low ‘…when filtering in slow-moving traffic’. Furthermore, rule 211 says that ‘it is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are filtering through traffic’."

"Although Rule 211 states that drivers should ‘look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic’ which could be taken to mean that drivers have responsibility for looking for riders before performing a manoeuvre, it is important for cyclists to anticipate the actions of other road users and avoid risks at all times. There is no specific guidance in the Highway Code about when it is or is not safe to filter through traffic, however there are some basic pieces of safety advice that cyclists should have in mind when on the roads."

"Perhaps the most important advice for cyclists contemplating filtering through traffic is to avoid doing so on the approach to a junction. This advice is echoed in Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’. Obviously the risk of doing so is that a car ahead may turn into a side road without warning, leaving the cyclist with inadequate time to brake or change direction."

The latter obviously assumes filtering on the inside, but the same principle applies if filtering on the outside.

Their recommendations for the use of ASZ echo mine.

In reply to Trangia:

I'd say the driver pulling out is at fault, first and foremost, and the driver who let them is next up on the list.

Firstly, I think we can all agree that the new entrant had no "right" to enter the road. He was "let in" - as in, other vehicle occupants were letting him bend the rules out of courtesy, only. The rules do not mandate that he has a right to be let in.

The driver who let the new entrant enter the lane did not have the right to do that. It wasn't his lane! Perhaps some would say that he was sharing it with the cyclist but still, even so, the cyclist was the left-most vehicle in the lane and on the road and so the only vehicle who could decide whether to "let a car in" was the cyclist.

The new entrant clearly did not look, properly, or they would have seen the cyclist. If they *did* see the cyclist, they should have realised that their "permission" to enter the road would have had to have come from the cyclist and that the cyclist was not "letting them in".

Or, perhaps, the new entrant saw the cyclist and judged that a cyclist didn't have the same rights on the road as a car - in this case, they were just plain wrong.

In reply to pebbles:


When I wait in a row of traffic at lights I take the middle of the lane, and it's they're temporary lights because the left lane is closed I would be in a position to be seen in the driver's side mirror of the car in front.

Sorry about your accident.

In reply to Trangia:


Not criticising you, but please read my post before typing.

As Timmd said, I wasn't filtering, or undertaking. I was in lane 1, and had the entire lane to myself. I was cycling along at 15-20mph.

The driver who flashed was overtaking me in lane 2 doing 25-30 mph.

How am I supposed to see him flash? His lights point forward, the same direction as my eyes, and regardless of that he was ahead of me when he flashed. Also, as he was forward & right of me, he was obscuring the oncoming car.

In reply to Lion Bakes:



It is illegal to block a box junction - there is a law which specifically prohibits it and you can in theory be penalized (points/fine) for it (prize for anyone who can cite an instance of that happening). But HWC Rule 151 says:

In slow-moving traffic. You should...allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion

So it's a "should" rather than a "must", therefore not an offence per se, but it's still recommended practice in the HWC which means that failure to comply may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.

Plus, it's just polite.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


The car driver was edging out and the car was stationary at a junction. The cyclist is taking a silly risk at best. When I did a motorcycle course I was expressly told to avoid overtaking near junctions.
As a cyclist who was recently knocked off my bike by a car that was turning into a junction I would side with the driver in this case. Basically, if you are overtaking in any vehicle it is up to you to be certain it is safe.

In reply to Xharlie:


So a car tanking it down the outside of a row of stationary traffic would be right to be outraged when he clips the front of a car edging out?

In reply to winhill:


But if you hit a vehicle you are travelling in the wrong direction

In reply to Xharlie:


You have misread the OP. The cyclist was the right-most vehicle in the lane and overtook the car after the car had stopped to let the joiner in. Whilst the question of liability rests somewhere between the cyclist and the joiner there is no way you can attach blame the guy who let her in.

In reply to captain paranoia:
because, Captain, at the time I arrived at the lights there was no other traffic there. Nothing beside me. Nothing behind me. Nothing in front of me. Nada. Zilch. Rien. The driver of the lorry, who had been travelling overnight and was far too tired to drive safely, then drove up from a considerable distance behind, pulled up directly alongside me, and as the lights changed turned immediately left, cutting the corner of the pavement and dragging my bike under his wheels. fortunately I managed to slide off as the bike was towed under, in the process of which I found myself under the truck as it continued to mount the pavement.

In reply to winhill:

So what is the point of the Highway Code if you are saying that it's not illegal to ignore it? Are you saying that if no accident had occurred the cyclist wouldn't have been liable to prosecution for the overtake had it been seen by traffic police? Or because an accident did happen his action in ignoring the Code would have counted against him in the event of a claim for damages having resulted or a prosecution being levelled at him for not paying due care and attention?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

regardless of all the specifics, I think the real point here is that a cyclist is incredibly vulnerable compared to a car and that while you do sometimes see stupid cyclist behaviour (in the same way that you may see stupid car driver behaviour) the consquences are far greater for the cyclist and the car driver has a moral responsibility to be keep an eye out for them...from my own selfish point of view even if not legally at fault I dont want to spend the rest of my life knowing I was at the wheel of a car when it killed a cyclist

In reply to pebbles:

I should know.
The OP said that the cyclist in this case got annoyed at the driver. Probably should have been apologetic or just relieved.

In reply to Chris Harris:
My apologies, I did misunderstood your post.

"Two lanes going each way, not a dual carriageway".

I mistakenly interpreted that to mean a normal road with one lane in each direction.

Now that I understand it I agree completely with what you wrote.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

167 .
Rule 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
•approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

In reply to pebbles:


I wasn't referring to your specific example (and I'm very sorry to hear about it).

I was discussing the merits (or otherwise) of the concept of the ASZ, and the little green side lane that allows cyclists to sneak up inside stationary traffic to get to the ASZ. That, I think, is the flawed concept, due to the fact that you might be sneaking up the inside when the lights change, just as you are about to get to the ASZ, and have a truck turn across you.

But to return to your particular case, I don't see how an ASZ would have helped you; if there was no other traffic, and you were the first to arrive at the traffic lights, then ASZ or not, you would have been at the front of the queue, 'taking the lane', i.e. in the middle of the lane, not at the left hand side of the road. By taking the lane, you prevent a truck pulling up alongside you, and then cutting across you.

Taking the lane, and the ASZ do nothing to prevent tired, impatient, or just plain murderous drivers simply running you down, I'm afraid. You can only increase your odds by making yourself conspicuous, by your position on the road, and with clothing & lighting.

In reply to Trangia:


No problem. Have a like.

Cheers
Chris

In reply to elsewhere:


Sounds like a safety improvement

In reply to captain paranoia:


fair point - I missed that bit...

still, all three parties need to be more aware - very often drivers sat in traffic stop and allow other drivers to cross in front of them, giving a tacit indication that it's OK to move

anyway, only further thing to add is that it really is important that everything that can be done to make roads safer all round, is done. a cyclist was pronounced dead at the scene under a bus half a mile from our house earlier on this afternoon. no details released yet of exactly what happened but hugely sobering and depressing and heart-wrenching for all involved.

In reply to sg:


Well, they're not giving tacit permission. They are merely following the HC guidance to leave space at junctions for drivers to pull out, to prevent further congestion. It is still up to the driver pulling out to check it is safe to do so.

The only problem is that the HC fails to provide any guidance to drivers on how to signal that they have done this, and haven't simply failed to notice that the traffic in front of them has advanced, because they're fiddling with their phone, etc. So we're left with the problem of the driver pulling out not being sure they can do so, and the range of inconsistent signals people have adopted.


Sadly, very little is done. Sentences for those who drive badly are pathetic, and subsequent driving bans very short. When I grew up, we were forever seeing 'public information films' on TV, on all sorts of topics like seat belts, drink driving, etc. It's about time we brought them back, and changed public feeling on how people treat each other on the roads.

ps. Sorry to hear about the cyclist near you. I cycle to and from work every day, and have done for over forty years. I'm very familiar with how dangerous it is, being very familiar with the tired, the incompetent, the distracted, the drunk, the doped, the angry, the impatient and the downright murderous, and have only survived, being hit just twice, by keeping my wits about me. And by good luck.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Agree entirely. My original comment was simply about the need for more awareness all round.

Sadly, very little is done. Sentences for those who drive badly are pathetic, and subsequent driving bans very short. When I grew up, we were forever seeing 'public information films' on TV, on all sorts of topics like seat belts, drink driving, etc. It's about time we brought them back, and changed public feeling on how people treat each other

Agree on that too, for sure. Sadly, there seems to be no money made available even to fund pothole mending, never mind paying for nationwide public information films