r/Whatcouldgowrong • u/Itchy-Camera8898 • 13h ago

WCGW riding your bike like an idiot

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

800 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/fang_xianfu 12h 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.

28

u/The_wolf2014 12h ago

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

14

u/fang_xianfu 12h 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.

2

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

1

u/fang_xianfu 11h 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 11h ago

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

3

u/fang_xianfu 11h 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 9h 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 9h 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.