I would need to know if this is a bike crossing or a crosswalk that they rode through. Either way, it’s always the more dangerous vehicle’s responsibility to avoid hitting smaller things. That said, I don’t ride the way this cyclist is riding, because I like getting to places safely.
Bicylopathia on
In this situation cyclist loses, but in similar circumstances when cars pass railway, usually car loses
Burgundy_Corgi on
In Austria the law says that the cyclist has to reduce speed at these crossings (10km/h), so the cyclist is at fault.
BitRunner64 on
It would depend on the local rules, but at least here in Sweden, painted bicycle crossings like these normally mean cyclists have priority (they are usually accompanied by a road sign informing drivers). However it’s always a good idea to slow down and adapt your speed to the situation, even if you have priority. So while it’s probably the fault of the driver, it could easily have been avoided if at least one of them were paying attention to their surroundings.
vaustin89 on
Damn that is some bad situational awareness when riding a bike.
tr00th on
Definitely the cyclist. Who the heck doesn’t see that a car is going to definitely make the crossing before you do and not slow down so they pass through before you get to said crossing.
Able_Supermarket8236 on
Biker is at fault. Car was in crosswalk before the bike. Bike is reckless and will continue getting themselves in situations like this.
Fast-Penta on
The city engineer.
Speartree on
Depends how the priority rules are. What country is that? Are there traffic lights? It looks like there are lights but we can’t see them working from the camera angle
jonesonze on
Car is at fault. Line, pedestrian crossing, bike crossing.
Pseudonymity88 on
Personally, I’d put this one down as 50/50.
Bikepacking-NL on
Depends on signs and local law.
Regardless, cyclist is taking more risk than he should.
irish_guy on
People here seem to have no idea how shared crossings work, the car saw the bike crossing the other side of the road long before it was near the crossing.
It decided not to yield like it’s supposed to.
Car is at fault, should the cyclist predict the driver would behave recklessly? Probably, but the question was at who’s at fault.
Kobakocka on
I think the bicyclist had priority, but they should have stopped when they didn’t get that priority…
I always check and communicate with my surroundings. If i am in doubt i am safe to go, i reduce my speed or stop. Because it is a way better feeling than being hit. (I have been hit once, when i was young and as stupid as that cyclist, but learned my lesson.)
UnlitBlunt on
Driver is at fault but the cyclist’s speed was reckless.
harpsm on
Need a lot more info to understand. What country is this and what are the rules? Are bikes allowed to use those crossings? Did the car have a stop sign?
In the absence of more info I don’t know who was at fault, but the cyclist behavior seems to be reckless either way. At that speed and angle to the car, there is a good chance of not being seen, and the cyclist seems to make no attempt to slow down despite the fact that the car isn’t stopping.
Metro2005 on
Cyclist has right of way but was also going way too fast and couldnt stop in time. Driver was clearly in the wrong but the cyclist could have easily prevented this. I literally have car drivers not yield for me at least once every commute, if i rode like this cyclist i would have died a long time ago.
Bikelaneurbanist239 on
Its always the car, or it should be at least cause cars are the ones causing the most danger to people but the cyclist probably had priority anyway
Whoever is legally at fault the cyclist is an idiot. Car was already in the intersection in front of them but somehow they still managed to get in front of it.
Obviously the driver is operating the more dangerous vehicle and if either party had been more aware this would have been avoided but the cyclist seems like they are going quite fast though an intersection with no regard of what is going on, regardless of who has the right of way.
codecrodie on
Not crosswalk. Depends on laws, but where i live the red paint on the bike lane means caution or yield (vs green which indicates bike right of way). So that dude going full send it might be at fault. Infrastructure is poorly designed. Should be road furniture to slow either car or bike or both.
ctrltab2 on
Cant we say both is at fault? Why does it need to be one or the other?
rfie on
As a biker I’m sure I would have been able to avoid that. Bike should have slowed down more to pass the pedestrian and navigate through the intersection.
Acrobatic_Advance_71 on
The infrastructure. But the car does need to be responsible for looking at the crossing. But not an ideal point for that to occur. Brave biker just going do it as well
Auzzr on
I’d like to see more of the local signs, but judging on what is visible, the car is at fault. There is a line indicating the crossing and bikepath.
That being said, the cyclist should have been more defensive at such a junction. Slow down, make sure the driver sees you and stops. Especially in such poor conditions.
JuliusK444 on
This is Poland, and according to the Polish traffic law, the cyclist (or another road user steering something allowed on bike lanes) does not have priority when approaching the crossing, but only when they already are at the crossing.
A lot of people are angry about this rule, but what is worse, many cyclists are not even aware of it. I general the Polish traffic law is both quite muddled AND insufficiently known when it comes to crossings of bike lanes and the driving part of the road.
In this case, I would say the cyclist was not sufficiently careful. Personally, I follow the above rule and never rush through crossings, especially seeing cars approaching.
PrizeTravel8180 on
You have to ride for every idiot on the road and do your best not to be one. 😆
dexterstrife on
In France, without indication, the one coming from the right has the right of way. So here it would be the car.
kodex1717 on
Not sure where this is, but where I come from in the US cross traffic always has priority at a slip lane.
I don’t want to blame the victim here, but the collision probably wouldn’t have happened if the cyclist was more aware of their surroundings. I would have paused in the island unless no cars were present.
Straight_Waltz_9530 on
The morgue is full of people who had the right of way. The law is not a force field.
Alwaysbadhairday on
Bike. Completely reckless crossing at such high speed. The driver would not have seen him before he was across the bonnet.
oldfrancis on
It was likely the car’s fault but the bicyclist could have completely avoided the collision.
jitensha- on
“legally” i think the car is at fault but the bike rider is riding awfully reckless. intersections are where you need to be careful as a cyclist and be hyper aware for your own self-preservation.
username_17B on
The cyclist had priority, but you can die with your priority.
Dio_Yuji on
Car’s. But cyclist could have avoided it
ryrytheredditguy on
I say cyclist is at fault if I had control over the rules cause he’s going way too fast and if the majority of people are in cars the minority should yield to majority.. but I would bet they find the car at fault
Local_Whereas7211 on
Don’t know but it’s “whose” fault.
Tx_CarGuy08 on
Technically the car driver is at fault because that is a crosswalk but I won’t chance my life on a technicality.. as a bike rider, it’s my responsibility to make sure I make I home safely,and I’m not trusting my life to a stranger. Cars are by far heavier than a man on a bike, being aware of your surroundings is essential.
NamasteMotherfucker on
Totally location dependent. Where I am, someone on a bike has to enter a crosswalk/bike crossing at walking speed. Regardless, if it were me, I wouldn’t go so fast through a crossing.
binaryhextechdude on
Being right doesn’t help when you’re in hospital. Look, anticipate and then act accordingly.
Oscaruzzo on
I’d say this is a good example of what happens when two idiots meet.
LymanBostock126 on
As my driver’s ed teacher taught us, “It doesn’t matter who’s right, it matters who’s left.”
Bergliot on
Both.
Whenever you’re asked an either/or question, consider if the question could be “both”.
It often is.
Odds are you just make yourself fuel in a culture war if you’re too eager to pick one side. You can contribute to nuance and to de-polarization by refusing to choose just one side to be with (or in this case against).
Or in other words…
“It (usually) takes to people to make an accident”
qwerty12e on
That cyclist is suicidal, regardless of whose fault it is. By the time the car entered the crosswalk the cyclist may not even have been close enough for driver to see him (or obscured by the pedestrian). It’s possible that car was in the intersection first already starting to make his turn.
daveishere7 on
I’ve never in my life, just beelined straight across an stop sign intersection. When I seen a car was just about approaching. If you rode long enough you’ve seen enough cars, that had ran stop signs. So usually the instinct is to pause and see how the driver reacts. It wouldn’t matter if I have the right way or not. In those situations I’m always thinking about avoiding injury first.
It’s kind of like when you see a dumb pedestrian, that’s on their phone and they jaywalk into the lane. It might be your right of way, but in your head your thinking. I’m not trying to have a chaotic situation, where I accidentally run into this person because of their obliviousness to surroundings. Or if I see a car turning, I’m going around them too avoid possibly be hit. Idk that’s just how I operate, as I know I can’t afford being injured.
ChrysisLT on
If you are asking about who’s to blame legally, you need to specify what country.
Classic_Emergency336 on
It is not a bike crossing. It is a crosswalk. Walk your bike on crosswalks! At least slowdown on crosswalks.
Rock-in-hat on
Cyclist is at fault. Maybe the law says different. But there is zero reason for the cyclist not to see that car and slow down. The cyclist can control that collision 100% of the time by slowing thru the intersection. The car is going to avoid that collision maybe 50% of the time if the driver is very good. In my mind, this is the cyclists fault.
RedHotFromAkiak on
Without regard to local law, I’d say the cyclist was an idiot given how quickly he blew through the crossing. I would never do something that reckless. They also were reckless in passing that close to a pedestrian at that speed. Did they not even see the car entering their path? Did they expect that the driver would detect them coming and make an accurate judgment of how quickly they would be upon them? Cyclists like that damage the reputation of all cyclists.
48 Comments
I would need to know if this is a bike crossing or a crosswalk that they rode through. Either way, it’s always the more dangerous vehicle’s responsibility to avoid hitting smaller things. That said, I don’t ride the way this cyclist is riding, because I like getting to places safely.
In this situation cyclist loses, but in similar circumstances when cars pass railway, usually car loses
In Austria the law says that the cyclist has to reduce speed at these crossings (10km/h), so the cyclist is at fault.
It would depend on the local rules, but at least here in Sweden, painted bicycle crossings like these normally mean cyclists have priority (they are usually accompanied by a road sign informing drivers). However it’s always a good idea to slow down and adapt your speed to the situation, even if you have priority. So while it’s probably the fault of the driver, it could easily have been avoided if at least one of them were paying attention to their surroundings.
Damn that is some bad situational awareness when riding a bike.
Definitely the cyclist. Who the heck doesn’t see that a car is going to definitely make the crossing before you do and not slow down so they pass through before you get to said crossing.
Biker is at fault. Car was in crosswalk before the bike. Bike is reckless and will continue getting themselves in situations like this.
The city engineer.
Depends how the priority rules are. What country is that? Are there traffic lights? It looks like there are lights but we can’t see them working from the camera angle
Car is at fault. Line, pedestrian crossing, bike crossing.
Personally, I’d put this one down as 50/50.
Depends on signs and local law.
Regardless, cyclist is taking more risk than he should.
People here seem to have no idea how shared crossings work, the car saw the bike crossing the other side of the road long before it was near the crossing.
It decided not to yield like it’s supposed to.
Car is at fault, should the cyclist predict the driver would behave recklessly? Probably, but the question was at who’s at fault.
I think the bicyclist had priority, but they should have stopped when they didn’t get that priority…
I always check and communicate with my surroundings. If i am in doubt i am safe to go, i reduce my speed or stop. Because it is a way better feeling than being hit. (I have been hit once, when i was young and as stupid as that cyclist, but learned my lesson.)
Driver is at fault but the cyclist’s speed was reckless.
Need a lot more info to understand. What country is this and what are the rules? Are bikes allowed to use those crossings? Did the car have a stop sign?
In the absence of more info I don’t know who was at fault, but the cyclist behavior seems to be reckless either way. At that speed and angle to the car, there is a good chance of not being seen, and the cyclist seems to make no attempt to slow down despite the fact that the car isn’t stopping.
Cyclist has right of way but was also going way too fast and couldnt stop in time. Driver was clearly in the wrong but the cyclist could have easily prevented this. I literally have car drivers not yield for me at least once every commute, if i rode like this cyclist i would have died a long time ago.
Its always the car, or it should be at least cause cars are the ones causing the most danger to people but the cyclist probably had priority anyway
https://preview.redd.it/q4aqokmoxnyf1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fbd5fb21edf49e9aa6b254cdb3f391becea3e252
Whoever is legally at fault the cyclist is an idiot. Car was already in the intersection in front of them but somehow they still managed to get in front of it.
Obviously the driver is operating the more dangerous vehicle and if either party had been more aware this would have been avoided but the cyclist seems like they are going quite fast though an intersection with no regard of what is going on, regardless of who has the right of way.
Not crosswalk. Depends on laws, but where i live the red paint on the bike lane means caution or yield (vs green which indicates bike right of way). So that dude going full send it might be at fault. Infrastructure is poorly designed. Should be road furniture to slow either car or bike or both.
Cant we say both is at fault? Why does it need to be one or the other?
As a biker I’m sure I would have been able to avoid that. Bike should have slowed down more to pass the pedestrian and navigate through the intersection.
The infrastructure. But the car does need to be responsible for looking at the crossing. But not an ideal point for that to occur. Brave biker just going do it as well
I’d like to see more of the local signs, but judging on what is visible, the car is at fault. There is a line indicating the crossing and bikepath.
That being said, the cyclist should have been more defensive at such a junction. Slow down, make sure the driver sees you and stops. Especially in such poor conditions.
This is Poland, and according to the Polish traffic law, the cyclist (or another road user steering something allowed on bike lanes) does not have priority when approaching the crossing, but only when they already are at the crossing.
A lot of people are angry about this rule, but what is worse, many cyclists are not even aware of it. I general the Polish traffic law is both quite muddled AND insufficiently known when it comes to crossings of bike lanes and the driving part of the road.
In this case, I would say the cyclist was not sufficiently careful. Personally, I follow the above rule and never rush through crossings, especially seeing cars approaching.
You have to ride for every idiot on the road and do your best not to be one. 😆
In France, without indication, the one coming from the right has the right of way. So here it would be the car.
Not sure where this is, but where I come from in the US cross traffic always has priority at a slip lane.
I don’t want to blame the victim here, but the collision probably wouldn’t have happened if the cyclist was more aware of their surroundings. I would have paused in the island unless no cars were present.
The morgue is full of people who had the right of way. The law is not a force field.
Bike. Completely reckless crossing at such high speed. The driver would not have seen him before he was across the bonnet.
It was likely the car’s fault but the bicyclist could have completely avoided the collision.
“legally” i think the car is at fault but the bike rider is riding awfully reckless. intersections are where you need to be careful as a cyclist and be hyper aware for your own self-preservation.
The cyclist had priority, but you can die with your priority.
Car’s. But cyclist could have avoided it
I say cyclist is at fault if I had control over the rules cause he’s going way too fast and if the majority of people are in cars the minority should yield to majority.. but I would bet they find the car at fault
Don’t know but it’s “whose” fault.
Technically the car driver is at fault because that is a crosswalk but I won’t chance my life on a technicality.. as a bike rider, it’s my responsibility to make sure I make I home safely,and I’m not trusting my life to a stranger. Cars are by far heavier than a man on a bike, being aware of your surroundings is essential.
Totally location dependent. Where I am, someone on a bike has to enter a crosswalk/bike crossing at walking speed. Regardless, if it were me, I wouldn’t go so fast through a crossing.
Being right doesn’t help when you’re in hospital. Look, anticipate and then act accordingly.
I’d say this is a good example of what happens when two idiots meet.
As my driver’s ed teacher taught us, “It doesn’t matter who’s right, it matters who’s left.”
Both.
Whenever you’re asked an either/or question, consider if the question could be “both”.
It often is.
Odds are you just make yourself fuel in a culture war if you’re too eager to pick one side. You can contribute to nuance and to de-polarization by refusing to choose just one side to be with (or in this case against).
Or in other words…
“It (usually) takes to people to make an accident”
That cyclist is suicidal, regardless of whose fault it is. By the time the car entered the crosswalk the cyclist may not even have been close enough for driver to see him (or obscured by the pedestrian). It’s possible that car was in the intersection first already starting to make his turn.
I’ve never in my life, just beelined straight across an stop sign intersection. When I seen a car was just about approaching. If you rode long enough you’ve seen enough cars, that had ran stop signs. So usually the instinct is to pause and see how the driver reacts. It wouldn’t matter if I have the right way or not. In those situations I’m always thinking about avoiding injury first.
It’s kind of like when you see a dumb pedestrian, that’s on their phone and they jaywalk into the lane. It might be your right of way, but in your head your thinking. I’m not trying to have a chaotic situation, where I accidentally run into this person because of their obliviousness to surroundings. Or if I see a car turning, I’m going around them too avoid possibly be hit. Idk that’s just how I operate, as I know I can’t afford being injured.
If you are asking about who’s to blame legally, you need to specify what country.
It is not a bike crossing. It is a crosswalk. Walk your bike on crosswalks! At least slowdown on crosswalks.
Cyclist is at fault. Maybe the law says different. But there is zero reason for the cyclist not to see that car and slow down. The cyclist can control that collision 100% of the time by slowing thru the intersection. The car is going to avoid that collision maybe 50% of the time if the driver is very good. In my mind, this is the cyclists fault.
Without regard to local law, I’d say the cyclist was an idiot given how quickly he blew through the crossing. I would never do something that reckless. They also were reckless in passing that close to a pedestrian at that speed. Did they not even see the car entering their path? Did they expect that the driver would detect them coming and make an accurate judgment of how quickly they would be upon them? Cyclists like that damage the reputation of all cyclists.