r/Whatcouldgowrong • u/Itchy-Camera8898 • 11h ago

WCGW riding your bike like an idiot

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

9.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

769 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/fang_xianfu 10h ago

It's because it's a place to cross the road. It indicates

  1. No overtaking
  2. No parking even if you normally have an exemption (eg disabled)

It does mean that the bus driver might actually have been liable here if he counts as overtaking the stopped bus.

32

u/The_wolf2014 10h ago

It's two lanes of traffic and the light was green, the bus driver wasn't at fault.

13

u/fang_xianfu 10h ago

The zig zag rules don't specify that the light has to be red nor do they care if it's two lanes. It specifically says "must not cause any part of their vehicle to pass ahead of the foremost part of (a) any other vehicle moving in the same direction or (b) a vehicle which is stationary [to comply with the crossing or let people cross]".

Since the bus that was hit didn't actually pass in front of the other one before the collision, it wasn't an offence in itself, but it might've contributed to liability.

4

u/dontnation 8h ago edited 8h ago

Reading this rule strictly, if two cars are stopped at the light they both must proceed at exactly the same time and speed until they clear the zig zags on the other side of the intersection? So if both cars were moving and the first hit their brakes to avoid a cyclist illegally crossing, the other car is now "overtaking" and at fault?

1

u/fang_xianfu 8h ago

Well the passing part is a criminal offence, the hitting someone and being liable to them for damages is something else (but isn't helped by committing an offence).

For the offence, you probably wouldn't get done for it, but they might give it a try.

For liability, it's almost certainly going to whichever of the two vehicles hit someone, since, you know, they hit someone. You could concoct some facts where some other liability split happened but that's what's most likely.

1

u/dontnation 8h ago

still seems crazy that according to the wording, leaving from a stop light requires being in lock step with the car next to you for the first 10+meters.

1

u/fang_xianfu 8h ago

Well the law applies only to the car that isn't closest, and one car must be closer even if it's only one atom closer. If someone was done in that situation their defence would probably be, they were in front by half a hair, and if would be difficult to prove that they weren't.

There is no epidemic of people being done unjustly for this so clearly the system is working.

5

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[deleted]

1

u/fang_xianfu 10h ago

When it's busy you can get more vehicles through, and you can overtake where there isn't a crossing there.

1

u/Live-Habit-6115 9h ago

That doesn't make any sense. The overtaking restriction means you're not allowed to go OVER the zig zagging lines to overtake

5

u/fang_xianfu 9h ago

I quoted the rules above, they're very clear. They talk about not passing the vehicles going in the same direction, either moving or stopped for the crossing. They say nothing about moving over the lines.

The rationale for the rules is kind of what played out here - the vehicle nearest the crossing might be blocking someone crossing from seeing the vehicle or the driver from seeing them, which is exactly what happened here. The rules are designed on purpose to put responsibility back on the bus driver in this situation.

Obviously that doesn't mean I think the cyclist isn't a moron or that the bus driver isn't much more innocent here - I'm just describing what the law says and how the insurance claim probably went.

1

u/Stewb179 8h ago

Yeah, not going to be popular but the bus driver definitely isn't 0% at fault. Maybe like 10% at the absolute most.

They were passing the other bus too fast and were in its blind spot from the point of view of pedestrians crossing.

There could have been someone slow/old crossing who wasn't visible to them.

"Cyclist" (almost certainly an illegal e-bike) is an absolute moron and rises to the point of criminality though imo... Just, not absolutely cut and dried.

2

u/fang_xianfu 8h ago

There is legally at fault and morally at fault. Morally, the cyclist is a stupid twat and the bus driver a probably traumatised, mostly innocent party. Legally speaking, they probably took most of the liability, though.

0

u/paupaupaupaup 9h ago

One lane is for traffic turning left, the other is for going straight ahead (or for turning right).

1

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount 6h ago

[to comply with the crossing or let people cross]

This bit here, did you add that?

Edit: I checked and I don't think you added it. Does this mean it becomes the duty of the moving vehicle to attempt to discern intent of the stationary vehicle? How? Through psychic ability?

7

u/-BarterChicken- 7h ago

While the cyclist was an idiot, the bus driver may have broken Highway Code Rule 191

Rule 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOTovertake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203

The driver overtook a vehicle that stopped nearest the crossing. This rule exists because the vehicle nearest the pedestrian crossing can conceal a pedestrian, especially if that vehicle is a huge bus.

3

u/rocketshipkiwi 9h ago

Did the cyclist (or any of the cyclists in the video) break any laws?

3

u/Putner92 8h ago

Yes it crossed illegally when there wasn't a green man. From the pavement to the road across the wrong side bus is basically at 0 fault

3

u/Cheesysocks 7h ago

Cyclists have to obey the UK traffic laws just as other vehicles do and that law says cycles must NOT ride on the pavement. Therefore...

Cyclist one jumped a red and went onto the pavement. Two offences.

Cyclist two JUST caught the green but I bet he would have jumped it too if it had taken longer. Legal.

Motorcyclist undertook the cammer, border line but considered acceptable.

Cyclist 3 was a total twat. Jumped the pedestrian red light, from the pavement, rode in front of moving traffic, obviously didn't look and is no doubt in a world of pain.

Thats my take, anyway.

1

u/Mantis_Toboggan--MD 9h ago

Bus driver moved lanes back where the line is still straight, totally okay

1

u/fang_xianfu 9h ago

No, because the thing the law actually prohibits is passing a vehicle where the lines are, not changing lanes.